Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Building Safety topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

DBI panel briefs the board and public on mandatory soft-story retrofit program

San Francisco Board of Education · November 13, 2018
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

City Department of Building Inspection staff and engineers presented details of the mandatory soft-story retrofit program, compliance tiers, seismic risk, retrofit methods, and a short compliance timeline for property owners who have not yet submitted plans.

A panel from the Department of Building Inspection (DBI) and structural engineers presented an overview of San Francisco’s mandatory soft-story retrofit program during the Nov. 13 meeting.

Presenters said soft-story buildings—typically wood-frame buildings built before 1978 with flexible ground floors—pose a high collapse risk in major earthquakes. DBI described retrofit options (plywood shear walls, moment frames, cantilever columns, collectors and diaphragm strengthening), program tiers (tiers 1–4 based on occupancy and unit counts) and the program status: tiers 1 and 2 are nearly complete, tier 3 has approximately 1,600 property owners who have not yet submitted plans and are at risk of not meeting an upcoming deadline. Panelists explained permitting steps (intake, plan review, special inspections), suggested owners work with experienced design professionals, and noted that after a permit is submitted owners have two years to complete the retrofit.

The presenters advised owners to obtain existing building plans when available and described over-the-counter permitting options for some straightforward plywood-shear-wall projects. DBI also pointed to resources on the city website and lists of engineers and contractors who have participated in workshops. No board action was associated with the presentation; it was provided as an informational item and Q&A with the public and property-owners represented.