Under the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, before approving a project within an earthquake fault zone, a city or county is directed to require the preparation of a geologic report, subject to certain exceptions. Existing law exempts from this requirement the conversion of an existing apartment complex into a condominium, projects for the alteration or addition of any structure if the value of the alteration or addition does not exceed 50% of the value of the structure, and certain projects for alterations that include seismic retrofitting if a city or county, among other things, requires certain seismic retrofitting and prohibits an increase in human occupancy load.

This bill would revise and recast the exemptions from the act to, among other things, exempt (1) projects for the alteration of any structure for human occupancy if the value of the alteration does not exceed 50% of the appraised value of the structure and, if the alteration results in a change in the use or occupancy of the structure, the change does not authorize a greater human occupant load and is less hazardous, based on life and fire risk, than the existing authorized use or occupancy of the structure permitted by the city or county with jurisdiction over the structure and (2) projects for alterations that include seismic retrofitting of certain types of structures for human occupancy permitted under specified prior editions of the Uniform Building Code.

This bill would specify that terms used in the act that are not defined by the act have the same meaning as those defined in the California Building Standards Code.

Under the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, before approving a project within an earthquake fault zone, a city or county is directed to require the preparation of a geologic report, subject to certain exceptions. Existing law exempts from this requirement the conversion of an existing apartment complex into a condominium, projects for the alteration or addition of any structure if the value of the alteration or addition does not exceed 50% of the value of the structure, and certain projects for alterations that include seismic retrofitting if a city or county, among other things, requires certain seismic retrofitting and prohibits an increase in human occupancy load.

This bill would revise and recast the exemptions from the act to, among other things, exempt (1) projects for the alteration of any structure for human occupancy if the value of the alteration does not exceed 50% of the appraised value of the structure and, if the alteration results in a change in the use or occupancy of the structure, the change does not authorize a greater human occupant load and is less hazardous, based on life and fire risk, than the existing authorized use or occupancy of the structure permitted by the city or county with jurisdiction over the structure and (2) projects for alterations that include seismic retrofitting of certain types of structures for human occupancy permitted under specified prior editions of the Uniform Building Code.

This bill would specify that terms used in the act that are not defined by the act have the same meaning as those defined in the California Building Standards Code.

Under the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, before approving a project within an earthquake fault zone, a city or county is directed to require the preparation of a geologic report, subject to certain exceptions. Existing law exempts from this requirement the conversion of an existing apartment complex into a condominium, projects for the alteration or addition of any structure if the value of the alteration or addition does not exceed 50% of the value of the structure, and certain projects for alterations that include seismic retrofitting if a city or county, among other things, requires certain seismic retrofitting and prohibits an increase in human occupancy load.

This bill would revise and recast the exemptions from the act to, among other things, exempt (1) projects for the alteration of any structure for human occupancy if the value of the alteration does not exceed 50% of the appraised value of the structure and the structure meets certain conditions relating to use or occupancy and, if the alteration results in a change in the use or occupancy of the structure, the change does not authorize a greater human occupant load and is less hazardous, based on life and fire risk, than the existing authorized use or occupancy of the structure permitted by the city or county with jurisdiction over the structure and (2) projects for alterations that include seismic retrofitting of certain types of structures for human occupancy permitted under specified prior editions of the Uniform Building Code.

This bill would specify that terms used in the act that are not defined by the act have the same meaning as those defined in the California Building Standards Code.

Under the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, before approving a project within an earthquake fault zone, a city or county is directed to require the preparation of a geologic report, subject to certain exceptions. Existing law exempts from this requirement the conversion of an existing apartment complex into a condominium, projects for the alteration or addition of any structure if the value of the alteration or addition does not exceed 50% of the value of the structure, and certain projects for alterations that include seismic retrofitting if a city or county, among other things, requires certain seismic retrofitting and prohibits an increase in human occupancy load.

This bill would revise and recast the exemptions to from the act to, among other things, exempt from the act (1) projects for the alteration of any structure for human occupancy if the value of the alteration does not exceed 50% of the appraised value of the structure that and the structure meets certain conditions relating to use or occupancy and (2) projects for alterations that include seismic retrofitting of certain types of buildings that are structures for human occupancy permitted before the adoption of certain under specified prior editions of the Uniform Building Code.

This bill would specify that terms used in the act that are not defined by the act have the same meaning as those defined in the California Building Standards Code.

Under the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, before approving a project within an earthquake fault zone, a city or county is directed to require the preparation of a geologic report, subject to certain exceptions. Existing law exempts from this requirement the conversion of an existing apartment complex into a condominium, projects for the alteration or addition of any structure if the value of the alteration or addition does not exceed 50% of the value of the structure, and certain projects for alterations that include seismic retrofitting if a city or county, among other things, requires certain seismic retrofitting and prohibits an increase in human occupancy load.

This bill would revise and recast the exemptions to the act to, among other things, exempt from the act the conversion of a general acute care hospital into a behavioral health or substance abuse care facility that does not authorize a greater human occupant load than the existing authorized use or occupancy permitted by the city or county with jurisdiction over the facility, projects for the alteration of any structure for human occupancy if the value of the alteration does not exceed 50% of the appraised value of the structure that meets certain conditions, conditions and projects for alterations of certain types of buildings that are permitted before the adoption of certain editions of the Uniform Building Code.

This bill would specify that terms used in the act that are not defined by the act have the same meaning as those defined in the California Building Standards Code.

