DATE: July 19, 2016
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Development Services Director
SUBJECT
Title
Overview of Seismic Retrofits for Soft Story Buildings
End
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation
That the City Council reviews this report and attachments, and provides direction to staff on the creation of a mandatory soft story building retrofit ordinance, particularly related to the policy decisions identified in the Discussion section of this report.
Body
SUMMARY
This report provides a framework for developing new regulations to require seismic upgrades to soft-story buildings in Hayward, with three key policy decisions identified: amortization and pass-through costs; implementation timing; and building standards/objectives. Soft story collapse can lead to loss of life and property, high demand for emergency shelter during earthquake response, and the permanent depletion of Hayward’s affordable and multi-family housing stock in the long term. Some of Hayward’s most vulnerable residents are renters who live in these buildings, including low-income families, young people, and the elderly. ABAG has developed and released this past March a Policy Guidance document for Soft Story Retrofit Program Development <http://resilience.abag.ca.gov/wp-content/documents/Soft%20Story%20Report_web%20version_v2.pdf>, and this report uses information from that document.
Such efforts will not only save lives and property, but will improve the ability to recover from an earthquake that is predicted to occur in the future. In addition, such efforts to respond to the issue of earthquake vulnerability in our community fulfills the Council’s “Safe” priority, is consistent with General Plan Policy Haz-2.9 (Seismic Retrofits), and is a top mitigation strategy in the existing and draft new Local Hazard Mitigation Plan for the City of Hayward.
BACKGROUND
The City of Hayward is at high risk of experiencing a major earthquake in the next 30 years. As a major population center, the City is home to many so-called “soft story” buildings. These buildings are generally multi-family apartment buildings or condos with large open spaces on the ground floor generally containing garages, or tuck-under parking. The lack of structural walls on the ground floor of soft story buildings coupled with the highly structured second floor puts these buildings at high risk of collapse in an earthquake. San Francisco, Oakland, Alameda, Berkeley, Fremont, and Los Angeles have already mandated or are taking action to mandate seismic retrofits for soft story buildings. Financing tools are available to property owners to assist in paying for retrofits, and costs of retrofitting may be passed on to or shared with tenants (see later discussion).
The Hayward Fault lies along the base of our eastern foothills. According to the most recent Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, there is a 22.3% likelihood that a magnitude 6.8 earthquake will occur on the Hayward Fault within the next 30 years. The 1868 Hayward earthquake, estimated to be a magnitude 6.8 temblor with a maximum horizontal displacement of about six feet, destroyed our downtown and was known as “The Great Earthquake” until San Francisco’s 1906 earthquake surpassed it in magnitude, economic damage and loss of life. In the 1994 Northridge earthquake involving a magnitude 6.7 incident that occurred in a densely populated area of Los Angeles, the majority of damage and fatalities were the result of soft story building collapse. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) project that an earthquake along the Hayward Fault will result in the loss of over 100,000 multi-family wood-frame buildings throughout the Bay Area.
For the purposes of this recommended retrofit program, soft story buildings are defined as they are in many other programs: pre-1978 wood frame buildings with five or more residential units, and two or more stories, that have large open spaces or tuck-under parking on the ground floor. Initial estimates indicate that approximately 900 buildings in Hayward may be soft story buildings (see Table 1 below). These 900 buildings contain over 8,000 separate housing units comprising almost 20% of our total housing stock, housing an estimated 21,000 residents. History has shown that following a major earthquake, multi-family housing types are the last to be rebuilt and reoccupied, and that many multi-family buildings and affordable housing units are never replaced. People displaced by the event require immediate emergency shelter - sometimes for months - and often have nowhere else to live in the community, leading them to permanently relocate or fall into homelessness following a disaster.
Table 1: Estimated Soft Story Buildings in Hayward Compared to Other Bay Area Cities
|
City |
Estimated Soft Story Buildings1 |
Estimated Effected Units |
Total Housing Units (2010 Census) |
% of Housing Stock That is Soft Story2 |
|
Hayward |
9033 |
8,522 |
45,922 |
18.6% |
|
Alameda |
98 |
3,000 |
32,351 |
8.1% |
|
Berkeley |
323 |
5,000 |
49,454 |
10.1% |
|
Oakland |
1,380 |
24,273 |
169,710 |
14.3% |
|
San Francisco |
6,371 |
N/A |
346,527 |
8.4% |
San Francisco used 1978 as a cut-off date for their ordinance. Oakland selected 1991 and Berkeley 1995, to capture buildings that were permitted prior to improvements made to seismic standards in the wake of Loma Prieta. Alameda chose 1985, for reasons unknown at this time.
