Agenda, Meeting 2 February 6, 2020 Time
Task
Speaker
3:00
Welcome, Meeting Goals, Agenda Review, Housekeeping, and Scope of Process Discussion
Our Host Facilitator
3:30
Current Code: Overview
BDS
4:00
Break/Activity: Talk to the Member You Know Least Well
All
4:15
Prior Planning Processes and City Resiliency: Overview
5:00
Working Dinner (Sit next to Member You Think Has a Different Point of View and Talk)
All
5:30
Historical Context of Racist Planning in Portland: Overview
BPS
6:15
Public Comment
6:25
Group Direction on Scope: What Further Information Do You Need Before You Make a Recommendation?
Facilitator
6:45
Elect Chairs and/or Co-Chairs
Facilitator
6:55
Next Steps
Facilitator
7:00
Adjourn
PBEM
Public
All
City of Portland Unreinforced Masonry (URM) Building Workgroup
Welcome! URM Building Workgroup Meeting 2 February 6, 2020 3:00 PM to 7:00 PM Vancouver Avenue First Baptist Church 3138 North Vancouver Avenue Portland, Oregon 97227
1
Welcome
Steve Wessing Photo 2017 City of Portland URM Building Workgroup
2
2
1
Meeting Goals 1) Discuss potential Workgroup recommendations (Scope, Umbrella Question, and/or Workplan) 2) Understand the current code: Overview 3) Understand the past processes and resiliency: Overview 4) Understand the historical context of racist planning in Portland: Overview 5) Elect Chairs and/or Co‐chairs 6) Hear from the public 7) Next Steps
City of Portland URM Building Workgroup
Note: This meeting is being audio recorded 3
3
Agenda Review Time
Task
Speaker
3:00
Welcome, Meeting Goals, Agenda Review, Housekeeping, and Scope of Process Discussion
3:30
Current Code: Overview
4:00
Break/Activity: Talk to the Member You Know Least Well
4:15
Prior Planning Processes and City Resiliency: Overview
PBEM
5:00
Working Dinner (Sit next to Member You Think Has a Different Point of View and Talk)
All
5:30
Historical Context of Racist Planning in Portland: Overview
BPS
6:15
Public Comment
6:25
Group Direction on Scope: What Further Information do You Need Before You Make a Recommendation?
Facilitator
6:45
Elect Chairs and/or Co‐Chairs
Facilitator
6:55
Next Steps
Facilitator
7:00
Adjourn
City of Portland URM Building Workgroup
Our Host Facilitator BDS All
Public
All 4
4
2
Reminders: Commitments for Community (Highlights) • Speak respectfully, briefly, and non‐repetitively; • Allow people to say what is true for them without reprisal; • Generate and explore all options on the merits … with a goal of understanding … other Workgroup members; • Consult regularly with their interest group(s) and provide their input; • Work toward fair, practical, and durable recommendations that reflect the diverse interests of the entire Workgroup and the public; • When communicating with others, accurately summarize the process, … presenting a full, fair, and balanced view …; • Not attempt to affect a different outcome outside of the Workgroup process once Workgroup has reached a consensus…; • Self‐regulate and help other members abide by these commitments. City of Portland URM Building Workgroup
5
5
New Members: Introductions & Statements Name
How many of you:
Sub‐committee: For‐profit Non‐profit Interest Group: Community Design Finance Historic Preservation Investor‐Developer Non‐Profit Multi‐family Places of Worship Tenant Advocate URM Building Owner Why is this work important to you? City of Portland URM Building Workgroup
Live in N, NE, S, SE, SW, NW? Own and/or Manage a URM? Live in a URM? Believe difficult questions need to be discussed candidly? Want to increase public safety? Want to be heard & to hear others? Want an equitable outcome for all? 6
6
3
Housekeeping • Meeting Evals and Staff Responses • Cellphone/laptop policy • New membership List/Abe’s Bio with pagination instructions • WG comments on Public Comments submitted to the project website and in your packets? • Comments on Meeting 1 Notes • Binders with COI forms. Any changes? • Member sign‐in sheets • Public Sign‐in Sheets and Materials • Presenter’s Choice on Q&A during or after City of Portland URM Building Workgroup
7
7
Council‐approved Bylaws Purpose … recommendations to reduce the life safety risks posed by URM buildings and to reduce displacement following a seismic event. … develop recommendations that include: 1) financial and policy supports to promote seismic retrofits, recognizing the unique needs of commercial and non‐ profit building owners, and 2) standards for participation in voluntary support programs. It is not required or expected that the Workgroup will recommend mandatory retrofits of URM buildings that are privately owned. It is expected that support for voluntary retrofits will be scaled to need … City of Portland URM Building Workgroup
8
8
4
Purpose/Scope: Setting the Stage • Based on member interviews, homework, and meeting one comments, etc., and recognizing we haven't heard from everyone • Received several suggestion to change Council’s purpose/scope • I want to give you the opportunity to make the recommendations you think the City needs to hear • I recommend we first talk about the following things so everyone has the same fund of information: • Current Code • Prior Processes • Historical Context of Racist Planning in Portland City of Portland URM Building Workgroup
9
9
Purpose/Scope: Setting the Stage • Then, we will discuss during meeting three and/or four whether you want to make a different purpose/scope recommendation(s) to Council • At the end of today’s meeting, I will ask what other presentations (e.g. Earthquake Risk, Building Risks, Viability of Finance Options, City Funding, etc.) you would like to make before you decide on a purpose/scope recommendation • Depending on your decision, we will discuss whether we need to go back to the City Council and what that means for the process.
City of Portland URM Building Workgroup
10
10
5
Purpose/Scope: Feedback Council Purpose/Scope Promote Seismic Retrofits
Financial Policy/Administrative
Commercial and Non‐Profit
Some Have Said Broaden to Overall Resiliency
Considerations Would involve other agencies and other or different stakeholders Previously Studied and Not Are their viable options that Viable have not been brought forward Won’t really move the needle Are their viable options that and could be handled in a more have not been brought forward efficient way Would involve other or Add Class 1 and 2 Buildings different stakeholders Add Soft Story Perform on the 2018 Resolutions
Current City Budget Realities
Council has already required upgrades be mandated to Class 1 and 2 URM buildings City of Portland URM Building Workgroup
11
11
Purpose/Scope: Setting the Stage Council Purpose/Scope Voluntary
Standards for Participation To What Standard? Eligibility Prioritization
List/Inventory: Not in Resolution but has been stated by staff.
