The baseline and data collected during construction from piezometers and inclinometers, and field warnings (see section 9 for discussion on warning level or design limit) should be reported to the design and construction team in a timely manner. If in response to a field warning any changes are made to the original design, the revised design should be presented to the GEOR and the geotechnical members of EDRT for further review.

14. OTHER CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

The geotechnical report should address the following construction considerations:

• The effects of construction on adjacent buildings, notably where ground improvements or new foundations extend below the foundation of the adjacent buildings;

• The potential of loss of ground and displacements due to construction of large-diameter drilled shafts installed deeper than the foundation of an adjacent buildings;

• Impact of installation of deep foundations on previously installed foundations;

• The potential impact of ground-surface heave or vibrations on adjacent structures and improvements;

• The effect of construction on the groundwater level inside and outside of the construction area.

Prior to completion of all new tall building projects where the building is planned to be supported on a shallow foundation underlain by soil (i.e. the foundation is not bearing directly on bedrock) or on a deep foundation system not gaining axial support within bedrock or not driven to bedrock / bedrock-type material, the project Sponsor shall secure a contract with qualified Monitoring Surveyors and Instrumentation Engineers (MSIEs) to monitor the settlement of the buildings for a period of 10 years after the issuance of CFC/TCO. A notarized legal document, completed by the Project Sponsor and recorded against the property title, with the MSIE’s contact details, shall be submitted to DBI prior to issuance of the CFC/TCO and shall be retained with the project’s permanent records and readily retrievable within DBI’s inspection records on this project.

Settlement monitoring data are to be submitted annually to DBI’s Building Inspection Division each year of this 10year period. Should the settlement monitoring data exceed the project sponsor’s geotechnical engineer’s estimated time rate of settlement in any annual data reporting period, the project sponsor/owner is required to immediately notify the DBI’s Deputy Director for Inspection Services and bring this condition to his/her attention for immediate additional investigation.

Originally signed by: Patrick O’Riordan June 24, 2020 Interim Director Department of Building Inspection Daniel Lowrey June 24, 2020 Permit Services Deputy Director Department of Building Inspection Gary Ho June 24, 2020 Plan Review Services Manager Department of Building Inspection Approved by the Building Inspection Commission on June 17, 2020

CONTENTS

• 1. Discussion
• 2. Criteria for Exception Allowing a Mixed-Fuel Building System or Area
• 3. Review for Determination of Infeasibility
• 4. Project Completion

Attachment 1: Design Guideline for Public Safety and Electric Ready Construction Attachment 2: Final Compliance Verification - Form

Attachment 3: Commercial Food Service Exception - Form

Attachment 4: Review of Pre-Existing Agreement - Form

Attachment 5: Gas-Fueled Appliance Meeting a Federal Efficiency Standard - Form Attachment 6: Summary of Investor-Owned Utility Options for Proposed Electric Load Exceeding Capacity of Utility Infrastructure

• 7/1/2026 (S-2) Page 112-1

1) DISCUSSION

San Francisco Building Code 106A.1.17 requires newly constructed buildings and major renovations to existing buildings to be designed and constructed such that all space conditioning, water heating, cooking, and clothes drying systems are all-electric, as defined. San Francisco Building Code 106A.1.17 prohibits installation of infrastructure, piping systems, or piping for distribution of natural gas or propane to such uses, and allows limited exceptions. APPLICABILITY

San Francisco Building Code Section 106A.1.17 applies to all permit applications submitted on or after June 1, 2021 proposing to construct one or more new buildings, and to all permit applications submitted on or after July 1, 2026 proposing a major renovation to an existing building in San Francisco.

In the case of Site Permits, the effective date is the date the Site Permit application (not an addendum) is filed with the Department of Building Inspection. Addenda to site permits and revisions to permit applications received before the dates above are not required to meet the requirements of San Francisco Building Code Section 106A.1.17, unless the addenda or revisions change the scope of the project such that current codes are generally applicable, or such that an exception is no longer warranted.

WHAT IS AN ALL-ELECTRIC BUILDING

An All-Electric Building or Project as defined by San Francisco Building Code Section 202 relies on electricity as the source of energy for space heating, space cooling, water heating, cooking, and clothes drying. In addition, building permits are prohibited for projects proposing to install gas piping systems, fixtures, or infrastructure for decorative uses and lighting or onsite generation of electricity.