Under the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, before approving a project within an earthquake fault zone, a city or county is directed to require the preparation of a geologic report, subject to certain exceptions. Existing law exempts from this requirement the conversion of an existing apartment complex into a condominium, projects for the alteration or addition of any structure if the value of the alteration or addition does not exceed 50% of the value of the structure, and certain projects for alterations that include seismic retrofitting if a city or county, among other things, requires certain seismic retrofitting and prohibits an increase in human occupancy load.

This bill would revise and recast the exemptions to the act to, among other things, exempt from the act the conversion of a general acute care hospital into a behavioral health or substance abuse care facility that does not authorize a greater human occupant load than the existing authorized use or occupancy permitted by the city or county with jurisdiction over the facility, projects for the alteration of any structure for human occupancy if the value of the alteration does not exceed 50% of the appraised value of the structure that meets certain conditions, and projects for alterations of certain types of buildings that are permitted before the adoption of certain editions of the Uniform Building Code.

This bill would specify that terms used in the act that are not defined by the act have the same meaning as those defined in the California Building Standards Code.

CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

CSA1 Bill Id:AB 1046

Author:(Lowenthal)

As Amended Ver:June 15, 2023

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Makes a number of changes to the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (Alquist-Priolo Act).

Senate Amendments

1. Clarify the types of structures to which alterations that include seismic retrofitting are exempt from the Alquist-Priolo Act, as follows:
   1. Buildings with unreinforced masonry unit (URM) or lateral force resisting systems, or buildings with URM infill walls that interact with the lateral force resisting system.
   2. Buildings with flexible diaphragms and deficient out-of-plane anchorage to concrete or masonry bearing or nonbearing walls permitted under the 1994 or earlier editions of the Uniform Building Code.
   3. Reinforced nonductile concrete buildings permitted under the 1991 or earlier editions of the Uniform Building Code.
2. Make a number of additional technical, clarifying and conforming changes.

COMMENTS

Enacted after the 1971 San Fernando Earthquake destroyed two hospitals, the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act prevents local agencies from issuing permits to build on top of active faults. The State Geologist publishes maps which are the basis for developing regulations within recognized Earthquake Fault Zones.

The Alquist-Priolo Act applies to any subdivision subject to the Subdivision Map Act and which contemplates the eventual construction of homes. The Alquist-Priolo Act also applies to home construction that did not involve a re-view at the subdivision phase. The Act does not apply to single family homes with no more than two stories that are not part of a development of four or more dwellings.

The Alquist-Priolo Act contains exemptions for several types of projects:

1. Condominium conversions.
2. Structures built before May 4, 1975, unless the alterations or additions are more than 50% of a structure's value.
3. Alterations or additions where the value is less than 50% of a structure's value.
4. Structures damaged by the 1991 Berkeley-Oakland Hills fire that get state waivers.
5. Alterations that include seismic retrofitting on certain types of structures built before May 4, 1975.

Under the Act, property that is sold or transferred must include disclosure in-formation when it is located in an Earthquake Fault Zone.

The Alquist-Priolo Act, along with the Seismic Hazard Mapping Act, restricts the authority of cities and counties to approve projects for occupancy unless they meet terms established in regulation by the State Mining and Geology Board. Prior to approving a project that is within an established Earthquake Fault Zone, cities and counties must require a geologic report identifying any hazard for sur-face fault rupture. Implementing regulations specify that no structure can be placed across an active fault. If a city or county finds that no undue hazard exists, the required geologic report can be waived, with approval from the State Geologist.

According to the Author

"Dozens of local permitting agencies in California must regulate development projects within earthquake fault zones according to the provisions of the Alquist-Priolo Act. Many of these provisions, however, are unclear and do not align with current building code standards and definitions, causing confusion for permitting agencies and developers. Furthermore, the Alquist-Priolo Act caps investments in existing facilities at 50% of the value of the property, making it difficult—and in some cases impossible—to address code compliance issues, safety needs, and core improvements related to fire prevention, ADA accessibility, and seismic retrofit. AB 1046 aims to clarify provisions of the Alquist-Priolo Act to align with current building code standards and to allow for projects that improve the overall safety of existing buildings in earthquake fault zones while decreasing the intensity of use and human occupancy load at the site."

Arguments in Support

The City of Long Beach, sponsor of this bill, writes, "The intent of the Alquist-Priolo Act is to reduce losses from surface fault ruptures, and dozens of agencies in California are mandated by the state to regulate development projects within earthquake fault zones according to the provisions of the Alquist-Priolo Act. Many provisions in the Alquist-Priolo Act, however, are unclear and do not align with the current edition of the California Building Standards Code requirements and terminology, leading to confusion for local permitting agencies and applicants. Furthermore, the Alquist-Priolo Act caps investments in existing buildings to 50% of the value of the building, making it difficult to address core safety improvements related to fire and life-safety, ADA accessibility, and seismic retrofit.

"AB 1046 aims to clarify provisions of the Alquist-Priolo Act and to align it with the California Building Standards Code. This will not only provide more clarity for local permitting agencies and applicants but also ensure that improvements to the overall safety and resiliency of existing seismically vulnerable buildings in earthquake fault zones can move forward.

"This bill also updates the Alquist-Priolo Act to expand the list of seismically vulnerable buildings within earthquake fault zones that can be retrofitted without being capped at 50% of the value of the property. The Structural Engineering Association of California has identified a list of seismically vulnerable building types that have performed poorly in past earthquake events. Recognizing the need to address the potential loss of these existing buildings and the impact to the community, many local permitting agencies, including the City of Long Beach, are encouraging or mandating seismic retrofitting of these buildings. Expanding the list of seismically vulnerable buildings to facilitate investment in seismic retrofitting of these buildings will likely result in the largest improvement in reducing widespread life safety hazards and limiting structural damage."

