San Francisco County Municipal Code Ch. 36 California

(CRC) CHAPTER 1 SCOPE AND APPLICATION Replace this chapter with Chapter 1 & 1A of the San Francisco Building Code. See Chapter 1A for the Administration provisions of the San Francisco Building Code. (CRC) CHAPTER 2 DEFINITIONS Replace this chapter with Chapter 2 through 35 of the San Francisco Building Code. (CRC) CHAPTER 3 BUILDING PLANNING Replace this chapter with Chapter 2 through 35 of the San Francisco Building Code (CRC) CHAPTER 4 FOUNDATIONS Replace this chapter with Chapter 2 through 35 of the San Francisco Building Code (CRC) CHAPTER 5 FLOORS Replace this chapter with Chapter 2 through 35 of the San Francisco Building Code (CRC) CHAPTER 6 WALL CONSTRUCTION Replace this chapter with Chapter 2 through 35 of the San Francisco Building Code (CRC) CHAPTER 7

WALL COVERING Replace this chapter with Chapter 2 through 35 of the San Francisco Building Code (CRC) CHAPTER 8 ROOF-CEILING CONSTRUCTION Replace this chapter with Chapter 2 through 35 of the San Francisco Building Code (CRC) CHAPTER 9 ROOF ASSEMBLIES Replace this chapter with Chapter 2 through 35 of the San Francisco Building Code (CRC) CHAPTER 10 CHIMNEYS AND FIREPLACES Replace this chapter with Chapter 2 through 35 of the San Francisco Building Code (CRC) CHAPTER 44 REFERENCED STANDARDS Replace this chapter with Chapter 35 of the San Francisco Building Code (CRC) APPENDIX AA BOARD OF APPEALS This appendix is not adopted in San Francisco (CRC) APPENDIX AB PERMIT FEES This appendix is not adopted in San Francisco (CRC) APPENDIX AC RESERVED This appendix is not adopted in San Francisco (CRC) APPENDIX BA MANUFACTURED HOUSING USED AS DWELLINGS This appendix is not adopted in San Francisco (CRC) APPENDIX BB TINY HOUSES This appendix is not adopted in San Francisco (CRC) APPENDIX BC ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS (ADU) This appendix is not adopted in San Francisco (CRC) APPENDIX BD HOME DAY CARE OCCUPANCY This appendix is not adopted in San Francisco (CRC) APPENDIX BE RADON CONSTROL METHODS This appendix is not adopted in San Francisco (CRC) APPENDIX BF PATIO COVERS Replace this chapter with Appendix I of the San Francisco Building Code (CRC) APPENDIX BG

SOUND TRANSMISSION This appendix is not adopted in San Francisco (CRC) APPENDIX BH AUTOMATIC VEHICULAR GATES This appendix is not adopted in San Francisco (CRC) APPENDIX BI LIGHT STRAW-CLAY CONSTRUCTION This appendix is not adopted in San Francisco (CRC) APPENDIX BJ STRAWBALE CONSTRUCTION This appendix is not adopted in San Francisco (CRC) APPENDIX BK COB CONSTRUCTION (MONOLITHID ADOBE) This appendix is not adopted in San Francisco (CRC) APPENDIX BL HEMP-LIME (HEMPCRETE) CONSTRUCTION This appendix is not adopted in San Francisco (CRC) APPENDIX BM 3D-PRINTED BUILDING CONSTRUCTION This appendix is not adopted in San Francisco (CRC) APPENDIX BN EXTENDED PLATE WALL CONSTRUCTION This appendix is not adopted in San Francisco (CRC) APPENDIX BO EXISTING BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES This appendix is not adopted in San Francisco (CRC) APPENDIX CA SIZING AND CAPACITIES OF GAS PIPING This appendix is not adopted in San Francisco (CRC) APPENDIX CB SIZING OF VENTING SYSTEMS SERVING APPLIANCES EQUIPPED WITH DRAFT HOODS, CATEGORY I APPLIANCES AND APPLIANCES LISTED FOR USE WITH TYPE B VENTS This appendix is not adopted in San Francisco (CRC) APPENDIX CC RECOMMENDED PROCEDURE FOR SAFETY INSPECTION OF AN EXISTING APPLIANCE INSTALLATION This appendix is not adopted in San Francisco (CRC) APPENDIX CD PIPING STANDARDS FOR VARIOUS APPLICATION This appendix is not adopted in San Francisco (CRC) APPENDIX CE VENTING METHODS

This appendix is not adopted in San Francisco (CRC) APPENDIX CF SIZING OF WATER PIPING SYSTEM This appendix is not adopted in San Francisco (CRC) APPENDIX CG NONSEWERED SANITATION SYSTEMS This appendix is not adopted in San Francisco (CRC) APPENDIX CH PRIVATE SEWAGE DISPOSAL This appendix is not adopted in San Francisco (CRC) APPENDIX NA RESERVED This appendix is not adopted in San Francisco (CRC) APPENDIX NB (Rb) SOLAR-READY PROVISIONS – DETACHED ONE- AND TWO – FAMILY DWELLINGS AND TOWNHOUSES This appendix is not adopted in San Francisco (CRC) APPENDIX NC (Rc) ZERO NET ENERGY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PROVISIONS This appendix is not adopted in San Francisco (CRC) APPENDIX ND (Rd) ELECTRIC ENERGY STORAGE PROVISIONS This appendix is not adopted in San Francisco (CRC) APPENDIX NE (Re) ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE This appendix is not adopted in San Francisco (CRC) APPENDIX NF(Rf) ALTERNATIVE BUILDING THERMAL ENVELOPE INSULATION R-VALUE OPTIONS This appendix is not adopted in San Francisco (CRC) APPENDIX NG(Rg) 2024 IECC STRETCH CODE This appendix is not adopted in San Francisco (CRC) APPENDIX NH(Rh) OPERATIONAL CARBON RATING AND ENERGY REPORTING This appendix is not adopted in San Francisco (CRC) APPENDIX NI(Ri) ON-SITE RENEWABLE ENERGY This appendix is not adopted in San Francisco (CRC) APPENDIX NJ(Rj) DEMAND RESPONSIVE CONTROLS This appendix is not adopted in San Francisco (CRC) APPENDIX NK(Rk) ELECTRIC-READY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PROVISIONS

This appendix is not adopted in San Francisco (CRC) APPENDIX NL(Rl) RENEWABLE ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE This appendix is not adopted in San Francisco CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE (CBC) APPENDICES (CBC) APPENDIX A EMPLOYEE QUALIFICATIONS This appendix is not adopted in San Francisco (CBC) APPENDIX B BOARD OF APPEALS This appendix is not adopted in San Francisco (CBC) APPENDIX C GROUP U–AGRICULTURAL BUILDINGS No San Francisco Building Code Amendments (CBC) APPENDIX D FIRE DISTRICTS This appendix is not adopted in San Francisco (CBC) APPENDIX E RESERVED This appendix is not adopted in San Francisco (CBC) APPENDIX F RODENTPROOFING This appendix is not adopted in San Francisco (CBC) APPENDIX G FLOOD-RESISTANT CONSTRUCTION This appendix is not adopted in San Francisco (CBC) APPENDIX H SIGNS This appendix is not adopted in San Francisco (CBC) APPENDIX I PATIO COVERS No San Francisco Building Code Amendments APPENDIX J GRADING

San Francisco adopts Appendix J as amended below for grading in San Francisco SECTION J103 – PERMITS REQUIRED J103.2 Add the following five exemptions: 8. An excavation that (1) is less 2 feet (610 mm) in depth or (2) does not create a cut slope greater than 5 feet (1524 mm) in height and steeper than 1 unit vertical in 1-1/2 units horizontal (66.7% slope). 9. A fill less than 1 foot (305 mm) in depth and placed on natural terrain with a slope flatter than 1 unit vertical in 5 units horizontal (20% slope), or less than 3 feet (914 mm) in depth, not intended to support structures, that does not exceed 50 cubic yards (38.3 m3) on any one lot and does not obstruct a drainage course. 10. Grading performed incidental to and in connection with the construction of a building or structure on a single lot, pursuant to a valid building permit issued therefor. The cost of such grading shall be included in the total valuation of the building for determining permit fees, and a separate grading permit will not be required. 11. Grading necessary for and incidental to and in connection with the construction of any parks, public streets or roadways, or the construction of sewers, or utilities under or within the boundaries of such roadways or streets when such work is under the direct supervision of the Recreation and Park Department, the Department of Public Works, the Public Utilities Commission or other governmental agencies. 12. Grading operations which in the opinion of the Director are of such a minor nature that the proposed work will not affect the adjoining land, or any existing structures, either those on the same or adjoining land. For such grading operations, the requirements of this chapter may be waived in whole or in part. SECTION J104 – PERMIT APPLICATION AND SUBMITTALS J104.3 Replace the exception as follows: Exception: [ ← ] Grading conforming to all of the following requirements:

No cut section is greater than 10 feet (3.048 m) in vertical height.
No cut slope is steeper than 2 horizontal to 1 vertical.
The tops of cut banks are separated from any structure or major improvement by a distance, measured horizontally, equal to not less than the height of the bank.
Not more than 5,000 cubic yards (3825 m3) shall be involved in grading.
Grading performed at a site outside the limits of known slide areas. All other grading shall require soils report and the grading plans shall include, but not limited to, the following information: (1) The design of retaining walls or other structures used to support cuts or fills. Such retaining walls or structures, except when part of a building, may be constructed under this permit, provided the cost of same is included in the valuation shown on the application. (2) The sequencing of cut and fill operations in a manner that assures interim stability of the site. SECTION J106 – EXCAVATIONS J106.1 Delete all exceptions.[ ← ] SECTION J109 – DRAINAGE AND TERRACING J109 Add the following section: J109.5 Surface Drainage. All areas which are surfaced with asphalt, concrete or other paving of similar imperviousness, and which exceed a total area of 200 square feet (18.58 m2), shall have storm- and casual water drained directly to a public sewer or storm drain. Drainage shall not be directed to flow onto adjacent property or to drain onto public sidewalks. See Section 1502.1 for roof drainage. SECTION J112 – GRADING FEES J112 Add the following section: SECTION J112 GRADING FEES The permit and the plan review fees shall be per Section 110A, Table 1A-A – Building Permit Fees. The valuation shall be based on the volume of earthwork.

(CBC) APPENDIX K GROUP R-3 AND GROUP R-3.1 OCCUPANCIES PROTECTED BY THE FACILITIES OF THE CENTRAL VALLEY FLOOD PROTECTION PLAN This appendix is not adopted in San Francisco (CBC) APPENDIX L EARTHQUAKE RECORDING INSTRUMENTATION No San Francisco Building Code Amendments (CBC) APPENDIX M TSUNAMI-GENERATED FLOOD HAZARD This appendix is not adopted in San Francisco (CBC) APPENDIX N REPLICABLE BUILDINGS This appendix is not adopted in San Francisco (CBC) APPENDIX O PERFORMANCE-BASED APPLICATION This appendix is not adopted in San Francisco (CBC) APPENDIX P SLEEPING LOFTS No San Francisco Building Code Amendments (CBC) APPENDIX Q EMERGENCY HOUSING San Francisco adopts Appendix Q subject to the modifications set forth below SECTION Q101 – GENERAL Q101.1 Revise this section as follows: Q101.1 Scope. This appendix shall be applicable to emergency housing and emergency housing facilities, as defined in Section Q102. The provisions and standards set forth in this appendix shall be applicable to emergency housing established pursuant to the declaration of a shelter crisis under Government Code section 8698 et seq. and located in new or existing buildings, structures, or facilities owned, operated, erected, or constructed by, for, or on behalf of the City and County of San Francisco. SECTION Q103 – EMERGENCY HOUSING Q103.2.1 Add exception 2 as follows: Q103.2.1 New additions, alterations, and change of occupancy. New additions, alterations, and change of occupancy to existing buildings shall comply with the requirements of the California Building Standards Code effective at the time of addition, alteration, or change of occupancy. The requirements shall apply only to and/or within the specific area of the addition, alteration, or change of occupancy. Exceptions: 1. Existing buildings and structures used for emergency housing and emergency housing facilities may not be required to comply with the California Energy Code, as determined by the enforcing agency.

Change in occupancy shall not mandate conformance with new construction requirements set forth in the California Building Standards Code, provided such change in occupancy meets the minimum fire and safety requirements set forth in Section Q111 of this appendix. Q103.7 Add a section as follows: Q103.7 Electrical. Emergency housing shall be provided with all of the following installed in compliance with the California Electrical Code:
Continuous source of electricity. Exception: The source of electricity may be solar power or emergency generator.
At least one interior lighting fixture. SECTION Q110 – EMERGENCY HOUSING FACILITIES SANITATION REQUIREMENTS Q110.2 Revise this section as follows: Q110.2 Kitchens and food facilities. Where provided, kitchens and food facilities, as defined in Section 113789 of the California Health and Safety Code, which support emergency housing sites, shall comply with applicable food safety provisions of Sections 113980–114094.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. Where occupants of dependent units are permitted or required to cook for themselves, a separate area shall be equipped and maintained as a common use kitchen. Refrigerated storage shall be provided for safe storage of food. SECTION Q111 – EMERGENCY HOUSING FIRE AND LIFE SAFETY REQUIREMENTS Q111 Add the following sections: Q111.1 Location on property. Buildings or structures used for emergency housing, including sleeping cabins, shall be located in accordance with the requirements of Table 602 and Section 705 of the California Building Code, based on their type of construction and fire-resistance ratings of the exterior walls. During a shelter crisis, the fire separation distances are permitted to be measured to the existing buildings on the adjacent parcels rather than to the interior lot lines, provided the open spaces are to remain unobstructed for the duration of the shelter crisis. Q111.2 Buildings on same lot. Buildings or structures used for emergency housing, including sleeping cabins, shall be separated from each other and from other buildings on the same lot as set forth in Section 705.3 of the California Building Code. The Building Official and Fire Marshal may accept reasonable alternatives to these requirements provided reasonably equivalent fire and life safety is achieved. Q111.3 Means of egress. Buildings or structures used for emergency housing shall be provided with means of egress complying with Chapter 10 of the California Building Code, unless modified elsewhere in this appendix. Q111.4 Emergency escape and rescue. Each area of a building or structure used for sleeping purposes in emergency housing shall be provided with an emergency escape and rescue opening in accordance with Section 1031 of the California Building Code, unless modified elsewhere in this appendix. Q111.5 Smoke alarms. Buildings or structures used for emergency housing, which provide sleeping accommodations, shall be equipped with single station battery powered smoke alarms installed in accordance with the location requirements of Section 907.2.11 of the California Fire Code, unless modified elsewhere in this appendix. Q111.6 Carbon monoxide alarms. Buildings or structures used for emergency housing, which provide sleeping accommodations, and equipped with fuel-burning appliances shall be provided with carbon monoxide detection in accordance with Section 915 of the California Fire Code, unless modified elsewhere in this appendix. Q111.7 Fire alarm. A manual fire alarm system capable of arousing sleeping occupants in accordance with Section 907 of the California Fire Code shall be installed in buildings, structures, or groups of buildings or structures used for emergency housing. Exception: Individual buildings or structures in a group of buildings or structures with sufficient separation distances to allow each building or structure to function independently in case of a fire, as approved by the Fire Marshal. Q111.8 Automatic sprinkler systems. Fire sprinklers shall be provided for new and existing buildings or structures used for emergency housing, including sleeping cabins, which provide sleeping facilities, as required by Section 903.3 of the California Fire Code. Strict compliance with the requirements of Section 903.3 may not be required when approved by the Fire Marshal. The Fire Marshal is authorized to accept reasonably equivalent alternatives to the installation provisions of Section 903.3 when dealing with buildings or structures used for emergency housing. Q111.9 Fire extinguishers. Portable fire extinguishers shall be provided in accordance with Section 906.1 of the California Fire Code. Q111.10 Flammable or combustible liquids. The possession or storage of any flammable or combustible liquids or gases shall not be permitted (intact cigarette lighters excepted). The use of any type of open flame indoors is prohibited unless conditionally approved by the Fire Chief.

Q111.11 Storage in attics, under-floor, and in concealed spaces. Combustible materials, including but not limited to the possessions of occupants, users, and staff shall not be stored in attics, under-floor spaces, or within other concealed spaces of buildings or structures used for emergency housing with sleeping accommodations. Q111.12 Fire department access. Fire Department access to building and premises used for emergency housing shall be in compliance with Section 503, Appendix D and Section 504 of the California Fire Code, as approved by the Fire Chief. Q111.13 Water supply. An approved fire protection water supply complying with Section 507 of the California Fire Code, or as approved by the Fire Chief, shall be provided for each structure, group of structures or premises used for emergency housing. SECTION Q112 – ALTERNATIVES AND MODIFICATIONS Q112 Add the following section: Q112.1 Alternatives and modifications. Alternative compliance and/or modifications that are reasonably equivalent to the requirements in this appendix may be granted by the Local Administrative Authority in individual cases when dealing with buildings or structures used for emergency housing. ADMINISTRATIVE BULLETINS Printed in the 2025 San Francisco Building Code AB# TITLES AB-001 Preparing Administrative Bulletins AB-004 Priority Permit Processing Guidelines AB-005 Procedures for Approval of Local Equivalencies AB-009 Local Equivalency for Approval of New Openings in New and Existing Building Property Line Walls AB-010 Local Equivalency for Approval of Communicating Openings Between Buildings on Separate Properties AB-013 Application of Disabled Access Provisions to Historic Buildings AB-015 Allowable Temporary Interruptions to Disabled Access AB-017 Exception to Requirements for Disabled Access to Vacant Spaces AB-018 Local Equivalency for Approval of Emergency Escape and Rescue Openings at Courts and Lightwells AB-019 Local Equivalency for Approval of Fire Escapes as a Required Means of Egress AB-020 Local Equivalency for Exiting Through a Garage Area for Type V, Group R Buildings AB-023 Crane Site Safety Plan and Building Permits AB-025 Pre-application Requirement for State Industrial Safety Permit for Certain Trenching, Demolition, and Construction Activities AB-026 Noise Insulation Enforcement Procedures AB-027 Illegal Unit Re-occupancy Enforcement Procedure AB-028 Pre-application and Pre-addendum Plan Review Procedures AB-031 Identification of Revisions on Pages of Drawings AB-032 Site Permit Processing AB-035 Procedure for Assigning Street Numbers (Addresses) AB-036 Special Inspection for Demolition Work AB-040 Referral of Design Professionals and Contractors to Regulatory Agencies AB-042 Board of Examiners: Request for Variance, New Materials, or Alternate Methods of Construction AB-043 Ventilation of Public Spaces in Group R Occupancies AB-046 Special Inspection and Structural Observation Documentation Procedures AB-047 Specific Submittal Criteria for Reports, Special Inspections and Final Acceptance Testing of Smoke Control Systems

AB-056 Disabled Access Compliance Status Documentation AB-057 Local Equivalency for Approval of Roof Hatches in Lieu of Stairway Penthouses in Designated Buildings AB-058 Procedures for Seismic Instrumentation of New Buildings AB-078 Criteria for Waiving Special Inspection Requirements for Signs, Awnings and Canopies AB-082 Guidelines and Procedures for Structural, Geotechnical, and Seismic Hazard Engineering Design Review AB-083 Requirements and Guidelines for the Seismic Design of New Tall Buildings using Non-Prescriptive Seismic-Design Procedures AB-084 Guidelines for the Structural Review of Continuous Tiedown Systems Used to Resist Overturning of Light-Framed Wood Shear Walls AB-088 Collection and Storage of Recyclable, Compostable and Trash Materials AB-093 Implementation of Green Building Regulations AB-094 Definition and Design Criteria for Voluntary Seismic Upgrade of Soft-Story, Type V (wood-frame) Buildings AB-098 Post-Earthquake Repair and Retrofit Requirements for Wood-Frame Residential Buildings with Three or More Dwelling Units AB-099 Post-Earthquake Repair and Retrofit Requirements for Concrete Buildings AB-100 Post-Earthquake Repair and Retrofit Requirements for One- and Two-Family Units AB-105 Voluntary Sprinkler Protection for Existing High-Rise Buildings AB-106 Procedures for Implementation of SFEBC Chapter 5E AB-107 Application of Engineering Criteria in SFEBC Chapter 5E AB-108 Application of California Existing Building Code, Appendix Chapter A3 AB-109 Application of Engineering Criteria in SFEBC Section 329 AB-110 Building Façade Inspection and Maintenance AB-111 Guidelines for Preparation of Geotechnical and Earthquake Ground Motion Reports for Foundation Design and Construction of Tall Buildings AB-112 Implementation of Regulations for All Electric New Construction and Major Renovations AB-113 Application of Engineering Criteria in SFEBC Appendix A, Chapter A6 AB-001 Preparing Administrative Bulletins

NO. AB-001 :

DATE : November 18, 1998 (Updated 01/01/2023 for code references) SUBJECT : General Administrative Procedures TITLE : Preparing Administrative Bulletins PURPOSE : The purpose of this Administrative Bulletin is to describe the procedures to be used in originating, writing, editing and distributing Administrative Bulletins. Administrative Bulletins document the procedures to be followed by the Department of Building Inspection (DBI) staff and other agencies which are involved with the regulatory functions of DBI. Although Administrative Bulletins are intended primarily for DBI use, the information may be of interest to the general public. An Administrative Bulletin differs from an Office Policy and Procedure document in that the latter defines DBI’s internal operating procedures and is generally of interest only to DBI staff. REFERENCE : Current edition of the San Francisco Building Code, Section 104A 2.1 DISCUSSION : The following steps are to be observed in the publishing of an Administrative Bulletin. Refer to the flowchart in ATTACHMENT A. Each Administrative Bulletin shall be reviewed at least annually for concurrence with the current code and from time-to-time as necessitated by changes in policies or requirements.

