Disaster Highlights 2007 0709 v2

Home

A role for local governments in educating the public - LHMP Policy Number HSNG-c-3 Why should local governments promote educating the public? The best building codes in the world do nothing for buildings built before that code was enacted. Fixing problems in older buildings - retrofitting - is typically the responsibility of the building's owner. Thus, local governments can promote retrofitting through targeted education of building owners and tenants. What can owners and tenants do? ABAG information - Some condo and apartment owners have retrofitted the buildings that they own. Typical solutions involve strengthening of the walls in the parking area and the addition of steel frames in the openings. Renters can ask landlords: · What retrofitting has been done on this building? · What does my lease say about how responsible I am for payment of rent if I can't live in the building due to earthquake damage? ABAG developed a quiz for owners and residents of apartments and condos to help them determine if their buildings are at risk. The quiz, on the ABAG web site at http://auake.abaq.ca.Qov/fixit , asks simple questions to gauge if a building is healthy enough to stand up to a quake. This web site also has links to engineers to help design an appropriate way to improve the strength of these buildings. Local governments can include this link on their web site and add information on retrofitting in their newsletters. Does retrofitting make cent$? While owners of single-family homes retrofit their homes to increase their safety, apartment owners often do not live in the buildings they own. Thus, since many of these buildings are owned as commercial properties, owners need information on whether the benefits of retrofitting outweigh the costs. Researchers at Caltech performed a general benefit-cost analysis on several types of residential buildings including a soft- story apartment building. The conclusion - for every dollar in retrofitting, owners could expect to save up to 7 dollars. The researchers examined two common retrofit schemes - adding or strengthening a wall down the length of the building, and adding a steel frame to the front of the parking. While the addition of the shear wall had a benefit-cost ratio in high seismic areas of up to 7: 1, the more expensive (but also more effective) steel frame retrofit had a lower benefit-cost ratio of up to 4: 1. These benefit-cost ratios should be used for general background only, not for a specific project. The researchers were quite conservative in their loss estimates, for they did not include loss to contents, alternate living expenses, or deaths and injuries, all of which would significantly increase the benefit-cost ratios. On the other hand, both estimated retrofit costs and repair costs were significantly lower than the Bay Area. CREDITS - This pamphlet was prepared by J. Perkins, Earthquake and Hazards Program Manager, Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), using funding, in part, from FEMA for the development of the Bay Area Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. The information has been reviewed by the ABAG Earthquake and Hazards Outreach Review Committee. Color diagrams courtesy of D. Bonawitz; Black & white diagrams courtesy of City of San Jose/CDM. Cost- benefit analysis from "Cost Effectiveness of Seismically Better Woodframe Housing," by K. Porter, C. Scawthom, and J. Beck, 2005 Annual Hazards Research and Applications Workshop, July 10-13,2005, Boulder, CO, Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information Center, University of Colorado at Boulder. November 14,2005