Some Have Said Considerations Make mandatory or nothing will Mandatory retrofits currently lack political support be done. Reconsider at least for some buildings, e.g. public housing Miss opportunity to discuss These could turn into and consider some mandatory standards. demonstration projects Academic without knowing how much money is available and from what sources. Impossible to quantify need. Make changes to the List. Verify Suggest a process to improve accuracy. Eliminate the the inventory. inventory.
Other?
City of Portland URM Building Workgroup
12
12
6
City of Portland Unreinforced Masonry (URM) Building Workgroup
Current Regulations & Policy Process 2014‐2019 Amit Kumar, Bureau of Development Services Jonna Papaefthimiou, Bureau of Emergency Management February 6, 2020 See Combined Executive Summaries of Prior Studies
13
13
Building Code Basics Any new construction, repair or alteration of a building, is required to conform to State and City Building Codes. The building codes are based on national standards. • The International Building Code (IBC) is a national model for building codes. • Oregon Structural Specialty Code (OSSC) is based on the IBC. • Local jurisdictions can adopt their own codes. The City of Portland Title 24 is an example of a local building code. • Chapter 24.85 of Title 24 is the Seismic Design Requirements for Existing Buildings • Building codes are periodically updated to reflect the latest available knowledge and technology City of Portland URM Building Workgroup
14
14
7
Seismic Design Basics Early editions of the building code classified areas of the country into seismic risk zones (Zone 1 through 4) based on the level of seismic risk/activity expected based on research from the United States Geological Survey (USGS). Seismic Zones ‐ Seismic Zone 1 being the lowest seismic risk and Zone 4 being the highest risk.
City of Portland URM Building Workgroup
15
15
Portland Seismic Code Timeline 1990 Western Oregon reclassified to higher seismic risk (Seismic Zone 2 to 2B) 1990
1993 Further reclassification of W. OR to higher seismic risk (Zone 2B to 3): most existing buildings designated “dangerous”
City of Portland URM Building Workgroup
1993 City task force appointed to address “dangerous” building designation and recommend retrofit policies. 1993
1996
2004 Portland updates Title 24.85, including seismic triggers
2019 2018 seismic triggers updates removed from Title 24.85 per Ordinance
2004
2019
1996 Title 24.85, Seismic Design Requirements for Existing Buildings adopted
2018
2018 Portland strengthens seismic triggers as part of the Placarding and Tenant Notification Ordinance
16
16
8
Seismic design standards increased
City of Portland URM Building Workgroup
17
17
Key Parts of a URM Building Roof Parapet Exterior Wall
Floor
City of Portland URM Building Workgroup
18
18
9
URM Building Vulnerability URM buildings are vulnerable in an earthquake. Parapet
1. The parapets can break away 2. The walls can pull apart 3. The roof and floors can collapse
1 Roof Wall
2 Floor
3
City of Portland URM Building Workgroup
19
19
When Seismic Upgrades are Required under Current Code Seismic upgrades are voluntary except when triggered. • Triggers are set off when a building owner: • Changes their building’s use or occupancy • Makes alterations that exceed cost thresholds • Replaces more than half the roof.
• If owners don’t hit a trigger, no seismic upgrade is required ‐ even for URM buildings. • These are called “passive” triggers – if the owner does nothing, nothing changes.
City of Portland URM Building Workgroup
20
20
10
Seismic Triggers: Change of Occupancy or Use
• More than 33% of the building area undergoes a change in occupancy to higher hazard classification • Increase in occupant load by more than 149 persons • Occupancy changes to essential facility
City of Portland URM Building Workgroup
21
21
Seismic Triggers: Alteration/Repair Costs (specific to URM buildings) When costs associated with building alterations or repair in a two‐year time period exceeds costs triggers. Current cost triggers (adjusted annually): • $62.23/SF for one‐story URM building • $46.67/SF for two or more stories URM & special hazards URM buildings.
City of Portland URM Building Workgroup
22
22
11
Elements of Seismic Retrofit A
A. Brace parapets B. Attach wall to roof
Result: Building Stays intact
Retrofit
Retrofit Legend:
C
B
C. In‐plane shear attachments
E
and roof sheathing, ties crossties D. Attach wall to floor
D F
E. Out of plane wall bracing F. Other upgrades, as required
City of Portland URM Building Workgroup
23
23
Trigger: Roof Replacement (URM buildings only) Retrofit
Removing > 50% of roof area within a 5‐year B period requires: A. Parapet bracing B. Wall anchorage to roof
City of Portland URM Building Workgroup
Potential Collapse
A
24
24
12
Other Current Seismic Provisions Seismic Evaluation Requirement: • When the value of alterations of an existing building exceeds $272,265.00, a standard seismic evaluation is required. • Evaluation does not trigger seismic upgrade
Phasing of Improvements: • BDS may approve multi‐year phased program of improvements
Fee Reductions: • Building permit, plan review and life safety review fees for structural work related to seismic strengthening are waived or reduced City of Portland URM Building Workgroup
25
25
Progress with Title 24.85 Requirements since 1996 97 183
fully upgraded (6% of total) URM buildings partially upgraded (11% of total) URM buildings
57
upgrade in progress (3% of total) of URM buildings
185
demolished (11% of total) URM buildings
Of these: 5 6 1
fully upgraded (10%) City owned URM buildings partially upgraded (12%) City owned URM buildings upgrade in progress (2%) City owned URM building
Note: Data was last updated in March 2019 The City currently owns about 49 URM buildings (including retrofitted buildings) with about 19 of them either public restrooms, park shelters, or small storage buildings City of Portland URM Building Workgroup
26
26
13
QUESTIONS?