IDENTIFY THE PROPOSED ADMINISTRATIVE BULLETIN a. Any individual in the Department may identify the need for an Administrative Bulletin and report this need to the supervisor, who will in turn discuss it with the Manager of Permit Services (the Manager). The Manager then makes a recommendation to the Director who may give the authorization to proceed with the writing of the Administrative Bulletin. Similarly, any City agency may identify the need for an Administrative Bulletin directly to the Director. b. The Manager will notify Technical Services Division (TSD) of the subject matter and the person assigned to write the Administrative

Bulletin (the Preparer). TSD will assign the proposed Administrative Bulletin a number and notify the Preparer to proceed. 2. REPORT THE PROPOSED ADMINISTRATIVE BULLETIN TO BUILDING INSPECTION COMMISSION (BIC) Prior to the preparation of the first draft of the Administrative Bulletin, TSD will prepare a brief synopsis of the proposed Administrative Bulletin and shall forward that to the DBI Director for inclusion in the Director’s Report or Communication Item to the Building Inspection Commission (BIC). 3. PREPARE THE DRAFT ADMINISTRATIVE BULLETIN Following such report to the BIC, the Preparer shall prepare the first draft. The first draft is to be returned to TSD within 21 days* after BIC review. Extensions of time may be granted by the Director under extenuating circumstances. Such first draft shall be reviewed by the Deputy Director and TSD for form and content, and revised as necessary. See ATTACHMENT B for the document format which is to be followed. 4. REVIEW THE DRAFT ADMINISTRATIVE BULLETIN a. If so requested by the BIC, the first draft shall be provided to the BIC for public hearing prior to general distribution of the draft for review. b. If no public hearing on the first draft is requested by the BIC, that first draft shall be distributed. The Preparer is to include a list of persons or committees to whom the draft is recommended to be sent for review. The Director and TSD may revise this list. (See ATTACHMENT C for a list of possible reviewers). c. TSD will distribute the first draft and, after a minimum 30 day* review period, will forward any comments received to the Manager. The Manager will review the first draft and the review comments, and if necessary, discuss them with the Preparer. The Manager may refer the draft Administrative Bulletin to any committee for review as seen advisable. 5. PREPARE THE FINAL DRAFT FOR REVIEW BY THE MANAGER Based upon draft review comments a final draft bulletin will be prepared by the Preparer. TSD will prepare the final draft which will then be reviewed for form and content by the Manager. 6. FORWARD THE ADMINISTRATIVE BULLETIN TO THE BIC FOR REVIEW AND PUBLIC HEARING Following review and recommendation by the Manager and Director, the draft Administrative Bulletin will be forwarded to the Building Inspection Commission for review, public hearing and approval. 7. PREPARE THE APPROVED COPY FOR PRINTING AND DISTRIBUTION a. Following BIC approval, the Preparer will have 7 days* to return a final draft to TSD who will review the final draft for conformance to format and prepare a final copy for signature by the Director. b. The signed Administrative Bulletin will be duplicated and distributed as noted on a final distribution list. TSD will file the signed Administrative Bulletin and will keep a record of the completed Administrative Bulletins in separate indexes by: 1). Administrative Bulletin Number 2). Title

The time limits given in the procedure above are guidelines, and may vary depending upon the complexity of the subject matter, review and approval process, and schedule requirements. Many Administrative Bulletins result in multiple “draft” stages. Original signed by: Frank Y. Chiu, Director, Director
Approved by the Building Inspection Commission on November 18, 1998 Attachment A: Administrative Bulletin Preparation, Review and Approval Process Attachment B: Example of Format Attachment C: Possible Reviewers AB-004 Priority Permit Processing Guidelines

NO. AB-004 :

DATE : December 15, 2022 [Supersedes Administrative Bulletin AB-004 originally issued 10/6/06 and revision dated October 15, 2008, April 16, 2014, September 23, 2014 and April 15, 2015] SUBJECT : Permit Processing and Issuance TITLE : Priority Permit Processing Guidelines

PURPOSE : This bulletin establishes guidelines to assure that permit applicants receive equal treatment and that permits are reviewed in the order received by the Department of Building Inspection except for certain designated priority applications. It is the intent of the Department of Building Inspection that the permit review process proceeds in an orderly, fair and efficient manner with sufficient flexibility to allow the reasonable resolution of problems that may occur on a day-to-day basis. This bulletin is issued in conjunction with similar bulletins from the Department of Public Works and the Planning Department. REFERENCES : Current edition of the San Francisco Building Code, Section 106A, Permits San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code, Section 3.400 “Permit Application Processing” Ethics Commission “Permit Processing Code of Conduct” San Francisco Planning Department, Director’s Bulletin No. 2 Department of Public Works, Director’s Order #175,487 Ordinance #202-19 Planning Code Section 206.3 Housing Opportunities Mean Equity – San Francisco Program (HOME-SF program) DISCUSSION : This Administrative Bulletin provides guidelines for the implementation of legislation adopted by the Board of Supervisors to assist City permitting departments in assuring that no appearance of, or actual, preferential treatment is given to any permit applicant. Policy is adopted in accordance with the requirements of San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code Section 3.400, effective December 15, 2004, and supplements the Permit Processing Code of Conduct adopted by the Ethics Commission on January 10, 2005.

These procedures relate to assignment, initial processing, review and issuance of permit applications; as well as to permit revisions, deferred submittals, and corrections submitted to the Department of Building Inspection subsequent to initial permit application. General Policy: In accordance with the City’s adopted “Permit Application Processing” regulations, the Department of Building Inspection has determined that there is a compelling public policy basis to provide priority review and issuance for each of the following designated types of permit applications. Department of Building Inspection employees are encouraged to exercise reasonable judgment in all permit review and issuance activities in order to fulfill our customer service responsibilities. This exercise of reasonable judgment by employees is considered an important component in meeting the intent of the legislation to avoid preferential treatment. In all cases when questions arise regarding potential issues of preferential treatment, employees are required to consult with their supervisors. PROCEDURES Subject to the reasonable judgment of employees, permit applications shall be logged-in, separated into various permit types, assigned to staff for review, and reviewed in the order in which they are received, except for certain designated priority permits as detailed below. The Department of Building Inspection may assign as many different permit types as necessary to assure the efficient operation of that department. For example, the Department of Building Inspection may separate permits for one type of work, such as office tenant improvement construction, from other types of work, such as re-roofing or new building construction. Case A addresses initial permit submittal, assignment, review and issuance. Following such initial priority action, permit applications may be placed on hold, routed to other divisions or other City agencies, issued, cancelled, or expired pursuant to other code requirements and other adopted policies and procedures. Case B addresses issues related to priority processing of permit revisions and of other materials submitted after initial permit acceptance and review, as well as to issues related to final processing and issuance of permits. Case A - Applications for Permits Permit applications for the following types of work may, upon request of the permit applicant, be given priority assignment for plan review and issuance:

Permit applications for necessary emergency work to secure the health or safety of building users or the public, either on private property or on the public right-of-way;
Permit applications for work on City owned or City leased properties when such priority permit review is specified in a written agreement between the Department of Building Inspection and such other City agencies;
Permit applications for work consisting solely of disabled access improvements, including Accessible Business Entrance program SFBC Chapter 11D;
Permit applications for work consisting solely of clean energy supply systems. These include but not limited to solar photovoltaic systems (PV), Solar Thermal (ST), Energy Storage Systems (ESS), Electric Vehicle Charging Stations (EVSE), and wind power generation systems;
Permit applications for work consisting solely of telecommunications facilities per California Government Code Section 65964.1;
Permit applications for the voluntary or mandatory seismic upgrades of buildings to improve performance in earthquakes such as private schools subject to SFEBC Section 329, soft story, or other buildings;
Permit applications principally for maintenance or preservation of designated historic buildings and/or sites;
Permit applications for creating new dwelling units; a. Permit applications for projects that provide new affordable housing (meeting the affordability levels defined in Planning Code Section

415 and in the Procedures Manual adopted by the Mayor's Office of Housing) in 100% of the on-site dwelling units. Conformance with these standards shall be confirmed by Planning Department staff; b. Permit applications for housing projects (1) which are seeking approval under the HOME-SF program, as provided for in Planning Code Section 206.3 or (2) where at least 30 percent of the total number of on-site dwelling units are affordable for a term of no less than 55-years to households with an income no higher than for middle-income households, as defined in Planning Code Section 401. Conformance with these standards shall be confirmed by Planning Department staff c. Applications for creation of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) or Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADU). 9. Permit applications to respond to a delay caused by an earlier procedural error by a City agency in processing the permit or processing another permit for the same project; 10. Permit applications submitted to comply with Notices of Violation, abatement notices, or any other official Department of Public Works, Planning Department or Department of Building Inspection enforcement or abatement notices which require immediate action; or 11. Permit applications for other work for which, in the reasonable judgment of the Director of the Department of Building Inspection, urgent or extraordinary circumstances exist that would lead to a significant public benefit or necessity, when such circumstances are documented in written findings. Case B - Revisions and Addenda to Permits Subject to the reasonable judgment of staff, revisions and other materials submitted to the Department of Building Inspection during the permit review process must be reviewed in the order in which they are received, except as detailed below. Such submittals may include revisions, corrections, deferred submittals, and other permit materials. Exceptions to the strict chronological review and processing sequence are allowed and permit submittal documents may be given priority review, upon request of the permit applicant, when any of the following conditions is met:

Permits meet the priority permit qualifications of Case A, above;
Permit revisions are submitted pursuant to a decision of the Building Inspection Commission, Board of Appeals, Board of Supervisors, or other review or appeals body where such body has directed that the permit revisions be given priority review,
Revisions, deferred submittals, and other permit submittals for work in which, in the reasonable judgment of the Director of the Department of Building Inspection, urgent or extraordinary circumstances exist that would lead to a significant public benefit or necessity, when such circumstances are documented in written findings. Documentation of Priority Processing Priority processing for permits meeting the above criteria is to be undertaken at the request of the permit applicant. All cases of priority permit application processing shall be documented using a standard form, Documentation of Findings for Priority Permit Processing (Attachment I), that includes written findings of conformity with one of the priority types described in this bulletin. This document shall be prepared and submitted by the applicant. Department of Building Inspection, Division managers may approve the form where the permit is in clear conformity with the standards for priority processing. All other requests for priority permit processing should be reviewed and approved by a Deputy Director or other senior manager. One copy of the form approving priority permit processing shall remain with the application, one copy shall be microfilmed or otherwise retained as part of the approved permit documents. Permit applications that are approved for priority processing should be so noted in the Department of Building Inspection’s permit tracking system. The applicant of a priority project shall be required to submit plans for electronic plan review (EPR) to avail of concurrent plan review. Quality Assurance Procedures The assignment of permit applications for priority review and these procedures shall be reviewed by the Department of Building Inspection on an annual basis to confirm that the intent of this policy is being fulfilled and to make changes as necessary to optimize the efficient and fair operation of the permit process. Revision signed by: Patrick O’Riordan, C.B.O. Director Department of Building Inspection December 16, 2022 Approved by Building Inspection Commission October 15, 2008, Revision approved: April 16, 2014; November 19, 2014; April 15, 2015; November 16, 2022 Attachment I: Documentation of Priority Permit Processing (Rev. December 2022) Attachment II: Planning Director Bulletin No. 2 (Rev. September 2020) Attachment III: DPW Order No. 182974 AB-005 Procedures for Approval of Local Equivalencies

NO. AB-005 :

DATE : September 18, 2002 (Updated 1/1/2023 for code references) SUBJECT : Plan Review and Permit Process TITLE : Procedures for Approval of Local Equivalencies PURPOSE : The purpose of this Administrative Bulletin is to detail the procedures to be used for the application and case-by-case review of requests for approval of equivalencies, when work is proposed which does not strictly comply with the provisions of the latest edition of the San Francisco Building, Electrical, Mechanical, or Plumbing Codes. Requests for approval of modifications or alternates will be considered by the Department of Building Inspection and, when applicable, the Fire Department on a case-by-case basis when reasonable equivalency is proposed. REFERENCES : Current edition of the San Francisco Building Code - Section 104A, Organization and Enforcement

Section 104A .2.7, Modifications
Section 104A .2.8, Alternate materials, design and methods of construction DBI Administrative Bulletin AB-042, Board of Examiners: Request for Variance, New Materials, or Alternate Methods of Construction DBI Administrative Bulletin AB-028, Pre-application and Pre- Addendum Plan Review Procedures DISCUSSION : Project sponsors may request the application of standard local equivalencies, as detailed in various Administrative Bulletins, or approval of other alternates when it can be demonstrated on a case-by-case basis that there are practical difficulties in meeting the specific provisions of the codes, that the modification is in conformance with the intent and purpose of the codes, and that reasonable equivalency is provided in fire-protection and structural integrity.

Project sponsors may request the application of standard local equivalencies, as detailed in various Administrative Bulletins, or approval of other alternates when it can be demonstrated on a case-by-case basis that there are practical difficulties in meeting the specific provisions of the codes, that the modification is in conformance with the intent and purpose of the codes, and that reasonable equivalency is provided in fire-protection and structural integrity. Proposed modifications may be administratively approved by the Departments if they conform to the standard provisions of Local Equivalency. Other modifications and applications for use of alternate materials, designs and methods of construction may be administratively approved or may be referred to the Board of Examiners or other review body as appropriate. Based upon individual building and property conditions, the Department of Building Inspection and other City departments, such as the Fire Department, may impose requirements in addition to those proposed by the project sponsor when approving any request for use of a standard local modification, code modification or alternate material, design or method of construction. Additionally, the Department of Building Inspection or any other City agency may require that additional substantiation be provided supporting any claims made for such proposals. Procedure for Application for Local Equivalencies Project sponsors wishing to apply for local equivalencies must fill out and submit the Request for Approval of Local Equivalency form (Attachment A). Fees are required to be paid as noted on that form. Review Procedures for Application for Local Equivalencies The Department of Building Inspection and the Fire Department, when applicable, will conduct review meetings as required to consider requests for the approval of Local Equivalencies, Modifications and Alternates. At such review meetings each request will be either approved, approved with conditions, disapproved, referred to another official body, or placed on “Hold” pending submittal of additional information. Upon approval of the local equivalency, a copy of the signed form approving the equivalency and indicating any conditions of approval will be attached to the submittal documents as part of the permanent record of the project, and a copy will be sent to the project sponsor. Please note that the Board of Examiners reviews requests for variances and requests for approval of certain new materials, methods, and types of construction. The Board of Examiners considers requests concerning structural provisions related to unreinforced masonry buildings. The Access Appeals Commission considers requests for equivalencies for issues related to disabled access. Appeals Determinations of the staff of the Department of Building Inspection regarding local equivalencies may be administratively brought for further review to the Deputy Director and the Director of the Department of Building Inspection. Determinations of the Director may be appealed to the Building Inspection Commission or other designated appeal body. Originally signed by: Frank Y. Chiu, Director October 3, 2002 Gary Massetani, Fire Marshal October 9, 2002 Approved by the Building Inspection Commission on September 18, 2002 Attachment A: Request for Approval of Local Equivalency

AB-009 Local Equivalency for Approval of New Openings in New and Existing Building Property Line Walls

NO. AB-009 :

DATE : September 18, 2002 (Updated 1/1/2023 for code references) SUBJECT : Fire and Life Safety TITLE : Local Equivalency for Approval of New Openings in New and Existing Building Property Line Walls PURPOSE : The purpose of this Administrative Bulletin is to provide standards and procedures for the application and case-by-case review of requests for a modification based on local equivalency to allow openings in exterior walls closer to property lines than are permitted by the latest edition of the San Francisco Building Code (SFBC). This bulletin permits the continuing application of code provisions of former editions of the SFBC regarding property line openings. In conformance with current State law, requests for approval of openings closer to the property line than permitted under the SFBC will be considered on a case-by-case basis when reasonable equivalency is proposed. REFERENCES : Current edition of the San Francisco Building Code

Section 104A .2.7, Modification
Section 104A .2.8, Alternate materials, design, and methods of construction
Section 705 .8, Openings DBI Administrative Bulletin AB-005, Procedures for Approval of Local Equivalencies. San Francisco Administrative Code Article V, Section 23.47, Requirements for Lot Line Window Agreements DISCUSSION : Project sponsors may request the application of this local equivalency allowing openings in building walls closer to property lines than allowed by SFBC Section 705 .8 when it can be demonstrated on a case-by-case basis that there are practical difficulties in meeting the provisions of the code, that the modification is in conformance with the intent and purpose of the code, and that reasonable equivalency is provided in fire protection and structural integrity.

Such proposed modification may conform with the below listed standard provisions. The Department of Building Inspection (DBI) and other City departments may impose additional requirements in the approval of any request for a code modification or alternate based upon individual building and property conditions. Other City agencies that may review such requests include the San Francisco Fire Department, the Planning Department and, for buildings adjoining City-owned property, the Department of Real Estate. If a project sponsor wishes to propose methods of opening protection different than those listed below, proposals for the use of alternate materials, designs, or methods of construction may be submitted for review in the same manner as for this local equivalency. The Department of Building Inspection may require that additional substantiation be provided supporting any claims made for such proposals. Procedure for Application of Local Equivalencies Project sponsors wishing to apply local equivalencies must fill out and submit the Request for Approval of Local Equivalency form (Attachment A). Fees to be paid and scheduling of review of requests are as noted on that form. Following DBI review, each request will either be approved, approved with conditions, disapproved, or placed on Hold pending submittal of additional information. Further details of procedures for the review of local equivalencies may be found in AB-005, Procedures for Approval of Local Equivalencies. Conditions of Local Equivalencies Openings in new building walls and new openings in existing building walls in Groups B, M, and R occupancies that are closer to property lines than permitted under SFBC Section 705 .8 and Table 705 .8 may be permitted on a case-by-case basis when the following provisions or approved equivalent provisions are met and the project sponsor provides documentation of the practical difficulties involved in carrying out the provisions of the regular code. The standard provisions for this Local Equivalency include all of the following:

The openings may not be used to provide required light and ventilation, required egress, or for required emergency escape and rescue.
The openings shall be fixed (non-operable) unless more than 50 feet above the roof of any adjoining building or more than the distance prescribed for protected openings in Table 705.8 in any direction from an adjoining building.
The openings shall be located entirely above any adjoining roof or at least six feet laterally beyond any wall of an adjoining building.
The openings shall be protected with fire assemblies, such as fire shutters or rated window assemblies, having a rating of at least 3/4 hour. Openings in walls which have a fire-protection rating of greater than 1-hour shall be protected by a fire assembly having a three-hour fire- protection rating in four-hour fire-resistive walls, a two-hour fire-protection rating in three-hour fire-resistive walls, and one-and one-half hour fire-protection rating in two-hour fire- resistive walls. Fire shutters, if provided, shall be actuated by smoke detectors located inside and by fusible

links or other approved devices on the outside of the protected openings. 5. The opening shall be protected by a fire sprinkler system having ordinary temperature, quick-response type heads installed within 18" of the openings and spaced at 6 feet on center or at the manufacturer’s recommended minimum spacing, whichever provides the closer spacing. Exception: Openings in Group R Division 3 occupancies. 6. If the adjoining building contains R occupancy uses, proposed openings shall not be located closer than six feet measured in any direction to any existing opening on the adjoining building unless the adjoining owner gives written consent. A copy of the statement giving such consent shall be attached to the permit application. 7. The owner of a building with such openings shall provide a recorded statement that these openings will be closed or protected with approved fire resistive wall construction in the event that the adjoining property is improved in such a manner that the openings no longer comply with the provisions of this Administrative Bulletin. A copy of a Declaration of Use Limitation (Attachment B) shall be submitted to the plan reviewer prior to completion of Department of Building inspection plan review. 8. Property line openings which open onto property owned by the City and County of San Francisco shall meet the requirements of San Francisco Administrative Code, Article VI, Sections 23.27 through 23.30 (Attachment C). An approved and executed “Lot Line Window Agreements” shall be submitted as part of the documents required under Item 9 (below). 9. A permit application and related submittal documents shall detail all construction which is approved as a result of this request for local equivalency. Originally signed by: Frank Y. Chiu, Director October 3, 2002 Gary Massetani, Fire Marshal October 9, 2002 Approved by the Building Inspection Commission on September 18, 2002 Attachment A: Request for Approval of Local Equivalency Attachment B: Assessor/Recorder’s Office Document - “Declaration of Use Limitation” (Rev. April 2021) Attachment C: San Francisco Administrative Code Article V, Lot Line Window Agreements (https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/san_francisco/latest/sf_admin/0-0-0-14202#JD_Ch.23Art.V) AB-010 Local Equivalency for Approval of Communicating Openings Between Buildings on Separate Properties

NO. AB-010 :

DATE : September 18, 2002 (Updated 1/1/2023 for code reference) SUBJECT : Fire and Life Safety TITLE : Local Equivalency for Approval of Communicating Openings Between Buildings on Separate Properties PURPOSE : The purpose of this Administrative Bulletin is to provide standards and procedures for the application and case-by-case review of requests for a modification based on local equivalency to allow communicating openings between buildings where such openings do not comply with the provisions of the latest edition of the San Francisco Building Code (SFBC) regarding fire resistance of exterior walls and protection of openings at property lines. This bulletin permits the continuing application of code provisions of former editions of the SFBC regarding communicating openings. In conformance with current State law, requests for approval of communicating openings will be considered on a case- by-case basis when reasonable equivalency is proposed. REFERENCES : Current edition of the San Francisco Building Code (SFBC)

Section 104A .2.7, Modifications
Section 104A .2.8, Alternate materials, design, and methods of construction
Section 705.8, Openings DBI Administrative Bulletin AB-005, Procedures for Approval of Local Equivalencies

DISCUSSION : Project sponsors may request the application of this local equivalency allowing openings in building walls which connect buildings on separate lots when such openings in exterior walls do not meet the provisions of SFBC Section 705.8 and when it can be demonstrated on a case-by-case basis that there are practical difficulties in meeting the provisions of the code, that the modification is in conformance with the intent and purpose of the code, and that reasonable equivalency is provided in fire-protection and structural integrity.

