(310) 451-3669
October 7, 2022
VIA E-MAIL
Santa Monica City Council
1685 Main Street, Room 102
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Re: Agenda Item 10-E
Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance Approving the 2022 Building Code Update and Adoption of Resolution Making Findings of Local Climatic, Geological and Topographical Conditions to Adopt Local Amendments to the CA Building Standards Code
Our File No. 639.67
Dear Councilmembers:
This letter is submitted on behalf of the Santa Monica Housing Council.
I am writing to object to Section 8.44.090 (appearing on pages 168-169) of the draft Ordinance associated with Agenda Item 10-E. Section 8.44.090 defines a high-rise building for purposes of Santa Monica’s Building Code as “New buildings or structures housing any occupancy classification having floors used for human occupancy more than fifty-five feet above the lowest level of Fire Department vehicle.” This Santa Monica Building Code definition is at variance with the Statewide definition of a high-rise building as set forth in Health and Safety Code Section 13210(b), which establishes a 75-foot threshold, not a 55-foot threshold:
“High-rise structure” means every building of any type of construction or occupancy having floors used for human
occupancy located more than 75 feet above the lowest floor level having building access, except buildings used as
hospitals. (Emphasis added.)
Santa Monica’s 55-foot threshold is also at variance with Section 202 of the 2022 California Building Code, which uses the 75-foot threshold:
High-rise structure. Every building of any type of
construction or occupancy having floors used for human
[email protected]
Item 10.E
10/11/22
1 of 8 Item 10.E
10/11/22
Santa Monica City Council
October 7, 2022
occupancy located more than 75 feet above the lowest floor level having building access (see Section 403), except
buildings used as hospitals as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 1250. (Emphasis added.)
Buildings that meet the definition of “high-rise” must satisfy very costly enhanced construction characteristics. This added construction cost discourages housing and mixed-use housing projects, and it severely undercuts the Santa Monica Housing Element’s proposed new elevated heights and densities intended to produce more housing, including affordable housing. (See Housing Element Programs 1.F and 1.J.) With the 55-foot definition of what constitutes a high-rise building, the Housing Element’s proposed new heights and densities would be meaningless for many housing and mixed-use housing projects, including affordable housing projects and projects with affordable housing units. This makes no sense and undercuts the City’s stated intention with respect to encouraging housing production. (See Agenda Item 11-A.) The City knows this is true. At the City Council’s June 21, 2022 hearing on the Draft Amended Housing Element, Planning Manager Jing Yeo told the City Council that even on the City-owned sites, new housing projects are not expected to exceed six stories in height: “Probably not more than 6 stories, because it does become cost prohibitive when it changes construction type.” And Mayor Himmelrich echoed that same understanding: “Because the building method. They won’t. Because you go from wood construction to steel construction; it’s too expensive.” As noted on page 2 of the Staff Report for Agenda Item 10-E, in order to deviate from the standards established in the 2022 Edition of the California Building Standards Code, the City of Santa Monica is required to “mak[e] findings that the amendments are reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological and topographical conditions.” (Emphasis added.)
And as is also noted on page 2 of the Staff Report:
[L]ocal amendments are specific to each edition of Title 24.
In other words, previously approved local amendments must be re-adopted with each new edition of Title 24.
Here, the City’s draft Resolution “justifies” its specialized local definition of highrise buildings based solely on Sections (a), (b), (c), (d) of the Resolution:
93 8.44.090
High-Rise Building Requirements.
(Continuation from previous code
cycle.)
Sections (a), (b),
(c), (d)
Climatic and
Geological
(See Draft Resolution, p. 37.)
Item 10.E
10/11/22
2 of 8 Item 10.E
10/11/22
Santa Monica City Council
October 7, 2022
Those four Findings are set forth on pages 3-4 of the Draft Resolution. Among other things, they rely upon a very stale 1996(!) Master Environmental Assessment, not upon any of the more recent EIRs (such as the LUCE EIR, DCP EIR, BAP EIR, Housing Element EIR, etc.). Additionally, those findings cite to “infrequent rain fall and winds” and the directions from which the winds blow, and “intermittent Santa Ana winds,” and El Nino or La Nina weather patterns, and various earthquake fault systems. None of these factors is unique to Santa Monica.