City of Portland URM Building Workgroup
27
27
Activity, then Break! Talk to the Member You Know Least Well
City of Portland URM Building Workgroup
28
28
14
Let’s get back to work
City of Portland URM Building Workgroup
29
29
City of Portland Unreinforced Masonry (URM) Building Workgroup
Policy Process 2014‐2019 Jonna Papaefthimiou, Bureau of Emergency Management February 6, 2020 See Combined Executive Summaries of Prior Studies
30
30
15
Why go back to URMs? “All three kinds of risk—injury, property damage, and loss of use—are usually greater for URM buildings than for the other buildings in a city or region. While some communities, university systems, owners and others have chosen to deal with the risks of other kinds of existing buildings or to upgrade utility and transportation systems, addressing URM building problems is usually the top priority in any serious effort to provide seismic protection.” ‐ Page 6.
City of Portland URM Building Workgroup
31
31
URM Buildings in Portland URM Buildings by Use • About 1,650 URM buildings, 9% of total building stock • About 7,200 residential units
City of Portland URM Building Workgroup
Commercial:82% Multifamily: 14% Schools and community centers: 3% Other: 1%
32
32
16
URM Building Characteristics URM Buildings by Height
• Average age 90 years • About 567 historic buildings • More than half singlestory
City of Portland URM Building Workgroup
33
33
URM Building Locations
City of Portland URM Building Workgroup
34
34
17
URM Retrofit Progress to Date 6 % fully retrofitted buildings 11% partially retrofitted 3% in progress 80% still at risk
City of Portland URM Building Workgroup
35
35
Council Charge ‐ 2014
City of Portland URM Building Workgroup
36
36
18
Retrofit Standards Committee (Jan – April 2015) Panel of architects and engineers advised: • Make URM retrofits mandatory • Group buildings into 5 categories by risk • Set retrofits standards for each group • Create a 10 – 25 year timeline • Strengthen existing code to promote more retrofits during remodels and re‐roofing
City of Portland URM Building Workgroup
37
37
Seismic Design Basics Buildings are designed (or retrofitted) to a standard performance level:
Operational
City of Portland URM Building Workgroup
Immediate Occupancy
Life Safety
Collapse Prevention
38
38
19
2015 Standards Recommendations Proposed Standard Building Class Immediate Occupancy 1: Critical Buildings + essential facilities Damage Control Life Safety Simplified Life Safety (Bolts Plus) Collapse prevention
2: Schools, community centers, high occupancy structures 3:Buildings with 4+ stories, 300+ occupants, or 100+ residences 4: All other URMs 5: 1 and 2‐story buildings with 0‐10 occupants.
City of Portland URM Building Workgroup
39
URM Finance Committee (June – Nov 2015) Committee of property owners and managers, financial advisors and investors: • Developed cost estimates from local case studies and data from FEMA. • Additional cost studies have been completed since. • Case studies showed big variations in cost.
• Developed list of financial and policy supports to accomplish retrofits. • Did not identify sources of capital for subsidy programs. City of Portland URM Building Workgroup
40
40
20
2015 Financial Supports • Seismic retrofit loan program • Credit enhancement • Interest rate buy‐down • Grants • Rebates • Property tax exemption or abatement • State tax credit • Accelerated depreciation
City of Portland URM Building Workgroup
41
41
2015 Other Supports • Transfer of development rights • Expedited permitting • Water / storm sewer exemption for nonconforming conditions • Early adopter incentives • Post disaster right to rebuild • Standardized retrofit methods • Process navigation / support
City of Portland URM Building Workgroup
42
42
21
Policy Committee (2016‐2017) Committee of earlier participants plus other stakeholders, like schools: • Built on work of earlier committees • Conducted more community outreach: • 20+ community presentations • 3 public open house events
• Commissioned cost‐benefit analysis: • Cost‐benefit ratios 1:1.4 to 1:1.9. • Avoided death and injury as greatest benefit (55%).
City of Portland URM Building Workgroup
43
43
2017 Proposed Standards Proposed Standard Building Class Immediate Occupancy 1: Critical Buildings + essential facilities Damage Control
2: Schools, community centers, high occupancy structures
Collapse Risk Reduction
3: All URM buildings not in 1, 2, or 4
Parapet bracing only
4: 1 and 2‐story buildings with 0‐10 occupants.
City of Portland URM Building Workgroup
30
44
22
Policy Committee Recommendations (2017) • Strengthen triggers to promote more retrofits during remodeling / reroofing • Mandatory retrofits – high standards for public buildings, lower for others • Tax exemption to offset some retrofit costs • Public education campaign • Owner assistance to navigate design, financing and permitting
City of Portland URM Building Workgroup
45
45
Council Resolution (2018) Action
Implementation
Mandatory retrofit of schools, community centers, critical buildings Require roof ties and parapet bracing for all buildings Strengthen triggers for re‐roofing and remodeling
Not started
Require placarding and tenant notification New URM policy committee
Implemented, then repealed You! In progress
City of Portland URM Building Workgroup
Not started Implemented, then repealed
32
46
23
Status of Council Resolution Action
Implementation
Property tax exemption
Not started
Seismic retrofit revolving loan fund Not started Staff program to assist URM owners Legislative agenda Assess City‐owned URM buildings Financial plan to retrofit URM buildings
Not started Introduced bills 2019; didn’t pass Started; incomplete Not started
City of Portland URM Building Workgroup
33
47
City of Portland Unreinforced Masonry (URM) Building Workgroup
Portland’s Citywide Resilience Efforts
Jonna Papaefthimiou, Bureau of Emergency Management February 6, 2020 48
48
24
Response planning • Business Continuity Plan for the City • Basic Emergency Operations Plan and supporting annexes: • • • • • • •
Earthquake response Damage assessment Debris management Alert and warning Mass shelter (Multnomah County) Points of Distribution (under development) Fuel distribution (under development)
• Plans updated regularly • Practice at least 2 x year City of Portland URM Building Workgroup
49
49
Long‐term Resilience strategies • Water Bureau has 50‐year plan to meet Oregon Resilience Plan goals, strengthen water system backbone to provide service • Bureau of Environmental Services has similar plan • Bureau of Transportation received funding this year to develop their own resilience plan • Bureau of Emergency Management develops Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan that serves as citywide planning document. • Bureau of Development Services working on Emergency Quick Inspections Program (EQUIP) for post‐disaster building re‐occupancy City of Portland URM Building Workgroup