Steam generated off-site may be used for space conditioning, water heating, or laundry equipment.

MAJOR RENOVATIONS TO EXISTING BUILDINGS

A ‘Major Renovation’ is an extensive alteration or addition that proposes replacing mechanical systems. Specifically, a Major Renovation is defined by San Francisco Building Code:

Major Renovation: In addition to substantial upgrade to mechanical systems, the project fits one or more of the following categories:

(1) a Non-structural Alteration that is substantial pursuant to ... Section 304.5¹ of the San Francisco Existing Building Code;

_________________

1 As of January 2026, the section of San Francisco Existing Building Code (2025 edition) describing a non-structural alteration was relocated to Section 304.5. Section 503.11.1 is no longer applicable.

(2) a Substantial Structural Alteration as defined by Section 202 of the San Francisco Existing Building Code; (3) an addition that is a Substantial Improvement as defined by Section 202 of the San Francisco Existing Building Code.

Substantial Upgrade to Mechanical Systems: The proposed project:

(1) “Replaces space heating and hot water heating system for the entire building; or

(2) Installs space heating and water heating systems that will serve 80% or more of the total conditioned floor area of the building; or

(3) Installs space conditioning or water heating systems serving the area of addition.”

In the following circumstances natural gas or propane piping systems, fixtures, or infrastructure may be installed to the minimum extent necessary for the operation of equipment installed as part of the proposed project.

All buildings or projects covered by San Francisco Building Code 106A.1.17 shall comply with the Design Guidelines and for Public Safety and Electric Ready Construction (Attachment 1).

Exceptions (A) through (G) below describe exceptions that apply prescriptively to circumstances specified in the San Francisco Building Code. Exception (H) allows flexibility if it is not physically or technically feasible to build allelectric.

Gas piping systems, fixtures, or infrastructure may be installed strictly to serve areas and systems outside the scope of the definitions of All-Electric Buildings and Mixed-Fuel Buildings. For example, industrial processes are not specifically addressed by either definition. In an industrial project, natural gas piping systems, infrastructure, and fixtures may be installed as needed for a proposed industrial process - but space heating, space cooling, water heating, cooking, and clothes drying must be all-electric.

STANDARDS

The federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) empowers the US Department of Energy (US DOE) to set standards for energy efficiency of appliances sold in the United States. US DOE adopts standards by issuing regulations that specify the specific characteristics of appliances that a standard applies to, minimum energy efficiency, and testing procedures. US DOE maintains public records of which appliances have been certified by the manufacturer to meet a given standard. If a specific gas-fueled appliance has been certified to meet a given EPCA energy efficiency standard, the appliance may be installed in an ‘all-electric’ project.

In a project where a gas-fueled appliance is installed, natural gas piping and infrastructure associated with this exception shall be limited to the operation of appliances specified and installed in the project. Gas piping systems, fixtures, and infrastructure shall not be installed to serve the location of any appliance that does not require natural gas to operate, nor any appliance not certified as meeting an EPCA efficiency standard.

To propose installation of gas-fueled appliances complete the form in Attachment 5: “Application to Install GasFueled Appliance Meeting a Federal Efficiency Standard.”

For new construction projects which submit an initial application for permit:

• On or after June 1, 2021 and before January 1, 2022: Areas specifically designated for commercial food service may provide gas piping systems, fixtures, and infrastructure exclusively for cooking equipment within the area designated for commercial food service.

• January 1, 2022 or thereafter: Permission may be granted to install gas piping systems, fixtures, and infrastructure exclusively to serve cooking equipment within an area designated for a specific commercial food service establishment, such as a specific restaurant. Proposed gas infrastructure and piping shall be documented by completing Attachment 3: Application for Gas in Commercial Food Service. Include the name of the food service establishment, proposed gas cooking appliances, and fuel consumption rating for each device.

In Major Renovation projects where an initial application for permit is submitted on or after July 1, 2026, gas piping systems, fixtures, and/or infrastructure shall be limited to areas designated for installation of gas-fueled cooking equipment for a food facility. Gas piping may be installed to serve a food facility that is part of the proposed project or a future food facility.

Proposed gas infrastructure and piping shall be documented by completing Attachment 3: Application for Gas in Commercial Food Service.

For food facility water heating systems, see also Physical or Technical Infeasibility below.