Such proposed modification may be approved by the Department of Building Inspection and the Fire Department if it conforms with the below listed standard provisions. The Department of Building Inspection and other City departments may impose additional requirements, in addition to those listed below, in the approval of any request for a code modification or alternate based upon individual building and property conditions. If a project sponsor wishes to propose methods of protection of communicating openings which differ from those listed below, proposals for the use of alternate materials, designs, or methods of construction may be submitted for review in the same manner as for this Local Equivalency. The Department of Building Inspection may require that additional substantiation be provided supporting any claims made for such proposals. Procedures for Application of Local Equivalencies Project sponsors wishing to apply Local Equivalencies must fill out and submit the Request for Approval of Local Equivalencies form (Attachment A). Fees to be paid and scheduling of review of requests are as noted on that form. Following the Department of Building Inspection review and, when appropriate, the San Francisco Fire Department review, each request will either be approved, approved with conditions, disapproved, or placed on “Hold” pending submittal of additional information. Determinations of the staff of the Department of Building Inspection regarding local equivalencies may be administratively brought for further review to the Deputy Director and the Director of the Department of Building Inspection. Determinations of the Director may be appealed to the Building Inspection Commission or to other designated appeals bodies. Further details of procedures for the review of local equivalencies may be found in AB-005, Procedures for Approval of Local Equivalencies. Conditions of Local Equivalency Communicating openings between new or existing buildings located on real or assumed property lines where such openings are closer to property lines than permitted under SFBC Section 705.8 and Table 705.8 may be permitted on a case-by-case basis when the following provisions or other approved equivalent provisions are met and the project sponsor provides documentation of the practical difficulties involved in carrying out the provisions of the regular code. The standard provisions for this local equivalency include:

The total width of all communicating openings in a building wall shall not exceed 25 percent of the length of the wall at the floor where the openings occur. A single opening shall not exceed 120 square feet. Multiple openings are permitted.
Communicating openings in each building shall be protected by approved and listed automatic-closing fire assemblies having fire protection ratings of at least that required for the exterior wall of the building per Tables 601 and 705 .5, or for any occupancy separation required between adjoining occupancies in the separate buildings as prescribed in Table 508.4, whichever results in a greater fire-resistive rating. In no case shall the opening protection be less than one-hour. Such fire assemblies shall close in the event of heat or smoke detected on either side of the communicating opening and shall cause a local fire alarm to sound upon closing.
All vertical shafts and stairways in each building having communicating openings shall be enclosed on the floor or floors where such communicating openings occur, and on the floors immediately above and below where such communicating openings occur. Enclosures shall be in accordance with SFBC Table 601 and SFBC Section 716 . Openings into such shaft and stairway enclosures shall comply with SFBC Sections 713 and 1023 .
The total combined floor area for floor connected by communicating openings shall the basis for determination of fire sprinkler requirements in accordance with SFBC Section 903.2.
A communicating opening shall not adversely affect the lateral force resisting capability of either building and shall not cause the transfer of lateral forces between buildings. Calculations and details substantiating this shall be provided.
Fire protection assemblies in communicating openings shall be designed, insofar as practical, to resist blockage and jamming in the case of seismic events.
Communicating openings shall not be used as required exits.
Sprinklers for exposure protection of the openings shall be installed within 18 inches of the openings in each building. The heads shall be of ordinary temperature, quick-response type and be spaced at six feet on center or at the manufacturer’s recommended minimum spacing, whichever provides the closer spacing.
The owner of each building having a communicating opening shall provide a recorded statement that such opening(s) will be closed or protected with approved fire-resistive wall construction in the event that either building is altered in such a manner that the communicating openings no longer comply with the provisions of this Administrative Bulletin. A copy of a Declaration of Use Limitation (Attachment B) shall be submitted to the plan reviewer prior to completion of Department of Building inspection plan review. A permit application and related submittal documents shall detail all construction which is approved as a result of this request for local equivalency. No work to create a communicating opening between buildings shall be done prior to approval of such permit application and issuance of a permit. Originally signed by: Frank Y. Chiu, Director

October 3, 2002 Gary Massetani, Fire Marshal October 9, 2002 Approved by the Building Inspection Commission on September 18, 2002 Attachment A: Request for Approval of Local Equivalency Attachment B: Assessor/Recorder’s Office Document - “Declaration of Use Limitation” AB-013 Application of Disabled Access Provisions to Historic Buildings

NO. AB-013 :

DATE : September 18, 2002 [Updated 1/1/2023 for code references.] SUBJECT : Disabled Access TITLE : Application of Disabled Access Provisions to Historic Buildings PURPOSE : To establish policies and procedures for the application of the alternate provisions to the California Historical Building Code and to define appeal procedures from administrative decisions. REFERENCES : Current edition of the California Historical Building Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 8 Current edition of the San Francisco Building Code DBI Administrative Bulletin AB-028, Pre-application and Pre- addendum Plan Review Procedures DISCUSSION : The intent of this bulletin is to establish procedures to allow project sponsors for qualified historic buildings and properties to request alternatives to the regular disabled access regulations through the application of the provisions of the State Historical Building Code. Materials related to the application of alternative provisions must be provided by the project sponsor to the Department of Building Inspection for review of each specific request to apply the State Historical Building Code. Included must be complete documentation citing the appropriate code sections and providing the following information: • Documentation that the building or property is a qualified historical building or property within the terms and definitions of the State Historical Building Code. Such qualification is to be in accordance with the policies and procedures developed by the Department of Building Inspection and the Planning Department. • Information indicating how strict compliance with the disabled access provisions of the San Francisco Building Code would threaten or destroy the historic significance or character defining features of the building or property. Each specific item for which an exception is requested must be specifically identified and justified. • A clear statement of each of the alternative(s) to be applied from the list of the State Historical Building Code, Sections 8-602 and 8-603. Note that the alternative provisions listed in the State Historical Building Code are not a comprehensive listing of all possible alternatives. The appellant may identify other reasonably equivalent alternatives to the regular code which would result in access to and use by persons with disabilities. • Plans, photographs and other visual documentation for inclusion into the file so that the conditions are clearly understandable by reviewers. The prevailing San Francisco Building Code provisions for disabled access apply to all buildings regardless of historical status unless it can be demonstrated on a case-by-case basis that compliance with the prevailing code would threaten or destroy the historical significance or character defining features of a building or property. Procedure for Review 1a. The building permit application and accompanying documentation proposing listed Alternative Provisions or equivalent facilitation shall be routed to Plan Review Services Divisions for review to determine if standard administrative approval of an unreasonable hardship request can be granted. 1b. Alternatively, a pre-application plan review meeting may be requested prior to permit submittal by the project sponsor to determine the applicability of Alternative Provisions or equivalent facilitation under the State Historical Building Code. 2. If standard administrative approval cannot be granted, the request for approval of the proposed Alternative Provisions or equivalent facilitation, along with accompanying supporting documentation, should be sent to Plan Review Services Division Manager for review. For those items which are not specifically listed as Alternative Provisions under Sections 8-602 and 8-603, documentation to be provided by the project sponsor to the Department of Building Inspection, Plan Review Services shall contain written documentation including the opinions and comments of representative local groups of persons with disabilities, persons knowledgeable about historic preservation, and other qualified individuals regarding the issue in question. Alternatively, or to supplement such comments, the Department of Building Inspection may hold its own public review with other representative persons with disabilities, in addition to other qualified persons, should it choose to do so. Any person who meets the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) definition of “disabled” may be represented for these purposes.

[Note: Under the ADA, an individual with a disability is a person who has a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more of the person’s major life activities; has a record of such an impairment; or is regarded as having such an impairment.] Based on the information submitted, as well as other information available to the Department of Building Inspection from the Planning Department and other resources, an administrative decision will be issued by DBI approving or denying the request, or a request for additional information will be made within a reasonable period of time. 3. A disagreement with the decision of Department of Building Inspection staff may, on request, be reviewed through the supervisory chain, to the Director of the Department of Building Inspection. A project sponsor wishing to appeal the administrative decision of the Department of Building Inspection staff and Director may appeal to the Access Appeals Commission (AAC). 4. The appellant may appeal the decision of the AAC to the State Historical Building Safety Board. The subject of the appeal must first be determined by the State Historical Building Safety Board to be of statewide significance. This final administrative appeal is available to confirm that the local agency has rendered a decision which is consistent with statewide interpretations of the disabled access codes and the State Historical Building Code. Originally Signed By: Frank Y. Chiu, Director October 3, 2002 Approved by the Building Inspection Commission on September 18, 2002 AB-015 Allowable Temporary Interruptions to Disabled Access

NO. AB-015 :

DATE : September 16, 1998 (Updated 1/1/2023 for code references) SUBJECT : Disabled Access TITLE : Allowable Temporary Interruptions to Disabled Access PURPOSE : The purpose of this bulletin is to establish guidelines for approval of conditions which might pose temporary interruptions in disabled access to certain areas in new or existing buildings. This bulletin further defines required maintenance of disabled access features. REFERENCE : Current edition of the San Francisco Building Code

Section 1.1.7, Order of precedence and use
Section 1.9.1, Division of the State Architect - Access Compliance
Section 11B-108, Maintenance of Accessible Features DISCUSSION : It is the intent of this bulletin to identify specific conditions which might permit temporary, isolated interruptions in disabled access due to maintenance and repair and in testing or emergency conditions. Such permissible interruptions in access do not supersede requirements for the installation and maintenance in good working order of features and devices necessary to provide access to persons with disabilities.

Certain construction and features which typically comply with all access requirements may result in decreased access when testing or emergency conditions arise or when normal or unanticipated maintenance is required. Typical of these conditions is fire doors which are on magnetic, smoke- detector-actuated hold-opens which close upon testing of fire alarm systems or the operation of emergency systems. It is the intent of this bulletin to permit the use of devices which provide normal accessible features without requiring full access under emergency conditions. Where the following specific conditions are met, the Department of Building Inspection will allow routine approval of normally accessible features with the understanding that in times of emergency or isolated temporary interruption such features may not provide full compliance with all access regulations. Specific allowable temporary interruptions in access include but are not limited to the following features and conditions, which may be incorporated into the design of buildings and facilities:

Elevator lobby smoke doors and corridor, lobby, and other doors on permanently-installed “hold-open” devices when, during activation due to testing, service, or emergency, such doors do not provide full strike-side clearances.
During the normal maintenance or repair of accessible features as required by the San Francisco Building and Housing Codes. If access is to be interrupted for an extended period of time, the length of interruption shall be posted and, where possible, alternative means of access shall be provided. The Department of Building Inspection may administratively grant unreasonable hardship requests for permanent construction that might limit access to persons with disabilities during such periods as described. Project applicant should submit the necessary Unreasonable Hardship Form and indicate the specific nature of the request for review by the Department of Building Inspection. Originally Signed By: Frank Y. Chiu, Director

November 12, 1998 Approved by the Building Inspection Commission on September 16, 1998 AB-017 Exception to Requirements for Disabled Access to Vacant Spaces

NO. AB-017 :

DATE : September 16, 1998 (1/1/2023 for code references) SUBJECT : Disabled Access TITLE : Exception to Requirements for Disabled Access to Vacant Spaces PURPOSE : The purpose of this bulletin is to establish guidelines for provision of accessibility to vacant and to subsequently occupied or re-occupied spaces or buildings. REFERENCE : Current edition of the San Francisco Building Code

Section 1.9.1, Division of the State Architect - Access Compliance
Section 103A, Violations DISCUSSION : The Department of Building Inspection (DBI) through this bulletin intends to assure the compliance with requirements for accessibility to spaces used and occupied by persons with disabilities and other persons, while affirming that buildings or portions of buildings which are not occupied for any use or purpose do not require access. This bulletin further addresses issues of accessibility upon re-occupancy of buildings where existing violations have been cited by DBI, and confirms that access requirements must be met before either temporary or permanent occupancy.

In order to avoid the costly provision of disabled access features for spaces where tenant improvements have not yet been fully incorporated for future use, or where the temporary solution to disabled access complaints may be to vacate a non-complying space, the Department of Building Inspection acknowledges that there are no requirements to provide disabled access to such vacant space. When vacant spaces become occupied or re-occupied, all disabled access features must be provided as required under the San Francisco Building Code. New buildings, particularly those core-and-shell buildings where tenant spaces have not yet been occupied, may be granted exceptions from some specific interior access requirements but must meet all basic site access requirements so that construction does not preclude subsequent access compliance. Buildings actively under construction or renovation which are not occupied for other purposes also need not be provided with disabled access features. Where a vacant building or space is subject to a complaint or abatement action for failure to provide required disabled access features, such access features need not be provided until the space is reoccupied. Prior to reoccupancy, a building permit is required to correct accessibility violations, even if no other tenant improvement or other construction work is contemplated. It is the responsibility of the owner to provide no less than quarterly updates to the Department of Building Inspection regarding the status of vacant buildings upon which complaints are outstanding. Such reports shall be provided to the Disabled Access Division of the Department of Building Inspection and signed by the owner or their representative. Note that the San Francisco Building Code specifically requires access to temporary and emergency buildings and facilities. Any use of otherwise vacant spaces, such as temporary office space or other special use, requires compliance with disabled access regulations per San Francisco Building Code Section 1.9. Temporary uses may be provided with temporary disabled access features with the approval the Department of Building Inspection (i.e., temporary accessible toilet facilities). Originally Signed By: Frank Y. Chiu, Director November 12, 1998 Approved by the Building Inspection Commission on September 16, 1998 AB-018 Local Equivalency for Approval of Emergency Escape or Rescue Windows at Courts and Light Wells

NO. AB-018 :

DATE : September 18, 2002 (Updated 1/1/2023 for code references) SUBJECT : Fire and Life Safety TITLE : Local Equivalency for Approval of Emergency Escape and Rescue Openings at Courts and Light Wells

PURPOSE : The purpose of this Administrative Bulletin is to provide standards and procedures for the application and case-by-case review of requests for local equivalency to allow access to or exit from emergency escape and rescue openings into enclosed courts or lightwells where such means of escape or rescue do not strictly comply with the provisions of the latest edition of the San Francisco Building Code (SFBC) regarding emergency escape and rescue openings. This bulletin permits the continuing application of code provisions of former editions of the SFBC regarding emergency escape and rescue openings. Requests for approval of local equivalency of emergency escape and rescue openings that open into courts or lightwells will be considered on a case-by-case basis when reasonable equivalency is proposed. REFERENCES : Current edition of the San Francisco Building Code

Section 104A.2.7, Modifications.
Section 104A.2.8, Alternate Materials, design, and methods of construction.
Section 1031, Emergency Escape and Rescue. DBI Administrative Bulletin AB-005, Procedures for Approval of Local Equivalencies DBI Administrative Bulletin AB-019, Local Equivalency for Approval of Fire Escapes as a Required Means of Egress DISCUSSION : Project sponsors may request the application of this local equivalency allowing emergency escape or rescue openings to open into a court or lightwell without strict compliance with the provisions of SFBC Section 1031 when it can be demonstrated on a case-by-case basis that there are practical difficulties in meeting the provisions of the SFBC, that the modification is in conformance with the intent and purpose of the SFBC, and that reasonable equivalency is provided in fire-protection and structural integrity.

Such proposed modification may be approved by the Department if it conforms with the below-listed standard provisions. The Department of Building Inspection (DBI) and other City departments may impose additional requirements, in addition to those listed below, in the approval of any request for a code modification or alternate based upon individual building and property conditions. The San Francisco Fire Department may also review such case-by-case requests. If a project sponsor wishes to propose emergency escape and rescue openings that open into courts or lightwells which differ from those listed below, proposals for the use of alternate materials, designs, or methods of construction may be submitted for review in the same manner as for this Local Equivalency. The Department of Building Inspection may require that additional substantiation be provided supporting any claims made for such proposals. Procedure for Application of Local Equivalencies Project sponsors wishing to apply local equivalencies must fill out and submit the Request for Approval of Local Equivalency form (Attachment A). Fees to be paid and scheduling of review of requests are as noted on that form. Following DBI review, each request will either be approved, approved with conditions, disapproved, or placed on “Hold” pending submittal of additional information. Further details of procedures for the review of local equivalencies and appeal of departmental determinations may be found in Administrative Bulletin AB-005, Procedures for Approval of Local Equivalencies. Conditions of Local Equivalency Emergency escape and rescue openings that open into courts or lightwells without direct access to a yard or public way may be permitted on a case-by-case basis when the following provisions or approved equivalent provisions are met and the project sponsor provides documentation of the practical difficulties involved in carrying out the provisions of the regular code. The standard provisions for this local equivalency include:

The building in which the emergency escape and rescue openings are proposed shall not exceed four (4) stories in height.
Emergency escape and rescue openings shall have access to a stairway, a fire escape or a permanently affixed balcony and ladder leading to a roof having a slope of not more than 4:12. Fire escape, balcony and ladder construction shall comply with Administrative Bulletin AB-019, Local Equivalency for Approval of Fire Escapes as a Required Means of Egress. Such stairway, fire escape or balcony and ladder shall have at least 50% net open area to allow the penetration of required light and ventilation.
A level path of travel shall be provided on the roof to a stairway enclosure or to another approved exit. Such path of travel shall be not less than three (3) feet in width.
Roofs used as part of the path of travel shall be at least one hour fire-rated.
The building shall be fire sprinklered per applicable standards.
A permit application and related submittal documents shall detail all construction which is approved as a result of this request for local equivalency. Originally Signed By: Frank Y. Chiu, Director October 3, 2002 Gary Massetani, Fire Marshal

October 9, 2002 Approved by the Building Inspection Commission on September 18, 2002 Attachment A: Request for Approval of Local Equivalency AB-019 Local Equivalency for Approval of Fire Escapes as a Required Means of Egress

NO. AB-019 :

DATE : September 18, 2002 (Updated 1/1/2023 for code references.) SUBJECT : Fire and Life Safety TITLE : Local Equivalency for Approval of Fire Escapes as a Required Means of Egress PURPOSE : The purpose of this Administrative Bulletin is to provide standards and procedures for the application and case-by-case review of requests for a modification based on a local equivalency to allow fire escapes to serve as required means of egress where such means of egress do not strictly comply with the provisions of Chapter 10 of the latest edition of the San Francisco Building Code (SFBC). This bulletin permits the continuing application of code provisions of former editions of the SFBC allowing fire escapes to be used as required means of egress. Requests for approval of fire escapes will be considered on a case-by-case basis when reasonable equivalency is proposed. REFERENCES : Current edition of the San Francisco Building Code

Section 104A.2.7, Modifications
Section 104A.2.8, Alternate materials, design, and methods of construction
Chapter 10, Means of Egress DBI Administrative Bulletin AB-005, Procedures for Approval of Local Equivalencies DISCUSSION : Project sponsors may request the application of this local equivalency allowing fire escapes when such means of egress do not meet the specific provisions of SFBC Chapter 10, Means of Egress, when it can be demonstrated on a case-by-case basis that there are practical difficulties in meeting the provisions of the SFBC, that the modification is in conformance with the intent and purpose of the SFBC, and that reasonable equivalency is provided in fire-protection and structural integrity.

Such proposed modification may be approved by the Department of Building Inspection (DBI) and the Fire Department if it conforms with the below listed standard provisions. The Department of Building Inspection and other City departments may impose additional requirements, in addition to those listed below, in the approval of any request for a code modification or alternate based upon individual building and property conditions. The Planning Department and other agencies may also review such case-by-case requests. If a project sponsor wishes to propose fire escapes or other means of egress that differ from those listed below, proposals for the use of alternate materials, designs, or methods of construction may be submitted for review in the same manner as for this Local Equivalency. The Department of Building Inspection may require that additional substantiation be provided supporting any claims made for such proposals. Procedure for Application of Local Equivalencies Project sponsors wishing to apply local equivalencies must fill out and submit the Request for Approval of Local Equivalency form (Attachment A). Fees to be paid and scheduling of review of requests are as noted on that form. Following DBI review, each request will either be approved, approved with conditions, disapproved, or placed on “Hold” pending submittal of additional information. Further details of procedures for the review of local equivalencies and appeal of departmental determinations may be found in Administrative Bulletin AB-005, Procedures for Approval of Local Equivalencies. Conditions of Local Equivalency Fire escapes as means of required egress may be permitted on a case-by-case basis when the following provisions or approved equivalent provisions are met and the permit applicant provides documentation of the practical difficulties involved in carrying out the provisions of the regular code. For the local equivalency of fire escapes, code requirements for stairways may be met by fire escapes conforming to the requirements detailed below. This local equivalency shall not apply to new buildings which are under the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Fire Department. The standard provisions for this local equivalency include:

1.0.¶

A fire escape may be installed to serve as one of the required means of egress for existing buildings of Groups B, F-1, M, R-1, R-2, R-3, S-1,

and S-2 Occupancies when all of the following conditions are met:

Exceptions & meaning →

1.1. The building may not exceed four stories in height; and¶

1.2 The building has only one street frontage, and such street front is not more than 37 1/2 feet in width.¶

A Group R building may have a second

frontage, provided neither frontage exceeds 37 1/2 feet in width; and

Exceptions & meaning →

1.3 The total occupant load above the first floor does not exceed 50.¶

2.0.¶

2.1 General.¶

2.4 Openings.¶

In buildings with fire-resistive exterior walls, where fire escapes are permitted, access openings to such fire escapes shall be

protected by an approved self-closing 3/4-hour fire-resistive assembly.

Exceptions & meaning →

2.12 Exit Lighting.¶

3.0. Any fire escape shall lead to a complying means of egress.¶

4.0.¶

A permit application and related submittal documents shall detail all construction which is approved as a result of this request for local

equivalency. No work to install fire escapes as a required means of egress on existing buildings shall be done prior to approval of such permit application and issuance of a permit. Originally Signed By: Frank Y. Chiu, Director October 3, 2002 Gary Massetani, Fire Marshal October 9, 2002 Approved by the Building Inspection Commission on September 18, 2002 Attachment A: Request for Approval of Local Equivalency AB-020 Local Equivalency for Exiting Through a Garage Area for Type V, Group R Buildings

NO. AB-020 :

DATE : September 18, 2002 (Updated 1/1/2023 for code references) SUBJECT : Fire and Life Safety TITLE : Local Equivalency for Exiting Through a Garage Area for Type V, Group R Buildings PURPOSE : The purpose of this Administrative Bulletin is to provide standards and procedures for the application and case-by-case review of requests for a Local Equivalency to allow exiting from a rear yard through garages in Type V [wood frame], Group R Occupancies when such paths of exit travel do not strictly comply with the provisions of the latest edition of the San Francisco Building Code (SFBC). This bulletin permits the continuing application of code provisions of former editions of the SFBC regarding exiting through Group R garages. Requests for approval of alternate path of exit travel will be considered on a case-by-case basis when reasonable equivalency is proposed. REFERENCES : Current edition of the San Francisco Building Code

Section 104A.2.7, Modifications.
Section 104A.2.8, Alternate materials, design, and methods of construction.
Chapter 10, Means of Egress. DBI Administrative Bulletin AB-005, Procedures for Approval of Local Equivalencies DISCUSSION : Project sponsors may request the application of this Local Equivalency allowing exiting through a garage without strict compliance with the provisions of SFBC Chapter 10 when it can be demonstrated on a case-by-case basis that there are practical difficulties in meeting the provisions of the SFBC, that the modification is in conformance with the intent and purpose of the SFBC, and that reasonable equivalency is provided in fire-protection and structural integrity.

