Urgency, Cost of Seismic Safety Upgrading Is Debated : Legislature: Advocates of retrofitting urge immediate action. But property owners say new construction mandates could damage the economy.

Sharp differences of opinion on strengthening the state’s building requirements for seismic safety emerged Thursday at a legislative hearing in Los Angeles, with representatives of architects, designers and structural engineers arguing that tightening of codes for new buildings should take high priority.

At the three-hour hearing of the state Senate Committee on Housing and Land Use, chaired by Sen. Tom Campbell (R-Stanford), the same group also contended that adding requirements for retrofitting old buildings is very important.

Warren O’Brien, a structural engineer and retired general manager of the Los Angeles City Department of Building and Safety, warned that the state cannot afford to wait to do retrofits until 2020 as recommended in the state Seismic Safety Commission’s report on the Northridge earthquake.

“This is unacceptable,” said O’Brien, representing the California Building Officers Assn., “because we are told by the scientists that the next [earthquake] will occur before 2020. Buildings must be fixed before that.”

But representatives of property owners warned that strengthening codes and doing retrofits could cost so much money that it would hurt California’s economy. They said any changes in regulations must be accompanied, at the very least, by strong tax incentives.

Steven A. Fox, representing the California Business Properties Assn., said “balancing of various needs” had to accompany any new construction mandates by the state.

“Legislation that cannot be implemented effectively is worthless,” he said. “The economic concerns of owners must be recognized. We have owners who can’t even afford to pay for testing steel frames, much less their repairs.

“Financial incentives are essential, or it simply won’t happen,” he said.

The differing philosophies were heard by five legislators who had gathered to evaluate the next steps on earthquake safety and building codes in view of about 70 recommendations in the Seismic Safety Commission report. Neither Campbell nor any of the other lawmakers gave any indication Thursday which side of the argument they may be inclined to support.

Among those testifying was Lloyd Cluff, the new chairman of the commission, who said that while “delay is not acceptable,” reform will “not be simple, not be easy and [will] take a lot of money.”

Maryann T. Phipps, president of the Structural Engineers Assn. of California, said one recommendation of the commission backed by the engineers is placing responsibility for approving all state building codes in one agency, the Building Standards Commission.

Phipps and others said California now designs buildings to be safe for the preservation of human life, but not necessarily to remain operational after a severe earthquake.

*

Architect Christopher Arnold of Palo Alto told the hearing that the problem is that a market-driven building industry “wants to build at the cheapest cost and in the smallest amount of time”--a practice that is inconsistent with seismic safety.

“Spending a certain amount of money is essential, both in building and retrofitting,” he argued. “It will pay off in the long run.”

But Geoffrey M. Ely, president of the Building Owners & Managers Assn., warned that exposing property owners to very high costs because of new seismic safety measures could harm the economy.

Campbell said he expects many measures to be proposed at the next legislative session as a result of the Seismic Safety Commission recommendations.