All-electric requirements apply to construction of new buildings, including affordable housing, where an initial application for permit is submitted on or after June 1, 2021.

For projects which submit an initial application for permit for a major renovation to an existing building which will create or preserve 100% affordable housing:

• Prior to July 1, 2027: The project is exempt from all-electric requirements including Design Guidelines and for

Public Safety and Electric Ready Construction . Other regulations may continue to apply, such as electric-ready provisions of Title 24 Part 6 (2025) and Bay Area Air District Regulation 9 Rule 6: Nitrogen Oxide Emissions from Water Heaters.

• From July 1, 2027 to January 1, 2031: If the cost of converting to All-Electric would conflict with a project’s ability to meet project Affordable Housing Goals, Mayor’s Office of Housing and Community Development (MOHCD) shall submit a waiver request to the Environment Department, documenting:

• ° The project’s affordable housing goals as defined by MOHCD,

• ° The issue facing the project,

• ° The specific gas piping systems, infrastructure, and fixtures requested, and

• ° Proposed modified compliance with Design Guidelines for Public Safety and Electric Ready Construction, if necessary to the project’s Affordable Housing Goals.

The waiver request shall be submitted via email to: greenbuilding@sfgov.org. The Environment Department shall review the waiver request via the procedures described in Environment Code Section 705.

• January 1, 2031 and thereafter: Shall be all-electric.

Projects proposing to convert an existing building from primarily non-residential use to primarily multifamily residential use (R-2 occupancy) prior to January 1, 2031 are exempt from all-electric requirements of San Francisco Building Code 106A.1.17.3. Note that this exemption does not apply to relevant state and regional regulations, such as Bay Area Air District Rule 9-4 limiting nitrous oxide (NOx) emissions from water heaters and boilers, and Rule 9-6 limiting nitrous oxide emissions from furnaces.

Some development agreement projects or other multiphase projects may entail separate applications for permits to construct infrastructure serving an area versus buildings constructed after infrastructure is developed. San Francisco Building Code Section 106A.1.17 applies to any application to construct a building submitted to the Department of Building Inspection on or after June 1, 2021, or an application to construct a major renovation to an existing building submitted on or after June 1, 2026. If a project sponsor believes that application of San Francisco Building Code Section 106A.1.17 to a phase of development or to an individual building would violate the terms of a development or other agreement with the City, the project sponsor may seek a determination using Attachment 4: Application for Review of an Existing Agreement. Department of Building Inspection staff will refer the matter to the City Attorney’s Office to analyze the request for exception and the extent to which all or part of San Francisco Building Code Section 106A.1.17 will apply. An exception shall only apply to the extent required under the development agreement or other contract.

A case-by-case exception for mixed-fuel construction may be granted when all-electric design is not feasible due to physical or technical constraints specific to the site and occupancy, and the same project is feasible if gas-fueled

equipment is allowed to serve a specific system or area. Installation of natural gas piping systems, fixtures, or infrastructure shall be allowed only to the extent necessary to resolve the demonstrated infeasibility. Section 2 of this bulletin describes the criteria for a situation to be physically or technically infeasible. Section 3 describes the process to determine whether an issue of physical or technical infeasibility applies. 2) DETERMINATION OF PHYSICAL OR TECHNICAL INFEASIBILITY Physical or technical infeasibility is understood to refer to an exceptional situation where:

A project proposal cannot be accomplished due to physical or technical constraints specific to the site and occupancy that prohibit elements, spaces or features necessary to comply with all requirements that apply to the proposed project; AND

The project proposal is feasible and able to fully comply with all applicable requirements if gas piping systems, fixtures and infrastructure are allowed to serve a specific system or area. Table 1 below describes criteria to identify situations that may result in physical or technical infeasibility.

Table 1: Criteria for physical or technical infeasibility:

Infrastructure electric utility infrastructure than an equivalent mixed-fuel design. “Substantially greater” refers to a delay that Delay - General adversely impacts viability of the project.

Recent California laws (SB410 & AB50, 2023) require PG&E to improve customer service for new and modified electric service. The CPUC has set the following targets:

• Prepare electric load calculations for both mixed-fuel and all-electric design, with equivalent occupancies, functions, and floor area; and

• Submit an application for service to the electric utility serving the project.