Arguments in Opposition

None on file

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8, negligible state costs.

VOTES:

ASM LOCAL GOVERNMENT: 8-0-0

YES: Aguiar-Curry, Dixon, Boerner, Pacheco, Ramos, Robert Rivas, Waldron, Wilson

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 15-0-1

YES: Holden, Megan Dahle, Bryan, Calderon, Wendy Carrillo, Dixon, Mike Fong, Hart, Lowenthal, Mathis, Papan, Pellerin, Robert Rivas, Sanchez, Ortega

ABS, ABST OR NV: Weber

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 76-0-4

YES: Addis, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Juan Carrillo, Wendy Carrillo, Cervantes, Chen, Connolly, Megan Dahle, Davies, Dixon, Essayli, Flora, Mike Fong, Vince Fong, Friedman, Gabriel, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Holden, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Jones‑Sawyer, Lackey, Lee, Low, Lowenthal, Maienschein, McCarty, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Stephanie Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Jim Patterson, Joe Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk‑Silva, Ramos, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Robert Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Santiago, Schiavo, Soria, Ta, Ting, Valencia, Villapudua, Waldron, Wallis, Ward, Weber, Wicks, Wilson, Wood, Zbur, Rendon

ABS, ABST OR NV: Aguiar-Curry, Kalra, Mathis, Papan

SENATE FLOOR: 39-0-1

YES: Allen, Archuleta, Ashby, Atkins, Becker, Blakespear, Bradford, Caballero, Cortese, Dahle, Dodd, Durazo, Eggman, Glazer, Gonzalez, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limón, McGuire, Menjivar, Min, Newman, Nguyen, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Seyarto, Skinner, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Wiener, Wilk

ABS, ABST OR NV: Alvarado-Gil

UPDATED

VERSION: June 15, 2023

CONSULTANT: Angela Mapp / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958 FN: 0001177

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 1046

Author: Lowenthal (D)

Amended: 6/15/23 in Senate

Vote: 21

SENATE GOVERNANCE & FIN. COMMITTEE: 8-0, 6/14/23

AYES: Caballero, Seyarto, Blakespear, Dahle, Durazo, Glazer, Skinner, Wiener

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 76-0, 5/25/23 (Consent) - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act: exemptions

SOURCE: City of Long Beach

DIGEST:

This bill updates and clarifies some of the exemptions in the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Provides, under the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, before approving a project within an earthquake fault zone, a city or county is directed to require the preparation of a geologic report, subject to certain exceptions.
2. Exempts from this requirement the conversion of an existing apartment complex into a condominium, projects for the alteration or addition of any structure if the value of the alteration or addition does not exceed 50% of the value of the structure, and certain projects for alterations that include seismic retrofitting if a city or county, among other things, requires certain seismic retrofitting and prohibits an increase in human occupancy load.

This bill updates the 51-year-old Act by:

1. Requiring that any undefined terms in the Act have the same meaning as they have in the California Building Standards Code.
2. Eliminating the May 4, 1975, line of demarcation for the ability to make alterations to structures in existence on that date as long as the alterations are 50% or less than the appraised value of the structures.
3. As it pertains to the ability to make improvements to an existing building provided the changes are less than 50% of the structure’s value, clarifying the exemption from the Act:
   1. Does not apply to additions to structures.
   2. Only applies if the value is based on the appraised value of the structure.
   3. Only applies if:
      1. There is no change in the use or occupancy of the structure, or
      2. If there is a change, it does not permit more people in the structure and it must be less hazardous based on life and fire risk than the existing authorized use.
4. Slightly altering the following three types of buildings to which the 50% value requirement does not apply in cases where the improvements include seismic retrofitting:
   1. Clarifying it includes not just unreinforced masonry buildings, but also buildings with lateral force resisting systems and buildings with unreinforced masonry infill walls that interact with the lateral force resisting system.
   2. Changing “concrete tilt-up buildings” to buildings with flexible diaphragms and deficient out-of-plane anchorage to concrete or masonry bearing or nonbearing walls permitted under the 1994 or earlier editions of the Uniform Building Code (UBC).
   3. Changing reinforced concrete moment resisting frame buildings as described in a FEMA report to reinforced nonductile concrete buildings permitted under the 1991 or earlier editions of the UBC.

5) Adding the following five types of buildings to the existing list of three types of buildings to which the 50% value requirement does not apply in cases where the improvements include seismic retrofitting:

1. Wood-framed buildings with soft, weak, or open-front wall lines on the ground floor permitted before the adoption of the 1994 or earlier editions of the UBC.
2. Buildings with precast concrete members attached with nonductile connections permitted before the adoption of the 1994 or earlier editions of the UBC.
3. Steel-frame buildings with welded moment frame connections permitted before the adoption of the 1994 or earlier editions of the UBC.
4. Steel-braced frame buildings permitted before the adoption of the 1994 or earlier editions of the UBC.
5. Wood-framed buildings on or into a slope greater than one unit vertical and three units horizontal (33.3%) permitted under the 1994 or earlier editions of the UBC.

