URM Building Workgroup Meeting #2 - Portland, Oregon

1

City of PortlandUnreinforced Masonry (URM) Building Workgroup

Welcome!URM Building Workgroup Meeting 2

February 6, 20203:00 PM to 7:00 PM

Vancouver Avenue First Baptist Church3138 North Vancouver Avenue

Portland, Oregon 97227

City of PortlandURM Building Workgroup

Welcome

2

Steve Wessing Photo 2017

1

2

2


Meeting Goals

Note: This meeting is being audio recorded

3

1) Discuss potential Workgroup recommendations (Scope, Umbrella Question, and/or Workplan)

2) Understand the current code: Overview3) Understand the past processes and resiliency: Overview4) Understand the historical context of racist planning in

Portland: Overview5) Elect Chairs and/or Co‐chairs6) Hear from the public7) Next Steps


Agenda Review

4

Time Task Speaker

3:00Welcome, Meeting Goals, Agenda Review, Housekeeping, and Scope of Process Discussion

Our HostFacilitator

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 PBEM

5:00Working 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 Public

6:25Group 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 All

3

4

3


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.

5


Name

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?

New Members: Introductions & Statements

6

How many of you:

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?

5

6

4


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

7


… 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 …

8

Council‐approved Bylaws Purpose

7

8

5


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

9



• 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.

10

9

10

6


Purpose/Scope: Feedback

11

Council Purpose/Scope Some Have Said Considerations

Promote Seismic Retrofits Broaden to Overall Resiliency Would involve other agencies

and other or different

stakeholders

Financial Previously Studied and Not

Viable

Are their viable options that

have not been brought forwardPolicy/Administrative Won’t really move the needle

and could be handled in a more

efficient way

Are their viable options that

have not been brought forward

Commercial and Non‐Profit Add Class 1 and 2 Buildings

Add Soft Story

Perform on the 2018

Resolutions

Would involve other or

different stakeholders

Current City Budget Realities

Council has already required

upgrades be mandated to

Class 1 and 2 URM buildings



12

Council Purpose/Scope Some Have Said ConsiderationsVoluntary Make mandatory or nothing will

be done.

Reconsider at least for some

buildings, e.g. public housing

Mandatory retrofits currently

lack political support

Standards for Participation

To What Standard?

Eligibility Prioritization

These could turn into

mandatory standards.

Academic without knowing how

much money is available and

from what sources. Impossible

to quantify need.

Miss opportunity to discuss

and consider some

demonstration projects

List/Inventory: Not in

Resolution but has been

stated by staff.

Make changes to the List. Verify

accuracy. Eliminate the

inventory.

Suggest a process to improve

the inventory.

Other?

11

12

7


Current Regulations &Policy Process 2014‐2019

13

Amit Kumar, Bureau of Development ServicesJonna Papaefthimiou, Bureau of Emergency Management

February 6, 2020

See Combined Executive Summariesof Prior Studies

City of PortlandURM Building Workgroup 14

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

13

14

8


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.


1990

Western Oregon reclassified to higher seismic risk (Seismic Zone 2 to 2B)

2004

Portland updates Title 24.85, including seismic triggers

2018

Portland strengthens seismic triggers as part of the Placarding and Tenant Notification Ordinance

2019

2018 seismic triggers updates removed from Title 24.85 per Ordinance

1996

Title 24.85, Seismic Design Requirements for Existing Buildings adopted

1993

City task force appointed to address “dangerous” building designation and recommend retrofit policies.

16

Portland Seismic Code Timeline

19931990 1996 2004 2018 2019

1993

Further reclassification of W. OR to higher seismic risk (Zone 2B to 3): most

existing buildings designated “dangerous”

15

16

9


Seismic design standards increased


Key Parts of a URM Building

Parapet

Exterior Wall

Roof

Floor

17

18

10


URM Building Vulnerability

URM buildings are vulnerable in an earthquake.

1. The parapets can break away

2. The walls can pull apart

3. The roof and floors can collapse

1

2

3

Parapet

Roof

Floor

Wall


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.

19

20

11


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


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.