The all-electric option shall be deemed infeasible if:

• The time required to construct the utility infrastructure for the all-electric design option is substantially greater than for mixed-fuel, and

• The utility-estimated delivery date for such electric infrastructure improvements is significantly later than the proposed date for completion of construction.

Major Renovation

• If gas piping systems and fixtures are substituted for electrical equipment serving a specific system or area, the project can attain full and strict compliance with all-electric construction.

• Proposal to install a technology, system, or design that is inconsistent with, or not allowed by the discretionary determination by a City agency shall not be a basis for demonstration of infeasibility.

_________________

2 The linear footage of street frontage is calculated by adding the lengths of all property lines directly adjacent to the right of way.

Compliance with San Francisco Building Code Section 106A.1.17 and all other requirements for new construction have been determined to be practical and feasible in general. San Francisco Building Code Section 106A.1.17 allows for approval of exception allowing gas infrastructure and piping systems to be installed on a case-by-case basis where All-Electric construction is demonstrated to be infeasible.

The conditions of infeasibility depend substantially on design details, and design development provides the opportunity to address physical and technical conditions. An application for design review for exception due to infeasibility will not be approved in the absence of substantial architectural detail, including the architectural addendum and Title 24 compliance documentation.

Prior to DBI review of an application for exception due to infeasibility, a Review of All-Electric Infeasibility must be completed by engineers with specialized understanding of electrical engineering, mechanical design, energy efficiency including compliance with Title 24 Energy Standards, and experience with the design of all-electric systems for space conditioning and water heating. In all cases, it is the responsibility of the Design Professional of Record, with the support of the entire project team, to apply all available energy efficiency and electric load minimization practices. Review of All-Electric Infeasibility

A Review of All-Electric Infeasibility answers two core questions:

• What specific physical or technical constraint makes an all-electric design infeasible, but does not affect a mixedfuel design?

• Can the constraint be solved through reasonable design changes?

To address these questions, the review shall include the following steps:

1. Identify the Constraint

• Clearly describe the physical or technical issue that prevents All-Electric construction. Provide enough detail to show why the issue does not apply to a mixed fuel design.

2. Identify Alternatives

A Review of All-Electric Infeasibility shall

• Be prepared by professionals experienced with successful all-electric construction, as described in Qualifications for All-Electric Infeasibility Reviewers , below.

The project sponsor is responsible for all costs related to All Electric Infeasibility Review, including hiring reviewers.

• Review plans, calculations, and supporting documentation to determine whether the constraint can be resolved. For projects utilizing commissioning, the Owners Project Requirements and Basis of Design shall be shared with reviewers. (CalGreen 5.410 requires commissioning for non-residential projects of 10,000 square feet or larger. Residential projects that apply the LEED BD+C rating system will also undergo commissioning.) Consider alternatives in three areas:

• Confirm all applicable energy efficiency design and construction practices have been applied, and the design meets or is more efficient than Title 24 Energy Standards, including each applicable compliance metric.

• Verify all equipment is no less efficient than the prescriptive baseline specified by Title 24 Energy Standards.

• Confirm all feasible design and construction practices have been applied in order to reduce peak electrical load and electrical capacity required for the project.

• Determine whether alternative mechanical equipment size and type, piping and ducting layout, or envelope design can reduce peak heating and cooling loads in order to reduce peak electrical demand.

• Determine whether mechanical system output can be reduced while maintaining Basis of Design consistent with Owners Project Requirements. Right-sizing heat pumps can significantly reduce the cost of mechanical and electric construction.

Electrical Options:

• Review electrical panel schedule and load calculations for the all-electric design. Confirm connected electrical load and demand electric load are calculated in accord with California Electrical Code, and consistent with the design used in Title 24 Energy Standards compliance calculations.

• Make a specific recommendation as to whether proposed utility electric service capacity can be reduced in order to eliminate the constraint and enable all-electric construction.

• Document examples of all-electric construction in similar circumstances and identify the design and construction approaches that differ from the proposed design.

Document Available Solutions:

• Identify the specific area and system proposed as mixed fuel.

• Document the options considered.

• Demonstrate that a mixed-fuel exception is the only option that will resolve the constraint.

• Confirm gas piping, fixtures or systems are strictly limited to the area where all-electric compliance is infeasible.

