Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Seismic Safety topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Officials highlight CAPS seismic-safety study; commissioners press for incentives and tenant protections

San Francisco Planning Commission and Building Inspection Commission · May 7, 2009
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

DBI staff updated the commissions on the Community Action Plan for Seismic Safety (CAPS), a multi-year, state-funded study to prioritize seismic upgrades. Commissioners and public commenters urged incentives, attention to small owners and tenant protections; staff said voluntary and mandatory options are being considered.

Department of Building Inspection staff gave a progress update Thursday on the Community Action Plan for Seismic Safety (CAPS), telling commissioners the multi-year study aims to prioritize seismic upgrades by combining building type, soils and social impacts.

Lawrence Kornfield, deputy director at DBI, said CAPS grew out of earlier hazard scoping and a February report focused on soft-story, wood-frame buildings. "This takes us to the next step where we say, here's our building type, here's our soils type, here's the people who live in these buildings," he said, and the work will help policymakers choose which buildings to target for mitigation when funding is limited.

Commissioners focused on incentives and the practical impacts of mandatory retrofits. Commissioner Levitt and others urged pairing any mandatory requirements with incentives, tax credits or repurposing of existing unreinforced-masonry bond funds so small property owners are not driven into bankruptcy. Staff said the CAPS report includes impact analysis and that the mayor's office and Board of Supervisors are considering voluntary incentive programs and stakeholder outreach.

Staff acknowledged the city does not yet have a parcel-by-parcel inventory of soft-story buildings; instead CAPS used a citywide survey approach to estimate scope. Commissioners and staff discussed a working estimate that the informal survey identified roughly 4,900 soft-story buildings (three or more stories with five or more units) with perhaps 2,900 needing retrofit work depending on final criteria and policy direction.

Public commenters said safety should be primary, but stressed that funding and protections for small businesses and tenants are essential if a mandatory program is adopted. Several speakers urged the city to design practical, accessible incentive programs and to avoid impractical restrictions that would deter participation.

DBI staff said CAPS will continue with additional building-type studies over approximately two years and will provide policy recommendations to the mayor and Board of Supervisors.