Specifically, here are the four findings being relied upon to justify the 55-foot high-rise definition:
General Findings
(a) The Master Environmental Assessment (“MEA”) adopted in April 1996, shows that Santa Monica’s climate is primarily influenced by the Pacific Ocean and is characterized by infrequent rainfall and winds. The winds originate from the west during the day and from the north and northeast during the night. Further, intermittent Santa Ana winds conditions occur from September to March allowing conditions that
create the potential for high velocity winds with high
temperatures. In addition, the region is within a climate system capable of producing major winds, fire, and rain related disasters, including but not limited to those caused by the Santa Ana winds and El Nino (or La Nina) subtropicallike weather. (Climatic) (b) Santa Monica is situated in Southern California which has extreme arid conditions and periods of severe drought.
As outlined in the MEA, the City relies for its water supply upon water from outside the region which is purchased from the Metropolitan Water District and local groundwater.
(Climatic).
(c) The Safety Element of Santa Monica’s General Plan,
adopted in January 1995, shows that Santa Monica is in
area at high risk of seismic activity due to, among other fault systems, the Santa Monica, Newport-Inglewood, and the
San Andreas fault systems, the close proximity of which increases the likelihood of seismic disturbances of
substantial magnitude. The Safety Element further discusses the damaging effect local seismic activity would have on Item 10.E
10/11/22
3 of 8 Item 10.E
10/11/22
Santa Monica City Council
October 7, 2022
potentially hazardous buildings and the related potential demands on emergency service needs. (Geological)
(d) The Los Angeles region has a vast and complex network of faults. Some of these faults, like the previously unknown Northridge Fault, are blind thrust faults that earth scientists believe are capable of intense ground shaking similar or greater in size than the January 17, 1994 Northridge
Earthquake. The random possible location of these blind thrust faults increases the local seismic risk and poses an increasing threat to public safety. (Geological)
(See Draft Resolution, pp. 3-4.)
Quite frankly, these purported justifications for local grounds to deviate from the Statewide definition of a high-rise building are laughable. What city in California doesn’t currently suffer from risks of drought, wind, rain, fires and earthquakes? Using the rationale set forth in the Draft Resolution, the cities of Beverly Hills, Los Angeles (including Venice), Malibu, Culver City, Manhattan Beach, etc. should all impose a 55- foot threshold. What makes Santa Monica’s experience so unique, separate and apart from those other cities?
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, there is no lawful basis for the City of Santa Monica to deviate from the Statewide definition using 75 feet as the threshold for high-rise buildings per California Health and Safety Code Section 13210(b) and 2022 California Building Code Section 202. Accordingly, we urge the City Council to remove Section
8.44.090 from the Draft Ordinance. There are no sound technical reasons for adopted a unique Santa Monica 55-foot definition for high-rise buildings as set forth in Section
8.44.090. Experts throughout the State have developed the 2022 California Building Code:
Acknowledgements
The 2022 California Building Standards Code (Code) was
developed through the outstanding collaborative efforts of the Department of Housing and Community Development,
Division of State Architect, Office of the State Fire Marshal, Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development,
California Energy Commission, California Department of
Public Health, California State Lands Commission, Board of State and Community Corrections, and the California
Item 10.E
10/11/22
4 of 8 Item 10.E
10/11/22
Santa Monica City Council
October 7, 2022
Building Standards Commission (Commission). This
collaborative effort included the assistance of the
Commission’s Code Advisory Committees and many other
volunteers who worked tirelessly to assist the Commission in the production of this Code. (Acknowledgement, 2022
California Building Standards Code.)
Section 8.44.090 needlessly impedes new housing production, including affordable housing.
Very truly yours,
Kenneth L. Kutcher
KLK:sna
cc: David White
Douglas Sloan
David Martin
Ara Sargsyan
Ariel Socarras
SMHC Board of Directors
Paul McDougall, HCD
Santa Monica Planning Commission
F:\WPDATA\639\639.67 (Santa Monica Housing Element 2021)\Cor\CC 2022.10.07.docx Item 10.E
10/11/22
5 of 8 Item 10.E
10/11/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Hank Koning <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2022 10:15 AM
To: Gleam Davis; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Phil Brock; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; councilmtgitems
Cc: Denise Anderson-Warren; Ariel Socarras; David Martin; David White; Ara Sargsyan; Douglas Sloan Subject: Subject: Agenda Item 10-E, 2022 Building Codes - Definition of High-Rise Buildings
EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers and others,
Per the California Building Code (CBC), a High Rise building is one where the highest occupied floor is >75’ above the lowest level of fire fighting equipment (often the lowest level of the street gutter).