50
50
25
Policy efforts Advocate for • Earthquake early warning system for Oregon • Funding for statewide efforts (ex. grants to schools, Burnside Bridge retrofit) • Stronger post‐earthquake building inspection program • Updated building codes • Strengthening Columbia River levees
Working to address risks in critical energy infrastructure hub: • Support DEQ regulation of tanks • Seek to make owner‐operators responsible for risks City of Portland URM Building Workgroup
51
51
Community programs • Largest Neighborhood Emergency Team (NET) program in US • BEECNs (Basic Earthquake Emergency Communications Node) • Full‐time outreach staff focused on underserved communities
City of Portland URM Building Workgroup
52
52
26
Working Dinner
Let's keep working, but grab food first! Workgroup Members, then the Public City of Portland URM Building Workgroup
53
53
Historical Context of Racist Planning in Portland
See PDFs of PowerPoint and Lisa Bates’ Article
City of Portland URM Building Workgroup
54
54
27
Public Comment Period • • • • •
Scheduled for Every Meeting Signup Sheets Written Testimony Sheets Public Record Emails to urms@portlandoregon.gov To communicate directly with facilitators: Call Sam Imperati (503) 244‐1174
City of Portland URM Building Workgroup
55
55
The Election
City of Portland URM Building Workgroup
• • • • • •
Ballot Explanation Accept Nominations Call for Other Nominees Finalize Ballot Vote Results: Tomorrow 56
56
28
Next Steps
City of Portland URM Building Workgroup
57
57
Meeting Evaluation Meeting Goals Reminder:
1) Discuss potential Workgroup recommendations (Scope, Umbrella Question, and/or Workplan) 2) Understand the current code: Overview 3) Understand the past processes and resiliency: Overview 4) Understand the historical context of racist planning in Portland: Overview 5) Elect Chairs and/or Co‐chairs 6) Hear from the public 7) Next Steps City of Portland URM Building Workgroup
58
58
29
Homework and Next Steps • Homework: We’ll send you a list • Next Meeting: March 12, 2020 from 3:00 to 7:00 PM • Tentative Working Agenda: • Presentations on additional topics requested • Workgroup recommendation on Scope, Umbrella Question and/or Workplan • Return Name Tents for Future Mixed Up Seating
City of Portland URM Building Workgroup
59
59
We are adjourned! City of Portland URM Building Workgroup
60
60
30
First Meeting Draft Homework Summary: 1-29-20 Draft Conflict of Interest Form/Video/Homework SubCommittee
Conflict of Interest Form
Conflict of Interest Video
Peter Angel
FP
Y
Y
Y
Pippa Arend
FP
Y
Y
Y
Dave Beh
FP
Y
Y
Anthony Bencivengo
FP
Y
Shirley Chalupa David Chown Thomas Aquinas Debpuur Jennifer Eggers Don Eggleston Abe Farkas Maya Foty Carolina Gomez Pastor Walter Hills Pastor Mark Jackson Robert Jepsen Sue Levine Mary-Rain O'Meara Nicolas Petersen Kathy Rogers John Russell Vik Savara Tom Sjostrom Andrew Smith
FP FP NP NP NP FP FP NP NP NP FP NP NP NP FP FP FP FP NP
Y Y
Member
Y
HR Video Form
Y
Y
Y Y
Y
Y Y
Y Y Y
Y Y
Y 1
Y Y Y
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Y
Homework Received
Y Y Y
Y
Y Y Y Y Y Y
Annette Stanhope Mark Stevenson Pastor Roy Tate Bart Yanoch
First Meeting Draft Homework Summary: 1-29-20 Draft
FP NP NP FP
Y
Y Y
Y
2
First Meeting Draft Homework Summary: 1-29-20 Draft
Resolution
Original Draft BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that both subgroups shall evaluate reasonable seismic retrofit support, incentives, and voluntary program standards and present their findings, including both majority and minority reports ‌ (Emphasis added.) Angel BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that both subgroups shall evaluate reasonable, economically feasible voluntary seismic retrofit support, incentives, funding, and voluntary program standards and present their findings, including both majority and minority reports ‌
Bencivengo
Arend BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that both subgroups shall evaluate fair and verified seismic retrofit funding, support, incentives, and voluntary program standards and present their findings, including both majority and minority reports.
Chalupa
3
Beh Because this is all voluntary, I have no edits. I would like the city to help people make upgrades to their buildings. I think this is not much different than the status quo that we have under title 24.85 other than the city could help identify incentives to motivate upgrades.
Chown
Debpuur
First Meeting Draft Homework Summary: 1-29-20 Draft Eggers
Eggleston
Farkas
Gomez
Pastor Hills
Pastor Jackson
Jepsen
Levin None
4
O’Meara
First Meeting Draft Homework Summary: 1-29-20 Draft Peterson
Rogers
None
Russell
Savara
Sjostrom
Smith
Stanhope
Stevenson
5
Pastor Tate
First Meeting Draft Homework Summary: 1-29-20 Draft Yanoch
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that both subgroups shall evaluate reasonable seismic retrofit funding , incentives, and uniform retrofit standards and present their findings, including both majority and minority reports ‌ (Emphasis added.)
6
First Meeting Draft Homework Summary: 1-29-20 Draft
Bylaws’ Purpose
Original Draft … recommendations to reduce the life safety risks posed by URM buildings and to reduce displacement following a seismic event. … develop recommendations that include: 1) financial and policy supports to promote seismic retrofits, recognizing the unique needs of commercial and non-profit building owners, and 2) standards for participation in voluntary support programs. It is not required or expected that the Workgroup will recommend mandatory retrofits of URM buildings that are privately owned. It is expected that support for voluntary retrofits will be scaled to need … Angel
Bencivengo
Arend
Beh
… recommendations to reduce the life safety risks posed by URM buildings and to reduce displacement following a seismic event. … develop recommendations that include: 1) financial and policy supports to promote voluntary seismic retrofits, recognizing the unique needs of city-owned, commercial, and non-profit building owners, and 2) standards for participation in voluntary support programs. It is not required or expected that the Workgroup will recommend mandatory retrofits of URM buildings that are privately owned. It is expected that support for voluntary retrofits will be scaled to need …
Public safety, minimizing risk and identifying a cost-effective method for seismic building upgrade. No edits because this is all voluntary. This is no difference between this than 24.85 other than providing incentives.
