Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

Re: Repair Standards before the next one...

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

FredT5 wrote:

> Its been a healthy discussion on this issue of the need for repair standards
> Rick, Bob, Brian, Tim, Dennis and Tom. Thanks!
>
> As with most policy considerations, we can rarely expect unanimous support for
> any one alternative.
>

Fred:

Given FEMA's new position, I feel California must move to protect itself.  Since
FEMA funding usually includes a State "share", OES may have to either adopt FEMA's
position or bare most of the cost of retrofitting that FEMA denies.  While I am an
extreme supporter of local control of building codes, I feel that a state standard
is necessary and could support it if SEAOC finds it technically adequate provided:

1.  Existing retrofit programs like SF 3403.6 (old 104(f)) are grand fathered, and

2.  Local governments are allowed to deviate from the state standard based on
"local" conditions which could include socioeconomic analyses such as SF did for
to balance its UMB program against loss of low income SRO housing.

My concern is that a mandatory state program may result in little or no
retrofitting if it sets a standard that is economically unachievable and
insufficient strengthening if it sets the standard to low.  The economic criteria
will vary across the state and will also change statewide with changes in the
economy.

I guess my vote falls somewhere between Options 1 and 2.

One area I think that needs more emphasis is  incentives for retrofitting before a
disaster.  This could be tied to some level of improvement in existing buildings
or to changes in occupancy as SF does. To achieve this I would like to see the
Seismic Safety Commission be given code adoption authority over non DSA-OSHPD
occupancies much as the State Fire Marshal has in the fire and life safety area.
Right now no state agency has authority over seismic issues in the UBC for other
than schools and hospitals.  This may become even more necessary as (if)
California adopts the IBC.

Additionally the concept of insurance programs, including the state earthquake
insurance program, to fund voluntary retrofitting now in lieu of paying claims
latter should be examined.  Premium structures should also severely penalize
buildings type of known poor performance.

Bob Bossi, PE