Such proposed modification may be approved by the Department if it conforms with the below listed standard provisions. The Department of Building Inspection and other City departments may impose additional requirements, in addition to those listed below, in the approval of any request for a code modification or alternate based upon individual building and property conditions. The San Francisco Fire Department may also review such case-by-case requests. If a project sponsor wishes to propose means of egress which differ from those listed below, proposals for the use of alternate materials, designs, or methods of construction may be submitted for review in the same manner as for this Local Equivalency. The Department of Building Inspection may require that additional substantiation be provided supporting any claims made for such proposals. Procedure for Application of Local Equivalencies Project sponsors wishing to apply local equivalencies must fill out and submit the Request for Approval of Local Equivalency Form. Fees to be paid and scheduling of review are as noted on that form. Following DBI review, each request will be approved, approved with conditions, disapproved, or placed on “Hold” pending submittal of additional information. Further details of procedures for the review of local equivalencies and appeal of departmental determinations may be found in Administrative Bulletin AB-005, Procedures for Approval of Local Equivalencies. Conditions of Local Equivalency A required exit access from dwelling units in a Type V, Group R occupancy may be permitted to use a garage as part of the exit access on a case- by-case basis when all of the following provisions or other approved equivalent provisions are met and when the project sponsor provides documentation of the practical difficulties involved in carrying out the provisions of the regular code. The standard provisions of Local Equivalency include:

The entire garage area and any covered driveway area shall be provided with ordinary-temperature, quick-response fire sprinklers; and
The building has only one street frontage, and such street frontage is not greater than 37-1/2 feet; and
The path of exit travel through the garage shall be marked by at least 2 inches wide stripes placed parallel at 24 inches on center in clearly contrasting colors. The marked path shall be at least 10 feet wide, except that portions may be 3 feet wide when used solely for exiting and when separated from any parking area or covered driveway by permanent noncombustible railings or building walls at least 3 feet high. Such railings or building walls shall extend the full length of the pathway on each side, and any railings shall be set in a concrete curb at least 12 inches high and 8 inches thick; and
The path of exit travel through the garage shall be posted with a permanent, prominently displayed sign in block letters not less than 3 inches in height reading: “EXIT PATH. DO NOT OBSTRUCT”; and
All doorways or openings in the path of exit travel shall be a minimum of three feet wide. Sliding and overhead doors shall not be permitted in buildings under the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Fire Department. In other buildings, sliding and overhead doors shall not be permitted when the occupant load served is greater than ten. Any door installed in the path of exit travel shall meet the requirements of SFBC Section 1010; and
The path of exit travel shall be illuminated in accordance with SFBC Section 1008; and
A permit application and related submittal documents shall detail all construction which is approved as a result of this request for local equivalency. No work to create a required exit which passes through a garage in a Type V, Group R Occupancy shall be done prior to approval

and issuance of such permit application. Originally Signed By: Frank Y. Chiu, Director October 3, 2002 Gary Massetani, Fire Marshal October 9, 2002 Approved by the Building Inspection Commission on September 18, 2002 Attachment A: Request for Approval of Local Equivalency AB-023 Crane Site Safety Plan and Building Permits

NO. AB-023 :

DATE : March 18, 2009 (Updated 1/1/2023 for code references) [This bulletin supersedes AB-023, dated September 18, 2002] SUBJECT : Plan Review; Permit Process TITLE : Crane Site Safety Plan and Building Permits PURPOSE : The purpose of this Administrative Bulletin is to detail procedures regarding tower crane safety which comply with the intent of the latest edition of the San Francisco Building Code Section 1705.23. Implementation of the intent of the code requires that a contractor identify the location of proposed crane operations on a Crane Site Safety Plan and agree to comply with all applicable tower crane safety regulations; to require the presence of a safety representative during tower crane erection, jumping, and dismantling, and to prohibit, without prior agreement with the City and County of San Francisco, the controlling contractor and the crane erector, these operations from taking place during high traffic hours; to require employment of a flag-person to redirect traffic when loads are lifted over public streets and walkways during high traffic hours; and to require the review, approval and permitting by the Department of Building Inspection of the structural elements of tower crane foundations and tie-in attachments. REFERENCES : Current edition of the San Francisco Building Code, Section 1705.23 Administrative Bulletin AB-046: Special Inspection and Structural Observation Procedures Title 8, Occupational Safety and Health Regulations (CAL/OSHA), Chapter 4, Subchapter 7: General Industry Safety Orders, Group 13, Article 90-94, Cranes, Hydraulic Cranes and Excavators Title 8, Chapter 4, Subchapter 7: General Industry Safety Orders, Group 13, Article 96, Tower Cranes re: Requirements for erection, dismantling, operation, tests / examination of equipment and accessory gear DISCUSSION : Following a tower crane collapse in November 1989, the State of California passed legislation regulating certain tower crane operations. The San Francisco Board of Supervisors approved an ordinance, based on that state legislation that added a section regarding tower crane safety requirements to the San Francisco Building Code (SFBC).

Crane safety remains under the jurisdiction of the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA), which requires an erection permit prior to the construction of foundation, anchorage and the erection of a tower crane. A Cal/OSHA operational permit is also required prior to the crane operation. While the San Francisco Department of Building Inspection (DBI) has no direct authority over, and its employees have no expertise in, the regulation of tower cranes, the following forms and procedures were developed to administer the San Francisco Building Code requirements. Definitions For the purposes of this Administrative Bulletin, the following definitions apply:

Contractor is the building contractor, licensed by the State of California, responsible for tower crane site safety for the project.
High traffic hours means weekdays from 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM, 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM, excluding holidays.
Tower crane is a crane in which a boom, swinging (slewing) jib or other structural member is mounted on a vertical mast or tower, and includes the following subcategories as defined by Cal/OSHA General Industry Safety Orders, Article 91, 4885(V)(1- 4): a. Tower crane (climber) is a crane that may be raised or lowered to different floors or levels of the building or structure, that is erected upon, near to, and/or supported by a building or other structure.

b. Tower crane (free standing) is a crane with a horizontally swinging or luffing boom which may be on a fixed base or mounted on rails and not attached to any other structure. c. Tower crane (mobile) is a tower crane which is mounted on a crawler, truck or similar carrier for travel or transit. d. Tower crane (self-erector) is a mobile tower crane that is truck-carrier mounted and capable of self-erection. 4. Jumping (climbing) a crane is the process of increasing or decreasing the height of a tower crane by raising the upper (slewing) section and inserting or removing modular tower sections beneath it. 5. Safety Representative shall mean a safety representative of the crane manufacturer, distributor, or a representative of a licensed crane certifier, per Cal/OSHA requirements. General Requirements This Administrative Bulletin shall apply to climber tower cranes and to free standing tower cranes; mobile tower cranes and self-erector tower cranes are exempt from these regulations, but must meet all other Cal/OSHA requirements. A Crane Site Safety Plan and Building Permit Application (Form 3) for the tower crane foundation and tower crane attachments shall be submitted to the DBI Plan Review Services (PRS) Division for review and approval prior to the erection of any such tower crane or the construction of the tower crane foundation, except that the tower crane foundation, tower crane attachments and crane site safety plan may be part of any structural addendum related to the building construction. Procedure For the review and approval of the Crane Site Safety Plan Submittal Form and Crane Safety Compliance Agreement; and for the review, approval, and issuance of a building permit for tower crane foundation and tower crane attachments, the following procedure shall be used:

The contractor shall submit to DBI two copies of the following: • Crane Site Safety Plan Submittal Form and Crane Safety Compliance Agreement (see Attachment A) • Plans showing street locations, crane location, path of boom swing, designated loading areas and designated staging areas. Note: A site plan showing which streets will be impacted by the moving, erection, and operation of the tower crane is required by DPW in order to obtain a street use permit for crane erection. That site plan can be used as the Crane Site Safety Plan by adding the additional information noted above. • Completed building permit application form (Form 3) for tower crane foundation and tower crane attachments or other permit (see General Requirements above). • Plans detailing the tower crane foundation and tower crane attachment details. • Structural calculations supporting the design shown on the plans.
A DBI plans examiner will review the permit submittal documents to determine that all documents comprising the Crane Site Safety Plan Submittal Form and Crane Safety Compliance Agreement are complete.
If the tower crane foundation was not included in the approved building permit or an approved addendum to a site permit, then the contractor shall obtain a separate building permit for the tower crane foundation. The contractor shall submit to DBI for review, drawings and calculations for the tower crane foundation prepared by a licensed design professional in the state of California experienced in such design. If the foundation was included in the approved building permit or the approved addendum to a site permit, the Crane Site Safety Plan shall reference such permit.
If the tower crane attachments (tie-ins) are required but not included in the approved building permit or an approved addendum to a site permit, then the contractor shall obtain a separate building permit for the tower crane attachments. The contractor shall submit to DBI for review, drawings and calculations for the tower crane attachments (tie-ins) prepared by a licensed design professional in the State of California experienced in such design. If the tower crane attachments were included in the approved building permit or the approved addendum to a site permit, the Crane Site Safety Plan shall reference such permit.
If the submittal documents are in compliance with all applicable codes and this Administrative Bulletin, the plans examiner shall approve both copies of the submitted Crane Site Safety Plan and building permit application documents, where applicable.
The contractor shall submit to DBI a copy of a tower crane inspection certificate issued by a Cal/OSHA approved inspection agency following erection of the tower crane and prior to its use. This may be done by mail, fax, or in person. This submittal must indicate the site permit or building permit application number for the project and the building permit application number for the tower crane foundation and tower crane attachment.
Special inspection, structural testing, and structural observation requirements, shall be met as required by SFBC and AB-046.
All documents submitted to DBI related to the Crane Site Safety Plan and building permit application for tower crane foundation and tower crane attachments shall be archived as part of the approved permit documents. Signed By: Vivian L. Day, C.B.O.
Director Department of Building Inspection Approved by the Building Inspection Commission September 18, 2002. Revision approved March 18, 2009. Attachment A: Crane Site Safety Plan Submittal Form and Crane Safety Compliance Agreement.

AB-025 Preapplication Requirement for State Industrial Safety Permit for Certain Trenching, Demolition, and Construction Activities

NO. AB-025 :

DATE : October 30, 1984 (Updated 01/01/2023 for code references) SUBJECT : Permit Process; Inspection TITLE : Preapplication Requirement for State Industrial Safety Permit for Certain Trenching, Demolition, and Construction Activities PURPOSE : Require Cal/OSHA Industrial Safety Permit before issuing DBI permits. REFERENCES : Current edition of the San Francisco Building Code State Health & Safety Code, Section 17922.5 State Labor Code, Section 6500 DISCUSSION : Section 17922.5 of the State Health & Safety Code requires local agencies that issue building permits to require building permit applicants to obtain a State Industrial Safety Permit prior to issuance of the local building permit.

Specifically, the State Industrial Safety Permit is required for the following categories of construction as defined in the “red and white tag” designated below: STATE INDUSTRIAL SAFETY PERMIT The attached application falls under the Labor Code Section 6500 in that it involves the type of construction work checked below: • Construction of trenches or excavations that are five feet or deeper and into which a person is required to descend. • The construction of any building, structure, falsework, or scaffolding more than three stories high or the equivalent height (36 ft.). • The demolition of any building, structure, falsework, or scaffold, more than three stories high or the equivalent height. Central Permit Bureau shall notify the applicant by mail after the need for the State Industrial Safety Permit has been ascertained by the affected Divisions and the “red and white tag” affixed to the office copy of the permit application as follows:

DIVISION APPLICATION FORM RESPONSIBLE PERSONNEL RED & WHITE PROCEDURE BID 3 District Bldg. Inspector Check appropriate box and attach to application CED 3 CED Bldg. Inspector " MPC 1 & 2 Plan Checker/Engineer " PRS 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Plan Checker "

PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION It is the District Inspector’s responsibility to review his or her job cards for construction that may fall under the categories herein defined and for which proof that the contractor or owner’s agent has a State Industrial Safety Permit is mandatory. In those cases where proof is required, the Building Inspector is to contact the contractor and ask to see the State permit. If none is available, a Notice of Violation shall be given immediately to the Contractor or Owner’s representative at the job site. Unless proof of compliance has been shown within 5 days of the date of the notification, the permit is to be suspended on the 6th day and the job shut down. This review of “on-going” projects shall be instituted as soon as possible. Originally signed by: Robert C. Levy, Superintendent, BBI AB-026 Noise Insulation Enforcement Procedures

NO. AB-026 :

DATE : December 21, 1984 (Updated 01/01/2023 for code references) SUBJECT : Plan Check; Inspection TITLE : Noise Insulation Enforcement Procedures PURPOSE : Enforcement of State mandated noise insulation requirements for new residential buildings

REFERENCES : Current edition of the San Francisco Building Code Section 1206 California Health and Safety Code, State Housing Law, Section 17922.6, 17922.7 Fire Resistance and Sound Control Design Manual, prepared by the Gypsum Association, 22nd Edition DISCUSSION : There has been some confusion and variations among Department personnel on the enforcement of Title 24 requirements for noise insulation. This bulletin consolidates current Department procedures and policies on the subject, and supersedes all previous interpretations and procedures.

The State regulations deal only with insulation against airborne noises such as caused by stereos and loud conversations (the STC rating), and against impact noises such as those caused by walking or scraping a chair on a hard floor surface (the IIC rating). The criteria for compliance consists solely of meeting the prescriptive requirement of 50, or the field test requirement of 45. There are many other sources of noise which could be significant irritants to building occupants, but which the regulations do not cover. DBI does not follow through on complaints about such noise sources. Examples include appliance noises, such as from garbage disposals, dishwashers and washing machines; mechanical equipment noises, such as from garage door openers, elevators and compressors; and plumbing system noises, such as from water hammer, flushing toilets and running water. When there is doubt as to whether the completed building complies with the STC and IIC ratings, the Department can require the owner to obtain and pay for field testing to verify values of 45 or higher before a CFC is issued. Inspectors must discuss the situation with the Chief Inspector before requiring testing. If a complaint is made to DBI over alleged non-compliance with STC or IIC requirements in a new building, DBI may require the owner to have field testing performed, but only after the complainant posts a bond to cover the cost of testing. In the event the test results show compliance (45 or higher), the cost of the testing must be paid by the complainant. If the tests show non-compliance, the owner will be required to take measures to increase the ratings to 45, and to pay for the testing and retesting. Field testing is performed to applicable provisions of ASTM E90, E413, and E492. The testing agency and procedures must be pre-approved by DBI. APPLICABILITY The noise insulation requirements apply only to residential use buildings for which permits were applied after August 22, 1974, i.e. to Form 1 and 2 applications. They do not apply to buildings constructed before 1974 in which new units are created through alterations, additions or changes of use. REQUIREMENTS

Wall and floor-ceiling assemblies which separate living units or guest rooms from each other, or from common areas of the building such as hallways and garages, must meet a Sound Transmission Class (STC) of 50.
Floor-ceiling assemblies must meet an Impact Insulation Class (IIC) of 50. PLAN CHECKING PROCEDURE The Plan Reviewer shall do and/or obtain the following:
Check that every party wall and party floor-ceiling on the floor plans are referenced to cross-sections which clearly show the construction of the assemblies. Give specific attention to areas with dropped ceilings and luminous ceilings.
Check the Catalog of STC & IIC Ratings, prepared by the State of Office of Noise Control, the Fire Resistance and Sound Control Design Manual, prepared by the Gypsum Association, and/or other standards, to see if a comparable wall assembly has an STC of 50 or higher. If an assembly has been accepted by the Department through the product approval process, check the approval or its file for possible STC ratings. Where no comparable assembly is found, the plan reviewer may estimate the STC rating by comparing the assembly against a listed assembly which appears to have slightly more mass and/or insulation features, and with another assembly which has less. In this manner, it is often possible to extrapolate an STC for a listed assembly. Before doing so, plan reviewer should have studied the listings in the Catalog of STC & IIC Ratings the Fire Resistance Design Manual, or other standards, sufficiently to understand how mass and/or insulation features affect the STC ratings. Where such estimates cannot be made with a fairly high degree of confidence, the plan reviewer should ask the designer to either revise the plans to use a listed assembly with an STC of 50 or higher, or to provide test reports for the shown assembly which justify ratings of 50 or higher.
Floor-ceiling assemblies should be checked in a manner similar to Step 2 for an IIC rating of 50 or higher. If the IIC is achieved through the use of carpet and padding, the plans must be annotated to indicate which areas require them, and that the installation of carpets is mandatory.
The plans must be annotated to require the following:

The bottom plate in party walls must be caulked.
Penetrations or openings in party walls and floor-ceilings for piping, electrical switches and outlets, recessed light fixtures, recessed cabinets, bathtubs and ducts must be sealed, lined, insulated, or otherwise treated to maintain the required ratings.
Dwelling unit entrance doors from interior corridors, together with their perimeter seals, must attain an STC of 30 or higher.

Check that electrical switches and outlets in party walls are not installed back-to-back in the same stud space. Check that recessed light fixtures are not installed in party floor-ceilings unless such devices are boxed in with materials equivalent to the surface materials, and further that the joints in such boxes, and openings for wiring, are caulked. Check that recessed medicine cabinets have not been installed in party walls. Check that the bottom plate in party walls are caulked. For bathtubs located adjacent to party walls, check that sheetrock or wall covering extend below the top edge of the tub down to the floor.
When buildings on adjacent lots have common courts or light wells, and both buildings have windows opening onto them, the windows must

be located at least 3 feet from the common property line (i.e. 6 feet between edges or faces of windows). Alternatively, special acoustical treatment may be provided which will attain STC 50 (or 45 if field tested). INSPECTION PROCEDURE The Building Inspector in the Building Inspection Division (BID) shall do the following:

Pay specific attention to the construction of party walls and party floor-ceilings during the frame inspection to see that materials, sound blankets, dimensions, clearances, etc. are as shown on the sections of the approved plans. Check that luminous or dropped ceilings will not be installed in party floor-ceilings unless they are shown on the approved plans. If changes were made from the approved plans, the Inspector may accept the as-constructed assembly only if he or she can find a very similar assembly listed in the Catalog of STC & IIC Ratings, prepared by the State Department of Health Services Office of Noise Control or the Fire Resistance and Sound Control Design Manual, prepared by the Gypsum Association. Failing that, the inspector should make a sketch of the as- built assembly and refer it to the plan reviewer for review. Meanwhile, the inspector shall not approve the frame inspection. If the contractor does not want to be delayed by such a review, or if the plan reviewer concludes the as-built assembly will not meet an STC or IIC of 50, the Inspector should inform the contractor of the option to alter the construction to comply, or to test the completed building for ratings of 45. If the contractor decides to test, he or she must notify the Inspector in writing. Inform the contractor that if the testing shows non-compliance, the cost of correction would likely be much higher at that stage than at the frame stage.
Check that electrical switches and outlets in party walls are not installed back-to-back in the same stud space. Check that recessed light fixtures are not installed in party floor-ceilings unless such devices are boxed in with materials equivalent to the surface materials, and further that the joints in such boxes, and openings for wiring, are caulked. Check that recessed medicine cabinets have not been installed in party walls. Check that the bottom plate in party walls are caulked. For bathtubs located adjacent to party walls, check that sheetrock or wallcovering extend below the top edge of the tub down to the floor.
Interior hallway doors are required to be 20 minutes rated (i.e. solid core). Thus they may be presumed to meet the STC 30 rating. However, check that the perimeter seals are in place before final inspection. Originally signed by: Franklin Lew for Robert C. Levy, Superintendent, BBI AB-027 Illegal Unit Reoccupancy Enforcement Procedure

NO. AB-027 :

DATE : February 5, 1985 (Updated 01/01/2023 for code references) SUBJECT : Code Enforcement TITLE : Illegal Unit Reoccupancy Enforcement Procedure PURPOSE : To set forth procedure for handling repeat violations, by the same owner reoccupying an illegal unit. REFERENCE : Current edition of the San Francisco Building Code

Section 102A, Unsafe Buildings, Structures or Property
Section 103A, Violations DISCUSSION : Whenever illegal units are re-occupied after a Certificate of Final Completion (CFC) was issued to remove the illegal unit and the ownership has not changed, the enforcement procedure for these cases will be as follows:

Send a notice requiring the application for a building permit within ten (10) days to revert the structure to its legal use and to complete the work within thirty (30) days of issuance of the permit.
A copy of the notice will be sent to the Planning Department.
If the case has already had a Director’s Hearing on the same problem, the notice will also include the statement “failure to comply will result in referral of the matter to the City Attorney’s office for further action.”
If the case has not had a Director’s Hearing, the notice will include the statement “failure to comply will result in the referral to the Director of Building Inspector for an Abatement Hearing.” The time limits specified must be adhered to and all referrals to Code Enforcement Section (CES) must also include the above statements which are applicable and documented inspection reports. Originally signed by: Robert C. Levy, Superintendent, BBI AB-028 Pre-application and Pre-addendum Plan Review Procedures

NO. AB-028 :

DATE : April 3, 2013 (Updated 01/01/2023 for code references) (Supersedes Administrative Bulletin AB-028 dated 9/18/2002) SUBJECT : General Administrative Procedures TITLE : Pre-application and Pre-addendum Plan Review Procedures PURPOSE : To establish policies and procedures allowing for review and comment of specific design issues by the Department of Building Inspection (DBI) prior to application for a permit or prior to the submittal of addenda to a Site Permit. REFERENCE : Current edition of the San Francisco Building Code

Section 106A.4.9 Pre-application Plan Review or Inspection
Section 110A, Table 1A-B, Other Building Permit and Plan Review Fees
DBI Administrative Bulletin AB-032, Site Permit Processing DISCUSSION : A preliminary verbal interpretation of a code requirement or alternate method of construction is considered informal information and may not always be accepted by the Department of Building Inspection plan reviewer or supervisor who has been assigned to check the submittal documents for a project. Rather than wait for the plan review to reveal requirements of specific design issues, it may be advantageous to project sponsors to verify code requirements with a formal DBI interpretation prior to completion of project drawings and before submitting an application for a building permit or an addendum to a Site Permit.