Chalupa
Chown … recommendations to reduce the life safety risks posed by URM buildings and to reduce displacement following a seismic event. … develop recommendations that include: 1) financial and policy supports to
7
First Meeting Draft Homework Summary: 1-29-20 Draft
Debpuur
Eggers … recommendations to reduce the life safety risks posed by URM buildings and to reduce displacement following a seismic event. … develop recommendations that include: 1) financial and policy supports to promote seismic retrofits, recognizing the unique needs of commercial and non-profit building owners, and 2) standards for participation in voluntary support programs. It is not required or expected that the Workgroup will recommend mandatory retrofits of URM buildings that are privately owned. It is expected that support for voluntary retrofits will be scaled to need … this is not a suggested edit, but the wording “reduce displacement following a seismic event” is heavily dependent on the work “reduce” so I strongly encourage keeping that in. A “Life Safe” building does not mean you can re-occupy. 8
promote seismic retrofits, recognizing the unique needs of commercial and non-profit building owners, and 2) standards for participation in voluntary support programs. (Reverse #1 and #2 to show priority) It is not required or expected that the Workgroup will recommend mandatory retrofits of URM buildings that are privately owned. It is expected that support for voluntary retrofits will be scaled to need … This will be almost impossible to quantify. Who determines need? What is it based on? Eggleston
First Meeting Draft Homework Summary: 1-29-20 Draft Specifically, a “Life Safe” URM building may or may not even be repairable after an event. Something to talk about as a group.
Farkas
Gomez
Pastor Hills
Jepsen
Levin
… recommendations to reduce the life safety risks posed by URM buildings and to reduce displacement following a seismic event. … develop recommendations that include: 1) effective seismic retrofit options that optimize life safety and can be implemented in phases, 2) financial and policy supports to promote seismic retrofits, recognizing the unique needs of commercial and non-profit building owners, and 32) standards for participation in voluntary support programs. It is not required or expected that the Workgroup will recommend privately owned. It is expected that support for voluntary retrofits will be scaled to need … Pastor Jackson
This makes sense to me, given the history of the project. My hope is that economic incentives can be created that are enticing enough to result in buildings being retrofitted. Some organizations may need more than others to do so…
9
O’Meara
First Meeting Draft Homework Summary: 1-29-20 Draft Peterson
Rogers
None
Russell
Savara
I don't have any suggestions for the Council resolution, but I think the bylaws need to be changed and expanded for two reasons: (1} the capitalized term "URM" has a specific meaning in the building code that may not have direct meanings for public safety and {2} if the underlying issue is public safety in the event of a major seismic event, there are other building types than masonry that may be public safety hazards.
10
Sjostrom
Smith
Pastor Tate
First Meeting Draft Homework Summary: 1-29-20 Draft Stanhope
Stevenson
Yanoch
Additional Input
… recommendations to improve the safety risk factors posed by URM buildings and to reduce displacement following a seismic event. … develop recommendations that include: 1) financial and policy supports to promote seismic retrofits, recognizing the unique needs of the City of Portland owned URMs, commercial, and non-profit building owners, and 2) standards for participation in voluntary support programs. It is not required or expected that the Workgroup will recommend mandatory retrofits of URM buildings that are privately owned. It is expected that support for voluntary retrofits will be scaled to need …
Umbrella Question 11
First Meeting Draft Homework Summary: 1-29-20 Draft Original Draft
How can we collaboratively create a cost-effective, economically viable set of voluntary financial, technical, and support resources scaled to need to retrofit commercial and non-profit URM buildings; While at the same time reducing life safety risks, avoiding displacement, and maintaining the architectural character of our communities; Thereby satisfying our shared desire for an equitable, multi-faceted, resilient community before, during, and after an earthquake? Angel
Arend
Beh
How can we collaboratively create a costeffective, economically viable, and uniform set of voluntary financial, technical, and support resources scaled to need to retrofit commercial and non-profit URM buildings;
How can we collaboratively create a costeffective, economically viable set of feasible voluntary financial, technical, and support resources scaled to need to retrofit all commercial and non-profit URM buildings, whether commercial, non-profit, or city-owned;
Public safety, minimizing risk and identifying a cost-effective method for seismic building upgrade. No edits because this is all voluntary. This is no difference between this than 24.85 other than providing incentives.
While at the same time reducing life safety risks, avoiding displacement, and maintaining the architectural character of our communities; Thereby satisfying our shared desire for an equitable, multi-faceted, resilient community before, during, and after an earthquake?
While at the same time increasing safety and resiliency for our community, avoiding fire sales to developers and the resulting displacement, maintaining current and local ownership, naturally lower rents and protecting the architectural character of our main streets; Thereby satisfying our shared desire for an equitable, multi-faceted, seismically resilient community before, during, and after an earthquake?
Bencivengo
Chalupa 12
Chown
First Meeting Draft Homework Summary: 1-29-20 Draft How can we collaboratively create a costeffective, economically viable set of voluntary financial, technical, and support resources scaled to need to retrofit commercial and non-profit URM buildings; Establish seismic retrofit standard for URM buildings that follows the accepted industry practices from other cities with similar issues, that will be economical, realistic and achievable; While at the same time reducing life safety risks, avoiding displacement, and maintaining the architectural character of our communities; Thereby satisfying our shared desire for an equitable, multi-faceted, resilient community before, during, and after an earthquake?
Change the order of the paragraphs to change the emphasis: How can we reduce eliminate life safety risks, reduce avoid displacement, and promote the maintenance of maintain the architectural character of our communities; (I think we need to prioritize these. Life safety is first, the rest is negotiable. In a major seismic event some displacement and building damage is unavoidable. Life safety is not negotiable; everything else is.) While at the same time collaboratively creating a cost-effective, economically viable set of voluntary financial, technical, and support resources scaled to need (how is need determined?) to retrofit commercial and non-profit URM buildings; Thereby satisfying our shared desire for an equitable, multi-faceted, resilient community before, during, and after an earthquake?