In Santa Monica the 75’ height is reduced by 20’ to 55’.
For many years (decades in fact) I have wondered why that is. When I asked former Building Official Ron Tanaguchi, he agreed it was strange and thought that the City should look into this. Unfortunately he left the City before acting upon this issue.
With the proposed Zoning Code revisions putting forward greater building height limits in many districts, to accommodate the much needed housing that is required by the recently approved Housing Element this issue becomes even more important.
The following are additional requirements for High Rise construction:
Emergency generator,
Fire command room on the ground floor,
Pressurization of stair shafts with smoke vestibules,
Fire Pumps,
Standpipe systems,
Emergency Voice/Alarm systems,
Emergency Communications systems,
Smoke control system.
These add considerable cost to the construction of a project (a few years ago a contractor estimated this added cost to be at least $25/sf - probably over $30 today) and this then would require higher rents to make the project financially feasible.
Note these additional costs do not include a change in construction type. If the building height is less than 85’ wood framed construction is still permitted.
On some of our proposed projects an entire floor of residential units was eliminated to avoid the additional cost of high rise construction which is applicable to the entire project - not just the portion over 55’. So adding an extra floor to a 5 story building means the added cost per sf of that 6th floor is 6 times $30/sf = $180/sf on top of the non-high rise construction cost. It’s easy to see why the 6th floor was eliminated.
Other times we have considered adding a roof deck to a project to provide required and desirable open space.
We like to provide a shade and/or PV trellis above the open space and ideally a restroom and storage room.
Unfortunately these roof decks were eliminated because it would have triggered High RIse costs. The open space was then provided by eliminating residential units below.
Item 10.E
10/11/22
6 of 8 Item 10.E
10/11/22
2 I therefore urge you, in the interest of achieving the housing needs identified in the Housing Element, to not extend the application of this Building Code Amendment and let it revert back to the California Building Code standards
Kind Regards
Hank Koning FAIA LFRAIA LEED A.P. Founding Principal
RAIA 2019 Gold Medalist
KoningEizenberg| 1454 25th Street, Santa Monica, CA 90404 310 828 6131 x111 www.kearch.com
Item 10.E
10/11/22
7 of 8 Item 10.E
10/11/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: David Hibbert <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2022 9:41 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Ken Kutcher
Subject: Agenda Item 10 E.
EXTERNAL
The continued inclusion of an amendment to the California Building Code reducing the definition of a high rise from 75’ to 55’ is a constraint to the development of new multi‐family housing in Santa Monica. There are no special circumstances in Santa Monica that make this warranted.
The 6th Cycle Housing Element calls for the raising of height limits for multi‐family housing in the city and this amendment is an impediment to doing so. Having to comply with high rise requirements at 55’ adds substantial cost to a project and actually presents design difficulties to even meet compliance requirements.
We have been in process on a mixed use project adjacent to Bergamot Station that was approved before the pandemic and it has been stalled as basically permit ready for a considerable period of time due to the projected construction cost that indicates that the project is not financially feasible. It is 5 stories with a roof deck. The roof deck counts as an occupied floor and pushes the project into the high rise requirements. This does not bode well for what the expectations are under the new Housing Element.
We work in a number of other jurisdictions in California. No other city that we know of defines a high rise as 55’. I have communicated with the head of Building and Safety and he has communicated with the Fire Chief. He has told me that they have no problem with going with the 75’ standard. Please remove this problematic requirement from the amendments under consideration this evening.
David Forbes Hibbert, AIA
Principal
DFH Architects, LLP
1544 Twentieth Street
Santa Monica, CA 90404
[email protected]
www.dfhaia.com
Item 10.E
10/11/22
8 of 8 Item 10.E
10/11/22