City of Portland Feb. 6 2020 URM Workgroup Meeting #2 Agenda and Presentation

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