MEETING MINUTES SEISMIC RISK MANAGEMENT ADVISORY GROUP

Transcription

1 Attendance By: Peter Pirnejad (PP), Development Services Director COPA George Hoyt (GH), Chief Building Official COPA James Henrikson (JH), Fire Marshal COPA Bud Starmer (Bud S), Building Inspection Supervisor COPA Nathan Rainey (NR), OES Coordinator COPA Jeremy Dennis (JD) Planning Manager COPA Blake Salzman (Blake S), Contract Plans Examiner COPA Bret Lizundia (BL), Principal, Rutherford+Chekene (R+C) Sharyl Rabinovici (SR), sub consultant to R+C Ahmad Wani, Community Al Dorsky, Community Anil Babbar, Tenants Annette Glanckopf, Community Chris Rojahn, Engineers Dana Brechwald (DB), Policy Doug Hohbach, Engineers Judy Kleinberg (JK), Business Interests Ken Hayes, Architects Teresa Marks, Community Tim Steele, Developers Tom Holzer, Policy City Staff Unable to Attend: Elena Lee, Senior Planner COPA Hung Nguyen, Project Engineer COPA Minutes Prepared By: ITEMS Introduction Blake Salzman, Contract Plans Examiner General: DISCUSSION Introduction by GH: The focus of this meeting is to present information developed since the last meeting. The Advisory Group will be given an update on information posted to the Advisory Group webpage, recent activities and what items are coming up that the advisory group should be aware of. Goals for Meeting: BL reviewed the meeting agenda with the group. Goals for the meeting are to review the project progress, re-review and reiterate project goals and the role of the Advisory Group, clarify questions 1 Seismic Risk Management Project City of Palo Alto

2 regarding Palo Alto s seismic hazard ordinance requirements, present information from the legislative and local government best practices reports, discuss inventory findings and plans for the upcoming sidewalk surveys, and discuss the timing for the next Advisory Group meeting. GH will walk through the COPA website, and instruct the group on how to find key documents related to the Advisory Group and the project in whole. The website address is: Have an open discussion on whether or not anyone in the group has any missing best practices that they think should be included in the project. Discuss some of the details regarding the inventory and loss estimate tasks and review the intended outcome. Have a clear picture of the purpose of the Advisory Group. PowerPoint Presentation: A copy of the presentation slides shown during the meeting will be posted on the Advisory Group webpage. Review of Minutes: The previous meeting minutes were reviewed, and the group had no additional comments regarding these minutes. Introduction of Group Members from COPA: GH introduced James Henrikson, Fire Marshal, and Jeremy Dennis, Planning Manager, to the group as they were unable to attend the previous Advisory Group meeting. Advisory Group Webpage GH led the group in a demonstration of how the Advisory Group webpage works. The webpage can be found here: The files on the webpage create a timeline of documents that have been created in relation to this project, with the newest documents shown at the top. The history of documents was discussed as well as the intent for each step. At the last meeting, the group asked for more information about current COPA regulations related to the Seismic Hazards Identification program. The Ordinance can be found under the link 2 Seismic Risk Management Project City of Palo Alto

3 CPAMC Seismic Hazards Identification Program. Information about incentives handled by the planning department can also be found on the webpage. During the discussion regarding the review of the Advisory Group Webpage, the topic of current regulations was briefly discussed. Questions regarding whether or not the current incentives given by the municipal code applied to only the CD district was asked by the group. It was clarified that the floor area bonus was the only aspect that was applied to the CD District. Program Timeline The Floor Area Bonus program was discussed, including the geographic limits in the City where that incentive can be used.ag member Ken Hayes noted that the program extended to the areas between Forest and Addison as well. The timeline and purpose of the Advisory Group was discussed. A general timeline for the project as well as the Advisory Group meetings was shared by BL. The loss estimate without retrofits to the building stock is expected to take place by the next meeting, and loss estimate with retrofit to selected building types will take place following Advisory Group Meeting #3. Presentation of findings to the Policy and Services Committee is currently planned between Advisory Group Meetings 5 and 6. The project is expected to end in October, with the recommendations to Council taking place in the summer. PP wanted to clarify that potential incentives would not be decided on as part of this program, but rather recommendations would be made with how to move forward after the end of this project. BL confirmed that incentives may be considered during the advisory group meetings and reflected in the recommendations made on the issues and project features that the Advisory Group and project team believe are beneficial for the City to consider. SR stated that a forthcoming Best Practices report would cover types of incentives that other cities have used. Best Practices SR began the discussion about state legislation and local programs 3 Seismic Risk Management Project City of Palo Alto