2 Note the percentages in this column are influenced by how soft story buildings are defined. The year 1978 is often used because that is the year most cities adopted the 1976 construction codes, which significantly increased construction standards in response to the 1971 San Fernando earthquake.
3 This is an initially estimated number of soft story buildings in Hayward based on the Alameda County Assessor’s database (see Attachment I). In other cities, approximately 50% of buildings were eliminated from initial estimates with further analysis.
Hayward has long been a leader in retrofitting buildings at risk of damage or collapse during an earthquake, including retrofitting or demolishing all unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings according to state law and retrofitting or demolishing tilt-up concrete buildings.
What Are the Benefits of Retrofitting? - Retrofitting soft story buildings can prevent loss of life, stabilize community character, and protect affordable housing stock from damage in an earthquake. Soft story buildings are at high risk of collapse in an earthquake, rendering them unusable for months or years following a disaster. Multi-family housing is the least likely and the last building type to be rebuilt during recovery from an earthquake. Collapsed or heavily damaged buildings contribute to community blight, hinder economic recovery, and decrease housing stock - sometimes permanently.
The loss of multi-family housing stock can permanently displace renters. Lower income or young adult residents often live in older soft story buildings, and lack the resources to remain elsewhere in the City if their homes are permanently or significantly damaged. These residents will also be more dependent on outside resources during the disaster and in the recovery period following the disaster. Preventing damage to their homes allows residents to shelter in place following a disaster and to remain in their homes as the City recovers.
Most importantly, retrofitting soft story buildings can save lives. Preventing building collapse prevents resident casualties, and can allow building occupants to safely evacuate following the initial earthquake. Both building owners and tenants benefit from retrofits. The lives of soft story building occupants are protected by the decreased risk of collapse, and owners have the opportunity to protect their investment from possibly irreparable damage.
What do Retrofits Entail? - The risk of soft story building damage and collapse in an earthquake can be reduced by requiring that vulnerable buildings be retrofitted. Strengthening the first floor of at-risk buildings by reinforcing supporting walls and columns reduces side-to-side motion in an earthquake and helps the structure remain intact. For this retrofit program, staff is recommending that the City target pre-1978 wood frame buildings with five or more residential units, and two or more stories, that have large open spaces or tuck-under parking on the ground floor.
Since most soft story buildings in the City will have unique floorplans, be constructed of different building materials, and have differing features contributing to their risk of collapse in an earthquake, there is no single process or plan for completing retrofits to improve seismic safety. In general, retrofitting a potential soft story building entails the following steps:
• Assessing the building to determine if a retrofit is necessary and identifying appropriate mitigation measures (performed by a certified structural engineer or licensed architect)
• Developing plans for construction (performed by a certified structural engineer or architect) and obtaining a construction permit
• Hiring a licensed contractor to complete construction
• Passing a City inspection and receiving a certificate of final completion
Most collapse prevention retrofits can be completed without displacement of tenants because most of the work occurs on the ground floor level. However, some retrofits may require tenants to relocate during retrofitting. This is almost a certainty in the case of buildings with first-floor commercial tenants, though staff estimates that there are very few mixed-use soft story buildings with more than four living units in Hayward. Also, structural retrofits result in minimal, if any, parking loss on the ground floor of buildings with first floor parking.
Building owners would be given a deadline by which to complete each step of the retrofit process. In other cities with soft story retrofit ordinances, compliance deadlines for typical soft story buildings give owners twenty-four months from the date of notice to acquire construction permits, and an additional twenty-four months to complete construction. Staff has put together an example timeline (see Attachment II) with similar deadlines. Buildings not in compliance with the retrofit ordinance by the program deadlines would be deemed public nuisances and subject to enforcement actions, including fines and penalties.
What Financing Options Are Available? - One of the most important factors in determining success and the level of participation in a soft story retrofit program is financing options available to property owners.
• Development Services Department staff have submitted a Notice of Interest for $3 million in FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant Program funding to assist building owners with completing retrofits. If awarded such a grant, the City would need to determine how to best allocate these funds, since the cost of retrofitting can vary significantly from building to building.
• The City’s Housing Rehabilitation Program has allocated $500,000 of HUD Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) special revenue funds for single-family home retrofits (generally referred to as “bolt and brace” upgrades), and staff will explore the possibility of additional special funding to assist moderate- and low-income multi-family soft story building owners or tenants with the cost of engineering evaluations and retrofits without adversely impacting the program’s primary goal of enabling Hayward residents with mobility and health issues to continue living independently in their homes.
