Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tall Buildings topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
DBI outlines tall‑building review process, peer review reforms and record‑retention improvements
Summary
DBI briefed the Building Inspection Commission on procedures for tall‑building review (240‑foot threshold), mandatory third‑party peer review under AB 82/83, special‑inspector roles, record retention and plans to digitize peer‑review documents; commissioners asked for quarterly updates starting in June.
San Francisco Department of Building Inspection officials told the Building Inspection Commission on March 15 that the city’s tall‑building review process is grounded in the San Francisco Building Code and the department’s Administrative Bulletins AB 82 and AB 83, which require third‑party peer review for projects 240 feet or taller. "We have a definition in 2008 and then any building over 240 feet then we consider as a tall building in the definition," Director Tom Hui said.
DBI assistant director Ron Tom described the department’s multi‑party approach to tall buildings: project sponsors hire design professionals and special inspectors; those teams submit plans and daily logs to DBI; DBI performs spot checks and will not issue a Certificate of Final Completion and Occupancy (CFC) until it receives letters of observation from the engineer(s) of record and affidavits from special‑inspection agencies. "DBI welcomes this opportunity to talk about its work to make San Francisco buildings — tall buildings — safer," Tom said.
The presentation explained the difference between prescriptive (recipe‑based) structural design and performance‑based design, noting performance designs require detailed computer modeling and are rare: DBI reported only 15 performance‑based buildings among nearly 3,866 new buildings in the last 16 years. Commissioners pressed DBI about the chain of reporting when special inspectors document deviations; DBI said special inspectors report to owners and the engineer of record and that DBI inspectors may issue correction notices or, in severe cases, notices of violation or stop‑work orders.
DBI also reviewed matters that lie outside its jurisdiction: dewatering and certain discharge issues fall under the Public Utilities Commission and Public Health, the department said.
On peer review and oversight changes, DBI said that since October 2016 it has begun appointing peer reviewers (rather than allowing project sponsors to select them) and is drafting a request for qualifications to maintain a vetted pool of independent experts. DBI is centralizing and digitizing peer‑review records so iterations of peer‑review letters are searchable and accessible to staff. The presentation said DBI will continue to take steps to strengthen independence and transparency in the peer‑review process.
Commissioners asked whether DBI will adopt ongoing performance monitoring after a CFC. DBI responded it remains complaint‑driven for post‑occupancy oversight because of the sheer number of city buildings and limited staff resources, but the department emphasized it can develop targeted monitoring for high‑consequence projects if the commission directs resources that way.
Commissioners also asked about training for inspection staff, software capability for advanced modeling, record‑retention timing, and when commissioners can expect follow‑up reports. DBI recommended quarterly reports on policy changes and improvements; staff and commissioners agreed the next update could come in June.
The presentation and Q&A clarified operational responsibilities for geotechnical engineers, structural engineers of record, and special inspectors, and reiterated DBI’s role in activating peer reviewers for projects subject to AB 82/83. Directors and staff said they will continue outreach and training and implement digitized record retention for peer review documents.