Background

After the 1971 San Fernando Earthquake (also known as the Sylmar Earthquake) destroyed two hospitals, the Legislature enacted the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (Act) in 1972 to prohibit – with certain exceptions – any construction of homes or buildings intended for human occupancy in established earthquake fault zones based on maps developed by the State Geologist. It also prohibited – with certain exceptions – the rehabilitation or conversion of existing structures in those earthquake fault zones.

One exception to the construction ban established by the Act was if a developer could trench the area and prove the proposed new development, alteration or addition to an existing structure, was not within 50 feet of an earthquake fault. However, this type of trenching work is very expensive and generally cost-prohibitive, especially as it pertains to existing buildings in already developed areas.

The other exceptions to the Act’s ban on development, additions, or alterations include:

1. Single family homes of no more than two stories if they are not part of a development of four or more dwellings.
2. Converting an apartment complex into a condominium complex.
3. Any development or structure in place prior to May 4, 1975, unless the value of the alteration or addition is 50% or less of the structure’s value.
4. Alterations or additions to structures, unless the value of the alteration or addition is 50% or less of a structure’s value.
5. Structures damaged by the 1991 Berkeley-Oakland Hills fire whose owners received state waivers to be re-built.
6. Alterations that include seismic retrofitting of the following three types of structures built before May 4, 1975:
7. Unreinforced masonry buildings, as defined by the Government Code.
8. Concrete tilt-up buildings, as defined by the Government Code.
9. Reinforced concrete moment resisting frame buildings as described in a report by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

Under the Act, anyone selling or transferring property must disclose to the recipient if the property is located in an earthquake fault zone.

Comments

• • 1. Purpose of the bill. According to the author, “Dozens of local permitting agencies in California must regulate development projects within earthquake fault zones according to the provisions of the Alquist-Priolo Act. Many of these provisions, however, are unclear and do not align with current building code standards and definitions, causing confusion for permitting agencies and developers. Furthermore, the Alquist-Priolo Act caps investments in existing facilities at 50 percent of the value of the property, making it difficult—and in some cases impossible—to address code compliance issues, safety needs, and core improvements related to fire prevention, ADA accessibility, and seismic retrofit. AB 1046 aims to clarify provisions of the Alquist-Priolo Act to align with current building code standards and to allow for projects that improve the overall safety of existing buildings in earthquake fault zones while decreasing the intensity of use and human occupancy load at the site.”
    2. The 50% line. The Act precludes new development, as well as alterations and additions to existing structures, if the project proponent cannot prove the structure is more than 50 feet away from an earthquake fault line. Absent that proof, then additions and alterations to existing structures are limited to 50% or less of the property’s “value.”

“Value” may in the eye of the beholder, so this bill clarifies the 50% figure must be based on the structure’s appraised value.

The bill also states additions to existing properties do not qualify for the exemption from the Act, and that alterations are only exempt from the Act if there is no change in the use or occupancy of the structure. If there is a change, the change must not permit more people in the structure and it must be less hazardous based on life and fire risk than the existing authorized use.

3) Eliminating the 50% line to encourage more seismic retrofitting. Right now, the Act provides that alterations which include seismic retrofitting can be done to three types of buildings – unreinforced masonry buildings, concrete tilt-up buildings, and reinforced concrete moment resisting frame buildings – regardless of what the cost of the improvements are in relation to the building’s value.

The Structural Engineering Association of California has identified five other types of buildings that are particularly vulnerable during an earthquake and this bill adds them to the Act’s exemption list. That means for the five types of buildings below, alterations that include seismic retrofitting can be done regardless of what the cost of the improvements are relative to the building’s value:

• 1. Wood-framed buildings with soft, weak, or open-front wall lines on the ground floor.
  2. Buildings with precast concrete members attached with nonductile connections.
  3. Steel-frame buildings with welded moment frame connections.
  4. Steel-braced frame buildings.
  5. Wood-framed buildings on or into a slope greater than one unit vertical and three units horizontal (33.3%).

As a result, this bill will likely encourage more building alterations and improvements that improve public safety.

4) Community Hospital of Long Beach. One of the likely beneficiaries of this bill is Community Hospital of Long Beach (CHLB), which until it closed in 2022, was a 158-bed, acute and psychiatric care hospital in Long Beach. The facility closed in part due to financial losses upwards of $27 million – more than the $17.71 million estimated value of the property – along with the inability to make necessary seismic improvements precluded under the Act.

CHLB had been owned by the City of Long Beach and operated by MWN Community Hospital, but ownership was transferred to MWN late last year. According to newspaper reports, MWN is working with the City of Long Beach and the state to re-open the facility as a wellness center.

To re-open, the facility requires significant facility repairs, safety improvements, and seismic retrofit work that would be more than the 50% investment threshold set in the Act. Due to the materials used to construct the building, it does not qualify for the Act’s exemption from the 50% threshold. AB 1046, should it become law, would eliminate the need for seismic and other improvements to adhere to the 50% threshold in current law because of the additional construction materials the bill exempts from the 50% line.

5) Here’s what we mean when we say …. Many of the terms in the Act are not defined. Rather than go through the Act to define each term, Section 1 of the bill takes the approach of stating that any undefined terms have the same meaning as they are defined in California Building Standards Code, which is found in the California Code of Regulations.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No

SUPPORT: (Verified 6/26/23)

City of Long Beach (source)

California Building Officials

OPPOSITION: (Verified 6/26/23)

None received

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the City of Long Beach:

AB 1046 aims to clarify provisions of the Alquist-Priolo Act and to align it with the California Building Standards Code. This will not only provide more clarity for local permitting agencies and applicants but also ensure that improvements to the overall safety and resiliency of existing seismically vulnerable buildings in earthquake fault zones can move forward.