4 by describing some of the key entities that govern earthquake mitigation plans and policies in California. She also reviewed some of the major pieces of legislation that COPA is obliged to comply with and that govern how mitigation work can be done..sr found that existing laws approach seismic risk management in different ways, including: Building code provisions; Use-specific, such as schools and hospitals; Building type specific requirements, the most prominent of which is the state s unreinforced masonry law; Planning and zoning rules; and, Financing and taxation policies. For example, property taxes cannot be increased because of added value due to a seismic upgrade. SR then presented a framework for looking at similarities and differences between local programs. Cities can be categorized as Inactive, Learning, or Leading depending on how many policy measures they have in place, how many building types are addressed, and how successful those programs have been. Leading cities tend to have mandates in place, devote more resources to managing and enforcing their programs, and address more than one building type. Learner cities are investing in information gathering, risk assessment, and community engagement to lay the groundwork for future policy efforts. PP asked where Palo Alto currently falls on the Learning/Leading scale. SR replied that Palo Alto is a Leader for URMs and is now a Learner with regards to other building types and through this project is being set up well to become a Leading city. PP asked how many other cities are using a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) bonus in their seismic risk management programs and what the frequency of retrofitting in those cities has been compared with the time since the original passage of the ordinance. SR said that FAR programs for seismic work are rare and there is no effectiveness data available. The Planning Department may have data available that could be used to analyze its effectiveness in Palo Alto. The group questioned how Palo Alto s voluntary system or other 4 Seismic Risk Management Project City of Palo Alto

5 development incentives would work during future time periods experiencing a less robust economy. This should be considered for the long-term success of the project. DB brought up the concern that she has found that incentivebased programs tend to reward those that would complete the project regardless of the incentive, but projects that are more financially challenged have difficulty regardless of the incentive. She also noted that it is important to have phased approaches to reduce difficulties such as owners arranging financing or tenant displacement. JK asked how can program effectiveness be measured and what has been the experience with displaced residents during retrofitting. SR stated that a few cities have data but most information we have about impacts on owners and tenants are anecdotal. Inventory BL discussed the amount of structures that will be a part of the study based on detailed review work R+C has been conducting. Sidewalk surveys are expected to start on February 4 th with Palo Alto Building and Fire staff and on February 11 th with Stanford structural engineering graduate students. The group was shown the model of seismic events that would be used for the purpose of determining losses. BL explained how losses would be defined. The loss will be calculated as the percentage of damage multiplied by the replacement cost of the building. He noted that deaths and casualties are not included in the scope of the loss estimate. BL noted that the Hazus methodology has default values for replacement costs based on occupancy type and geographic location using RS Means values. He noted that the values are lower than typical construction costs on the Peninsula. The Advisory Group concurred that the replacement cost values presented are noticeably lower than those in the current market. There was general interest in investigating revised values specific to Palo Alto, perhaps by using a multiplier on the default values. 5 Seismic Risk Management Project City of Palo Alto

6 This may be addressed using a Technical Advisory Committee. Several Advisory Group members expressed interest in being part of such a committee. It was agreed that a future would be sent to the group to organize a side discussion of this specific issue. Action Items The inventory including loss estimate without retrofit is expected to be completed by the next AG meeting. The legislative review and local government best practice reports will be distributed via the webpage prior to the next AG meeting. The group is open to discussion or research regarding the cost of replacement construction to help in the loss estimates. Timing and agenda for the next meeting was discussed and the goal is to have the meeting mid-march, mid-week, and in the afternoon.. 6 Seismic Risk Management Project City of Palo Alto