The San Francisco City Council convened on July 4, 2025, to address critical issues surrounding construction permits and seismic safety regulations. The meeting focused on the evaluation process for determining whether a construction project falls under tier 1, tier 2, or tier 3 reviews, particularly in relation to seismic hazard zones.

The discussion began with a detailed explanation of the flowchart used to assess construction projects. It was clarified that if a project is not located in a landslide-induced area, as determined by a geologist's report, it remains in tier 1 review. This tier involves basic assessments, while tiers 2 and 3 require more extensive evaluations. The Department of Building Inspection (DBI) plays a crucial role in this determination, relying on objective standards set forth by the Slope and Seismic Hazard Zone Protection Act.

Concerns were raised regarding the adequacy of documentation provided to appellants, with officials asserting that all relevant asbestos reports had been shared and that further requested documents were not yet prepared. The representatives emphasized that any issues related to debris management during construction would be addressed through a construction management plan, and residents could report concerns via the 311 service.

Commissioners expressed apprehension about the tier 1 designation, suggesting that a more thorough tier 3 review might be necessary to ensure the safety of neighboring properties. The discussion highlighted the perceived arbitrariness of the tier classification process, with some commissioners advocating for additional geological studies to provide greater assurance regarding seismic safety.

The city attorney was consulted regarding the commission's authority to impose conditions on permits, including the potential for requiring a tier 3 review. While the attorney acknowledged the commission's broad powers, the specifics of whether they could mandate such a review for a project already classified as tier 1 remained uncertain.

The meeting concluded without a definitive resolution, but it underscored the ongoing dialogue about balancing construction development with community safety and environmental considerations. The council plans to continue discussions on this matter, with a focus on ensuring that all necessary evaluations are conducted to protect residents and their properties from potential seismic hazards.