This bill also updates the Alquist-Priolo Act to expand the list of seismically vulnerable buildings within earthquake fault zones that can be retrofitted without being capped at 50 percent of the value of the property. The Structural Engineering Association of California has identified a list of seismically vulnerable building types that have performed poorly in past earthquake events. Recognizing the need to address the potential loss of these existing buildings and the impact to the community, many local permitting agencies, including the City of Long Beach, are encouraging or mandating seismic retrofitting of these buildings. Expanding the list of seismically vulnerable buildings to facilitate investment in seismic retrofitting of these buildings will likely result in the largest improvement in reducing widespread life safety hazards and limiting structural damage.

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 76-0, 5/25/23

AYES: Addis, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Juan Carrillo, Wendy Carrillo, Cervantes, Chen, Connolly, Megan Dahle, Davies, Dixon, Essayli, Flora, Mike Fong, Vince Fong, Friedman, Gabriel, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Holden, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Jones-Sawyer, Lackey, Lee, Low, Lowenthal, Maienschein, McCarty, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Stephanie Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Jim Patterson, Joe Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Robert Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Santiago, Schiavo, Soria, Ta, Ting, Valencia, Villapudua, Waldron, Wallis, Ward, Weber, Wicks, Wilson, Wood, Zbur, Rendon

NO VOTE RECORDED: Aguiar-Curry, Kalra, Mathis, Papan

Prepared by: Evan Goldberg / GOV. & F. / (916) 651-4119

6/28/23 11:05:22

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNANCE AND FINANCE

Senator Anna M. Caballero, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular

Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act: exemptions

Updates and clarifies some of the exemptions in the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act.

Background

After the 1971 San Fernando Earthquake (also known as the Sylmar Earthquake) destroyed two hospitals, the Legislature enacted the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (Act) in 1972 to prohibit – with certain exceptions – any construction of homes or buildings intended for human occupancy in established earthquake fault zones based on maps developed by the State Geologist. It also prohibited – with certain exceptions – the rehabilitation or conversion of existing structures in those earthquake fault zones.

One exception to the construction ban established by the Act was if a developer could trench the area and prove the proposed new development, alteration or addition to an existing structure, was not within 50 feet of an earthquake fault. However, this type of trenching work is very expensive and generally cost-prohibitive, especially as it pertains to existing buildings in already developed areas.

The other exceptions to the Act’s ban on development, additions, or alterations include:

• Single family homes of no more than two stories if they are not part of a development of four or more dwellings.
• Converting an apartment complex into a condominium complex.
• Any development or structure in place prior to May 4, 1975, unless the value of the alteration or addition is 50% or less of the structure’s value.
• Alterations or additions to structures, unless the value of the alteration or addition is 50% or less of a structure’s value.
• Structures damaged by the 1991 Berkeley-Oakland Hills fire whose owners received state waivers to be re-built.
• Alterations that include seismic retrofitting of the following three types of structures built before May 4, 1975:
  • Unreinforced masonry buildings, as defined by the Government Code.
  • Concrete tilt-up buildings, as defined by the Government Code.
  • Reinforced concrete moment resisting frame buildings as described in a report by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

Under the Act, anyone selling or transferring property must disclose to the recipient if the property is located in an earthquake fault zone.

The City of Long Beach asserts it is important to clarify provisions of the Act to ensure it aligns with the state’s current building code standards. More broadly speaking, the City feels because the Act has not kept up with changes in building code standards, there is limited incentive or ability to repair, update, and improve the safety of buildings in earthquake fault zones.

Proposed Law

Assembly Bill 1046 updates the 51-year-old Act by:

• Requiring that any undefined terms in the Act have the same meaning as they are defined in the California Building Standards Code.
• Eliminating the May 4, 1975, line of demarcation for the ability to make alterations to structures in existence on that date as long as the alterations are 50% or less than the appraised value of the structures.
• As it pertains to the ability to make improvements to an existing building provided the changes are less than 50% of the structure’s value, clarifying the exemption from the Act:
  • Does not apply to additions to structures.
  • Only applies if the value is based on the appraised value of the structure.
  • Only applies if:
    • There is no change in the use or occupancy of the structure. or
    • If there is a change, it does not permit more people in the structure and it must be less hazardous based on life and fire risk than the existing authorized use.
• Slightly altering the following three types of buildings to which the 50% value requirement does not apply in cases where the improvements include seismic retrofitting:
  • Clarifying it includes not just unreinforced masonry buildings, but also buildings with lateral force resisting systems and buildings with unreinforced masonry infill walls that interact with the lateral force resisting system.
  • Changing “concrete tilt-up buildings” to buildings with flexible diaphragms and deficient out-of-plane anchorage to concrete or masonry bearing or nonbearing walls permitted under the 1994 or earlier editions of the Uniform Building Code (UBC).
  • Changing reinforced concrete moment resisting frame buildings as described in a FEMA report to reinforced nonductile concrete buildings permitted under the 1991 or earlier editions of the UBC.
• Adding the following five types of buildings to the existing list of three types of buildings to which the 50% value requirement does not apply in cases where the improvements include seismic retrofitting:
  • Wood-framed buildings with soft, weak, or open-front wall lines on the ground floor permitted before the adoption of the 1994 or earlier editions of the UBC.
  • Buildings with precast concrete members attached with nonductile connections permitted before the adoption of the 1994 or earlier editions of the UBC.
  • Steel-frame buildings with welded moment frame connections permitted before the adoption of the 1994 or earlier editions of the UBC.
  • Steel-braced frame buildings permitted before the adoption of the 1994 or earlier editions of the UBC.
  • Wood-framed buildings on or into a slope greater than one unit vertical and three units horizontal (33.3%) permitted under the 1994 or earlier editions of the UBC.