This bulletin sets out the procedure for requesting, conducting and concluding such a Pre-application or Pre-Addendum Plan Review Meeting. It is not intended that a general, non-directed plan review of a project will be made during this meeting, but that specific code issues will be addressed and resolved. Formal written confirmation of decisions agreed upon will be issued to the project sponsor following the meeting. Request For Pre-Application or Pre-Addendum Plan Review Meeting

Submit requests for a pre-application or pre-addendum plan review meeting in writing as follows: a. List the items to be reviewed in the form of specific questions. The applicant shall propose a solution or provide a statement of position regarding each question asked, and shall include pertinent code references. Each item should be numbered. This list of questions or items will then form the agenda for review and response. b. Include applicable drawings, documents, and other information as necessary to describe the conditions under question. c. On the submitted drawings, highlight or “cloud” the areas to be reviewed, and provide cross-references to the questions. Where questions pertain to means of egress, indicate the path of egress on the drawings with arrows.
To cover fees, include a check made out to the Department of Building Inspection (See FEES below).
Address requests to: Manager, Permit Services Department of Building Inspection 49 South Van Ness, 4th Floor San Francisco, CA 94103 Indicate on the outside of the envelope: Pre-Application/Pre-Addendum Plan Review Request
Provide several acceptable meeting times of your choice. Allow at least 10 working days for a response to the request for a meeting appointment. Meeting and Response
The Manager of Plan Review Services will assign your pre-application or pre-addendum plan review request to one of the following section supervisors: a. Structural Plan Review b. Mechanical Plan Review c. Premium Plan Review d. Other Department staff as required
The request for a pre-application or pre-addendum plan review meeting may result in a meeting or it may result in a letter of response, if that is determined to be appropriate by the responsible Supervisor.
The review will be conducted by the Supervisor of the appropriate section or by other staff as assigned. One or more plan reviewers from Department of Building Inspection staff may be assigned to participate in the pre-application or pre-addendum plan review meeting depending on the complexity of the project and the issues raised. When necessary, representatives from other agencies such as the San Francisco Fire Department, Department of Public Works, Department of Public Health, Planning Department, or the Redevelopment Agency may be requested to attend.
The Department representative will have final authority to determine which questions are addressed. Questions which are determined to be too

broad in scope may be deleted from the agenda. Discussion will be limited to the items on the agenda. 9. The Department may request additional information from the project sponsor in preparation for a pre-application or pre-addendum plan review meeting or as a follow-up to such a meeting. 10. At the beginning of a meeting the project sponsor will be advised of the time allowed before additional plan review fees will be charged. A typical pre-application or pre-addendum plan review meeting, depending on the complexity of the project or issue, can be covered adequately in 2 hours or less of meeting time. 11. A Department of Building Inspection staff member or the project sponsor will be designated to take notes during the meeting. If the size or location of the meeting warrants, the Department representative may request that a third party take the notes. Notes shall be taken on a standard form provided by DBI. At the conclusion of the meeting a copy of the notes taken during the meeting will be provided to the principal attendees. Those notes, which record the findings and agreements of the meeting, are to be signed by a Department of Building Inspection representative, by representatives of other departments as applicable, and by the project sponsor. Questions or topics not acknowledged in these notes will not be considered as part of the pre-application or pre-addendum plan review agreements. Alternatively, the Department may choose to issue a letter following the meeting. Such letter or other written communication shall be prepared by Department staff or the project sponsor within 10 working days of the conclusion of the meeting. Within 10 working days of receipt of such letter, the DBI staff will review and return the letter, signed, as “approved,” “approved with conditions,” or “disapproved.” The letter shall state the reasons for such determinations. DBI will track the time of issuance and approval of such letters to confirm that the above time limits are met. 12. For clarity, each item number of the written response shall correspond to the item number on the agenda. 13. Any notes, annotated drawings and other documents from the meeting may be attached to the notes or letter of agreement and submitted by the project sponsor for reference at the time of permit or addendum application. 14. The project sponsor shall attach a copy of the signed conclusions of the pre-application or pre-addendum plan review meeting, or the letter of response in lieu of meeting, to the permit application or addendum drawings. These decisions will be honored by the responsible plan reviewer during the plan review process and subsequently by field inspection staff. 15. The project sponsor may request a review of the determination of the staff of the Department of Building Inspection by the Manager of Plan Review Services or the Director. Determinations of the Director may be appealed to the Building Inspection Commission. Certain issues related to alternate methods and materials and technical equivalencies may be appealed to the Board of Examiners. 16. In the event the code provisions referenced by the application are substantively revised prior to filing for permit, the applicant will be required to submit for a new pre-application plan review meeting. FEES: 17. Fee Schedule: a. Fees for initial and each subsequent meeting for a pre-application or pre-addendum plan review meeting are as noted in the latest edition of the San Francisco Building Code Fee Schedule, Table 1A-B, Item 5, Pre-application Plan Review Fee. This fee covers a review of the submitted documents, research, formulating a response, and the meeting itself. The meeting time shall not exceed a total of two hours under this base fee. b. Additional meeting time beyond two hours for both pre-application and pre-addendum meetings is to be charged on a per person, hourly basis per San Francisco Building Code, Table 1A-D, Item 1. c. The San Francisco Fire Department charges plan review fees in addition to the above fees when Fire Department personnel are included in a meeting. 18. Fees, in addition to the pre-application plan review fee paid in advance, will be calculated at the conclusion of the meeting. Notes or letters of agreement will not be released by the Department until all pre-application or pre-addendum plan review fees are paid. 19. If the initial pre-application or pre-addendum plan review fee is paid but no such meeting is subsequently held and no preparatory work has been done, the fee may be refunded upon written request by the project sponsor and agreement by the Department. Revision signed by: Tom C. Hui, S.E., C.B.O, Acting Director April 3, 2013 Revision signed by: Thomas Harvey, Fire Marshal March 28, 2013 Originally approved by the Building Inspection Commission on September 18, 2002, revision approved March 20, 2013 Attachment: Sample Question AB-031 Identification of Revisions on Pages of Drawings

NO. AB-031 :

DATE : June 21, 1984 (Updated 01/01/2023 for code references) SUBJECT : Plan Review TITLE : Identification of Revisions on Pages of Drawings

PURPOSE : Information on submittal documents, including revised drawings, shall be in conformity with the San Francisco Building Code and shall be of sufficient clarity to indicate the location, nature and extent of the work proposed. REFERENCE : Current edition of the San Francisco Building Code, Section 106A.3.2 DISCUSSION : Revisions to submittal documents pending review and approval by the Department should be clearly identified on the revised sheets to facilitate review, to reduce discrepancies in the review and to speed the review process. Revisions are to be identified by one of the following methods:

Revisions to portions of a page shall be marked by identifying the change with arrows or encircling the change with a “cloud” symbol. The title block should be marked with the date and number of the revision. Notation of the date may be placed near the change in addition to the title block.
If an entire page is changed, the title block should be so marked, noting the date and number of revisions. If a second or third revision is made on a page already containing a revision, the previous revision symbol or markings shall be removed, however, the title block should note the number and date of the revisions. Originally signed by: Robert C. Levy, Superintendent, BBI AB-032 Site Permit Processing

NO. AB-032 :

DATE : November 16, 2016 (Updated for code references 1/01/2023, supersedes AB-032 dated 6/04/2012) SUBJECT : Permit Process TITLE : Site Permit Processing PURPOSE : To allow work to begin on a construction project before all plans and other submittal documents have been submitted. REFERENCE : Current edition of the San Francisco Building Code

AB-082 - Guidelines and Procedures for Structural, Geotechnical, and Seismic Hazard Engineering Design Review
AB-093 - Implementation of Green Building Regulations DISCUSSION : The San Francisco Building Code (SFBC) under Section 106A.3.4.2 allows the application for, and the issuance of, a SITE PERMIT. This permit is issued upon the review and approval of conceptual design drawings and related specifications and documentation.

Construction work at the site is controlled and scheduled through the Site Permit process by the submission and approval of a series of segmented phased construction plans identified as addenda. Plans submitted under each addendum shall clearly contain details sufficient to enable plan review, fabrication in the field, and inspection confirmation. Only work shown on approved addenda plans bearing the Department “Stamp of approval” as specified in SFBC Section 106A.4.1 shall be permitted to proceed at the site. Those approved addenda plans and specifications shall be kept available on the site per SFBC Section 106A.4.2 for the use of the inspectors. It is recommended that subcontractors check their shop drawings with the approved addenda kept on site to confirm that their portion of the work has been approved. Work in progress beyond that shown on the approved addendum or addenda or the failure to display and make available the approved plans at the site shall result in stoppage of work.

DEFINITIONS (See Section 7 for additional information) a. Grading Addendum. This package shall include grading, excavation, and shoring drawings; shoring calculations, completed special inspection and observation form; and geotechnical review letter and report. Grading is defined by Appendix J in the San Francisco Building Code. Permanent cantilever retaining walls may be included, if not part of the building, when clearly shown and completely detailed on the plans. Excavation, shoring, lagging and bracing may be included as part of this addendum, or under separate permit. When tie-back anchors extend onto adjoining property, formal written permission granted by the adjoining owner is required. A separate permit is required for underpinning of each building on adjoining property. The Site Permit applicant is cautioned to provide reasonable notice to adjoining owners of intent to excavate per California Civil Code Section 832. Demolition of buildings on the site will require separate permits per SFBC Section 106A. b. Foundation Addendum. This addendum includes piles, pile caps, spread footings, line footings, grade and tie beams, and slabs on grade and underground utilities as applicable. Cantilever retaining and basement walls not more than one story above grade may be included when clearly shown on the plans. Suspended slabs not more than one story above grade may be considered as part of the foundation addendum when no structural steel work is included. c. Superstructure Addendum. Work for this addendum includes the erection of the basic building and structural frame, providing fireproofing, constructing floors, structural wall systems, stairs and stair shafts.

The exterior skin shall be included for structural and energy compliance. Structural details and calculations for fabrication, erection and fastening shall be provided. Loading points on beams, girders and columns shall be considered, support details designed, and shown on the drawings. California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24, Part 6, energy compliance shall be submitted, but only the building envelope will be approved under this addendum. Building envelope details must be confirmed with CCR Title 24, Part 6 documentation. Unless the Mechanical and Electrical System addendum is incorporated with the Super-structure addendum, mechanical and electrical systems shall only include partial installations limited to riser or portions of systems that are physically restrained and locked in by the construction of the building structure. Only stub-outs from riser trunk lines to receive connections from lateral branch lines may be installed under this addendum. Standpipes shall be installed per SFBC Section 905 during erection for purposes of fire protection. These works are permitted but will not be approved unless calculations and supportive documentation are submitted for plan check review and accepted. Lateral or branch lines, ducts, piping, wiring, machinery and equipment installation are not permitted nor approved until the Mechanical and Electrical System addendum, but may be shown and included in the Superstructure addendum plan submittal and need not be masked out. If such work is shown on this addendum, there shall be a general note on the cover sheet of the set stating “No installation of lateral electrical or mechanical lines” or some such equivalent statement. Exceptions requiring installation shall also require documentation review and shall be declared and described in the approved addenda schedule and noted specifically as an exception on the plans under the general note previously mentioned prohibiting such installation. Extensive use of such exceptions shall be accommodated through combining the Mechanical and Electrical System addendum into the Superstructure addendum. All mechanical and electrical work must have related plumbing and electrical permits. Closure for walls, floors and shafts where mechanical and electrical systems are installed shall only occur after proper inspection and approval. d. Mechanical & Electrical Systems Addendum - Including Life Safety. This addendum includes all of the mechanical and electrical work within the building except that inclusive in the Superstructure and the Final addendum. Typical work includes the sprinkler systems, HVAC systems, smoke evacuation and control systems, emergency lighting and power, fire alarms and warning device systems, voice enunciation and communication systems, boilers, lighting, and central control station installation. Full design plans including energy calculations and acoustic report if applicable are to be submitted. Where schematic plans are submitted, typical details for installation should be provided. For example, typical hangers, struts, sleeves, packing and seismic restraints should be shown for sprinkler system installations. Full documentation shall be submitted for review at this time. Included as part of this documentation will be the compliance as required by SFBC Chapter 16 for seismic consideration for those systems shown. e. Final Addendum. This addendum includes all work excluded under the Superstructure and the Mechanical and Electrical system addenda. f. Addendum is the grouping of desired work into one single phase of construction. g. Addenda is the plural of addendum. (See Section 6 for Addenda Submittal and Section 8 for Processing of Site Permit Addenda). h. Addenda Schedule is the proposed division of work into a logical sequence of addenda that aligns with the project’s construction sequences that collectively carries it through to completion. (See Section 7 for Approval of Sequence of Partial Construction Phases). i. Approved Addenda Schedule shall be the addenda schedule listing the acceptable sequence of work phases approved by DBI. Approval will be given upon submission of a letter request from the applicant. The request letter for an approved addenda schedule may be submitted after the issuance of site permit and prior to, or jointly with, the submittal of the first addendum. j. Approved Addendum is an addendum that has been submitted to the Department for review, checked and approved. The addendum plans shall bear the Department stamp of approval as described in SFBC Section 106A.4.1 and one set shall be kept at the work site as required by SFBC Section 106A.4.2. Work shall not proceed on the site until such time that approved addendum plans indicating work permitted are on site and available. Each approved addendum shall be considered as a permit. k. Site Permit is a permit issued upon the approval of a building permit application based on preliminary drawings and documentation. The Site Permit plans shall describe the exterior of the building in sufficient detail and dimensioned to mark heights, lengths, and widths. Court sizes, openings, and other significant projections or recesses shall be located, sized, and dimensioned. The interior shall indicate the Means of Egress systems, fire separations that may be required for major building or area separations and for occupancy separations greater than one hour. Property lines, both real and assumed in cases of multi-buildings, shall be clearly delineated as well as type of construction and other forms of basic information to establish the design intent. Approval and issuance of a site permit alone does not allow for construction. Additional construction documents submitted and approved as addenda, complete the set of approved construction documents. (See Section 4 for Site Permit Submittal Package and Section 5 for Site Permit Review Process). l. Altered Site Permit is an alter

other forms of basic information to establish the design intent. Approval and issuance of a site permit alone does not allow for construction. Additional construction documents submitted and approved as addenda, complete the set of approved construction documents. (See Section 4 for Site Permit Submittal Package and Section 5 for Site Permit Review Process). l. Altered Site Permit is an alteration application to effectively retire the Site Permit issued under the original permit application and activate an alternate Site Permit as the sole survivor. A new approved addenda schedule must be issued for the Altered Site Permit. Work described in addenda approved under the original Site Permit may be carried forward onto the Altered Site Permit addenda schedule. An Altered Site Permit will be required only in those cases where a major change affects the concept of the original Site Permit. A typical example may be to add or delete stories to the building. 2. SITE PERMIT PROCESS A Site Permit may be filed at Central Permit Bureau (CPB) for a new building or, if the size of the project warrants, an alteration to an existing building. Permit Processing Center (PPC) will be the central coordinating review agency for all Site Permit applications and their attendant addenda. 3. MARKINGS OF PLAN a. All plans submitted for Site Permit shall be clearly marked by CPB staff on the front of each plan sheet as follows:

SITE PERMIT THIS APPLICATION SUBMITTED FOR SITE PERMIT ONLY. NO WORK MAY BE STARTED UNTIL CONSTRUCTION PLANS HAVE BEEN APPROVED.

b. All plans submitted for partial construction as Addenda to a Site Permit shall be clearly marked by CPB staff on the front of each plan sheet as follows:

ADDENDUM #_____ SITE PERMIT ADDENDUM FOR CONSTRUCTION OF:

Addendum routing forms will be supplied by the CPB staff for completion by the APPLICANT. 4. SITE PERMIT SUBMITTAL PACKAGE The Site Permit submittal package shall include completed permit application form and 2 sets of the following (as a minimum): a. Architectural Plans. Architectural plans shall include plot plan, floor plans (existing and new), sections and elevations to describe the general scope of work. b. Topographic Site Survey. For new construction or horizontal additions on sloping sites, the site permit submittal package shall include a topographic site survey. c. Smoke Control Report. For new high-rise construction (more than 75 feet above the lowest level of fire department vehicle access), the site permit package shall include a preliminary smoke control report. d. Structural Design Criteria Document. For projects subject to Structural Design Review per AB-082, the site permit submittal package shall include the Structural Design Criteria Documents as separately detailed by the Department of Building Inspection. e. Green Building Submittal. For projects subject to green building regulations, see AB-093. NOTE: Acoustical Analysis Report will not be required at Site Permit Submittal. The report will be required at Addenda Submittal if triggered by SFBC Section 1206. Contact other Departments for additional materials required. 5. SITE PERMIT REVIEW PROCESS The Plan Checker shall review the site permit for major architectural/life safety and accessibility issues. The following shall be included for Site Permit review: a. Building Information & Data: Describe the scope of work, use and occupancy group classifications, construction type, number of stories and basements, height, and sprinkler provisions. List all applicable codes including the applicable version. b. Allowable Height, Story and Area: Provide computations to document analysis. Include sprinkler and area modification provisions where applicable. For mixed occupancies, state for the building or portions thereof, the method of compliance, applying accessory occupancies, non-separated occupancies, or separated occupancies where applicable. Tabulate the actual and allowable height, story and area. For new buildings, tabulate the gross area for all basements and stories individually and provide a summation of the total building area. For alterations with vertical and/or horizontal additions, tabulate the gross area for the existing building and for the additional area (or reduced area). Provide these values for all basements and stories individually. Provide a summation of the total building area. c. Exterior Wall and Opening Protection: Provide a plot plan locating the building, adjoining properties and buildings, and public ways. Locate and dimension property lines, both real and assumed in cases of two or more buildings on the same lot regulated as separate buildings. Dimension the Fire Separation Distance (FSD) for all exterior walls and openings adjacent to property lines. Tabulate the total area of unprotected and protected openings per story. Tabulate the actual and allowable percentages comparison for each opening type, per story. Indicate the rating for required fire-resistive exterior walls. d. Means of Egress (MOE): Provide occupant loads and analysis of the MOE system. Include diagonal dimensions of spaces requiring two or more exits and the exit separation distances. Provide diagonal dimensions of each story or portion thereof requiring two or more exits and the exit separation distances. From the most remote point in a story or portion thereof to an exit, document exit access travel distances. Where applicable, document the common path of egress travel distance from the most remote point in a space, in a story or portion thereof. Travel distances shall be measured rectilinearly at right angles except where the direction of travel is guided by walls or other permanent architectural features. e. Fire-Resistance Elements and Ratings: Identify by legend or other graphical methods, location of fire-resistance vertical and horizontal assemblies required for the separation of occupancies, building portions, area limits, shaft enclosures, exit enclosures, incidental accessory occupancies, and other adjacent spaces. Include the fire-resistance rating for each of these elements. f. Emergency Escape and Rescue: Where applicable, provide compliant exterior emergency escape and rescue openings. Such openings shall align with the information documented on exterior building elevations approved by the Planning Department. Changes affecting the exterior design subsequent to Planning Department approval will necessitate rerouting the Site Permit to that department for additional review. g. Accessibility: Buildings and sites for covered residential occupancies, public buildings, public accommodations, commercial buildings and publicly funded housing shall be accessible to persons with disabilities. The Site Permit shall provide sufficient details to document the accessible exterior route of travel, general accessibility for entrances, exits and paths of travel, accessible Means of Egress, and common use facilities, such as parking and restrooms. (Review by the Mayor’s Office on Disability is not required at site permit review stage, but is required prior to review of the architectural addendum.) h. Estimated Construction Valuation: Determine the estimated construction cost.

i. SFUSD Fee: Determine the areas required for the calculation of SFUSD fees. Inasmuch as the purpose of a Site Permit is to allow review of preliminary conceptual and schematic designs of proposed construction, there is no detailed plan review of construction details required at the time of Site Permit review. Such detailed review will be done at the time of addendum review. The purpose of DBI’s plan review of Site Permits is to assure that there are no major factors that would preclude the detailed design of a code- complying structure. The Plans Checker shall determine whether or not the Planning Department should review any changes resulting from the rechecks. As a minimum, drawings showing floor plans and elevations should have a Planning Department approval stamp. 6. ADDENDA SUBMITTAL The Applicant shall submit an addenda schedule prior to, or jointly with, the submittal of the first addendum. This addenda schedule shall be retained in PPC and distributed with the plans to the various review agencies/disciplines. All addenda shall be submitted at CPB. The scope of work for each addendum shall be clearly indicated on the cover sheet. Addenda can be submitted at any time after issuance of the site permit. No addendum package can be submitted before site permit is issued. Addenda application form, 2 sets of plans for the addenda and 1 reference copy of complete set of issued Site Permit plans shall be submitted. 7. APPROVAL OF SEQUENCE OF PARTIAL CONSTRUCTION PHASES The APPLICANT shall secure written approval from the Director of this proposed division of work as the Approved Addenda Schedule defined in Item i of the DEFINITIONS above. The request shall itemize and clearly define the extent sought under each Addendum, such as: Addendum 1 - Grading Addendum 2 - Foundation Addendum 3 - Superstructure Addendum 4 - Final The description of work for typical addenda is normally taken from the DEFINITIONS. If, for particular reasons, an applicant wishes to vary the work within addenda definitions, the exact work description shall be indicated in the Addenda Schedule request and, if approved, shall likewise be shown in the approved Addenda Schedule. Acceptable phasing will be approved by the Director by confirmatory letter. Such approval must be obtained before the first Addendum plans of a sequence are filed. An addenda submitted to our Department shall have the contents of the Approved Addenda Schedule for the particular Addendum noted on the first plan sheet of the Addendum set. The APPLICANT is cautioned to submit the Addendum plans sufficiently early to permit processing and approval before any construction covered by such Addendum is scheduled. It must be recognized that construction covered by successive Addenda is generally overlapping and not sequential. The applicant may file more than one addendum at a time, but un-issued active addenda within the approval review process may not number more than three at any time, unless otherwise approved. 8. PROCESSING OF SITE PERMIT ADDENDA DBI STAFF will verify at the time Site Permit Addenda are filed: a. that the Applicant has confirmatory letter from the Director approving the proposed sequence of construction phases and that the notes on the front sheet of the Addendum show the contents of work indicated on the Approval Addenda Schedule; b. unless otherwise approved, there are not more than three un-issued addenda in the Department; c. that the front of each sheet has been marked by Applicant as described above; d. that Addendum routing forms to accompany plans have been completely filled out in duplicate. DBI STAFF will mark outside of roll of plans with: a. Application number; b. Date stamp; c. Description of phase of work covered by Addendum, by stamp if appropriate. If revisions to the Addendum plans are necessary, they will be submitted as revised plans. Such revised plans will also be stamped with the phase of work to be done unless those revisions are subsequent to an Approved Addendum, in which case an alteration permit will be required. All Site Permits Addenda will be routed directly to PPC. PPC will receive the Addendum from the staff and will determine the further routing. The routing will be accomplished by checking the appropriate boxes on the Addendum routing form. The PLAN CHECKER will also verify, before approving same, that all plan sheets and Addendum routing forms have been marked as described above. The PLAN CHECKER shall verify that any required letters of permission by adjoining owners for tie-back installation have been scanned on plans as part of the GRADING Addendum documents. The PLAN CHECKER will review the plans and approve them by signing the Addendum routing form noting whatever conditions are required for approval, as would be done for any permit application. When all required approvals have been obtained, the plans and Addendum routing forms will be returned to the PPC staff.

