Delivering on Demolition Permit Recommendations

• The Austin City Council has approved two ordinances associated with demolition permit requirements:
  1. At its September 17, 2020, meeting, Council approved an ordinance related to demolition permit requirements (Ordinance No. 20200917-067), which addresses requirements associated with termination of utilities at demolition sites.
  2. At its October 1, 2020, meeting, Council approved an ordinance related to notification requirements prior to demolition (No. 20201001-040), which addresses notifications for adjacent residential structures prior to demolition.
• While these ordinances are now final, the “(Draft) Proposed Edits to Building Criteria Manual,” includes proposed rules to fulfill the requirements set forth in those ordinances. Plumbing, Mechanical, and Electrical permit requirements are included to address safety requirements associated with termination of utilities and removal and disposal of refrigerants and other hazardous materials at the demolition site.

Refrigerant evacuation and disposal has federal requirements.  The mechanical permit will help confirm they are met.

Electrical permits may not be required in all cases as confirmation of the discontinued use of utilities will be confirmed during the plan review stage.

1. Council’s original demolition safety resolution (20171214-066) directed DSD to redesign its permitting process to require, among other goals, that “adequate and appropriate notice” of impending demolition work “is given to interested parties.” During the subsequent feedback period I informed DSD of leading research that considered the problem of neighborhood spread of lead dust-fall resulting from the demolition of older housing (a driving concern of Council’s original resolution.) This study recommends a minimum 400’ radius of notification and specifically warns against limiting notification to just adjacent properties. Despite these recommendations, DSD brought forward its current proposal which limits active notification to adjacent properties.
In the Q&A for the 10/1/20 Council Meeting DSD defended this limited notification as adequate by stating they “followed Portland’s lead of 150 feet” but “opted to use property lots as the measurement scale.” However, Portland’s 150’ radius only applies to the city-mailed component of their notification plan, in addition to which they have a separate requirement for contractor placed hang tags within a 300’ radius of the demo site. While even this distance does not cover the radius that may be impacted by hazardous dust-fall, if DSD truly wants to follow Portland’s lead, it is their hang-tag distance that is relevant. This is especially important because to my knowledge staff is not proposing any city mailed notification similar to Portland and is instead choosing to rely on an opt-in email notification system and web interface (also requiring a citizen to initiate interest) to learn about nearby demolitions.
 Given that dedicated public health professionals have done the work of establishing a minimally adequate notification distance scientifically, I feel our city should not second guess their recommendations. Please change the range of active notification to at least a 400’ minimum radius from the demolition site and introduce a city mailed component to the notification plan so it can be assured that no impacted resident is left in the dark about demolition work which may impact their health.

Resources: Jacobs DE, Cali S, Welch A, et al. Lead and other heavy metals in dust fall from single-family housing demolition. Public Health Rep. 2013;128(6):454-62. Available: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3804089/ Portland BSD Demolition Notification rules. See under heading “Demolition Notification” Available: https://www.portland.gov/bds/residential-permitting/rs-demo-permits#toc-changes-effective-12-1-2020

Thank you for your feedback and reminders.
The proposed edits to the Building Criteria Manual are the necessary changes to implement Ordinance 20201001-040. The ordinance requires notification that is “mailed or placed on properties adjacent to the property where the demolition is to occur”.

The ordinance and the related edits to the Building Criteria Manual reflect the interests of multiple perspectives during the 2018 stakeholder engagement. Broad geographic notification parameters, contractor responsibilities, along with City of Austin administration and management of compliance, all informed DSD’s tiered approach to “adequate and appropriate notice”.

• Adjacent property lots as the measurement scale provides standardization within the Austin City Limits where a 150 ft. radius does not.
• A yard sign on the property to be demolished and doorhangers (or certified letter) delivered to adjacent properties informs immediate neighbors of imminent (5-10 days) demolition activities.

To reach a larger radius, the Demolition Notification Tool allows users to create email notification alerts with parameters to their preference. The alerts are triggered when a demolition application is submitted and when the application is approved.

2.Signage: Please ensure that the yard sign is of a defined size, legibility and coloration that will stand out from typical neighborhood signage and will not be confused with ordinary permit paperwork one might see posted at a job site. I see that DSD has provided an example of the door hanger, but do not see a similar example for the yard sign or see code requirements regulating its appearance. I note that cities such as Portland and Baltimore, both of which have addressed demolition safety in recent years, have detailed standards for this important notification tool.

There is an example of the yard sign as Exhibit B on page 15 of the Demolition Permit Process Report. It contains the same information as the doorhanger (and certified letter). We will consider explicitly describing the dimensions and color of the yard sign within the Building Criteria Manual. 

3. Contractor Affidavit: I appreciate DSD’s including not only a hazardous material compliance statement, but especially for requiring a separate statement relating to worker safety, because in terms of certain hazards in residential demolitions, it may largely be only OSHA rules that apply. In the near future I hope that this portion of the affidavit can be coupled with a city-verified safety training requirement for contractors so there can be reasonable assurance that a capability for compliance actually exists. In the meantime I feel it would be helpful to expand this statement slightly to emphasize individual OSHA standards for lead, asbestos and demolition which would speak directly to the Council’s original concerns. Acknowledgment of these standards could perhaps be listed and initialed in addition to the overall workplace safety statement. This addition would serve to make the contractor more mindful of their specific responsibilities and what they are agreeing to.

Thank you for your feedback.

The Ordinances No. 20201001-040 and No. 20200917-067 along with these proposed edits to the Building Criteria Manual are delivering the recommendations from the Demolition Permit Process Report. A study detailing these impacts was not discussed or recommended in the previous stakeholder process and therefore was not conducted.

This notification requirement is based on the recommendations from the Demolition Permit Process Report and the related ordinance adopted by City Council, which seek to improve the process for all affected residents. The requirement addresses notification so that neighbors can prepare and make accommodations for their own health and safety during proposed demolitions. Thank you for your feedback.

The new notification requirements and proposed rules followed several years of outreach and stakeholder input and address recommendations in the Demolition Permit Process Report. Thank you for your suggestion regarding consolidating forms and processes where possible. We will consider that input in developing the final rules.

• This statement pertaining to “DSD verification that new construction is permitted” in the “(Draft) Proposed edits to Building Criteria Manual” is not a new requirement. Specifically, this is part of the Plan Review process that checks floodplain, historic and other existing requirements that can affect future development options for the property.
• This proposed language would move the requirement to a different section of the manual and assign the responsibility to Development Services instead of WPDRD. The change will not affect the time required to complete the process.