• Property-Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) <http://www.hayward-ca.gov/services/city-services/pace-financing-energy-and-water-upgrades> financing was approved by Council in July 2015, and is available to all building owners for seismic retrofitting (as well as energy efficiency improvements). PACE offers long-term, low-interest loans (starting at 4.63%) through various entities based on property valuation to be used for energy efficiency and seismic retrofitting. Repayment is administered as an addition to property tax bills by the Alameda County Assessor, and when the property is sold, the loan remains with it.
• In addition to financial incentives, the City can offer expedited permit processing and/or reduced permit fees or other policy-based incentives to reduce impacts to building owners.
Staff will continue to explore other financing options and funding sources.
DISCUSSION
Allocation and Amortization of Retrofit Costs - Cost allocation and amortization is the major policy question that arises from multi-family seismic retrofit programs.
In Hayward, rent controlled units are regulated under the Residential Rent Stabilization Ordinance, which applies to approximately 8,000 pre-1978 properties. The Residential Rent Stabilization Ordinance does not cap the amount of capital improvements costs that may be passed on to tenants by building owners. Under the Residential Rent Stabilization Ordinance, seismic retrofits are not considered capital improvements because they do not materially increase the value of the property. Thus, the cost of retrofits could only be passed on through the 5-10% annual increase in rent allowed by the ordinance. Answers to frequently asked questions on the Residential Rent Stabilization Ordinance are available on the City website at: <http://www.cityofhayward-ca.gov/CITY-GOVERNMENT/DEPARTMENTS/CITY-ATTORNEY/documents/2015/RRSO%20FAQ.pdf>.
Rental properties not covered by the Residential Rent Stabilization Ordinance - approximately 16,000 rental units - are not subject to restrictions on rent increases, and would not have pre-existing legislation guiding the pass-through of capital improvement costs.
Cities that have implemented soft story retrofit programs have required landlords and tenants to share the cost burden equally, capped the amount of annual or cumulative rent increase, or put no restrictions on the pass-through (see Table 2 on the next page). The rationale behind passing the entirety of retrofit costs on to tenants is twofold. First, seismic retrofits do not materially increase the value of the property for the owner. Secondly, tenants directly benefit from the retrofits that may save their lives and prevent displacement from their homes.
Amortizing the cost of the retrofits over the useful life of the retrofit - considered to be thirty years - or some other extended length of time can mitigate the financial impact on tenants and ensure that current occupants - the direct beneficiaries of the retrofits - are proportionally paying for the protection the retrofits provide them for the duration of their residence in the building.
Table 2: Soft Story Retrofit-Related Capital Improvements Pass-Through Policies
|
City |
Rent Control? |
Soft Story Pass-Through |
|
Berkeley* |
Yes |
100% pass-through via increase in rent ceiling by 1.042% of the documented cost of the improvement attributable to that unit per rent control. Subject to Rent Board review. |
|
San Francisco |
Yes |
100% pass-through, with rent increases subject to an annual limitation of $30.00 or 10% of the tenant's petition base rent, whichever is greater. The amortization period for the pass-through is 20 years. |
|
Alameda |
No |
No restriction or requirement. |
|
Fremont |
No |
No restriction or requirement. |
|
Oakland |
Yes |
Undetermined |
|
Los Angeles |
Yes |
50% over 10 years, capped at $38 per month in total rent increase. |
*A study conducted in 2010/2011 in Berkeley found that all but approximately 20% of landlords could afford to cover the cost of retrofitting their buildings out-of-pocket. Since then, the availability of PACE financing for seismic retrofits has broadened the availability of long-term financing to nearly all property owners.
If the soft story retrofit program were implemented in Hayward today, 100% of the cost of retrofits could be allocated/passed on to tenants amortized over the useful life of the retrofit. Based on a range of retrofit costs collected from experiences in other cities, a tenant’s monthly rent would increase by between $6.25 and $50.00, depending on the cost of the retrofit. For a twenty-year amortization period based on the average retrofit cost per unit, a tenant’s monthly rent would increase by $13.75. Table 3 below provides examples of what rent increase amounts would be over various amortization periods for low, average, and high retrofit costs.