PPC STAFF will verify that all required approvals have been obtained, and will then route to CPB. CPB will then notify the Applicant. In no event will any Addendum be submitted until the original Site Permit has been issued. After the Applicant has signed for the stipulations, he will receive one copy of the approved plans and Addendum routing form to be kept on the job with his original plans and Site Permit application. The CPB STAFF will forward the office copy of the approved Addendum routing form and the Addendum to the Records Management Division. Signed by: Tom C. Hui, S.E., C.B.O. 11/16/2016 Director Department of Building Inspection Approved by the Building Inspection Commission 11/16/2016 AB-035 Procedure for Assigning Street Numbers (Addresses)

NO. AB-035 :

DATE : January 19, 2011 (updated 01/01/2023 for code references) (supersedes Administrative Bulletin AB-035 issued September 18, 2002) SUBJECT : General Administrative Procedures TITLE : Procedure for Assigning Street Numbers (Addresses) PURPOSE : To establish a procedure for assigning and/or changing street numbers (addresses) to new buildings, tenant space street entrances, new parcels, vacant lots, and any other street addressing need of the City and County of San Francisco. REFERENCE : Current edition of the San Francisco Building Code

Section 107A.10, Building Numbers and Fees
Table 1A-J, Miscellaneous Fees DISCUSSION : Every project sponsor shall obtain an official street number prior to the submittal of a building permit application when the work consists of a new building or a new street entrance to a new tenant space or dwelling unit in an existing building. Every residential property owner shall request in writing and receive approval from the Building Official for a change in a street number assignment. The following procedures shall apply to the assignment and/or change of street numbers.

Entrances to be Numbered All primary entrances from the street to all buildings and all direct entrances from the street to separate tenant spaces or dwelling units shall be numbered. Only the building number officially assigned by the Building Official may be displayed on the building. The numbers shall be placed on the front of the building adjacent to the entrance so as to be easily seen from the street. The street numbers assigned shall be placed on the building in a place and manner acceptable to the Building Official in accordance with Section 107A.10 of the San Francisco Building Code. [Historical Note: The following procedures for assigning street numbers are long term provisions of San Francisco codes. These procedures have been brought forward from the 1909 San Francisco Building Code through subsequent editions of that code.] Method of Numbering Market Street shall be the starting point for the numbers of all buildings fronting on the streets beginning thereon and running therefrom in any direction. On Webster, Fillmore, Steiner, Pierce, Scott, Divisadero, Broderick, Baker and Lyon Streets, and Central Avenue, and streets in the Sunnyside, Lakeview, Railroad Homestead and City Land Association tracts, the numbering shall begin at their southerly ends and proceed toward the north. On all streets having a northerly and southerly course, diverging less than 45 degrees from a northerly and southerly course and not otherwise provided for, the numbering shall begin at their northerly ends and proceed toward the south. On all streets having an easterly and westerly course, or diverging less than 45 degrees from an easterly and westerly course, the numbering shall begin at their easterly ends and proceed toward the west, except that on streets lying south of Cesar Chavez [Army Street] and running from Mission in an easterly or southerly direction, and also on [Bernal Avenue], Montezuma and Aztec Streets, Esmeralda Avenue, [and on streets in Gift Maps 1 and 2], the numbering shall start at their westerly ends and proceed toward the east. On all intermediate subdivision streets, the numbering shall commence where the streets begin and proceed in the same direction as the numbering on the principal streets between which they lie. [Note: Street and place names which are shown in brackets no longer exist or have been renamed.] Even and Odd Numbers On all streets the numbers on the right hand side, starting from the point of beginning, shall be even numbers, and the numbers on the left hand side shall be odd numbers; except that on all streets having a northerly and southerly course, and lying west of Central Avenue and Presidio Avenue but not including Central Avenue, the numbers on the right hand side, starting from the point of beginning, shall be odd numbers and the numbers on the left hand side shall be even numbers.

Allotment of Numbers One hundred numbers, or as many thereof as may be necessary, shall be allotted to the property frontage in each block between two main streets. The number 100 shall be the first number on the right hand side, and the number 101 the first number on the left hand side of the second block of all streets, except those lying west of Central Avenue and Presidio Avenue, but not including Central Avenue. The succeeding hundreds shall be allotted in a similar manner consecutively in each succeeding block, except that on Mission, Natoma, Howard, Folsom, Harrison, Bryant, Jackson, Pacific, Broadway, Vallejo, Green, Union, Francisco, Bay and Webster Streets, and on Central Avenue, 100 numbers shall be allotted to the first two blocks. One hundred numbers shall also be allotted on Divisadero Street between Waller and Page Streets. When a block exceeds 850 feet in length, 200 numbers shall be allotted to it. For the purpose of preserving uniformity in the numbering along Market Street, so that the numbers on both sides of the street shall conform as nearly as possible, 50 even numbers shall be allotted to each of the following apportionments of frontage along the northerly side of Market Street: between the westerly line of Spear Street, proceeding northerly, and the easterly line of Drumm Street; between Battery and Montgomery Streets; between Kearny and Stockton Streets; between Powell and Taylor Streets; and between Jones Street and [Marshall Square]. Fifty odd numbers shall be allotted to each of the following apportionments of frontage along the southerly side of Market Street: between Embarcadero and Spear Street; between Twelfth and Valencia Streets; between Guerrero and Dolores Streets; and between Church and Sanchez Streets. When any street fails in its course to traverse certain blocks, 100 numbers shall be allotted to each block not traversed, in the same manner as if the street were continuous. When any street is intersected on its opposite sides by different streets, the hundreds on one side shall be made to correspond as closely as possible to the hundreds on the opposite side by allotting only 25 numbers, even or odd as the case may require, to the side which the blocks are shorter. One number shall be allowed for each one-fiftieth (1/50) of the frontage of each block between two main streets, except in blocks having a frontage of less than 400 feet where the allowance shall be made on the basis of one number to every eight feet of frontage. Renumbering Any Property Owner may request a change to an existing street number assignment. Approval of the request for change to an existing street number assignment shall not be denied if such request can reasonably be granted. A request in writing must be made to the Building Official requesting a change to the existing street number assignment. Proof of property ownership must be submitted if requested by the Building Official and any other information as needed for determination of request approval. If a property is tenant-occupied, the property owner must also submit documentation acceptable to the Building Official that all tenants have been notified of the proposed street number change request. Nothing in this bulletin shall authorize the renumbering of any block which is now uniformly numbered in accordance with any previous law, unless such renumbering is made necessary by the construction or alterations of buildings whereby the number of entrances to buildings on such blocks has been so increased as to prevent consecutive numbering. Responsibilities Building Official The Building Official shall notify all applicable Federal, State, County, City and local agencies requesting and/or requiring notification of new and/or changed street number assignments. The Building Official shall also provide the property owner with an approved and issued street number assignment permit. Property Owner/Project Sponsor The property owner/project sponsor must notify all private entities and tenants of the issued street number assignment. The property owner must properly identify the affected building(s) as provided in Section 107A.10 of the San Francisco Building Code within 60 days of the issued street number assignment but no sooner than 10 days to allow for proper notification to others. Notice to be Given Whenever any violation of the provisions of this bulletin relating to the numbering of buildings exists, notice thereof shall be given to the owner, or if they cannot be found, to the occupant of the premises where the violation occurs. If, after two weeks, the cause of complaint has not been removed, the provisions detailed in Section 103A of the San Francisco Building Code shall be applied. Temporary Retention of Old Numbers Whenever any property owner has been notified to change the numbers of his building, the old numbers may be temporarily retained, in addition to the new numbers, but in no case shall the old numbers be retained for more than sixty (60) days after the official notice to change them. Fees The fee for each numbered building entrance is shown in Section 110A, Table 1A-J of the San Francisco Building Code. Signed by: Vivian L. Day, C.B.O.
Director Department of Building Inspection Approved by the Building Inspection Commission on September 18, 2002, Revision approved January 19, 2011.

AB-036 Special Inspection for Demolition Work

NO. AB-036 :

DATE : October 20, 1993 (Updated 01/01/2023 for code references) SUBJECT : Inspection TITLE : Special Inspection for Demolition Work PURPOSE : For demolition of buildings of Types I, II, III and IV construction, and which are over 2 stories or 25 feet in height, a special inspector shall be on the site to observe and/or supervise the work to assure it is proceeding in a safe manner. REFERENCE : Current edition of the San Francisco Building Code

1705.21, Demolition
3307, Protection of Adjoining Property
3303.8, Special Inspection DISCUSSION : Demolition work creates ongoing, and often sudden, life hazards. The general requirements for special inspection in San Francisco Building Code Section 1705.21, are made more specific in this ruling to reflect the need for extra supervision of such work.

Requirement The Demolition Contractor or permit applicant shall identify the Special Inspector for demolition work before a demolition permit is issued. For buildings over 6 stories in height, the Contractor and Special Inspector shall meet with the Department of Building Inspection (DBI) District Inspector to review the demolition work and arrive at a clear understanding on what is expected of all parties prior to the start of work. The Demolition Contractor shall notify the Special Inspector and the District Inspector at least two days prior to the start of the demolition operations. By obtaining the permit, the applicant acknowledges the authority of the Special Inspector over the demolition work as described below. The Special Inspector:

Shall be a registered Civil Engineer or licensed Architect, and preferably, the individual who prepared the approved demolition sequence. The Special Inspector shall be at the site at all times when dismantling or demolition work is proceeding on any component which, when removed, reduces the stability of the building. These include, but are not limited to, the following: a. Exterior walls b. Bearing walls c. Beams, girders and columns d. Diaphragms (roof and floors which contribute stability to building)
Shall observe and/or direct that the work conforms with the sequence of operations which was approved by DBI. In the event a potentially hazardous situation develops as a result of conditions uncovered or unintentionally created by the demolition work, the Special Inspector shall notify DBI by telephone as soon as possible, and at that point shall require and allow only corrective work to take place to substantially reduce the hazards present. The Special Inspector shall then not allow any more work to be done until a revised demolition sequence has been submitted to DBI and approved. In the event an unexpected development occurs which jeopardizes the public, such as materials falling onto the street or partial collapse of a wall, the Special Inspector may allow the demolition work to continue only if all the following conditions are complied with: a. No continuing hazards to the public exist after the incident. b. No significant deviations from the approved sequence are necessary as a result of the incident. c. The Contractor provides/establishes measures and assurances that such incidents will not occur again, to the satisfaction of the Inspector. d. The Special Inspector reports the incident to DBI in writing as soon as possible. The report shall explicitly address the issues in conditions a through c above. If the above conditions are not met, the Special Inspector shall stop the job and notify DBI. The Special Inspector shall not allow the work to resume until DBI gives permission. In the event deviations from the approved sequence are necessary due to unexpected field conditions, and potentially hazardous conditions are not present or would not be created, the inspector may allow or direct such deviations be made without stopping the work. Such deviations shall be reported in his next report to DBI.
Shall make written reports to DBI on a weekly basis or as required by DBI. Such reports shall include information on the progress of the demolition, any deviations which were not reported previously, and a statement that the demolition work is adhering to the approved sequence.
May be an employee of the Special Inspector only when the following conditions are complied with: a. The employee is a registered Civil Engineer or licensed Architect. b. The employee shall be under the immediate supervision of the Special Inspector. The Special Inspector shall provide to DBI a written statement in which he acknowledges complete responsibility for the inspection work, actions and decisions of the employee. c. All reports shall be signed by the Engineer or Architect.

Originally signed by: Dot Y. Yee, Deputy Superintendent AB-040 Referral of Design Professionals and Contractors to Regulatory Agencies

NO. AB-040 :

DATE : March 23, 2002 (Updated 01/01/2023 for code references) SUBJECT : General Administrative Procedures TITLE : Referral of Design Professionals and Contractors to Regulatory Agencies PURPOSE : The purpose of this bulletin is to establish guidelines and procedures for referring design professionals and contractors to the State License Boards review for possible disciplinary action when the Department of Building Inspection believes there are serious violations of State regulations. REFERENCES : California Business and Professions Code, Division 3. Professions and Vocations California Business and Professions Code, Division 1, Article 5, Section 325-326, Consumer Complaints California Code of Regulations, Title 16, Professional and Vocational Regulations DISCUSSION : These guidelines shall be used in instances where a licensed design professional or contractor appears to be in substantial noncompliance with the regulations governing their activities. Such substantial noncompliance may include activities which appear to be, but not be limited to, unlicensed practice, gross incompetence, negligence, violation of local codes and regulations, or the provision of false or misleading information.

The Department of Building Inspection shall review concerns based on information available and make recommendations as are believed to be consistent with public safety and welfare. The Department shall not hold hearings, take testimony, engage in debate with the regulated or licensed persons, or otherwise assume the role of another regulatory agency. PROCEDURE: When it comes to the attention of the Department of Building Inspection through an employee or a complaint from the public that there may be substantial noncompliance with regulatory requirements the following actions should be taken.

A public complainant shall be given information regarding filing a complaint directly with a licensing or regulatory agency. If the Department believes that a complaint received from the public may be of interest to the Department of Building Inspection to review for further action, in addition to providing information to the complainant regarding the direct filing of a complaint, a staff person shall make note of the complaint and proceed as detailed below.
Any staff person of the Department of Building Inspection who believes that there may be an issue of substantial noncompliance shall immediately bring the matter to the attention of their supervisor who shall immediately notify the appropriate Manager.
A brief written summary of the concern shall be prepared by the staff person, their supervisor or the Manager.
The staff person and their supervisor, shall review the matter with the appropriate Manager, in consultation with the City Attorney, to determine if there are reasonable grounds for further review of the matter.
If a further review is determined to be appropriate by the Manager, a staff person assigned by that Manager shall review the matter and prepare a report containing the following information: a. A description of the concern which has led the Department to consider referral for review by the regulatory agency. b. All report, notes and other documentation from inspectors or other persons with immediate knowledge of the issues related to the potential complaint. c. All permit application forms and other permit documents related to the potential complaint. d. Letters, plans, calculations and all other documents which might aid in the review of the matter. e. Other relevant information such as license and insurance information, complaints by other City agencies or outside parties, other DBI actions, etc. f. Department and other City records which may reveal other instances of possible noncompliance.
The Manager, following consultation with the City Attorney, shall review the completed report and make a determination to: a. undertake further research and reporting b. dismiss the matter c. recommend to the Director to proceed with a referral to a regulatory agency d. take other action as they deem appropriate
If the Manager’s determination is to recommend a referral to a regulatory agency, a complaint shall be prepared by a person assigned by the Manager, based on the rules and regulations of the regulatory agency. The complaint shall be accompanied by a cover letter prepared for the signature of the Director.
The complete file, including a cover letter prepared for the Director’s signature, a written recommendation for referral by the Manager, the formal complaint referral in a form required by the regulatory agency, and the Department’s report and related documentation shall be forwarded to the Director for review.
The Director may request additional information, may dismiss the matter, or may sign the complaint and refer the matter to the Building Inspection Commission’s Litigation Committee for review and approval prior to referring the complaint to the appropriate regulatory agency. Signed by: Frank Y.Chiu, April 26, 2002 Director Department of Building Inspection Approved by the Building Inspection Commission on April 17, 2002 AB-042 Board of Examiners: Request for Variance, New Materials, or Alternate Methods of Construction

NO. AB-042 :

DATE : September 18, 2002 (Updated 01/01/2023 for code references) [Supersedes Administrative Bulletin AB-042 originally issued 05/19/89, revised 08/10/90] SUBJECT : Plan Review; Permit Process TITLE : Board of Examiners: Request for Variance, New Materials, or Alternate Methods of Construction PURPOSE : To establish policies and procedures for hearings before the Board of Examiners to request a variance from a building code requirement, or approval for the use of new or alternate materials, methods or types of construction. REFERENCE : Current edition of the San Francisco Building Code

Section 105A.1, Board of Examiners
Section 110A, Table 1A-K Penalties, Hearings, Code Enforcement Assessments DISCUSSION : An applicant for a building permit may find that a specific new construction material, method of construction or type of construction cannot be approved by the Department of Building Inspection (DBI) because it does not comply with the specific requirements of the code. An applicant may find that it is difficult to achieve full compliance with the requirements of the building codes without experiencing practical difficulties. Under those circumstances the applicant may appeal to the Board of Examiners for approval of a variance or a new or alternate material, method or type of construction.

The Board of Examiners, after reviewing submitted exhibits and data with respect to a building permit application, is empowered to determine whether the use of new or unusual products or construction methods complies with the standards of safety set by the various codes. Likewise, the Board of Examiners may determine whether variances from the requirements of the codes can be accepted in instances where compliance would result in a practical difficulty or unreasonable hardship. A determination of acceptance may include conditions which must be satisfied. The Board of Examiners may not approve a request which would result in a condition less safe than otherwise required by the codes. Review and Appeals with DBI Staff Before an appeal of a matter may be made to the Board of Examiners, the permit applicant must request review of a staff disapproval of a proposed condition of a building permit application to the next level of DBI management, up to and including the Director (see Attachment A Diagram AB-042.) The San Francisco Fire Department must be consulted when a matter is within their jurisdiction. Any Fire Department disapproval may be appealed in accordance with Fire Department procedures. DBI and Fire Department review at each step shall be completed within 10 working days of the request by the appellant or the request shall be deemed disapproved and may advance to the next administrative review level. • Where permit applicants do not agree with staff regarding an interpretation of the codes, or where applicants are denied approval to use a new material, method or type of construction, the disagreement or denial may be appealed to the plan reviewer’s Team Leader or to the Senior Inspector supervising the field inspector. • If unable to reach an agreement with the Team Leader or Senior Inspector, the permit applicant may appeal the disagreement or denial to the Division Supervisor, Chief or Manager for resolution. • If unable to reach an agreement with the Division’s Supervisor, Chief or Manager, the issue may be taken up with the Deputy Director of Permit Services or the Deputy Director of Inspection Services for resolution. • The Deputy Director may choose to meet with the Director of the Department of Building Inspection before issuing a final administrative

determination. If the permit applicant does not accept the Director’s conclusion, the applicant may then appeal to the Board of Examiners if the issue is within that Board’s jurisdiction. Request for Board of Examiners Review Requests for Board of Examiners review must be submitted in writing (see Attachment B Form AB-042.) • Submit 10 completed copies of Form AB-042 along with all other relevant information such as architectural plans, engineering reports, laboratory test data, and photos to: Secretary, Board of Examiners Department of Building Inspection 49 South Van Ness Ave., 5th Floor San Francisco, CA 94103 The Board of Examiners will not review requests which do not, in the opinion of the Secretary of the Board of Examiners, include all necessary data, test results, and related materials. • Enclose a check for the filing fee made payable to the Department of Building Inspection in the amount listed in Table 1A-K of the San Francisco Building Code. Meeting Date and Application Deadline The Board of Examiners meets to consider appeals as scheduled by the Secretary of the Board of Examiners. Requests for appeals to the Board of Examiners should allow at least three weeks before a hearing will be held. Agenda Posting and Meeting Notification DBI will send the appellant an agenda and a notification of a scheduled hearing at least ten days before the meeting. DBI will post the agenda at the location of the meeting and at the main branch of the San Francisco Public Library at least 72 hours before the hearing. All meetings are open to the public. Unless otherwise noticed, the public meetings are held in the evenings at: Department of Building Inspection 49 South Van Ness Ave. San Francisco, CA 94103 Hearing Procedures Prior to the hearing, the Director of the Department of Building Inspection and the Fire Marshal will review the materials submitted by the appellant and will separately submit recommendations for disposition of the appeal to the Board of Examiners. At the hearing, representatives of the Department of Building Inspection and the Fire Department will introduce the case to the Board of Examiners and present their recommendations. The appellant may then present their argument. The appellant may include the testimony of recognized experts to substantiate their petition. The Board of Examiners will render a decision at the public hearing, or may continue the case to the next meeting pending submittal of additional data or clarification. When the Board of Examiners arrives at a conclusion, a resolution called a “Notice of Decision” detailing the decision and recommendation will be prepared by the Secretary of the Board of Examiners, filed with the Director of the Department of Building Inspection. A copy of the “Notice of Decision” will be mailed to the appellant. The Secretary of the Board of Examiners will prepare official meeting minutes for approval at the next meeting. It is recommended that the applicant attach a copy of the “Notice of Decision” to any related permit application. The Notice of Decision shall be microfilmed as part of the official records for the property. Rehearing A rehearing may be requested by any party when there is substantial new evidence which could not have been submitted at the time of the original hearing. Upon approval of a request for rehearing by the Board of Examiner, a date of a rehearing will be set. Appeals Where appellants do not agree with the decision of the Board of Examiners regarding a variance from requirements of the codes or where the appellants are denied the use of a new material, method or type of construction, the appellant may appeal the Board of Examiner’s decision to the Building Inspection Commission. Originally signed by: Frank Y. Chiu, October 3, 2002 Director Department of Building Inspection Gary Massetani, October 9, 2002 Fire Marshal San Francisco Fire Department Approved by the Building Inspection Commission on September 18, 2002 Attachment A: Diagram AB-042: Board of Examiners Appeals Process Attachment B: Form AB-042: Board of Examiners Request for Hearing

AB-043 Ventilation of Public Spaces in Group R Occupancies

NO. AB-043 :

DATE : September 18, 2002 (Updated 01/01/2023 for code references.) SUBJECT : Plan Review; Permit Process TITLE : Ventilation of Public Spaces in Group R Occupancies PURPOSE : To provide guidelines for determining which public spaces may require ventilation, and to describe acceptable examples of providing ventilation to these spaces. REFERENCES : Current edition of the San Francisco Building Code Section 1202 Current edition of the San Francisco Housing Code Sections 504 and 1001 California Health and Safety Code, Division 13, Part 1.5, Section 17920.3 (State Housing Law) Current edition of the San Francisco Mechanical Code Sections 402.0 and 403.0 . DISCUSSION : The San Francisco Housing Code (SFHC) and the San Francisco Building Code (SFBC) requires a minimum level of ventilation in the public circulation spaces of Group R Occupancies. San Francisco’s deep and narrow lots coupled with a tradition of property line-to-property line construction often results in multifamily residential buildings with long hallways that have limited access to exterior openings. With little or no ventilation available to these hallways and other public spaces such as stairways and lobbies, the air can become stagnant and may retain cooking or tobacco odors.