21

22

12


Elements of Seismic Retrofit

A

Retrofit Result:Building Stays intact

B

D

C

E

F

Retrofit Legend:

A. Brace parapets

B. Attach wall to roof

C. In‐plane shear attachments

and roof sheathing, ties

crossties

D. Attach wall to floor

E. Out of plane wall bracing

F. Other upgrades, as required


Trigger: Roof Replacement (URM buildings only)

Removing > 50% of roof area within a 5‐year period requires:

A. Parapet bracing

B. Wall anchorage to

roof

B

A

Retrofit Potential Collapse

23

24

13


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


Progress with Title 24.85 Requirements since 1996

97 fully upgraded (6% of total) URM buildings

183 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 fully upgraded (10%) City owned URM buildings

6 partially upgraded (12%) City owned URM buildings

1 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

25

26

14


QUESTIONS?


Activity, then Break!

28

Talk to the Member You Know Least Well

27

28

15


Let’s get back to work

29


Policy Process 2014‐2019

30

Jonna Papaefthimiou, Bureau of Emergency Management

February 6, 2020

See Combined Executive Summariesof Prior Studies

29

30

16


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.


URM Buildings in Portland

Commercial:82%Multifamily: 14%Schools and community centers: 3%Other: 1%

URM Buildings by Use

• About 1,650 URM buildings, 9% of total building stock

• About 7,200 residential units

31

32

17


URM Building Characteristics

• Average age 90 years

• About 567 historic

buildings

• More than half single-

story

URM Buildings by Height


URM Building Locations

33

34

18


URM Retrofit Progress to Date

6 % fully retrofitted buildings

11% partially retrofitted

3% in progress

80% still at risk


Council Charge ‐ 2014

35

36

19


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


Seismic Design Basics

Buildings are designed (or retrofitted) to a standard performance level:

Operational Immediate Occupancy

Life Safety Collapse Prevention

37

38

20


2015 Standards Recommendations

Proposed Standard Building Class Immediate Occupancy 1: Critical Buildings + essential facilities

Damage Control 2: Schools, community centers,

high occupancy structures Life Safety 3:Buildings with 4+ stories, 300+

occupants, or 100+ residencesSimplified Life Safety(Bolts Plus)

4: All other URMs

Collapse prevention 5: 1 and 2‐story buildings with 0‐10

occupants.


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.

39

40

21


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


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

41

42

22


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%).


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.

43

44

23


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


Council Resolution (2018)

Action Implementation

Mandatory retrofit of schools,

community

centers, critical buildings

Not started

Require roof ties and parapet

bracing for all buildings

Not started

Strengthen triggers for re‐roofing

and remodeling

Implemented, then

repealed

Require placarding and tenant

notification

Implemented, then

repealedNew URM policy committee You! In progress

45

46

24


Status of Council Resolution

Action Implementation

Property tax exemption Not started

Seismic retrofit revolving loan fund Not started

Staff program to assist URM

owners

Not started

Legislative agenda Introduced bills 2019; didn’t

passAssess City‐owned URM buildings Started; incomplete

Financial plan to retrofit URM

buildings

Not started


Portland’s Citywide Resilience Efforts

Jonna Papaefthimiou, Bureau of Emergency Management

February 6, 2020

48

47

48

25


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


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

49

50

26


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


Community programs

• Largest Neighborhood Emergency Team (NET) program in US

• BEECNs (Basic Earthquake Emergency Communications Node)

• Full‐time outreach staff focused on underserved communities

51

52

27


Working Dinner

Let's keep working, but grab food first!

Workgroup Members, then the Public

53


Historical Context of Racist Planning in Portland

54

See PDFs of PowerPoint and Lisa Bates’ Article

53

54

28


Public Comment Period

• Scheduled for Every Meeting

• Signup Sheets

• Written Testimony Sheets

• Public Record Emails to [email protected]

• To communicate directly with facilitators: Call Sam Imperati (503) 244‐1174

55


The Election

• Ballot Explanation

• Accept Nominations

• Call for Other Nominees

• Finalize Ballot

• Vote

• Results: Tomorrow56

55

56

29


Next Steps

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‐chairs6) Hear from the public7) Next Steps

58

57

58

30


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

59


We are adjourned!

60

59

60

Documents

URM Building Workgroup Meeting #2 - Portland, Oregon