WSSPC Awards in Excellence 1997

Award Recipients

Awarded Category: Excellence in Innovations

Fax Number (415) 558-6161
 

1.	How long has this program been operational? Month: April Year: 1996
2.	What are the major purposes of this program? What problem(s) or issue(s) was it designed to address?
	To allow building owners to pre-certify private post-earthquake inspection of their buildings by qualified licensed engineers and architects upon Department of Building Inspection (DBI) acceptance of a written inspection program. To assure immediate response by trained professionals assigned to specific buildings. To authorize approved engineers to post buildings with official City placards in accordance with the ATC 20 Procedures for Postearthquake Safety Evaluation of Buildings, Detailed Evaluation Procedure. The program mitigates the lack of sufficient DBI staff to rapidly inspect buildings for occupancy, and the limitations of mutual aid inspections performed by volunteers unfamiliar with structural systems of specific buildings.
3.	Describe the specific activities and operations of the program.
	Emergency inspector qualifications and written inspection program are reviewed by a panel comprised of DBI staff and local members of the Structural Engineers Association, American Institute of Architects, and Building Owners and Managers Association. If accepted, the emergency inspectors are deputized by DBI and given official posting placards with which to post the building Inspected, Restricted Use, or Unsafe, as appropriate. The approved emergency inspection program is triggered by an earthquake or other declared emergency, and inspection reports are reported to DBI.
4.	Does this program take a new and creative approach or method? If yes, please describe.
	This type of precertifcation is a new approach, with the partnership of various professional organizations (engineers, architects, building owners/managers) and City staff in the development and ongoing review process. Evaluation of inspection plans by a panel including local structural engineers provides peer review and supplements limited building inspection staff for this program.
5.	What were the program’s start-up costs and source(s) of funding?
	Budget Source: Not budgeted separately - program included in development of Department Emergency Operations Plan.
	What are the program’s annual operational costs and source(s) of funding?
	Estimate $7,000 Budget Source: Department Operations Budget
6.	How many employees (full-time equivalent) work(ed) with this program? Approx. 10% of FTE
7.	To the best of your knowledge, did this program originate in your state? Yes
	Are you aware of similar programs in other states? No
8.	Has the program been fully implemented? No
	If No, what actions remain to be taken?
	Database of buildings in the program needs to be interfaced with property profile and inspection request records for electronic retrieval (hard copy backup system is in place). Program is not to be fully implemented until there is an earthquake or other major disaster (hopefully never).
9.	Is there evidence that the program has been effective in achieving its stated purpose(s)? Briefly summarize evaluations (pro and con) of how well the program has addressed the defined problem(s) or issue(s).
	Many more buildings need to be enrolled to optimize effectiveness; but now that several major building owners are on the list, participation is becoming exponential. One unstated aim was to encourage building owners to correct deficiencies noted in the engineering evaluation performed during development of the inspection program. This is happening in some instances, causing some delay in submittal of emergency inspection plans for buildings undergoing seismic upgrades.
10.	How has the program changed since its inception? What limitations or obstacles might other states expect to encounter if they attempt to adopt this program?
	Changes since 4/97 edition were to address participant disciplines and liability concerns regarding wording in Appendix C and minor editorial clarifications. Main obstacle for any jurisdiction wanting to adopt the program seems to be owners' reluctance to participate in a program that will cost them money for an evaluation that will make them aware of (and in the perception of many, liable for) their buildings' vulnerabilities, which could lead to further expense if they choose to correct the deficiencies.
11.	Additional comments:
	The city building departments of Los Angeles, Long Beach, and Seattle are considering the program for their areas. Stanford University has plans to adopt the program in the near future. Everyone is welcome to copy any or all of the program, with the request that they send a copy of their version to us.