The intent of the California Building Code (CBC) Section 1202.5 is to assure adequate ventilation of Group R Occupancies. The intent of the San Francisco amendment to Section 1202.5 is to assure adequate ventilation of all public circulation spaces, particularly those which have directly- communicating openings into adjoining dwelling units or habitable spaces. This includes enclosed stairways and vestibules which also have entry doors to dwelling units or other habitable spaces. Pressurized stair enclosures need not be ventilated. The following are acceptable means of providing ventilation:

Operable windows with an openable area of not less than 1/25 of the floor area of the area ventilated with a minimum of 4 square feet (0.37 m2). The windows shall open directly onto a public way or a yard or a court when permitted by Table 705.8. See SFBC Section 1205 for minimum sizes of yards and courts adjacent to exterior openings that provide natural ventilation.
Skylights with an openable area of not less than 1/25 of the floor area of the area ventilated with a minimum of 4 square feet (0.37 m2). The skylight shall be fixed open or shall be provided with an approved opening device.
Operable or fixed louvers with a net effective area of not less than 1/25 of the floor area of the area ventilated with a minimum of 4 square feet (0.37 m2). The operable louver shall be provided with an approved operating device.
Exterior openings set with screens, bars or grilles providing a net free (effective) area of not less than 1/25 of the floor area of the area ventilated with a minimum of 4 square feet (0.37 m2).
Wind-operated turbines may be used in lieu of natural ventilation to provide a minimum of 2 complete air changes per hour throughout the public circulation space with a minimum of 15 cubic feet per minute (7L/s) of outside air per occupant during such time as the building is occupied. Provide a make-up air inlet at a location that will not result in a short-circuiting of air flow, or where it will pick up objectionable odors, fumes or flammable vapors. For calculating ventilation, the minimum average wind speed shall be 7.5 miles per hour. [Based upon information from the National Climate Data Center, the lowest average wind speed in San Francisco is 6.7 mph in May.]
Mechanical ventilation and exhaust designed to operate continuously and capable of providing not less than that required by San Francisco Mechanical Code Section 403.0 throughout the public circulation space during such time as the building is occupied. Provide a make-up air inlet at a location that will not result in a short-circuiting of air flow, or where it will pick up objectionable odors, fumes or flammable vapors. When natural or mechanical ventilation methods as described above are not feasible, the applicant may present an alternate means of providing ventilation for consideration by the building official. When required by SFBC Sections 713 and 716, provide smoke and/or fire dampers at penetrations of fire-rated assemblies. Comply with the requirements of San Francisco Mechanical Code when locating ventilation openings near exhaust outlets, vent or chimney terminations. Refer to the San Francisco Housing Code for maintenance of natural and mechanical ventilation systems in existing (prior to January 1, 2011) Group R, Division 1 & 2 Occupancies. Signed by: Frank Y Chiu, October 3, 2002 Director Department of Building Inspection Approved by the Building Inspection Commission on September 18, 2002

AB-046 Special Inspection and Structural Observation Procedures

NO. AB-046 :

DATE : September 18, 2002 (Updated 01/01/2023 for code references.) SUBJECT : Permit Process; Inspection TITLE : Special Inspection and Structural Observation Procedures PURPOSE : The purpose of this Administrative Bulletin is to describe the procedures to be used in the administration and enforcement of special inspection and structural observation requirements of the San Francisco Building Code. It is intended as an aid for design professionals in their preparation of inspection and observation programs. It provides information for building owners, architects and engineers, contractors, and special inspection agencies about their responsibilities regarding special inspection and structural observation and includes standardized forms and formats applicable to these functions. REFERENCES : Current edition of the San Francisco Building Code

Section 108A, Inspections
Chapter 17, Special Inspections and Tests ASTM E329-21, Standard Specification for Agencies Engaged in Construction Inspection, Testing or Special Inspection

I. DEFINITIONS A. Special Inspection Special Inspection is the monitoring of the materials and workmanship that are critical to the integrity of building structures or are otherwise required for public safety. Special inspection is intended to assure that the approved plans and specifications are being followed and that relevant codes and ordinances are being observed. The special inspection process is in addition to the regular inspections conducted by Department of Building Inspection building inspectors and by the engineer or architect of record. The special inspectors furnish continuous or periodic inspection as required by the San Francisco Building Code (SFBC). Good communication between the special inspector and the designers, contractor, and building department is essential to project quality assurance. B. Structural Observation Structural observation is visual observation of the structural system, for general conformance with the approved plans and specifications, at significant construction stages and at completion of the structural system, as required by SFBC Section 1704.6. Structural observation does not include or waive the responsibility for the inspections required by Section 108A, 1704, 1705, or other sections of this code. [SFBC Sec. 202] II DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE PARTIES RESPONSIBLE FOR SPECIAL INSPECTION PROGRAM AND STRUCTURAL OBSERVATION PROGRAM A. Duties and Responsibilities of the Project Owner 1. The project owner, or the owner’s agent, is responsible for funding special inspection services. 2. The owner, or the owner’s agent, shall employ the engineer or architect responsible for the structural design, or another engineer or architect designated by the engineer or architect responsible for the structural design, to perform structural observation as defined in SFBC Section 202. 3. Before final building inspection, the owner, or the owner’s agent, shall submit to DBI final compliance reports covering each item requiring special inspection and structural observation. Final reports shall be wet signed and stamped by the responsible engineer of the special inspection agency, geotechnical firm, engineer or architect of record - as appropriate to the type of report. See Attachment 2, Special Inspection Final Compliance Report and Attachment 3, Structural Observation Final Compliance Report. B. Duties and Responsibilities of the Engineer of Record The Engineer of Record (or Architect of Record) has many duties and responsibilities related to special inspection and structural observation activities. These include the following: 1. Identify the need for special inspection and structural observation services The project plans that are submitted to the Building Official shall clearly indicate the design parameters and material selection. The Engineer of Record shall analyze the critical elements of the design and determine where special inspection and structural observation are required, in accordance with SFBC Sections 1704 and 1705. The Engineer of Record shall submit the Special Inspection and Structural Observation Form (Attachment 1) to DBI. The Engineer of Record shall also indicate the required special inspection and structural observation requirements on the submitted drawings. This can be accomplished by including a copy of the form on the drawings, or by including the same information on the drawings in another manner. 2. Respond to field discrepancies The Engineer of Record is instrumental in the process of deficiency correction. The engineer or architect of record is responsible for any design changes in addition to acknowledgment and approval of shop drawings, which may detail structural information, and for submission of

such changes to DBI for approval. 3. Prepare final compliance report The Engineer of Record prepares an overall final compliance report for submittal to DBI, stating that all items requiring special inspection and structural observation were performed in accordance with the approved plans, specifications, and applicable workmanship provisions of the SFBC. See Attachment 2, Special Inspection Final Compliance Report and Attachment 3, Structural Observation Final Compliance Report. C. Duties and responsibilities of the engineer responsible for the structural observation program Observed deficiencies shall be reported in writing to the owner’s representative, special inspector, contractor and the Director. The structural observer shall submit to the Director a written statement declaring that the site visits have been made and identifying any reported deficiencies that, to the best of the structural observer’s knowledge, have not been resolved. See Attachment 3, Structural Observation Final Compliance Report. D. Duties and Responsibilities of the Special Inspector The special inspectors are individuals with highly developed, specialized skills who observe those critical building or structural features which they are qualified to inspect. Duties of the special inspectors and/or inspection agencies include the following: 1. Observe all work for which they are responsible Special inspectors shall inspect all work for conformance with the Department of Building Inspection approved drawings and specifications and applicable provisions of the code. 2. Provide timely reports The special inspector should complete written inspection reports for each inspection visit and provide the reports in a timely manner. The special inspector or inspection agency shall furnish these reports directly to the building official, engineer or architect of record and to the general contractor. Special inspectors shall bring all non-conforming items to the immediate attention of the contractor. If any such item is not resolved in a timely manner or is about to be incorporated in the work, the engineer or architect of record and the building official shall be notified immediately. See Attachments 5 through 8. 3. Respond to field discrepancies Material and design discrepancies shall be brought to the attention of the Engineer of Record and the Building Official. 4. Submit a final signed report Special inspectors or inspection agencies shall submit a final report (signed by the registered engineer or licensed architect who is responsible for the special inspection) to the Department of Building Inspection stating that all items requiring special inspection and testing were constructed, to the best of their knowledge, in conformance with the approved design drawings, specifications, approved change order and the applicable provisions of the code. See Attachment 2, Special Inspection Final Compliance Report. E. Duties and Responsibilities of the Director 1. Review and examine plans for compliance The Director is charged with the legal authority to review the plans for compliance with the code requirements, including special inspection and structural observation requirements. 2. Monitor the special inspection and structural observation activities The Director shall monitor the job site to see that special inspection and structural observation is being performed and that an adequate number of special inspection staff is present depending upon the extent and complexity of the project. 3. Review inspection reports The Director receives, reviews and makes the inspection reports part of the inspection records. 4. Review the final report The Certificate of Occupancy shall not be issued until the final report has been received and approved by the Director. F. Duties and Responsibilities of the Contractor The contractor’s duties include the following: 1. Notify the special inspector The contractor is responsible for notifying the special inspector or agency regarding special inspections required by DBI. Adequate notice shall be provided so that the special inspector has time to become familiar with the project. 2. Provide access to approved plans The contractor is responsible for providing the special inspector with access to approved plans at the job site. 3. Retain special inspection records The contractor is responsible for retaining at the job site all special inspection records submitted by the special inspector, and providing these records for review by the Department of Building Inspection inspector upon request. III SPECIAL INSPECTOR QUALIFICATIONS: [SFBC Section 1704] The San Francisco Department of Building Inspection will accept special inspection and testing agencies working on projects in San Francisco

who are recognized by the Special Inspection Joint Review Committee of participating Bay Area jurisdictions, which reviews the qualifications of inspection and testing agencies including conformance with ASTM E329 and inspector certification and experience criteria. The current list of the Joint Review Committee’s Recognized Special Inspection and Testing Agencies is available from DBI. Alternatively, special inspectors shall be one of the following: A. A qualified person employed by an approved inspection and testing agency conforming insofar as applicable to the requirements of ASTM E329. Except for testing of materials and reporting of numerical results from such tests, the inspector shall work under the general supervision of a registered Civil Engineer, and all reports and certification of compliance must be signed by the engineer. B. A registered Civil Engineer or licensed Architect who can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Director that he or she has the experience and expertise to qualify as a special inspector for the specific type of inspection work, and has appropriate equipment to conduct such inspections and tests. Note: The above applies to any engineer or architect who is not the engineer or architect of record for the project. Qualifications must be approved by the Director. C. For life-safety provisions required by SFBC Section 403, construction review and validation testing shall be performed by, or under the supervision of a registered Electrical or Mechanical Engineer responsible for those areas of work involving his or her design. All reports on construction review and testing, and certification of compliance and full operational status, shall be signed by the engineer and endorsed by the design professional of record for the building. The design professional of record shall bear overall responsibility for the proper installation and testing of the life-safety system. When approved by the Director this responsibility may be borne by an approved independent testing agency. D. The Engineer (or Architect) of Record. Note: The engineer who prepared the geotechnical report may be considered the engineer of record for the geotechnical work requiring special inspection. E. For plant fabrication of precast concrete elements, a registered civil engineer who supervises all phases of quality control work. The registered civil engineer shall be subject to the approval of the Director. IV SPECIAL INSPECTION AND STRUCTURAL OBSERVATION OPERATIONAL PROCEDURE WITHIN DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING INSPECTION A. Plan Review Services (PRS) - Plan Check Engineers/Inspectors 1. Review Attachment 1, Special Inspection and Structural Observation form. Usually the engineer or architect of record prepares the form. Verify special inspection and structural observation items. 2. Plan checker affixes the “SPECIAL INSPECTION” stamp on the back of the application when signing that permit is approved for issuance. The plan checker makes one copy of the Special Inspection and Structural Observation form and attaches it to the applicant’s copy of the permit application, then gives the original to the Special Inspection Services staff. 3. Special Inspection Services Staff set up the special inspection file and enters the types of special inspection and structural observation required for the project in the computer record for the permit application. 4. During construction, DBI Special Inspection Services staff distribute special inspection progress reports to assigned staff. If reports indicate problems that need to be brought to the attention of the district building inspector, Special Inspection Services Staff forwards a copy of the report to the appropriate district building inspector. District building inspector will notify the contractor who in turn shall notify the engineer of record to resolve the field problems. Resolution reports shall be submitted to PRS for review and file. See Attachment 4, Special Inspection/Structural Observation Transmittal Letter. 5. When final reports are submitted, DBI staff will review for final compliance. If documentation is not sufficient, DBI staff will notify the Engineer of Record regarding missing items. If compliance has been verified, DBI staff signs and dates Special Inspection and Structural Observation form. 6. DBI staff enters final compliance approval in the computer by entering the approval date and their name for each item requiring special inspection. 7. DBI staff sends completed special inspection and structural observation files quarterly to DBI storage. 8. For permits issued over the counter when special inspection is required, DBI staff will make copy of the Special Inspection form and distribute as follows: a. One copy to applicant b. Original to DBI staff with the approval date. B. Central Permit Bureau (CPB) Staff shall give one copy of the approved Special Inspection and Structural Observation form to applicant together with the approved drawings. C. Building Inspection Division (BID) 1. Special Inspector shall be identified to the District Building Inspector prior to start of the work for which special inspection is required. See Attachment 1, Special Inspection Requirements and Structural Observation Requirements. 2. District building inspectors monitor the special inspection activities at the project site. In the event that district building inspectors discover that required special inspection is not being performed, or is not in compliance with the approved plans, they are authorized to suspend or stop the progress of the work.

Originally signed by: Frank Y. Chiu, Director Department of Building Inspection October 3, 2002 Approved by the Building Inspection Commission on September 18, 2002 Attachments: Attachment 1: Special Inspection and Structural Observation Requirements Attachment 2: Special Inspection Final Compliance Report Attachment 3: Structural Observation Final Compliance Report Attachment 4: Special Inspection/Structural Observation Transmittal Letter Attachment 5: Special Inspection Record Attachment 6: Special Inspection Daily Report Attachment 7: Special Inspection Weekly Report Attachment 8: Special Inspection Discrepancy Notice Attachment 9: Sample matrix Attachment 10: Agency Summary and Letter of Agreement Attachment 11: Waiver Agreement Attachment 12: Responsible Engineer’s Statement of Agreement AB-047 Specific Submittal Criteria for Reports, Special Inspections and Final Acceptance Testing of Smoke Control Systems

NO. AB-047 :

DATE : December 12, 2016 (Updated 01/01/2023 for code references.) SUBJECT : Smoke Control Systems TITLE : Specific Submittal Criteria for Reports, Special Inspections and Final Acceptance Testing of Smoke Control Systems. PURPOSE : This Administrative Bulletin outlines the minimum requirements for smoke control systems in the City and County of San Francisco; it covers (1) design criteria, (2) required submittals and documentation. This Administrative Bulletin applies to both new and existing smoke control systems. REFERENCES : Current edition of the California Building Code Section 909 Current edition of the California Fire Code Section 909 a. Alternate Methods of Smoke Control 1. Equivalent/Alternate methods should be pre-approved by DBI/SFFD. See DBI Administrative Bulletin AB-005 for information regarding local equivalencies and DBI Administrative Bulletin AB-028 for information regarding pre-application or pre-addendum meetings. Examples of alternate methods are Natural Ventilation (not applicable to 909.20.3; Smoke proof enclosures), Garage CO Exhaust. Additional justification and analyses are required to show the method provides an equivalent level of life-safety to prescribed methods; typically consisting of providing documentation and supporting calculations. 2. SMOKE CONTROL SYSTEM DESIGNERS QUALIFICATIONS a. The building owner shall engage an architect, mechanical engineer and electrical engineer as architect and engineers-of-record, to prepare Smoke Control System design documents [SFBC 106A.3.4]. All design professionals shall be licensed in the State of California [CBC 202]. The architect and engineers-of-record shall be responsible for reviewing and coordinating all submittal documents, including reports and deferred submittals, for compatibility with the building design [SFBC 106A.3.4]. If a smoke control consultant is engaged, this person shall be experienced in smoke control systems and shall be a fire protection engineer or mechanical engineer licensed in the State of California.

b. When peer review is required by DBI/SFFD, the reviewer shall be approved by DBI/SFFD, and engaged by the owner or owner’s agent. 3. RESPONSIBILITIES a. Project Owner 1. Designate Responsible Design Professionals and Smoke Control Report Author 2. Authorize Peer Review (where applicable) 3. Contract development and implementation of Special Inspection Program 4. Contract Air Balancer and Special Inspector(s) 5. Coordinate Document Submittals: i. Alternate materials and methods requests ii. Preliminary Smoke Control Report iii. Final Smoke Control Report (including amendments) iv. Special Inspection Proposal for Smoke Control v. Final Special Inspection Report 6. Coordinate Plan Submittals i. Site Plan ii. Architectural Plan, including smoke barrier plan iii. MEP Plans iv. Fire Alarm Plans including Control Diagrams and Smoke Control Panel Layout v. Sprinkler Plans b. Design Professionals 1. Architect of Record i. Architectural Design and Smoke Barrier Plans in accordance with the smoke control report. ii. Must review architectural submittals by others to assure that smoke control system is coordinated into design. iii. Inspect construction, and when satisfied that the design intent has been achieved, the architect shall seal, sign, and date the special inspection report in designated area. 2. Mechanical Engineer of Record i. Mechanical Design in accordance with smoke control report and code requirements. ii. Must review mechanical, fire alarm, sprinkler submittals by others to assure that smoke control system is coordinated into design. iii. Inspect construction, and when satisfied that the design intent has been achieved, the mechanical engineer of record shall seal, sign, and date the special inspection report in designated area. 3. Electrical Engineer of Record i. Electrical Design in accordance with smoke control report and code requirements. ii. Must review electrical and fire alarm submittals by others to assure that smoke control system coordinated into design. iii. Inspect construction, and when satisfied that the design intent has been achieved, the electrical engineer of record shall seal, sign, and date the special inspection report in designated area. c. Smoke Control Report Author 1. Prepare Preliminary Smoke Control Report in accordance with architectural design. 2. Prepare Final Smoke Control Report (including amendments). 3. Establish smoke control system design, and pass/fail criteria; including necessary weather conditions acceptable during commissioning testing without further review. 4. Communicate with Peer Reviewer (where applicable), Fire Department, Department of Building Inspection during review and inspection phases. d. Contractor 1. Provide inspection/testing access prior to concealment of ductwork, wiring, piping, etc. 2. Marking and identification of all smoke control components. 3. Pre-testing of all equipment and systems prior to special inspection. 4. Coordinate special inspection and AHJ testing.

