Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the 120 Howard Peer Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors and engineers warn DBI that proposed 4‑story addition at 120 Howard could worsen seismic risks; debate over peer‑review process intensifies
Summary
Neighbors, the State Bar and independent engineers told the Building Inspection Commission that a vertical four‑story addition proposed for 120 Howard Street raises serious seismic concerns and that the department's peer‑review process should allow broader scrutiny; DBI and the project's engineers said peer reviewers generally found the addition 'feasible' and that detailed plan check remains ongoing.
Neighbors, tenant groups and outside structural engineers pressed the Building Inspection Commission on Aug. 15 to require a more open or fuller peer review of a proposed four‑story vertical addition to 120 Howard Street, arguing the project could worsen existing seismic deficiencies.
Terry Perrett of engineering firm WJE told the commission the building "exhibits serious seismics deficiencies that will lead to structural failure during a major earthquake," and said the proposed addition will make existing problems worse. Perrett and other independent engineers highlighted short or "sill" columns and said those features can cause column shear and collapse in significant earthquakes.
Representatives of 120 Howard’s project team and the peer review panel said their nonlinear time‑history and performance‑based analyses support the project's feasibility. Michael Gamel, speaking for the project's engineer of record, said the team used "state‑of‑the‑art" analysis and met repeatedly with the peer reviewers to address concerns. DBI staff and peer reviewers said the panel has indicated the addition is structurally feasible for issuing a site permit, but that a thorough plan‑check of final drawings and additional analysis may still be required.
The State Bar of California, which owns 180 Howard Street adjacent to the site, told the commission it was promised participation in the peer review process and that the bar’s engineers were denied adequate access to calculations; the bar’s representative asked the commission to direct DBI to conduct an appropriate peer review prior to any building permit issuance.
Commissioners expressed concern about public expectations and asked the city attorney to advise whether peer‑review panels assembled by DBI must be open to third‑party engineers or the public and whether the panel composition must include three reviewers in all cases. City Attorney staff said they would meet with DBI to vet the legal basis and report back at the next hearing.
DBI staff said the department has long relied on independent peer review panels for technically complex seismic work and defended using outside experts who may not be local. Commissioners generally urged openness—making calculations available for inspection at DBI offices—and said existing appeal avenues in planning and permit processes remain open to parties dissatisfied with outcomes.
The commission made no binding regulatory decision today; members asked staff and the city attorney to return with clarification about peer‑review publicness and panel composition, and to continue to pass comments from neighbors to the peer reviewers for consideration as the plan‑check proceeds.