State Revenue Impact

No estimate.

Comments

1. Purpose of the bill. According to the author, “Dozens of local permitting agencies in California must regulate development projects within earthquake fault zones according to the provisions of the Alquist-Priolo Act. Many of these provisions, however, are unclear and do not align with current building code standards and definitions, causing confusion for permitting agencies and developers. Furthermore, the Alquist-Priolo Act caps investments in existing facilities at 50 percent of the value of the property, making it difficult—and in some cases impossible—to address code compliance issues, safety needs, and core improvements related to fire prevention, ADA accessibility, and seismic retrofit. AB 1046 aims to clarify provisions of the Alquist-Priolo Act to align with current building code standards and to allow for projects that improve the overall safety of existing buildings in earthquake fault zones while decreasing the intensity of use and human occupancy load at the site.”

2. The 50% line. The Act precludes new development, as well as alterations and additions to existing structures, if the project proponent cannot prove the structure is more than 50 feet away from an earthquake fault line. Absent that proof, then additions and alterations to existing structures are limited to 50% or less of the property’s “value.”

“Value” may in the eye of the beholder, so this bill clarifies the 50% figure must be based on the structure’s appraised value.

The bill also states additions to existing properties do not qualify for the exemption from the Act, and that alterations are only exempt from the Act if there is no change in the use or occupancy of the structure. If there is a change, the change must not permit more people in the structure and it must be less hazardous based on life and fire risk than the existing authorized use.

3. Eliminating the 50% line to encourage more seismic retrofitting. Right now, the Act provides that alterations which include seismic retrofitting can be done to three types of buildings – unreinforced masonry buildings, concrete tilt-up buildings, and reinforced concrete moment resisting frame buildings – regardless of what the cost of the improvements are in relation to the building’s value.

The Structural Engineering Association of California has identified five other types of buildings that are particularly vulnerable during an earthquake and this bill adds them to the Act’s exemption list. That means for the five types of buildings below, alterations that include seismic retrofitting can be done regardless of what the cost of the improvements are relative to the building’s value:

• Wood-framed buildings with soft, weak, or open-front wall lines on the ground floor.
• Buildings with precast concrete members attached with nonductile connections.
• Steel-frame buildings with welded moment frame connections.
• Steel-braced frame buildings.
• Wood-framed buildings on or into a slope greater than one unit vertical and three units horizontal (33.3%).

As a result, this bill will likely encourage more building alterations and improvements that improve public safety.

4. Community Hospital of Long Beach. One of the likely beneficiaries of this bill is Community Hospital of Long Beach (CHLB), which until it closed in 2022, was a 158-bed, acute and psychiatric care hospital in Long Beach. The facility closed in part due to financial losses upwards of $27 million – more than the $17.71 million estimated value of the property – along with the inability to make necessary seismic improvements precluded under the Act.

CHLB had been owned by the City of Long Beach and operated by MWN Community Hospital, but ownership was transferred to MWN late last year. According to newspaper reports, MWN is working with the City of Long Beach and the state to re-open the facility as a wellness center.

To re-open, the facility requires significant facility repairs, safety improvements, and seismic retrofit work that would be more than the 50% investment threshold set in the Act. Due to the materials used to construct the building, it does not qualify for the Act’s exemption from the 50% threshold. AB 1046, should it become law, would eliminate the need for seismic and other improvements to adhere to the 50% threshold in current law because of the additional construction materials the bill exempts from the 50% line.

5. Here’s what we mean when we say …. Many of the terms in the Act are not defined. Rather than go through the Act to define each term, Section 1 of the bill takes the approach of stating that any undefined terms have the same meaning as they are defined in California Building Standards Code, which is found in the California Code of Regulations.

6. Technically speaking. The Committee may wish to consider adopting two technical amendments to reduce potential confusion and improve the readability of the Act:

• In Section 2 of the bill, Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 2621.7 (b) and (c) are effectively saying the same thing relative to the 50% threshold for alterations, but (b) is written as an exception to the exception. The Committee may wish to eliminate (b) since its sentiments are covered in (c).
• In Section 2 of the bill, PRC Section 2621.7 (c)(1) and (c)(2) are in conflict from a common sense perspective, given that (c)(1) prohibits any changes in who can inhabit and what can be done in a building altered under the Act, yet (c)(2) says if there are changes, they must adhere to certain requirements. The Committee may wish to eliminate (c)(1).

Assembly Actions

Assembly Local Government Committee: 8-0

Assembly Appropriations Committee: 15-0

Assembly Floor: 76-0

Support and Opposition (6/9/23)

Support: California Building Officials
City of Long Beach

Opposition: None received

-- END --

Date of Hearing: May 17, 2023

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Chris Holden, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1046

Author:(Lowenthal) – As Amended Ver:April 18, 2023

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY:

This bill revises and recasts exemptions to the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (Act).

