Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Seismic Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Building Inspection Commission adopts AB‑83 to strengthen seismic review for tall buildings
Summary
The commission adopted Administrative Bulletin AB‑83, setting peer‑review and multi‑level seismic evaluation requirements for new tall buildings over 160 feet, after presentations from department staff and engineering groups; commissioners asked for follow‑up on peer‑review oversight and conflict‑of‑interest safeguards.
The Building Inspection Commission voted to adopt Administrative Bulletin AB‑83 on Wednesday, establishing requirements and a three‑step review process for new tall buildings using non‑prescriptive seismic design methods.
Manager Ray Louie presented draft No. 7 of AB‑83, saying the bulletin requires a code‑level evaluation, a service‑level earthquake assessment and an MCE (maximum considered earthquake) evaluation for buildings over 160 feet, and mandates structural peer review panels for projects that use alternate (non‑prescriptive) design approaches.
The bulletin aims to ensure that buildings using advanced or non‑prescriptive design methods provide seismic performance “at least equivalent” to prescriptive code designs. Louie said peer review will add expert scrutiny early in design, and the document includes a three‑step process and a mandate that projects using the non‑prescriptive route undergo independent review.
Commissioner comments and technical testimony focused on how peer reviewers will be selected and paid. The draft states compensation will be borne by the project sponsor; Louie explained that panelists typically contract with sponsors but that the department will retain oversight of scope and selection of reviewers. Commissioners asked for assurances that department review of peer‑review contracts and director discretion in selecting reviewers would prevent conflicts of interest.
Structural engineers who worked on the bulletin and representatives of the engineering community urged adoption. Jim Guthrie, chair of the structural subcommittee, and Doug Hobock (president of the Structural Engineers Association of Northern California) told the commission they supported AB‑83 and commended staff for the collaborative process.
The commission moved to adopt AB‑83, heard public support from the structural community, and approved the bulletin in a recorded procedural vote. The chair said the department would follow up on several issues raised during the discussion — including potential refinements for how peer reviewers are selected and how the bulletin will be updated when the state code is revised.
The bulletin will be revisited as needed after code updates so section references and any substantive changes in the model codes can be reflected. The director and staff said they will return with recommended adjustments when the new code is adopted.