3. Apply Electric-Ready and Safety Requirements.

If mixed fuel is allowed, the affected area must be built electric-ready, which means the design includes sufficient space, safety features, and capacity for both safe operation and future installation of electric equipment. A complete All-Electric Infeasibility Review shall:

• Comply with Design Guidelines for Public Safety and Electric Ready Construction (Attachment 1).

If complete adherence to the Design Guidelines conflicts with the basis for an exception, staff shall approve modified compliance to the extent necessary to the viability of the project.

• Review construction methods, equipment, and features proposed for the mixed-fuel area and recommend any additional measures needed to ensure health, safety, and fire protection equivalent to an all-electric design.

4. Submit a Review of All-Electric Infeasibility for approval

Submit a Local Equivalency Request (Administrative Bulletin 005), with two copies of the following:

• Project plans specifying the area and system proposed for mixed-fuel construction

• Complete All Electric Infeasibility Review document, including design alternatives considered and comparable

examples, and signatures of reviewers for electrical, mechanical, and architectural/Title 24 and stamp by the Design Professional of Record.

• Proposed plans and specifications consistent Design Guidelines for Public Safety and Electric-Ready

Construction . If any aspects of Design Guidelines cannot be met, indicate the specific issue and proposed modification.

Pay plan review fees as noted in Administrative Bulletin 005.

5. Project Review Meeting

The Department of Building Inspection will lead a review meeting with participation of the Environment Department, Design Professional of Record, Project Mechanical Engineer, and All-Electric Infeasibility Reviewers. The participants shall:

• Review plans, calculations, Title 24 compliance documents, the Basis of Design where applicable, and supporting documentation described in “2. Identify Alternatives” above, in order to confirm:

• ° All possible energy-efficiency measures and design alternatives were considered.

• ° Gas piping systems, fixtures, and infrastructure are proposed only to the extent necessary for project feasibility.

• ° The proposed design meets the Design Guidelines for Public Safety and Electric-Ready Construction , in order to provide equivalent fire protection and health and safety to all-electric design.

DBI will issue one of the following decisions

• Approved with conditions determined by Department of Building Inspection with concurrence by Department of Environment,

• Placed on “hold” pending submittal of additional information, or

• Disapproved.

Determinations may be appealed to the Board of Examiners, as established under Section 105.1 of the San Francisco Building Code. See https://sfdbi.org/board-examiners for details.

Upon approval, a copy of the signed Request for Approval of Local Equivalency (AB-005) approving the indicating all conditions of approval will be part of the permanent record of the project, and a copy will be sent to the project sponsor. The project sponsor shall include all specified conditions in plans, specifications, and addenda. QUALIFICATIONS FOR ALL-ELECTRIC INFEASIBILITY REVIEWERS

All-Electric Infeasibility Reviewers must apply specialized knowledge and experience in the application of energy efficiency design and construction; compliance of all-electric systems with Title 24 Energy Standards, and experience with the design of all-electric systems for space conditioning and water heating. The review team must include each of the following:

Each discipline above must be represented by a third party, i.e. individuals not employed by a company responsible for the design or construction of the project.

Due to the qualifications required, review is expected to be performed by a team, but individuals holding multiple qualifications may serve more than one role.

Simplified Process for Small Infill Sites:

For projects seeking exception on the basis of physical constraint for small infill sites:

1. Persons responsible for the design of the project may be responsible for preparation of the review.

2. Reviewer(s) must include:

• Licensed Professional Engineer with Electrical Specialty, AND

• Either Licensed Professional Engineer with Mechanical Specialty, or CABEC Certified Energy Analyst.

3. Prepare a Review for Determination of All-Electric Infeasibility as described above.

Simplified Process for Electric Utility Infrastructure Delay:

Where delay to construct electric utility infrastructure for all-electric construction would result in substantially greater delay compared to a mixed-fuel alternative (Table 1, item B), the process for Review for All-Electric Infeasibility shall be limited to:

1. Persons responsible for the design of the project may be responsible for preparation of the review.

2. Reviewer(s) must include:

• Licensed Professional Engineer with Electrical Specialty, AND

• Either Licensed Professional Engineer with Mechanical Specialty, or CABEC Certified Energy Analyst.

3. Prepare a Review for Determination of All-Electric Infeasibility as described above. As detailed in Table 1, Criteria B, document the projected date of utility electric service connection for both the all-electric and mixed-fuel options, projected date to complete the construction of the project, and the reason the resulting delay in utility electric service would adversely impact viability of the project.

