Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Seismic Retrofit Permits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Supervisors table proposal to waive fees for soft‑story seismic retrofits pending CAP report
Summary
The Budget and Finance Committee deferred an ordinance that would expedite permits and waive some fees for voluntary seismic retrofits of soft‑story wood‑frame buildings, citing unclear definitions and an outstanding Community Action Plan for Seismic Safety (CAP) report due Jan. 31, 2009.
The Budget and Finance Committee of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors on a motion tabled consideration of a mayor‑sponsored ordinance that would expedite permit processing and waive proportional permit processing fees for voluntary seismic retrofit upgrades to soft‑story wood‑frame buildings.
Chair Supervisor Jake Goldwick opened discussion after Planning Department staff described Planning Commission recommendations to add a clear definition of “soft‑story wood‑frame building” and to require separate permitting for seismic retrofit work. Tara Sullivan Linnane of the Planning Department said the separate permits were needed so "only that portion of the fees can be waived for work," and warned that combining retrofits with other projects could make it difficult to calculate fee waivers.
Budget analysts told the committee the citywide revenue impact varies by department. Planning staff estimated about $68,566 in lost permit revenue to Planning under certain assumptions; the budget analyst summarized a broader annual estimated processing revenue loss of roughly $205,000 if fee waivers were adopted. Planning and DBI asked for separate permitting to isolate retrofit work for fee‑waiver purposes, and DBI staff said most retrofit permits would be reviewed by the Department of Building Inspection unless exterior work is involved.
Several supervisors questioned the urgency of the ordinance before the CAP study clarifies which buildings fall into scope. Lawrence Kornfield, chief building inspector, said the CAP team was identifying properties and implementation options and expected to complete the soft‑story portion of the study by Jan. 31, 2009. "We can't allow this to go forward until we've seen that definition," a supervisor said during debate.
After discussion about the financial and administrative implications, including which department would bear revenue losses and whether the proposed changes would meaningfully increase voluntary retrofit activity, the committee voted to table the ordinance pending the CAP findings and clearer statutory language. The chair said the item was to be continued to the call of the chair and formally tabled by roll call.
Next steps: the committee requested that Planning and DBI provide the CAP definition and other supporting documentation before the Board revisits the ordinance.