Debpuur
Eggers 13
Eggleston
First Meeting Draft Homework Summary: 1-29-20 Draft How can we reduce life safety risks, reduce displacements after a seismic event and maintain the architectural character of our communities ;
While at the same time collaboratively create a cost-effective, economically viable set of voluntary financial, technical, and support resources scaled to the need to retrofit commercial and non-profit URM buildings; Thereby satisfying our shared desire for an equitable, multi-faceted, resilient community before, during, and after an earthquake? Notes: I feel the word “reduce” is important here vs. “avoiding” I’m interested in what the “technical” resource might look like…would like to talk to the group about this. Agree with leaving terminology in – but this could mean a variety of different things that will be developed and determined over time. Farkas
Gomez
14
Pastor Hills
First Meeting Draft Homework Summary: 1-29-20 Draft
How can we collaboratively craft a voluntary seismic retrofit program that reduces life safety risks, minimizes displacement and its impacts, and maintains the architectural character of our communities, create a cost-effective, economically viable set of voluntary financial, technical, and support resources scaled to need to retrofit commercial and non-profit URM buildings;
While at the same time reducing life safety risks, avoiding displacement, and maintaining the architectural character of our communities creating a cost-effective, economically viable set of voluntary financial, technical, and support resources scaled to need to retrofit private commercial and non-profit URM buildings Thereby satisfying our shared desire for an equitable, multi-faceted, resilient community before, during, and after an earthquake? Pastor Jackson
Jepsen
Levin
How can we collaboratively create a costThis also makes sense to me based on my effective, economically viable set of voluntary current knowledge of the project. financial, technical, and support resources scaled to need to retrofit commercial and non-profit URM buildings; - Is the idea to provide some basic content of the seismic engineering requirements for a URM building? If this is the case, I’d be concern on the viability of such a task given the different constraints each building has to offer. Each building would require an 15
First Meeting Draft Homework Summary: 1-29-20 Draft independent review by an engineer to suggest solutions to their underlying URM issues.
While at the same time reducing life safety risks, avoiding displacement, and maintaining the architectural character of our communities; - I’d suggest that we visit the work “avoiding” due in part to not understanding to which lengths any seismic retrofitting is needed and the potential impacts it may have on the occupants.
O’Meara
Thereby satisfying our shared desire for an equitable, multi-faceted, resilient community before, during, and after an earthquake? Peterson
Rogers How can we collaboratively create a cost effective, economically viable set of voluntary financial, technical, and support resources scaled to need to retrofit commercial and non-profit all URM buildings, including city-owned buildings & schools.
While at the same time reducing life safety risks, ensuring feasibility of necessary and immediate building improvement, avoiding displacement, and maintaining the architectural character of our communities;
While at the same time making buildings safer reducing life safety risks, avoiding displacement, and maintaining the architectural character of our communities, and protecting affordable rents. Thereby satisfying our shared desire to find funding to make seismic retrofits possible. for an equitable, multi-faceted, resilient 16
First Meeting Draft Homework Summary: 1-29-20 Draft Russell
Savara
How can we collaboratively create a costeffective, economically viable set of voluntary financial, technical, and support resources scaled to need to retrofit commercial and non-profit URM buildings; again, I believe that we need to expand our definition of dangerous buildings beyond masonry. See (1) above. While at the same time reducing life safety risks, avoiding displacement, and maintaining the architectural character of our communities; Thereby satisfying our shared desire for an equitable, multi-faceted, resilient community before, during, and after an earthquake?
17
community before, during, and after an earthquake? Sjostrom
Smith
First Meeting Draft Homework Summary: 1-29-20 Draft Stanhope
How can we collaboratively create a costeffective, economically viable set of voluntary financial, technical, and support resources scaled to need to voluntarily retrofit commercial and non-commercial Portland’s URM buildings; While at the same time ensuring equitable outcomes reducing life safety risks, avoiding displacement, and maintaining the architectural character of our communities; Thereby satisfying our shared desire to protect human lives and our cultural identity, while creating a for an equitable multi-faceted, resilient community before, during, and after an earthquake? Pastor Tate
Yanoch How can we collaboratively create a costeffective, economically attainable set of voluntary financial, technical, and support resources scaled to need to retrofit the City of Portland, commercial and non-profit URM buildings; While at the same time increasing safety factors , avoiding displacement, preserving traditional ownership, and maintaining the architectural and cultural character of our communities; 18
Stevenson
First Meeting Draft Homework Summary: 1-29-20 Draft Thereby satisfying our shared desire for an equitable, multi-faceted, resilient infrastructure and community in the event of a seismic occurrence.?
19
Workplan
First Meeting Draft Homework Summary: 1-29-20 Draft Original Draft
Phase One: “Setting the Table� I. Background II. Exploring the Scope of Work
Phase Two: What are we trying to achieve? III. What levels of URM retrofitting are we trying to achieve? IV. What are the benefits of URM retrofitting to those levels? To whom? V. What are the burdens of URM retrofitting to those levels? To whom? VI. What are the magnitude of scale costs to achieve the various levels? VII. What are the current financial options? Others? Where do we get funds? VIII. What are reasonable costs to be covered? What would it cover? Are there less expensive ways to abate the hazard than partially retrofitting?
20
Phase Three: Additional Support Strategies (Non-Financial) IX. What are the support issues/problems we are trying to solve? What is our goal? X. What non-financial support strategies are worth pursing?
Member
Peter Angel
Pippa Arend
SubCommittee
FP FP
First Meeting Draft Homework Summary: 1-29-20 Draft
Phase One: “Setting the Table”
Phase Two: What are we trying to achieve?
