For almost a decade, Los Angeles has promoted its extensive earthquake safety ordinance, the strictest in the nation, demanding that thousands of buildings be evaluated for potential retrofitting. However, city officials have made it difficult for residents to access information regarding whether their buildings have undergone necessary retrofits.
In 2023, The Times requested lists of non-ductile concrete and soft-story buildings in the city, along with their retrofit statuses. After releasing a map that enabled Angelenos to assess the earthquake risk of their buildings, numerous property owners reached out, claiming that city data inaccurately showed their buildings as non-retrofitted, despite having completed the work.
This misinformation led to significant concern among property owners who lost leasing opportunities as potential tenants were deterred by the perceived lack of seismic retrofitting. Many residents voiced worries for their family’s safety in buildings they believed were not retrofitted.
Upon discovering these discrepancies, The Times editors included a note in the article, and reporters began examining permit records and reaching out to city officials. It took 18 months for the total extent of the inaccuracies to become apparent.
During a video call on July 25, officials explained the errors, admitting that the Department of Building and Safety had been misreporting which buildings had received retrofits for years.
“The retrofitting database system relies heavily on manual input and adjustments, which, while adequate for enforcing individual cases, has not produced program-wide reports that meet our standards,” said Gail Gaddi, public information director at the Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety. She emphasized their commitment to rectify the issues and implement an automated reporting system for accurate data.
In light of The Times’ investigations, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass instructed the department to form a task force to review records, modernize its data processes, and hire an independent auditor. “Angelenos should know the retrofit status of the buildings they reside in, own, or are considering living in,” stated Clara Karger, a spokesperson for Bass.
The questions raised by The Times also led the city to cease its issuance of monthly seismic progress reports in February. For nine years, the city had been publishing data on buildings’ compliance statuses, tracking those that had begun work and those that had submitted plans. The mayor’s office had relied on these reports to showcase the program’s progress and hold officials accountable.
Initial inquiries by The Times revealed flaws in the data, indicating that even prominent structures like Los Angeles City Hall were incorrectly listed as non-retrofitted, despite its seismic upgrade being completed in 2001. Reporters spent months analyzing over 1,000 city permits and engaging with multiple building owners and tenants to clarify the inconsistencies.
On January 16, city officials responded to inquiries about certain buildings, including significant commercial properties that were inaccurately categorized as not retrofitted, stating that they were confident in their retrofit data but would investigate the addresses provided by The Times.
By that point, The Times had identified at least 56 buildings that were misclassified, including a large commercial building on Broadway that had been retrofitted in 2021, but city records incorrectly indicated the work was incomplete.
Subsequent inquiries led building officials to concede that there was a disparity in the data. In one instance, they explained that the records for non-ductile concrete and soft-story buildings did not align with their internal databases.
City officials later conceded that a failure to effectively merge two databases—one for building permits and another for addresses—had resulted in widespread inaccuracies. The city’s system mistakenly connected irrelevant permit data to the list of buildings needing seismic improvements.
The Times’ map originally listed 73 retrofitted non-ductile concrete buildings. However, the Department of Building and Safety updated that number multiple times throughout the year, listing 73 in January, 91 in April, and 127 in July, ultimately reporting 101 by July 25. A Times analysis subsequently revealed that at least four buildings were still marked as non-retrofitted despite having completed strengthening work.
To date, officials have adjusted the retrofit status for at least 10 non-ductile concrete buildings based on information provided by The Times, and two architectural firms confirmed the department had contacted them to verify records.
The current status of soft-story buildings, predominantly apartment complexes, remains uncertain. After the July meeting, officials promised to provide corrected records, but later changed course, opting instead to revamp their database and secure an auditor. The Times has since removed the city’s data from its map.
The mayor’s office indicated that the extensive process of updating the building department’s records could take several months. The city is home to 12,347 soft-story buildings and 1,194 concrete buildings as per official records.
Residents are eager for clarity on how to check the retrofit status of their homes and workplaces. Emily Guiltinan, who was exploring housing options, encountered The Times’ map and was alarmed by the implications for building safety. “I was like, wow, that’s disturbing. How safe are the buildings we live in?” she reflected. Guiltinan found it challenging to navigate the city’s permit portal for building records and reported being advised by a hotline representative not to worry about earthquakes.