Specifically, this bill:

1. Provides that terms used in the Act but not defined by the Act have the same meaning as defined in the California Building Standards Code, as specified.
2. Modifies exemptions to the Act by:
   1. Allowing any existing structure for human occupancy, rather than any structure in existence prior to May 4, 1975, and an alteration to any structure for human occupancy to be exempt from the Act if the value of the alteration does not exceed 50% of the appraised value of the structure and the alteration meets either of the following:
      1. There is no change in the existing authorized use or occupancy of the structure permitted by the city or county with jurisdiction over the structure.
      2. If there is a change in the use or occupancy of the structure, the change does not authorize a greater human occupant load and is less hazardous, based on life and fire risk, than the existing authorized use or occupancy of the structure permitted by the city or county with jurisdiction over the structure.
   2. Adding the following to the list of types of structures for human occupancy, rather than types of buildings in existence prior to May 4, 1975, for which alterations that include seismic retrofitting are exempt from the Act:
      1. Wood-framed buildings with soft, weak, or open-front wall lines on the ground floor permitted before the adoption of the 1976 Edition of the Uniform Building Code.
      2. Buildings with precast concrete members attached with nonductile connections permitted before the adoption of the 1997 Edition of the Uniform Building Code.
      3. Steel-frame buildings with welded moment frame connections permitted before the adoption of the 1997 Edition of the Uniform Building Code.
      4. Steel-braced frame buildings permitted before the adoption of the 1997 Edition of the Uniform Building Code.
      5. Wood-framed buildings on or into a slope greater than one unit vertical and three units horizontal (33.3%) permitted before the adoption of the 1997 Edition of the Uniform Building Code.

FISCAL EFFECT:

No state costs.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. This bill is sponsored by the City of Long Beach. According to the author:

Dozens of local permitting agencies must regulate development projects within earthquake fault zones according to the provisions of the Alquist-Priolo Act. Many of these provisions, however, are unclear and do not align with current building code standards and definitions, causing confusion for permitting agencies and developers. Furthermore, the Alquist-Priolo Act caps investments in existing facilities at 50 percent of the value of the property, making it difficult—and in some cases impossible—to address code compliance issues, safety needs, and core improvements related to fire prevention, ADA accessibility, and seismic retrofit. [This bill] aims to clarify provisions of the Alquist-Priolo Act to align with current building code standards and to allow for projects that improve the overall safety of existing buildings in earthquake fault zones.

1. Background. After the 1971 San Fernando Earthquake destroyed two hospitals, the Legislature passed the Act to prevent building on top of active faults. The State Geologist publishes maps that are the basis for development regulations within the Earthquake Fault Zones. The Act applies to any subdivision subject to the Subdivision Map Act and which contemplates the eventual construction of homes. The Act also applies to home construction that did not involve a review at the subdivision phase. The Act does not apply to single family homes with no more than two stories that are not part of a development of four or more dwellings.

The Act, along with the Seismic Hazard Mapping Act, restricts the authority of cities and counties to approve projects for occupancy unless they meet terms established in regulation by the State Mining and Geology Board. Prior to approving a project that is within an established Earthquake Fault Zone, cities and counties must require a geologic report identifying any hazard for surface fault rupture. Implementing regulations specify that no structure can be placed across an active fault. If a city or county finds that no undue hazard exists, the required geologic report can be waived, with approval from the State Geologist.

The Act exempts five types of projects including: condominium conversions; structures built before May 4, 1975, unless the alterations or additions are more than 50% of a structure's value; alterations or additions where the value is less than 50% of a structure's value; structures damaged by the 1991 Berkeley-Oakland Hills fire that receive state waivers; and, alterations that include seismic retrofitting on three specified types of structures built before May 4, 1975.

This bill modernizes these exemptions to align with building code standards, include buildings built after 1975, and update the value cap on retrofits.

Analysis Prepared by: Jennifer Swenson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: April 26, 2023

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Cecilia Aguiar-Curry, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1046 (

Author:Lowenthal) – As Amended Ver: April 18, 2023

SUBJECT: Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act: exemptions.

SUMMARY: Makes a number of changes to the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (Alquist-Priolo Act). Specifically, this bill:

1. Provides that terms used in the Alquist-Priolo Act that are not defined by the Act shall have the same meaning as defined in the California Building Standards Code, as specified.
2. Makes a number of changes to a portion of the Alquist-Priolo Act that outlines exemptions from its provisions, including the following:
   1. Alters an exemption for an alteration to any structure for human occupancy if the value of the alteration does not exceed 50% of the value of the structure by clarifying that it does not include an addition, that the value must be an appraised value, and also requires such an alteration to meet either of the following:
      1. There is no change in the existing authorized use or occupancy of the structure permitted by the city or county with jurisdiction over the structure.
      2. If there is a change in the use or occupancy of the structure, the change does not authorize a greater human occupant load and is less hazardous, based on life and fire risk, than the existing authorized use or occupancy of the structure permitted by the city or county with jurisdiction over the structure.
   2. Adds the following to the list of types of buildings for which alterations that include seismic retrofitting are exempt:
      1. Wood-framed buildings with soft, weak, or open-front wall lines on the ground floor permitted before the adoption of the 1976 Edition of the Uniform Building Code.
      2. Buildings with precast concrete members attached with nonductile connections permitted before the adoption of the 1997 Edition of the Uniform Building Code.
      3. Steel-frame buildings with welded moment frame connections permitted before the adoption of the 1997 Edition of the Uniform Building Code.
      4. Steel-braced frame buildings permitted before the adoption of the 1997 Edition of the Uniform Building Code.
      5. Wood-framed buildings on or into a slope greater than one unit vertical and three units horizontal (33.3 percent) permitted before the adoption of the 1997 Edition of the Uniform Building Code.
3. Makes additional technical and clarifying changes.