Honestly, Sam, these are not good questions. They are very leading, and will just drive the conversation into the hypothetical, wherein the actual DOERS will be forced to be in the position of the naysayers… again. Of course: we should all retrofit all buildings to the maximum level, just as we should all drive Hummers and never cross bridges but none of this matters without funding. Any retrofit beyond the current code is hypothetical without funding. It would be better to review the current code, which, remember, actually works when enforced, and does so without evictions, firesales, unnecessary demolitions, and is targeted to all vulnerable buildings in an equitable and feasible way. So, I would recommend these questions: • •
What is the current seismic code – How does it work? What are its successes? What are its failures? What are the levels of seismic retrofits? 21
Phase Three: Additional Support Strategies (Non-Financial)
First Meeting Draft Homework Summary: 1-29-20 Draft •
• •
• •
• • •
•
Dave Beh
FP
No edits to the order/agenda. I would like to talk to a banker that would actually do the lending and
Beyond the current code, what levels of funding are needed to incentivize further seismic retrofits? What are the levels of seismic retrofits? What are the burdens of URM retrofitting to those levels? To whom? (This is yours. See, I like some of them!) What information is needed to determine the magnitude of scale costs to achieve the various levels? Which buildings should be prioritized? Schools? Low income housing? Large Community / Event spaces? City-Owned? Should we (as a city) invest in an accurate list of seismically vulnerable buildings? VII. What are the current financial options? Others? Where do we get funds? What are alternative, less expensive seismic retrofit, seismic resiliency (gas shut-off valves) and early warning technologies? What are related issues? Liquifaction? Housing Crisis? Rents?
22
First Meeting Draft Homework Summary: 1-29-20 Draft
FP
a general contractor so that we can come up with better cost estimates and financing models.
Anthony Bencivengo
FP
Shirley Chalupa
David Chown Thomas Aquinas Debpuur
Understanding accepted retrofit standards and triggers from other jurisdictions such Seattle, San Francisco, etc
What should tenant relocation and quality of life protections during retrofits look like? What have they looked like in other cities which have implemented URM retrofit programs? What might it look like to place affordability requirements and/or rent controls on buildings receiving retrofit grants or subsidies? What can we learn from previous attempts to do this in Portland and other cities? Add: What are the different levels of URM retrofit goals for different users?
Add: Should we look at revising city of Portland and the state of Oregon seismic retrofit standard and triggers to match other jurisdictions?
FP NP
Jennifer Eggers
NP
Don Eggleston
NP
I. Background (will this include background of URM buildings/expected damage, etc‌ from an engineering standpoint too?)
III. What levels of URM retrofitting are we trying to achieve? ADD: What are the financial benefits to retrofitting for long term resiliency?
Part 1, Scope and then using levels in Phase two., of the Workplan. If by 23
First Meeting Draft Homework Summary: 1-29-20 Draft
standard, do you mean the Building Code Requirement or by levels the Risk Class per City of Portland Guidelines, issued June of 2018. This portion of our efforts, I see as the most difficult in getting clarity of what a voluntary upgrade to any URM structure means and what code standard the upgrade needs to meet, that is approved by the City structural Engineers.
Abe Farkas
FP
Maya Foty
FP
Carolina Gomez
NP
I. Background – Portland (and metro area), and pertinent experiences of other cities (in US and elsewhere)
I think it is worth the Task force understanding the impact of not doing something to start the City on a path toward dealing the hazards that URM Buildings pose to the Community. III. What levels of URM retrofitting are we trying to achieve to save lives? What levels to help save buildings? (assuming these may not be the same) Add: Are there creative solutions to URM upgrades that the City would consider via a non-prescriptive permitting path (use of FRP, CLT, etc) that could potentially be less costly and invasive then traditional methods?
24
what about identifying financial strategies? Isn’t this one of the greatest obstacles to URM upgrades?) Do you mean what strategies can the City of Portland implement to assist building owners to encourage them to retrofit their URM buildings?
Pastor Walter Hills Pastor Mark Jackson Robert Jepsen Sue Levine Mary-Rain O'Meara Nicolas Petersen
Kathy Rogers
First Meeting Draft Homework Summary: 1-29-20 Draft NP NP FP NP NP NP
FP
III-A. What are the levels of seismic Retrofitting & what are the costs & benefits associated with each level III-B. What levels of URM seismic retrofitting are we trying to achieve, in order to qualify for funding? IV. What are the benefits of URM seismic retrofitting to those levels? To whom? V. What are the burdens of URM seismic retrofitting to those levels? To whom? VI. What are the magnitude of scale REAL costs to achieve the various levels? VII. What are the current financial options? Others? Where do we get funds? Who from our city & state officials can we get involved to help find funding at the state & federal level?
25
First Meeting Draft Homework Summary: 1-29-20 Draft
John Russell
V. What are the burdens of URM retrofitting to those levels? To whom? I might be able to explain my own experiences
FP
Vik Savara Tom Sjostrom Andrew Smith Annette Stanhope Mark Stevenson Pastor Roy Tate
FP FP NP
Bart Yanoch
FP
IX. What are the support issues/problems we are trying to solve? What is our goal? The goa l is an accurate assessment of public safety issues
VI. What are the magnitude of scale costs to achieve the various levels? See V above
FP NP NP
I believe we need to further address the City’s current seismic codes and plans for upgrades, as well as the history behind it’s adopting and implementation said codes. What exists now? What’s worked? What hasn’t?
X. What non-financial support strategies are worth pursuing? What education can we bestow upon our citizens that are simple effective methods for dealing with a seismic event?
26
First Meeting Draft Homework Summary: 1-29-20 Draft Phase Four: WG Implementation and Monitoring Suggestions XI. What are the next steps in developing an education and outreach program for the options we recommend?
Member Peter Angel Pippa Arend Dave Beh
SubCommittee FP FP FP FP
Abe Farkas
FP FP NP NP NP FP
XII. What are our final recommendations? XIII. Any other Recommendations to City Council with Next Steps?
Finally, I think that a lot of issues discussed in the for-profit subcommittee (including tenant rights issues) will be equally relevant in the non-profit subcommittee, and vice-versa. I would like to set aside at least one meeting for each subcommittee to present its recommendations to the other for feedback and possible revision. These presentations could be given by the the subcommittee chairs.
Anthony Bencivengo
Shirley Chalupa David Chown Thomas Aquinas Debpuur Jennifer Eggers Don Eggleston
Phase Five: Final Recommendations
XI: What are the criteria we’re going to use to evaluate our recommendations?