Table 3: Estimated Increases in Monthly Rent for a Range of Soft Story Retrofit Costs and Amortization Periods
|
|
Retrofit Cost per Unit |
|
Amortization Period (years) |
$1,500 (low) |
$3,300 (average) |
$12,000 (high) |
|
|
Increase in Monthly Rent (nearest whole dollar) |
|
5 |
$25 |
$55 |
$200 |
|
10 |
$13 |
$28 |
$100 |
|
20 |
$6 |
$14 |
$50 |
|
30 |
$4 |
$9 |
$33 |
Tenants in buildings that require retrofits at the upper end of the cost range would see greater increases in monthly rent than those at the lower end or mid-range. In order to prevent astronomical rent increases, San Francisco and Los Angeles have placed a limit on the total dollar amount of the increase. Doing so limits the impact on tenants and allows them to plan for retrofit-related rent increases.
Also, staff has had recent discussions with some of Hayward’s rental property owners, who have indicated that challenges to owners will be primarily related to the costs for retrofits for units subject to our Rental Stabilization Ordinance, where rent revenues are sometimes insufficient to even cover basic maintenance costs. Some of those owners interviewed also indicated that tenants in market rate units likely cannot afford, and/or won’t be willing, to pay much more than they already do, even at a minimal pass-through rate. However, the owners indicated that rental income in the current real estate market should be sufficient to cover the costs of the necessary retrofits, which should incentivize owners to do retrofits now or in the near future.
Options and Staff Recommendation: Based on conversations with a few rental property owners in Hayward, staff recommends the options below for consideration by Council. Staff recommends Option 2, which would let the market determine the rate of pass-through for market rate units and provide an option for owners to recoup their costs in rent-controlled units.
1. Owners Bear Costs: No pass-through allowed.
It is owners’ responsibility to maintain buildings to current safety standards and the current lending and rental markets are favorable. Paying for retrofits will be part of the cost of being a rental property owner, though tenants are the ones who benefit most from increased building safety.
2. Balanced: Controlled pass-through on rent controlled units only, capped and amortized over thirty years, as long as the unit remains rent controlled, with no pass-through allowed on market rate units.
Owners of rent controlled units will be able to recoup costs within an established regulatory framework; the City Attorney’s Office, who administers the Rent Stabilization Ordinance, would be responsible for enforcing. Owners of market rate units would have to absorb the costs to retrofit, and should be able to do so in the current market.
3. Full pass-through: Owners can pass through costs of retrofit as capital improvements (uncapped) under rent controlled units, and can pass through on market-rate units - both as much as the market will bear.
Tenants get the benefits of retrofits, which can be expensive, and the market will determine what landlords can actually charge. On the other hand, this could be very onerous on tenants - particularly in Hayward, where tenants often work out of the area at blue collar jobs, do not tend to have long tenure at different buildings, and may be barely making ends meet.
Implementation Phases - Some soft story retrofits may be more complicated or take more time than others. Additionally, some building owners may find it difficult to secure funding for a retrofit. In response to these considerations, several cities have implemented their retrofit programs in phases to grant complicated retrofits and building owners claiming hardship more time to comply. While extended timelines can make compliance simpler for some building owners, they also result in longer periods of time during which residents live in unsafe buildings.
The four Bay Area cities with fully implemented retrofit programs structured their implementation as described below.
Berkeley - Berkeley allowed building owners claiming financial hardship to submit a letter of appeal to be granted a hardship extension of one (1) additional year.
Alameda - No phased or tiered implementation.
Fremont - In Fremont, compliance tiers expedited retrofits for larger or high-occupancy buildings, and allowed more time for smaller buildings. Additionally, owners could apply to the City for a financial hardship extension.
Phase 1: Apartment buildings with more than ten units, or more than two (2) stories.
Phase 2: Apartment buildings with ten or fewer units, and fewer than three (3) stories.
San Francisco - San Francisco’s program staggered the compliance deadlines for soft story buildings based on use, occupancy, and complicating factors. Each tier was granted an additional year beyond the prior tier to submit permit applications and acquire a certificate of final completion.
Phase 1: Places of assembly, educational facilities, or residential care facilities.
Phase 2: Buildings with 15 or more units.
Phase 3: All buildings not in phases 1, 2, or 4.
Phase 4: Buildings with ground floor tenants, or that are located in liquefaction zones.
The City of Los Angeles, in the initial stages of program implementation, did not create compliance tiers and is requiring that all retrofits be completed in the same time frame. While some of the programs listed above were among the first soft story retrofit programs in the United States, growing familiarity with the dangers of soft story buildings and the proliferation of mandatory soft story building retrofit programs have made more building owners and tenants aware of the need for retrofits. Also, the recent availability of PACE financing for seismic retrofits has made funding more accessible to building owners. Some Hayward building owners have already voluntarily retrofitted their soft story buildings in the course of completing other major renovations.