Final compliance verification documentation (Attachment 2) is required prior to final inspection. No final Certificate of Completion may be issued until All-Electric Ordinance: Final Compliance Verification has been received, reviewed, and accepted by the Department of Building Inspection.

Failure to ensure the project is designed and constructed in a manner consistent with an exception and conditions approved will subject the project to the enforcement and abatement remedies detailed in the San Francisco Building Code.

The Department of Building Inspection with the assistance of Department of Environment shall conduct an Open Call for Interest and Qualification to Review All Electric Infeasibility to identify professionals with specialized knowledge and experience in the design and construction of all-electric systems Title 24 Energy Standards.

Department of Building Inspection shall provide upon request a list of individuals who have provided evidence of holding such qualifications. Review of All-Electric Infeasibility will only be considered when prepared by individuals holding the appropriate qualifications. A project sponsor may use reviewers not on the list, provided the proposed reviewer submits the same information required to establish qualifications of listed reviewers.

Submittal of substantially inadequate or incorrect analysis shall be grounds for removal from the list of qualified reviewers.

Signed by:

David Kane, S.E. May 29, 2026

Interim Director

Department of Building Inspection

Approved by the Building Inspection Commission on January 20, 2021 Revision approved April 15, 2026

Attachment 1: Design Guideline for Public Safety and Electric Ready Construction

Attachment 2: Final Compliance Verification - Form

Attachment 3: Commercial Food Service Exception - Form Attachment 4: Review of Pre-Existing Agreement - Form Attachment 5: Gas-Fueled Appliance Meeting a Federal Efficiency Standard - Form Attachment 6: Summary of Investor-Owned Utility Options for Proposed Electric Load Exceeding Capacity of Utility Infrastructure

I. A6.2 Definitions

Commentary: Chapter A6 includes a definition of the term “wall pier,” used to specify buildings exempt from the requirements of the Chapter and to specify seismic deficiencies required to be addressed by Engineering Criteria Option (a). The definition of wall pier is per Section 2.3 of ACI 318-19.

II. A6.3 Design professionals

Commentary: Chapter A6 requires that evaluations and design be performed by or under the supervision of “appropriately licensed individuals.” The State of California governs the registration of professional engineers and requires that engineers practice only in areas where they have demonstrated competence. The registration status of any licensed professional engineer can be checked at:

http://www.bpelsg.ca.gov/consumers/lic_lookup.shtml.

The successful execution of a seismic retrofit project and the building’s performance in an earthquake rely heavily on the analysis and design by the building owner’s engineer. Building owners are encouraged to check references for the engineer they plan to engage, and to understand the engineer’s experience and qualifications as they relate to the building’s type, size, and other characteristics.

Questions an owner may ask a structural or civil engineer before selecting them include:

• Do you have experience with seismic retrofitting of concrete buildings?

• Do you have experience using the seismic evaluation and retrofit standard ASCE 41?

• Can you describe structures that you have evaluated or retrofitted that are most similar to my building?

A. A6.4.1 Engineering criteria

Commentary: Table A6.4-1 provides two options for engineering criteria that engineers may use for seismic evaluation or retrofit of Concrete Buildings. Option (a) specifies lower seismic forces, and also requires addressing the seismic deficiencies listed in Table A6.4-2. Option (b) specifies greater seismic forces.

i. Criteria Option (a)

For Engineering Criteria Option (a), addressing the seismic deficiencies in Table A6.4-2 is required, even if analysis indicates the building satisfies Collapse Prevention for the BSE-1E earthquake level without addressing a listed deficiency. Addressing the seismic deficiencies in Table A6.4-2 is intended to enable gravity-load-resisting elements to withstand severe earthquake movements, greater than BSE-1E, while maintaining their capacity to support gravity loads. These seismic deficiencies can be critical contributors to the collapse vulnerability of concrete buildings. They do not include all possible seismic deficiencies.

Engineering Criteria Option (b) equates to the requirements of ASCE 41 for the Basic Performance Objective for Existing Buildings (BPOE) except:

• Non-structural evaluation and retrofitting is limited to elements of unreinforced masonry.

• Evaluation of the Life Safety structural performance level for the BSE-1E earthquake level is not required.