27
First Meeting Draft Homework Summary: 1-29-20 Draft
Maya Foty Carolina Gomez Pastor Walter Hills Pastor Mark Jackson Robert Jepsen Sue Levine Mary-Rain O'Meara Nicolas Petersen Kathy Rogers John Russell Vik Savara Tom Sjostrom Andrew Smith Annette Stanhope Mark Stevenson Pastor Roy Tate Bart Yanoch
FP
Is there a timeline that should be established for recommended implementation work?
NP NP NP FP NP NP NP FP FP FP FP NP FP NP NP FP
XII. What are our final recommendations? Define where our funding is coming from and what structures can be upgraded first. How do we incorporate our new path to seismic upgrades with our existing codes? XIII. Any other Recommendations to City Council with Next Steps? How can we avoid the past errors that the City had 28
First Meeting Draft Homework Summary: 1-29-20 Draft
made in regard to committee decisions and implementing their recommendations?
29
First Meeting Draft Homework Summary: 1-29-20 Draft
Topic/Speaker Member Peter Angel
Pippa Arend
FP
Dave Beh
Ben Kaiser
Background from the point of view of the building owners, since the city was able to present their version. She can also speak to the current code, and how/when it works and how / when it doesn’t. Alternative methods, such as Early Warning Systems that is being implemented in Beaverton. General Contractor that has worked on a variety URM upgrades to better understand the costs for an upgrade.
Angie Even
Ben Kaiser
A lender so that we can better understand the finance options for these upgrades. FP
Tenant Issues
Marisa Zapata Asst. Lauren Everett
FP
Shirley Chalupa
Speaker
Rudy Manzel FP
Anthony Bencivengo
Topic
SubCommittee FP
Get participation from other jurisdictions Cost Data
R&H 30
First Meeting Draft Homework Summary: 1-29-20 Draft Seattle retrofit code and cost analysis for retrofit in Portland.
Nancy Devine (Seattle building department) Jake Sly (RH Construction) Brad Sisk (Siteworks)
David Chown
FP
Thomas Aquinas Debpuur
NP
Earthquakes and Damage Jennifer Eggers
NP
Don Eggleston
NP
Abe Farkas
FP
Maya Foty
FP
Background of performance objective levels for discussion so everyone understand terminology.
Bill Tremayne Jennifer Eggers
Seismic Impacts
DOGAMI, the Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, either Ian Madin, Senior Scientist, Earthquake Hazard Geologist, ian.madin@oregon.gov, 971-673-1542 or Yumei Wang, Resilience Engineer, yumei.wang@oregon.gov, 503-9135749
Building Official and Fire Marshal for the City of St. Helena in the Napa Valley during which time a mandatory URM policy was implemented.
Cindy Heitzma,
31
Executive Director of the California Preservation Foundation, 101 The Embarcadero, Suite 120, San Francisco, CA 94105-1215, 415-495-0349
First Meeting Draft Homework Summary: 1-29-20 Draft The design of structures with an emphasis on seismic resistance, including dozens of historic buildings. Use of cross-laminated timber panels for seismic retrofits on unreinforced masonry buildings. Carolina Gomez
NP
Pastor Walter Hills
NP
Pastor Mark Jackson
NP
Robert Jepsen
FP
Sue Levine
Mary-Rain O'Meara
NP
NP
Nicolas Petersen
NP
Kathy Rogers
FP
Loring A. Wyllie Jr. MSCE, P.E., S.E., N.A.E.
Andre Barbosa, 541-737-7291 Andre.Barbosa@oregonstate.edu
Designed the seismic retrofit at Ben Kaiser Cedarwood Waldorf. https://www.linkedin.com/in/benjaminkaiser-3ab3585/ General Contractor representatives who understand the full scope of work and implementation on the construction side for URM upgrades— recommendations
Background
Anderson Construction Bremik Construction Colas Construction Lorentz Bruun
Angie Even, representing Save Portland Buildings
32
First Meeting Draft Homework Summary: 1-29-20 Draft John Russell
FP
Vik Savara
FP
Tom Sjostrom
FP
Andrew Smith
NP
Annette Stanhope
FP
Mark Stevenson
NP
Pastor Roy Tate
NP
Bart Yanoch
FP
Background In my extensive experience, there are two superior structural engineering firms here. They can explain the nuances of public safely for seismic events
33
KPFF and Grummel Engineering.
First Meeting Draft Homework Summary: 1-29-20 Draft
Chair/Co-Chairs Member
SubCommittee
Peter Angel
FP
Pippa Arend
FP FP
Dave Beh
Anthony Bencivengo
For-Profit Chair/Co-Chair Nomination
Pippa Arend Shirley Chalupa Jennifer Eggers
Maya Foty Robert Jepsen
Andrew Smith Pippa Arend
FP
Shirley Chalupa
Shirley Chalupa
FP
David Chown
FP
Thomas Aquinas Debpuur
NP
Jennifer Eggers
Non-Profit Chair/Co-Chair Nomination
Shirley Chalupa
Chair: Carolina Gomez
Chair: Peter Angel Co-Chair: Maya Foty Co-Chair: Abe Farkas
Don Eggleston
Abe Farkas
NP
Don Eggleston
NP
Abe Farkas
FP 34
First Meeting Draft Homework Summary: 1-29-20 Draft Jennifer Eggers
Maya Foty
FP
Carolina Gomez
NP
Pastor Walter Hills
NP
Pastor Mark Jackson
NP
Robert Jepsen
FP
Sue Levine
NP
Mary-Rain O'Meara
NP
Nicolas Petersen
NP
Bart Yanoch Abe Farkas Maya Foty
Open
Kathy Rogers
FP
Pippa Arend David Chown
John Russell
FP
John Russell
Vik Savara
FP
Tom Sjostrom
FP
Chair: Carolina Gomez
Andrew Smith
NP
Annette Stanhope
FP
Mark Stevenson
NP
Pastor Roy Tate
NP
Co-chair Jennifer Eggers
35
Bart Yanoch
First Meeting Draft Homework Summary: 1-29-20 Draft FP
36