PROPOSED ORDINANCE TO REQUIRE RETROFIT OF SOFT, WEAK OR OPEN FRONT - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

proposed ordinance to require retrofit of soft weak or
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

PROPOSED ORDINANCE TO REQUIRE RETROFIT OF SOFT, WEAK OR OPEN FRONT - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 PROPOSED ORDINANCE TO REQUIRE RETROFIT OF SOFT, WEAK OR OPEN FRONT BUILDINGS BERKELEY, JULY 25, 2013 Planning and Development, Building & Safety Division Alex Roshal, Building Official Wendy Cosin, Deputy Director of Planning Jenny


slide-1
SLIDE 1

PROPOSED ORDINANCE TO REQUIRE RETROFIT OF SOFT, WEAK OR OPEN FRONT BUILDINGS

BERKELEY, JULY 25, 2013

Planning and Development, Building & Safety Division Alex Roshal, Building Official Wendy Cosin, Deputy Director of Planning Jenny McNulty, Program & Administration Manager Rent Board, Matthew Siegel, Staff Attorney

Planning a safe and sustainable future for Berkeley

1

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Presentation Overview

2

 Introduce the Ordinance  Seek input from the public  Invitations sent to owners, tenants, engineers

and commissioners

slide-3
SLIDE 3

3

Soft, Weak or Open Front Buildings

 Wood frame building  Pre-1978 buildings  Open parking or

commercial spaces on lower story with large

  • penings in lower walls

 Lower story walls and

columns do not provide adequate lateral resistance

 Identified as potentially

hazardous in the California Health and Safety Code

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Soft Story Buildings 1989 Earthquake

4

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Risks of SWOF Buildings in an Earthquake

OWNERS

 Property damage  Loss of rental income

5

TENANTS

 Personal injury  Damage to

possessions

 Loss of housing

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Phase I: Establish and Evaluate Inventory

6

 Ordinance adopted in 2005 establishing an inventory of

SWOF buildings with 5+ residential units

 Berkeley first city to do so; other cities have used it as a

model.

 Required preparation of an engineering evaluation report

 Analyzing ability of buildings to resist earthquake forces

 Identifying weaknesses  Describing work to remedy those weaknesses

 Required owners to notify tenants the

building was soft story and post a sign

 Did not require owners to perform retrofit

slide-7
SLIDE 7

7

Initial 2005 Inventory

slide-8
SLIDE 8

2005 List: 321 Wood Frame Soft Story Buildings Progress as of July 25, 2013

8

Compliance Rate = 94% Voluntarily Retrofitted = 40% Calculation: 109/(321-51)

18 143 109 51

Did not submit engineering evaluation report Submitted engineering evaluation report Retrofitted and removed from inventory Removed from the list due to reconsideration

slide-9
SLIDE 9

9

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Phase II: Mandatory Retrofit

 The new ordinance adopts mandatory seismic

retrofit requirements for soft, weak or open front buildings

 161 buildings will need to comply with Phase 2

 Buildings contain 1,577 residential units

10

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Retrofitting

 Saves lives.  Strengthens critical story to

reduce likelihood of collapse.

 Does not require retrofit actions

above critical story.

 Provides elements to resist lateral

forces imposed on the building by an earthquake.

 Increases possibility people will

be able to get out of the building safely.

 Increases value and lifespan of

the building

11

slide-12
SLIDE 12

Proposed Time Line for Completing Retrofits

12

January 1, 2014 Target date for adoption of the ordinance requiring mandatory retrofits of SWOF buildings 2014-2016 Owners have three years to submit a building permit application for seismic retrofitting 2014-2018 Retrofit shall be completed no later than two years after submittal of application for a building permit

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Retrofit Cost

13

 2009 study by the Berkeley Rent Board of 48 Berkeley

projects showed average cost per unit $3,280

 Estimated from $2,000 to $10,000 per unit in a

San Francisco study

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Engineering Criteria for Retrofit

14

 The draft ordinance provides several options for

engineering criteria for retrofits, including

 The 2012 edition of the International Existing Building

Code (IEBC) Appendix Chapter A-4

 American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) 41-06, Seismic

Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings

 ASCE 41-13 Seismic Evaluation and Rehabilitation of

Existing Buildings

 FEMA P-807 Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-unit

Wood-Frame Buildings with Weak First Stories

 Standards were recommended by the Structural Advisory

Committee, composed of structural engineers.

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Acceleration of Deadlines

15

 Owners will be required to submit building permit

application within 6 months and complete retrofit 18 months after application if:

 Title transferred or building sold to new owner(s)

 Excluding inheritance or transfer to spouse/domestic partner

 Cash-out refinancing  Change of building use or occupancy  Building will be reoccupied after vacancy of 6+ months  Remodel valued at $50,000+ per unit  Building Official identifies building as unsafe

slide-16
SLIDE 16

Hardship Exception

 Extension of deadline

for one year may be granted if the following is submitted and accepted:

 Documentation of why

exception needed

 Written plan for

proceeding with retrofit work

 Including agreement to

seek all available financing

16

slide-17
SLIDE 17

Criteria for Review of Hardship Exception

17

  • No imminent threat to life safety
  • Engineering Evaluation Report

provided as required by Phase I

  • Financing unavailable or to qualify for financing,

low-income tenants’ rent will be raised too much

  • Other exceptional circumstances
slide-18
SLIDE 18

Tenant Protections

18

 Most retrofit work will not require relocation.  Owners must notify tenants if relocation

needed for seismic retrofit at least 90 days in advance.

 Tenant may contact the Rent Stabilization Board

for more information at 981-7368.

 Tenant and owner may mutually agree on

relocation while work is performed.

 Mediation services can help both parties

reach agreement.

slide-19
SLIDE 19

Can Rent be Raised to Pay for Retrofits?

19

 Possibly. Rent Board will decide on a case-by-case basis.

 It is more likely for properties with most apartments

  • ccupied by long-term tenants in place since 1998 or

earlier.

 Less likely for properties with units rented after 1999.

 The Rent Board is willing to consider revising the

regulations once a SWOF ordinance is adopted provided increases are limited, there is a hardship provision and sitting tenants are not displaced.

slide-20
SLIDE 20

Next Steps

20

Goal to have ordinance approved by City Council by December 2013 If necessary, second public meeting after students return from summer vacation Presentations

Disaster & Fire Safety Commission Housing Advisory Commission Rent Stabilization Board Planning Commission

July 25th public meeting

slide-21
SLIDE 21

21

Contact and Q&A

 Contact me with questions and comments:

 Jenny McNulty, Program & Administration Manager

 jmcnulty@ci.berkeley.ca.us, Tel: 510 981-7451  2120 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704

 Earthquake Warning Signs available and will

be mailed to Property Owners

 For more information, go to:

http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/Planning_and_Developme nt/Building_and_Safety/Soft_Story_Program.aspx

 Or go to City of Berkeley’s website and do a search for soft

story

 Q&A