Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Seismic Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
DBI outlines seismic‑safety work plan; commissioners debate life‑safety vs. post‑quake occupancy standards
Summary
DBI updated commissions on AB 83, a volunteer soft‑story survey and the Community Safety Element; commissioners and public debated whether life‑safety standards for high rises are sufficient or if higher post‑event performance should be a policy goal.
The Department of Building Inspection briefed commissioners on a portfolio of seismic‑safety initiatives, including progress on AB 83 (alternative design guidance for high rises), a volunteer‑led soft‑story building survey, and contributions to a broader Community Safety Element update.
Ray Louie of DBI said the AB 83 task force has completed its draft and submitted it to the SIOG (code board) for review; DBI aims to present related administrative bulletins to the Code Advisory Committee and BIC in the months ahead. Louie also described a soft‑story wood‑frame hazard reduction program: roughly 150 volunteers from local professional groups and DBI staff surveyed portions of the city to identify at‑risk 3‑story, 5‑unit wood‑frame buildings; staff expect to complete a citywide compilation by early summer and to finalize retrofitting requirements by late summer.
Public commenters and commissioners pressed the group on whether the current national code aim of "life safety" for seismic design—i.e., ensuring occupants can exit safely—should be complemented by higher standards that make tall buildings more readily reoccupiable after a major earthquake. Several speakers warned that if tall buildings are designed only for life safety they may be uninhabitable post‑event and could create longer‑term housing shortages.
DBI and planning staff cautioned that code changes are typically developed through long national processes and that raising structural performance targets citywide has tradeoffs (cost, feasibility, state compliance). Commissioners agreed the public needs clearer information on performance expectations; several asked staff to convene a public workshop to explain what "life safety" means in practice and to consider whether standards for special buildings (hospitals, emergency facilities) should remain higher.
Planning staff Sarah Dennis presented an update on the Community Safety Element, noting an expanded focus beyond earthquakes to include pandemics, infrastructure failures and post‑disaster recovery policies (affordability protections, reconstruction ordinances). Staff circulated a working draft for interagency review and said the planning department expects to bring a refined draft to the Planning Commission and City committees for public hearings ahead of adoption.