Staff Recommendation: As shown in Attachment II, staff recommends a single implementation phase, with compliance deadlines for typical soft story buildings as follows: twenty-four months from the date of notice to acquire construction permits, and an additional thirty-six months to complete construction. Delays in retrofits leave thousands of residents at risk in an earthquake. The structural and functional rationales for delayed implementation - including ground floor commercial tenants and liquefaction zones - are not applicable to Hayward. Financial hardship is not anticipated to be a major problem with the availability of PACE financing, and possible grant funding from federal programs.
Retrofit Performance Objectives - In order to develop guidelines for engineers and architects, the City must select a performance objective for building retrofits. Performance objectives are policy decisions that determine the desired outcomes for retrofitted buildings following an earthquake. The selected performance objective will inform engineering decisions about the amount of back-and-forth movement retrofitted buildings will be designed to withstand in an earthquake, which, as directed by Council, will be included in the final ordinance outlining the requirements for retrofit of soft story buildings. All retrofits will be required to be designed to perform to selected objectives in the event of a magnitude 7.2 earthquake - the highest magnitude earthquake USGS scientists believe to be possible on the Hayward Fault.
Possible performance objectives for soft story retrofits, their descriptions (in order of increasing costs), and the cities that have selected each as their minimum retrofit standard are listed below in Table 4.
Table 4: Retrofit Objectives & Minimum Standard Selections*
|
Objective |
Description |
Cities |
Rough Cost Estimate** |
|
Scheme 1: Reduced Risk |
Designed to prevent collapse during an earthquake to facilitate evacuation and prevent loss of life. While this standard prevents collapse and reduces the likelihood of harm to those inside the building during an earthquake, the building might not be repairable or fit for occupancy after an earthquake. Housing could be permanently lost. |
Alameda Fremont Berkeley |
Low |
$1,500 per unit |
|
|
|
|
Avg. |
$3,300 per unit |
|
|
|
|
High |
$12,000 per unit |
|
Scheme 2: Life Safety |
Designed to fully prevent loss of life and avoid demolition and permanent loss of buildings following an earthquake. New construction is generally built to this standard. Structures may sustain significant damage requiring major repairs, during which time residents would not be able to remain in their units. These repairs could take several years, depending on the extent of earthquake damage. Housing would likely not be lost, but residents may be displaced for extended periods of time, if not permanently. |
|
Low |
$1,800 per unit |
|
|
|
|
Avg. |
$5,300 per unit |
|
|
|
|
High |
$20,000 per unit |
|
Scheme 3: Habitability |
Designed to maintain building performance to a standard intended to allow immediate occupancy after the earthquake and so that much of the damage sustained is repairable while the building is occupied. Thought the building will most likely sustain damage to nonstructural elements and some areas may be off-limits following an earthquake, the structure would be expected to withstand strong aftershocks. This performance objective would most reliably allow residents to shelter in place following an earthquake and prevent long-term displacement. |
San Francisco (SF’s ordinance does not specify a standard, but indicates owners should work with engineers to design and retrofit; however, a review of permits issued in SF indicate this standard is typically being met.) |
Low*** |
$1,800 per unit |
|
|
|
|
Avg.*** |
$4,700 per unit |
|
|
|
|
High*** |
$17,000 per unit |
*From Applied Technology Council Document ATC 5203, The Road to Earthquake Resilience in San Francisco: Earthquake Safety for Soft-Story Buildings (<http://sfgov.org/esip/sites/default/files/FileCenter/Documents/9756-atc523.pdf>) and ABAG Resilience Policy Guidance Document: Soft Story Retrofit Program Development (<http://resilience.abag.ca.gov/wp-content/documents/Soft%20Story%20Report_web%20version_v2.pdf>)
**Estimates based on retrofit costs reported for the City of Berkeley and cost estimates of different performance objectives created by the Applied Technology Council. Costs can vary based on construction costs, the extent of retrofits required, and other variables. Staff will continue to seek out additional information regarding soft story retrofit costs.
*** Typically, higher levels of retrofit performance result in higher retrofit costs. The most common method of achieving a habitability performance objective in soft story buildings is slightly less expensive than the most common method of achieving a life safety performance standard. However, retrofit design to the specified performance objective may vary by building, requiring more expensive retrofits than estimated here. Staff will continue to seek out additional information regarding soft story retrofit costs.