Addressing the seismic deficiencies specified in Table A6.4-2 is not necessarily required in meeting Engineering

Criteria Option (b) if seismic evaluation at the BSE-2E earthquake level demonstrates acceptable performance. For buildings assigned to Risk Category I or II, the criteria for Engineering Criteria Option (b) will typically also provide compliance with triggered retrofit requirements for Substantial Alteration (Section 304.3.2 of the SFEBC).

For Engineering Criteria Option (b), the Life Safety performance check for the BSE-1E earthquake level is omitted because, under San Francisco’s seismic hazard parameters, it does not govern over the Collapse Prevention check for the BSE-2E level. This is because the typical ratio between the two ground motion levels is approximately 1.8, while the ratio between the Collapse Prevention and Life Safety acceptance limits in ASCE 41 does not exceed 1.33.

The approach (in Section 304.3.2) of using 75 percent of the prescribed forces of the new building code is intentionally not included in Chapter A6, and thus not permitted for use in Chapter A6 because this approach does not clearly address (a) the design of gravity framing for imposed deformations and (b) structural detailing that does not conform to any concrete seismic-force-resisting system that is permitted in high seismic design categories.

Chapter A6 provides retrofit criteria intended to achieve basic safety for Risk Category II buildings. The criteria can be applied to Risk Category III or IV buildings if the goal is only to achieve this basic safety criteria (i.e., Structural Collapse Prevention (S-5) for the BSE-2E earthquake hazard level). It is not in the scope of Chapter A6 to provide retrofit criteria to achieve the higher performance related to safety or recovery associated with new structures assigned to Risk Category III and IV.

Both engineering criteria options in Table A6.4-1 require removing or retrofitting any unreinforced masonry elements. This requirement addresses the safety risk from elements such as unreinforced masonry chimneys, hollow clay tile partitions, and brick masonry walls falling out of plane. Except for these elements, Chapter A6 does not require seismic retrofitting of nonstructural components.

B. Flexible floor- or roof-diaphragms

Requirements: For buildings with one or more flexible diaphragms, compliance with Appendix A, Chapter A2 is sufficient to comply with the portions of Chapter A6 related to the wall anchorage system and collectors.

In addition, for buildings satisfying all of the following, compliance with Chapter A2 is sufficient to meet the structural requirements of Chapter A6:

• (a) The building has no more than two stories above grade plane, excluding mezzanines.

• (b) The building does not include concrete columns nor wall piers, as defined in Chapter A6.

(c) The building’s floor and roof diaphragms are both flexible in-plane, i.e. sheathed with plywood, wood decking (e.g., 1x or 2x), or metal deck without concrete topping slab.

Commentary: Rigid-wall-flexible-diaphragm (RWFD) buildings are addressed by Chapter A2. Chapter A6 is not expected to be invoked for one-story buildings. For Concrete Buildings taller than one story, where Chapter A6 is invoked and the structure satisfies all of (a), (b), and (c) above, the wall-to-roof diaphragm and wall-to-floor diaphragm anchorage system, and collectors are the only structural aspects of such buildings required to be addressed per Chapter A6.

Requirements: For buildings having structural systems that are partially concrete and partially other structural materials, the building shall comply with Chapter A6 as a combined system, except:

(a) Vertical combinations of seismic-force-resisting systems: For vertical combinations of seismic-forceresisting systems (i.e. different seismic-force-resisting system in upper stories compared to lower stories) where only the lower system is concrete, if the existing upper system (including the lateral-force-resisting system and gravity system) is not of concrete construction, the existing upper system is not required to comply with Chapter A6.

(b) Combinations of seismic-force-resisting systems in different directions: For combinations of seismicforce-resisting systems where different seismic-force-resisting systems are used along each of the two orthogonal axes of the structure, if the gravity system is not of concrete construction, the existing non-concrete lateral-force-resisting system need not comply with Chapter A6.

Requirements: The following requirements apply to identifying, evaluating, and retrofitting the seismic deficiencies listed in Table A6.4-2.

Commentary. Building separation issues are not addressed in Chapter A6 because of the likely impracticalities of addressing property-line separations in San Francisco. Engineers are encouraged to inform the building owner if there is a risk of pounding damage at building separations.

