Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Commission approves 120 Howard Street addition after clash over peer review and seismic safety
Summary
After heated public comment and competing technical claims over a peer review, the Planning Commission approved a four‑story vertical addition to 120 Howard Street; commissioners said DBI had confirmed the peer review and the motion passed 5–1 with Commissioner Moore dissenting.
The San Francisco Planning Commission voted to approve the proposed vertical addition to 120 Howard Street on July 26, 2007, despite objections from outside engineers who called the building’s peer review process flawed and concerns from nearby residents about seismic risk.
The commission’s action followed public testimony from several engineers and neighbors and a presentation by project sponsors and the structural engineer of record. Terry Perrette of Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates (WJE) told commissioners that WJE and other engineers had been excluded from parts of the peer‑review process and that the peer‑review letter “is grossly inadequate” to address WJE’s outstanding seismic concerns. Neighbors and social‑service operators warned the commission about possible safety impacts on adjacent buildings and clients.
The project sponsor and the structural engineer of record, Michael Gemmel of Nabi Youssef and Associates, disputed those claims in testimony. Gemmel said the team used performance‑based nonlinear dynamic analysis and that “we found the building exceeds the seismic performance requirements for new buildings and requires no seismic retrofit work.” He added that the peer review validated their results and that the Department of Building Inspection (DBI) confirmed the panel’s findings.
Planning staff said DBI’s director had advised the commission that, based on the peer review panel’s opinion, the project complies with code and could proceed. Commissioners debated the limits of the Planning Commission’s technical jurisdiction on seismic matters and whether the commission should defer to DBI for detailed seismic review. Several commissioners said they were persuaded by DBI’s confirmation and the peer review outcome; Commissioner Catherine Moore argued the commission should raise design standards for dated downtown buildings and voiced concern about the building’s architectural compatibility.
On the motion to approve the project, the commission recorded a 5–1 vote, with Commissioner Moore voting against. Commissioners who spoke in favor said the project sponsor had provided the peer review and the DBI director’s statement requested by the commission, and that the Planning Commission does not have in‑house seismic expertise to supplant DBI’s role.
Next steps: the commission approved the findings and conditions presented at the hearing; the project will proceed under the conditions and approvals adopted by the commission.