FISCAL EFFECT: This bill is keyed fiscal.

COMMENTS:

1. Bill Summary. This bill makes a number of updating, technical and clarifying changes to the Alquist-Priolo Act. This bill is sponsored by the City of Long Beach.
2. Author’s Statement. According to the author, “Dozens of local permitting agencies in California must regulate development projects within earthquake fault zones according to the provisions of the Alquist-Priolo Act. Many of these provisions, however, are unclear and do not align with current building code standards and definitions, causing confusion for permitting agencies and developers. Furthermore, the Alquist-Priolo Act caps investments in existing facilities at 50 percent of the value of the property, making it difficult—and in some cases impossible—to address code compliance issues, safety needs, and core improvements related to fire prevention, ADA accessibility, and seismic retrofit. AB 1046 aims to clarify provisions of the Alquist-Priolo Act to align with current building code standards and to allow for projects that improve the overall safety of existing buildings in earthquake fault zones while decreasing the intensity of use and human occupancy load at the site.
3. Background. Enacted after the 1971 San Fernando Earthquake destroyed two hospitals, the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act prevents local agencies from issuing permits to build on top of active faults. The State Geologist publishes maps which are the basis for developing regulations within recognized Earthquake Fault Zones.

The Alquist-Priolo Act applies to any subdivision subject to the Subdivision Map Act and which contemplates the eventual construction of homes. The Alquist-Priolo Act also applies to home construction that did not involve a re-view at the subdivision phase. The Act does not apply to single family homes with no more than two stories that are not part of a development of four or more dwellings.

The Alquist-Priolo Act contains exemptions for several types of projects:

• 1. Condominium conversions.
  2. Structures built before May 4, 1975, unless the alterations or additions are more than 50% of a structure’s value.
  3. Alterations or additions where the value is less than 50% of a structure’s value.
  4. Structures damaged by the 1991 Berkeley-Oakland Hills fire that get state waivers.
  5. Alterations that include seismic retrofitting on certain types of structures built before May 4, 1975.

Under the Act, property that is sold or transferred must include disclosure in-formation when it is located in an Earthquake Fault Zone.

The Alquist-Priolo Act, along with the Seismic Hazard Mapping Act, restricts the authority of cities and counties to approve projects for occupancy unless they meet terms established in regulation by the State Mining and Geology Board. Prior to approving a project that is within an established Earthquake Fault Zone, cities and counties must require a geologic report identifying any hazard for sur-face fault rupture. Implementing regulations specify that no structure can be placed across an active fault. If a city or county finds that no undue hazard exists, the required geologic report can be waived, with approval from the State Geologist.

1. Previous Legislation. SB 1155 (Lieu) of 2014 would have required local agencies, before approving a project in certain locations, to determine that the project complies with existing law relating to the policies and criteria established by the State Mining and Geology Board and the findings of the State Geologist, in areas where official state Earthquake Fault Zone maps have not been completed or updated and more recent information is available from specified sources that indicates a newly-identified potential risk of an earthquake fault hazard. SB 1155 died on the inactive file on the Senate Floor.

AB 2133 (Niello), Chapter 251, Statutes of 2010, removed the exemption from the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act that was added by SB 113 (see below) and, instead, provided a specific exemption from the Act for the California Memorial Stadium located on the University of California, Berkeley campus.

SB 113 (Local Government Committee), Chapter 332, Statutes of 2009, added an exemption from the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act for any structure owned and operated by the state that is listed on the California Register of Historical Resources or the National Register of Historic Places, including the California Memorial Stadium.

1. Arguments in Support. The City of Long Beach, sponsor of this measure, writes, “The intent of the Alquist-Priolo Act is to reduce losses from surface fault ruptures, and dozens of agencies in California are mandated by the state to regulate development projects within earthquake fault zones according to the provisions of the Alquist-Priolo Act. Many provisions in the Alquist-Priolo Act, however, are unclear and do not align with the current edition of the California Building Standards Code requirements and terminology, leading to confusion for local permitting agencies and applicants. Furthermore, the Alquist-Priolo Act caps investments in existing buildings to 50 percent of the value of the building, making it difficult to address core safety improvements related to fire and life-safety, ADA accessibility, and seismic retrofit.

“AB 1046 aims to clarify provisions of the Alquist-Priolo Act and to align it with the California Building Standards Code. This will not only provide more clarity for local permitting agencies and applicants but also ensure that improvements to the overall safety and resiliency of existing seismically vulnerable buildings in earthquake fault zones can move forward.

“This bill also updates the Alquist-Priolo Act to expand the list of seismically vulnerable buildings within earthquake fault zones that can be retrofitted without being capped at 50 percent of the value of the property. The Structural Engineering Association of California has identified a list of seismically vulnerable building types that have performed poorly in past earthquake events. Recognizing the need to address the potential loss of these existing buildings and the impact to the community, many local permitting agencies, including the City of Long Beach, are encouraging or mandating seismic retrofitting of these buildings. Expanding the list of seismically vulnerable buildings to facilitate investment in seismic retrofitting of these buildings will likely result in the largest improvement in reducing widespread life safety hazards and limiting structural damage.”

1. Arguments in Opposition. None on file.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

City of Long Beach [SPONSOR]

Opposition

None on file

Analysis Prepared by: Angela Mapp / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958