Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the 120 Howard Peer Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
State Bar and engineering firm press DBI for transparency on seismic peer review of 120 Howard Street addition
Summary
The State Bar of California and peer reviewer WJE told the Building Inspection Commission they were not included in or given results from DBI's peer review of a proposed multi‑story addition at 120 Howard Street and urged the commission to slow permitting until technical concerns about seismic adequacy are addressed; the commission agreed to agendize a follow‑up report.
Representatives for the State Bar of California and the peer‑review firm WJE urged the Building Inspection Commission on July 18 to examine seismic safety questions and transparency around DBI's peer review for a proposed vertical addition to 120 Howard Street.
"We were never allowed to participate or even advise that peer review meetings were taking place," said Steve Atkinson of LuceForward, who said he represented the State Bar, owner of nearby 180 Howard Street. Atkinson asked the commission to place the matter on a future agenda, provide the State Bar a copy of DBI's peer‑review report, and withhold issuance of the site permit until the concerns were addressed.
Terry Perret of WJE, the firm that prepared a critique the State Bar submitted, told commissioners that WJE concluded the proposed addition would be "seismically deficient" under current San Francisco building code requirements unless the entire existing building is made to comply. Perret listed structural defects WJE found, including short‑column behavior, inadequate stirrup spacing in columns, and strong‑beam/weak‑column tendencies that raise earthquake‑safety concerns.
Sig Freeman of WJE elaborated on dynamic effects and said adding roughly 50% more height concentrates forces at the top of the structure and increases overturning moments. "We respectfully request that the city allow this important seismic safety issue to be heard," he said.
Director Esam Hassanen responded that DBI completed an internal peer review and has been handling the issue through the standard process with the applicant; he said DBI "did take those [public] concerns into account" but would not support inviting another project's engineers to serve on DBI's peer reviewers. He also said he was not sure he had the legal authority to withhold a permit if DBI's requirements have been satisfied, but agreed to meet with parties and provide a report to the commission.
Commissioners asked staff to verify whether WJE and the State Bar's engineers had access to materials presented to DBI peer reviewers and directed the director to meet with the parties and agendize a report for the next meeting.
No formal permit hold was ordered at the meeting; commissioners instead asked staff to investigate the peer‑review process, share relevant materials as permitted by law, and return with a status report.