F. A6.4.3 Liquefaction and landslide risk.

Commentary. Similarly, seismic evaluation and retrofit per Chapter A6 is not required to address soil liquefaction or landslide risk. Engineers are required to notify the owner if their building is in a zone of high or very high risk of

The exemption from considering the geotechnical hazards of liquefaction and landslide does not apply to lateral earth pressure. Forces from static and dynamic earth pressure on walls (absent liquefaction or landslide) shall be considered in the seismic evaluation in combination with other forces on the structure.

For properties subject to the Slope and Seismic Hazard Zone Protection Act (San Francisco Building Code Section 106A.4.1.4), retrofitting per Chapter A6 does not necessarily trigger the requirements of the act if the project does not include work of the type and quantity specified in the Scope (Section 106A.4.1.4.3) of the act, and further detailed in Information Sheet S-19. However, if the project does include such triggering work, even if the work is done to comply with Chapter A6, then the project must comply with the requirements of the act.

Commentary. Section A6.4.4 clarifies that meeting the requirements of Chapter A6 does not replace the need to meet Section 304.4 (minimum lateral force for existing buildings) when a project is subject to a Substantial Structural Alteration (Section 503.11) or a Non-structural Alteration (Section 503.11.1).

Triggered retrofits must comply with Section 304.4. In most cases, owners may also choose to meet the requirements of Chapter A6 so the building can be removed from the inventory established under Chapter 5G. However, if the owner does not pursue removal from the inventory, then Chapter A6 does not apply to the retrofit requirements subject to Section 304.4.

Commentary. If the infill is unreinforced masonry, its attachment to the main structure must be addressed as shown in Table A6.4-1. In addition, for both reinforced and unreinforced masonry infill, the effect of the infill on the building’s seismic response must be addressed as required by this subsection. /signed/ July 21, 2025

Patrick O’Riordan, C.B.O. Date

Director

Department of Building Inspection

Approved by the Building Inspection Commission on July 16, 2025.

San Francisco, California

PUBLISHER'S NOTE

PUBLISHER'S NOTE

The full 2025 San Francisco Electrical Code consists of the 2025 California Electrical Code, and as further amended by these San Francisco amendments.

The San Francisco Electrical Code amendments contained herein are designed to be used in conjunction with the 2025 California Electrical Code.

The San Francisco Electrical Code amendments contained herein were adopted by the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco on November 21, 2025, by Ordinance 228-25, effective December 22, 2025, and operative January 1, 2026.

<!Text read from an image; its layout may differ:
> 2025 California Electrical Code
Complete
+ ' '
San Francisco
Electrical Code
{ } }
2025 San Francisco Amendments
<!>

Supplements to this Code and complete copies of all seven

Building Inspection Commission (BIC) Codes

(Building, Electrical, Existing Building, Green Building, Housing, Mechanical, and Plumbing)

can be ordered from:

AMERICAN LEGAL PUBLISHING CORPORATION

Cincinnati, Ohio 45202

800-445-5588

Fax: 513-763-3562

www.amlegal.com

PREFACE

PREFACE

Text Format:

The text in this publication is formatted to allow the user to quickly and easily determine the source of the included material. Language derived from the 2025 California Code that is unchanged by local amendment is printed in shaded text (see below). Language constituting San Francisco amendments to the California Code is printed in unformatted (or “plain”) text. In either case, bold and/or italic typefaces may be used as appropriate for emphasis, etc. See below for examples.

To further simplify use of the San Francisco amendments with corresponding sections of the 2025 California Code, explanatory remarks appearing in italics are provided (in boxes at the beginning of affected provisions) indicating whether the San Francisco amendment to the California Code is adding, revising, or replacing a section or portion of a section.

To summarize:

Explanatory remarks are boxed and italicized.

Unchanged language from the 2025 California Code is shaded, and may include bold and/or italicized formatting.

San Francisco amendments are printed in unformatted ("plain") text, and may include bold and/or italicized formatting.

An arrow [ ← ]

The arrow represents the location of language that has been deleted by San Francisco from the applicable California Code.

represents the location of language that has been deleted by San Francisco from the 2025 California Code.

A solid line represents a change from the original published edition of the 2025 San Francisco Electrical Code.

Historical Notations:

Language which has been added, amended, or deleted from the 2025 publication of the San Francisco Electrical Code is indicated with an historical notation, setting forth the ordinance number and date of adoption.

Additionally, a table is included below that lists and summarizes all legislation that has affected this Code and the other Building Inspection Commission codes after their initial enactment.