The actual performance of retrofitted structures in an earthquake depends on many factors, including proximity to the fault line, soil type, the weight of higher floors and roofing, the quality of existing construction, and the quality of the retrofit construction. As such, retrofitted buildings will be designed to meet performance objectives and are expected to do so, but performance is not guaranteed. In all cities, set performance objectives are only the minimum standard for soft story retrofits. Building owners are free to retrofit their buildings to a higher standard.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that soft story buildings be retrofitted to a “Habitability” objective, which is only allowing most residents to shelter in place following an earthquake. This objective allows property owners to invest in the integrity of their buildings and protect their investments against a major earthquake.
In summary, staff is asking for feedback and direction from Council on three policy questions:
1) Allocation and Amortization of Retrofit Costs - How much cost should be allowed to be passed on to tenants?
Staff is recommending a balanced approach where costs would be allowed to be passed through without limitation to tenants in market rate units, but controlled for affordable units subject to the City’s rent stabilization regulations.
2) Implementation Schedule - When should owners be required to have their buildings analyzed and retrofitted?
Staff is recommending that all buildings subject to the regulations be required to comply in an initial, single phase, with owners to be given two years to have their buildings assessed and another three years to have the retrofit work completed.
3) Retrofit Performance Objectives - To what building standard should owners be required to have their buildings upgraded/retrofitted?
Staff is recommending a “habitability” standard/objective, which increases likelihood of buildings surviving an earthquake and being able to be re-occupied to allow tenants to shelter in place.
ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The immediate impact from a major earthquake on the Hayward Fault would be the probable loss of several thousand housing units, creating a tremendous need for short-term housing and support among a portion of our population likely to have limited resources. The longer term effects include permanent loss of affordable housing units, and multi-family housing stock generally, causing an exodus of workers from the City of Hayward, blight, and a prolonged recovery from the disaster.
FISCAL IMPACTS
Fiscal impacts of a soft story retrofit program include staff time and plan check costs. Additionally, the project would require the one-time cost of hiring an engineer to develop amendments and guidelines for the implementation of retrofit standards, not anticipated to exceed $20,000. Building permit fees would cover the cost of reviewing permit applications and conducting inspections.
In the event of a major earthquake, retrofitting soft story buildings could prevent the permanent loss of housing, population, and property tax income, as well as reduce the need for the City to provide shelter and temporary housing to displaced residents.
PUBLIC CONTACT
Hayward community members were invited to participate in a poll regarding their opinions on natural hazards and hazard mitigation as part of the 2015 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan update. A poll question on soft story building retrofits was posed following a brief description of soft story buildings. Respondents were overwhelmingly in favor of a soft story retrofit requirement, as displayed in Table 5 below.
Table 5: Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Poll Results - Soft Story Buildings
|
Oakland, San Francisco, Berkeley, and Alameda have all required owners of confirmed soft story structures to reinforce their buildings so that they are safer in an earthquake. Do you think the City of Hayward should consider a similar requirement? |
Yes |
91.76% |
|
|
No |
8.24% |
In terms of outreach related to developing soft-story regulations and as mentioned previously, staff has recently met with a few multi-family property owners, as well as the Executive Director of the Rental Housing Association, to discuss the benefits and challenges of seismically retrofitting soft story buildings. Some owners indicated that they have voluntarily retrofitted a number of multi-family properties with soft stories. On July 18, staff plans to meet with approximately twenty-five community members comprised mainly of property owners, but also including board members from the Residential Rental Housing Association to discuss the proposed program in depth. During that meeting, staff will provide an overview of soft-story buildings, outline how retrofits are done and why they’re needed, and receive feedback regarding what property owners would want in a retrofit program designed to protect everyone.
Staff will continue to conduct outreach and engage the rental housing community, including tenants, up until a proposed ordinance is submitted to the City Council for consideration.
NEXT STEPS
Staff will incorporate guidance and suggestions from the City Council, conduct further outreach with property owners of soft-story buildings, and develop a draft soft story building seismic retrofit ordinance to present to the Planning Commission and City Council, anticipated for this fall.
Prepared by: Laurel James, Management Fellow
Reviewed by: Stacey Bristow, Deputy Director of Development Services
Fred Cullum, Building Official
Staff contact
Recommended by: David Rizk, AICP, Development Services Director
end
Approved by:
Fran David, City Manager
Attachments:
|
Attachment I Attachment II |
Map of Potential Soft-Story Buildings Example Soft Story Retrofit Program Timeline |