e. Department of Building Inspection 1. Review Plans and Submittals. 2. Mandate Peer Review (when necessary). 3. Perform field inspections. 4. Review special inspection report. 5. Provide Certificate of Final Completion when work is completed. 6. Custodian of Records (microfilm). f. Fire Department 1. Review Plans and Submittals. 2. Mandate peer review (when necessary). 3. Approval of Preliminary Smoke Control Concept and Final Smoke Control Report and Special Inspection Program. 4. Authorize fabrication of smoke control panel after approval. 5. Perform field inspections/witness testing and verify compliance with approved plans and documents. 6. Review of final special inspection report by Fire Plan Check. 7. Communication of deficiencies and required corrections with Plan Check, field inspectors, special inspectors, and design professionals. 8. Provide approval documentation when work is complete. g. Special Inspector or Special Inspection Agencies 1. Develop special inspection procedure/program (written proposal). 2. Prepare special inspection report. 3. Witness test and document all devices affecting smoke control system. 4. Inspect and document all architectural features affecting smoke control design. 5. Where deficiencies are noted during a site visit prepare and post deficiency reports with the permit posted at the job site and notify the contractor and responsible design professionals of corrections required [CBC 1704.2.4]. h. Air Balancer 1. Perform all required testing with properly calibrated instruments. 2. Document all testing and inspection results and provide to Special Inspector(s). 4. SUBMITTALS FOR SMOKE CONTROL SYSTEMS a. General 1. Submit two sets of the following: all reports in booklet format (e.g. spiral bound), 8-1/2 × 11 sheets; drawings, minimum 11 × 17 sheets. One set of each will be returned when approved. Reports shall be accompanied by two sets of CD-Rs with a copy of the report in PDF format including all appendices, diagrams, and all supporting calculation files (with all supporting design scenarios and data files) “burned” onto the CDs. Each CD shall be in a slim plastic “jewel case” with a clear cover. The permit application number, report title, project name and address, CD-R files, report date, and revision number shall be clearly labeled on the CD-R. 2. Construction documents shall include sufficient information and detail to adequately describe the design and properly facilitate installation. 3. Three types of reports are required: (1) the Smoke Control Report, (2) Special Inspection Program, and (3) Special Inspection and Testing Final Report. Approval of the Smoke Control Report and Special Inspection Program are required before the Mechanical Permit is issued. Provide the (3) Final Testing Report [CBC 909.18.8.3] and Identification and Documentation [909.18.9] to DBI/SFFD at project completion. 4. A complete Special Inspection Program with sample reports shall be submitted with the mechanical plans to DBI/SFFD for review and approval prior to issuance of the mechanical permit. Refer to Special Inspection Program requirements section. b. Smoke Control Report 1. A written report, titled Smoke Control Report, shall be authored by the smoke control consultant or the mechanical engineer-of-record and submitted to DBI/SFFD for review and approval. The Smoke Control Report is typically a multi-phased approval process and submitted as follows: i. For site permit projects submit a preliminary Smoke Control Report with the site permit drawings. The preliminary Smoke Control Report is generally conceptual in nature, but still includes all aspects required in the final report, including AB-047 Signature Page-Attachment 1, less the specific calculations, supporting data, and diagrams. The acceptance of the preliminary Smoke Control Report does not constitute final approval by SFFD or DBI. Submit the Smoke Control Report as part of the review and approval process of the Architectural, Mechanical, and Electrical addendum drawings. ii. For all projects without a site permit, submit the complete Smoke Control Report with the Architectural drawings (for reference). Submit the Smoke Control Report and Special Inspection Program with the Mechanical, and Electrical drawings, as part of the drawings’ review and approval process.

iii. If the Smoke Control Report is revised after approval by DBI/SFFD, the revised report shall be resubmitted with all items required and provided in the original submittal and revised plans showing applicable changes. 2. The Smoke Control Report shall include the following information: i. Cover Page: Provide a cover page showing the facility name, address, revision number, permit application and revision numbers, date of submittal and preparer. ii. Signature Page: Provide a completed signature page with final report; AB-047 Attachment 1. iii. Code References: Provide reference to and include copies in appendices of all approved alternate means and methods, and pre- application agreements relating to smoke control. List all applicable codes standards including editions, approved equivalencies, and pre- application agreements for the project. iv. Building Description: Provide a general narrative overview of the building and its uses. Include the building height, number of stories, basement levels, gross floor area, types of occupancies and type(s) of construction, approved variances and equivalencies. Identify the architectural features that affect smoke control design and life-safety: size of atriums, location of fire/smoke barriers, fire-safeing, engineering judgments, make-up air openings, operable windows, vents, floor and wall openings, door closers, ceiling heights, pressurized and non- pressurized stair enclosures, open stairs, shafts used as ducts, duct construction and material, exiting, horizontal exits, heights and types of surrounding structures/buildings, Elevators for Firefighters use. v. Fire suppression systems: Provide a concise narrative overview of the fire suppression system(s). Identify the types of systems and areas served (zoning), major equipment, design criteria and basic operation. Identify the type, location and quantity of flammable or combustible fuel, and hazardous/toxic materials, if any. vi. HVAC and ventilation systems: Provide a concise narrative overview of the HVAC systems whether or not used for smoke control. Identify the types of systems and areas served (zoning), major equipment, fire and smoke dampers type and class including link temperatures, design objectives and basic operation. Identify where fire dampers have actuating devices with increased operating temperatures (not more than 350°F) due to smoke control [CBC 717.3.3] and specify the actuating temperatures for each type of fire damper. Identify where fire/smoke dampers are not provided due to smoke control [CBC 717.2.1; 717.5.3, #1.3, #4]. Identify where fire/smoke dampers are not provided at shafts due to 22-inch sub-ducts and continuously operating exhaust fans connected to the standby power system [CBC 717.5.3, #1.1, #2.2, #2.3]. vii. Power supply systems: Provide a concise narrative overview of the primary and standby power sources for the smoke control systems. Include the locations of the standby power source, transfer switches, normal power transformers and switchgear, and describe the independent routing of the normal and standby power distribution systems [CBC 909.11]. Identify the type, location and quantity of flammable or combustible fuel, if any. Address the need for uninterruptible power supplies and power surge protectors [CBC 909.11.1]. Provide a table to indicate all equipment required to be connected to emergency power. Specify the required duration the Stand-by/Secondary Power supply is required to operate the Smoke Management System [909.4.6]. Note standby power is usually required for scavenger fans. viii. Fire alarm, detection and control systems: Provide a concise narrative overview of the fire alarm, detection and control systems as they relate to the smoke control system. Include the building management system (BMS) where used for or interconnected to the smoke control system. BMS systems shall be listed for smoke control use. Identify the smoke control components that must be monitored for proper operation (supervised end-to-end) and the method of supervision [CBC 909.12]. Address the listing of fire detection and control systems (UL category UUKL) including the building management system where used for smoke control [CBC 909.12]. a. Damper supervision and control at the Firefighters Control Panel is required for all active-passive zone boundaries, e.g. corridor to residential units, group control and interlocking on fans with dampers is allowed. The minimum acceptable supervision and control required will indicate proper damper operation and fault condition for smoke control operation, i.e. open and closed. These dampers shall be included in the UUKL Self-Test and fail-safe in the closed position [CBC 909]. b. Fan supervision and control at the Firefighters Smoke Control Panel is required for all fans used in the smoke control system [CBC 909.16]. Each fan and damper shall have a separate annunciator lights and controls, unless otherwise approved. Power (amperage and voltage) shall be supervised at the downstream side of the electrical disconnects [CBC 909.12] and a positive means of verifying airflow shall be provided (pressure switch/airflow sensor) [NFPA 92 6.4.8.2] at each fan and indicated on the Firefighters Control Panel as a fault condition if failure occurs. Supervision and control of additional fans shall be required in cases where an alternate/equivalent method is approved, e.g. where garage CO exhaust is utilized for smoke control, and use of supply fans are necessary for adequate smoke exhausting. ix. Firefighters Control Panel. Include a narrative description of the Firefighters Control panel. Refer to the Fire Alarm Plan submittal section for additional information. x. Smoke Control/Management Systems. Provide a concise conceptual narrative overview of the smoke control/management systems: concepts, ap

d use of supply fans are necessary for adequate smoke exhausting. ix. Firefighters Control Panel. Include a narrative description of the Firefighters Control panel. Refer to the Fire Alarm Plan submittal section for additional information. x. Smoke Control/Management Systems. Provide a concise conceptual narrative overview of the smoke control/management systems: concepts, approaches, and design objectives, types of systems, zoning, major equipment, analysis methods, and basic operation and activation sequences. xi. As applicable provide a detailed description of each smoke control zone including: occupancy; fire suppression and fire alarm systems, including specific design criteria required by the smoke control system; construction type, ratings and leakage values; door and window types, ratings, leakage values, and closing methods; operable and fixed exterior openings; expected fire size/loads, combustible materials [CFC]; means of egress; method(s) of smoke control; analyses methods, with referenced equations for hand calculations, name and version of software; design scenarios addressed, including specific weather data used for each scenario; summary of results including but not limited to tenability, timed egress, i.e. ASET vs. RESET; sprinkler type and activation times; activation methods. xii. Provide small-scale drawings, 11 × 17 minimum, showing the location of all smoke zones, including passive smoke zones; include the drawings as PDF files on the required CD-R. xiii. Provide rational analyses of the design; address the stack effect, temperature effect of the fire, wind, HVAC interactions, climate and minimum duration of operation [CBC 909.4.4, 909.4.5, 909.10]. 3. For smoke control systems using the passive method, identify the total leakage area for typical smoke barriers [CBC 909.5.1]. 4. Address the probable temperatures to which fans, dampers and ducts may be exposed in a fire [CBC 909.10].

Identify smoke zone openings which must be open or closed for proper operation, such as doors, windows, dampers and louvers; identify smoke zone openings that are supervised in the open and/or closed positions.
1. Address the piston effect of elevators. Additionally, for single car elevator shaft provide calculations to show the smoke control system is not overcome by the piston effect.
2. Design Fundamentals; Where applicable the following Guidelines shall apply. i. Design Fire: a. A design fire engineering analysis shall be provided in the smoke control report [909.9]. Address the fuel characteristics (e.g. toxicity,

particulate yield, and growth rate), fuel spacing and configurations (radiant heat), heat-release assumptions (HRR), and sprinkler effectiveness assumptions. Justify all assumptions and performance-based approaches. Identify the computer program(s) and version(s) used, if any. Include calculations and an input and output summary for each computer analysis design case. b. Specify the maximum ceiling jet temperatures and time lag expected before sprinkler activation. Provide supporting calculations. ii. Pressurization Method: a. Stairway pressurization systems: Comply with CBC 909.20 to 909.20.4-6 and NFPA 92 4.6 to 4.6.4.2. Use of vestibule transfer grills is not acceptable except for pressurization of large stairway transfer passageways. b. Pressurization calculations may be based on maximum leakage values provided in the CBC [CBC 909.5.] However, architectural specifications for construction leakage may be used if documented in report. c. A minimum Pressure differential of 0.05-water gauge is required across all smoke barriers in fully sprinklered buildings. Un- sprinklered buildings shall comply with CBC 909.6.1 for pressure differentials. [CBC 909.6, 909.6.1]. d. Computer calculations shall be provided for all buildings utilizing a multizone model program that is valid for the application, e.g. CONTAM. State all variables used/required in the calculations and additional modifiers are available and used in the calculations, e.g. Wind Tunnel data, provide information in the report. Hand calculations may be provided and/or required to verify computer calculations. e. Base calculations input data on 1 percent wind speeds and dry bulb temperatures of 99.6 and 0.4 percent (NFPA 92A, A.4.4.1). Include prevailing winds, summer and winter, and all other wind directions considered critical to demonstrate wind effects. Current wind data shall be obtained from a nationally recognized authority, e.g. ASHRAE, and included in the report. Use of site specific wind data is recommended. f. All exterior openings and non-smoke management fans in smoke control zones and sub-zones that are operable in smoke control mode shall be included in the analysis in their normal position, e.g. windows, doors, scavenger fans, z-ducts and vents (NFPA 92A, 4.6.1, and 7.1.1.2). g. For smoke control systems using the pressurization method, identify the minimum and maximum pressure differences across smoke zone boundaries (smoke barriers) separating smoke zones [CBC 909.6.1]. Include calculations for each smoke zone where appropriate. Analyses shall include all openings fixed in open position, and within reason openings expected to be opened, e.g. Z-ducts, operable windows and/or doors [NFPA 92 72.2]. h. Provide smoke detectors at each floor level entrance to smoke proof enclosure [CBC 909.20.6 and 907.3.1.]. Note: This requirement is satisfied if full area smoke detection is provided throughout the room or corridor accessing the smoke proof enclosure vestibule. i. Provide full area smoke detection in residential corridors to activate the corridor exhaust fans. Activation of the smoke control system by full area smoke detection within residential corridors may be used in lieu of activation by the zoned fire sprinkler system. An application for equivalency per SFDBI Administrative Bulletin AB-005 will not be required for compliance with CBC 909.12.3 for residential corridors. j. Comply with CBC 909.20.7, to provide protection of equipment, control and power wiring, and ductwork. k. Provide pressurization of Fire Service Access Elevator only if the smoke control system is designed under the Current Edition of the CBC/SFBC. iii. Exhaust Method: Typically used in large volume areas, e.g. atriums [CBC 909.8]. a. Where space is a simple geometry (no obstructions, simple air supply/makeup air and exhaust, symmetrical square construction) exhaust of smoke may be done using NFPA 92 algebraic calculations. b. In spaces with complicated geometries and/or tenability is used as design criteria, CFD analysis may be required. A complicated geometry is where airflow is obstructed, multiple air supplies, or construction is asymmetrical. c. All exterior openings and non-smoke management fans in smoke control zones and sub-zones that are operable in smoke control mode shall be included in the analysis, e.g. windows, doors, scavenger fans and vents. iv. Natural Ventilation: a. Designs that utilize natural ventilation (not applicable to 909.20.3; Smoke proof enclosures) in whole or part of the smoke management system will require CFD or physical (scale) model analysis. b. The affect of outdoor wind, temperature, design fire size, and the surrounding structures are especially important in the design of natural ventilation smoke control. Multiple design scenarios that reflect a complete range of operating conditions are required to demonstrate the validity of the smoke control systems’ function. c. Wind speeds shall range from zero to the 1 percent annual extreme. Include prevailing winds, summer and wint

size, and the surrounding structures are especially important in the design of natural ventilation smoke control. Multiple design scenarios that reflect a complete range of operating conditions are required to demonstrate the validity of the smoke control systems’ function. c. Wind speeds shall range from zero to the 1 percent annual extreme. Include prevailing winds, summer and winter, and a minimum of 4 other wind directions considered critical to demonstrate wind affect at the required wind speeds. Current wind data shall be obtained from a nationally recognized authority, e.g. ASHRAE, and included in the report. d. Ambient temperature used in calculations shall range from low to high annual extremes, dry bulb temperatures of 99.6 and 0.4 percent, as reported by the most current data obtained from a nationally recognized authority, e.g. ASHRAE.

e. For verification of commissioning and testing data provide design calculations for the temperature(s) and wind condition(s) experienced during the testing. f. All openings in smoke control zones that are operable shall be included in the analysis, e.g. windows, doors, and vents. Separate design scenarios for each zone with open and openings closed shall be included. v. Airflow Method: Typically used in tunnels or spaces connected to large volume spaces to manage the flow of smoke from fires. a. Simple geometrical spaces (no obstructions, simple air supply and exhaust, symmetrical smooth construction) the critical air velocity calculation required to prevent the backflow of smoke may be per NFPA 92, section 5.10, Opposed Airflow and CBC, Section 909.7. b. In spaces with complicated geometry (rough, asymmetric construction) and/or where/when tenability is used as design criteria, CFD analysis is required. A complicated geometry is where airflow is obstructed, multiple air supplies, or construction is asymmetrical. c. All openings in smoke control zones that are operable shall be included in the analysis, e.g. windows, doors, and vents. Separate design scenarios for each zone with open and openings closed shall be included. vi. Tenability: Tenability criteria shall be established based on approved documented studies. Items to be included, but not limited to, determining tenability criteria are the following: temperature and humidity, visibility (KS3, light reflecting), toxicity assessment of combustion products and FED. vii. Egress Analysis: Timed egress analyses shall be based on CBC 909.4.6 (where duration of system is less than 20-minutes) based on documented methods as provided in the listed references. Calculation of Available Safe Egress Time (ASET) and Required Safe Egress Time (RSET) with a minimum safety factor of (1.5). ASET and RSET shall be calculated in phases/time segments: ignition-detection, detection-alarm, alarm-perception, perception-interpretation, interpretation- action, action-movement, and tenability limit only for ASET. Occupancy loads shall be determined by the CBC or actual occupant load, whichever is greater. Consideration shall be made for handicapped and disabled occupants by reduction of travel speeds and flow rates. Lastly, duration of the smoke management system operation shall be the code required minimum or the maximum RSET, whichever is greater. c. Architectural Drawings 1. Include a compliance statement stamped and wet signed by the architect-of-record which states: “I have reviewed the Smoke Control Report and confirm the smoke management/control system elements shown on the drawings under my responsible charge comply with the Smoke Control Report by (REPORT AUTHOR) and (DATE OF REPORT).” 2. As part of the architectural drawings provide smoke barrier drawings showing the location of all smoke zones: delineate each zone as passive or active and provide a zone designation for each active zone. Additionally, show occupancies of each smoke zone and all openings required, e.g. doors required to open for make-up air. The zones and designations used in the architectural drawings shall correspond to zones and designations used in the smoke control report. 3. Provide sufficient detail in the drawings to support engineering calculations, e.g. leakage values for walls, ceilings, and doors; locations and heights of surrounding buildings; sizes and locations of make-up air openings; and smoke-barrier wall construction details. d. Mechanical Permit Drawings 1. In addition to the information that is typically provided in mechanical drawings, provide the following information in the drawings: i. Include a compliance statement stamped and wet signed by the mechanical engineer-of-record which states: “I have reviewed the Smoke Control Report and confirm the smoke management/control system elements shown on the drawings under my responsible charge comply with the Smoke Control Report by (REPORT AUTHOR) and (DATE OF REPORT).” ii. Submit approved architectural plans that show the location of all smoke zones, including passive smoke zones. iii. Provide a schematic riser diagram of the smoke control/management systems. iv. Provide a narrative summary and sequence of operations of the smoke control/management system operation. v. Identify the major mechanical components used for smoke control in appropriate schedules. Include fans, drivers, variable frequency drives (VFDs) and their locations, and louver and damper operators. Indicate the minimum service factor for fan motors (1.15) and the minimum number of fan belts for belt-driven fans, and temperature rating of fans and ducts [CBC 909.10]. vi. Identify the ducts and shafts used for smoke control in the schematic riser diagrams and plan drawings. Indicate the minimum test pressure for ducts and shafts used for smoke control (1.5 times the maximum design pressure) [CBC 909.10.2]. All shafts shall be sheet metal lined, unless an alternate method is approved [CMC 602]. vii. For smoke control systems with variable frequency drives (VFDs), locate the VFDs outside the smoke zone they serve. Alternatively, protect VFDs within the smoke zone they serve from smoke and heat so they are capable of continued operation after detection of fire for at least 20 minutes or the time set by the required safe exiting time (1.5 times RSET), whichever is less [CBC 909.4.6.] VFDs shall not serve more than one end device unless listed for smoke control service. Specify the “fail-safe” VFD operation mode and speed. viii. For air-moving systems greater than 2,000 cfm, identify where automatic shutoffs are not provided due to smoke control [CMC 609]. 2. Prerequisites for a mechanical permit issuance: Approved archi

SET), whichever is less [CBC 909.4.6.] VFDs shall not serve more than one end device unless listed for smoke control service. Specify the “fail-safe” VFD operation mode and speed. viii. For air-moving systems greater than 2,000 cfm, identify where automatic shutoffs are not provided due to smoke control [CMC 609]. 2. Prerequisites for a mechanical permit issuance: Approved architectural plans, approved Smoke Control Report, and an approved Special Inspection Program. e. Electrical Permit Drawings 1. In addition to the information that is typically provided in electrical drawings, include the following information in the drawings: i. Include a compliance statement stamped and wet signed by the electrical engineer-of-record which states:

“I have reviewed the Smoke Control Report and confirm the smoke management/control system elements shown on the drawings under my responsible charge comply with the Smoke Control Report by (REPORT AUTHOR) and (DATE OF REPORT).” ii. Identify the major electrical components used for smoke control, including standby (or emergency) power source, transfer switches, and control system(s). iii. Provide load calculations for the standby/emergency power source. iv. Show the layout of the standby generator room (or other secondary power source). The standby generator and its transfer switches shall be in a separate room from the normal power transformers and switchgear [CBC 909.11, 909.11.1]. v. Show the routing and fire rating of the normal and standby power distribution systems. The normal and standby power systems shall be routed independently [CBC 909.11]. vi. Show the locations of the fire alarm control panel (FACP), firefighters’ smoke control panel (FSCP) and fire alarm annunciator(s). vii. Provide a 1-line diagram showing feeder conductor sizes, overcurrent protection sizes, ampacity calculations, and the connected loads on each feeder supplied by the standby (or emergency) power source [CEC 215.5, 310, 700.5, 701.4, 701.6]. viii. For high-rise buildings, show the layout of the Fire Command Center (Central Control Station). See CBC 403.4.6, and 911, for required equipment and furnishings. ix. For buildings with passive smoke zones, connect the motor operators for smoke dampers to the building power panel and emergency/standby power – not the tenant space power panels. f. Sprinkler System Permit Drawings 1. Sprinkler system submittals shall be in accordance with SFFD Administrative Bulletin AB 2.04, Fire Sprinkler Submittals. 2. In addition to the information that is typically provided in sprinkler system permit drawings, include the following information in the drawings: i. The mechanical engineer-of-record shall review the sprinkler system permit documents for conformance with the smoke control report, prior to submittal to DBI/SFFD and shall so indicate by stamping “Reviewed for Smoke Control Design Compliance, (REPORT AUTHOR) and (DATE OF REPORT)” and signing on each drawing and document. ii. For atriums, provide separate sprinkler zones for the atrium and non-atrium spaces [CBC 909.12.3]. iii. For malls, provide separate sprinkler zones for mall and tenant spaces [CBC 402.5, 909.12.3]. iv. High-rise buildings with multiple active zones: each zone shall have 2 supplies. g. Fire Alarm System Permit Drawings 1. Fire alarm submittals shall be in accordance with SFFD Administrative Bulletin AB 2.01, Fire Alarm Submittals. 2. In addition to the information that is typically provided in fire alarm system permit drawings, include the following information in the drawings: i. The mechanical engineer-of-record and electrical engineer-of-record shall review the sprinkler system permit documents for conformance with the smoke control report, prior to submittal to DBI/SFFD and each engineer shall so indicate by stamping “Reviewed for Smoke Control Design Compliance, (REPORT AUTHOR) and (DATE OF REPORT)” and signing on each drawing and document. ii. (REPORT AUTHOR) and (DATE OF REPORT)” and signing on each drawing and document. iii. Provide a detailed fire alarm/smoke control matrix. a. Show every fire alarm/smoke control system input in a column on the left. Include every initiating device by address. Inputs may be combined with prior approval. Include manual operation of control switches for fans and dampers where the switch controls multiple outputs. b. Show every fire alarm/smoke control system output in a row across the top. Include every notification appliance by zone, every fan and damper (or group of dampers) by identifier, every monitored device by identifier and every other event that must occur for proper operation of the smoke control system. Control may be combined with prior approval. c. Show automatic fan shutoffs per CMC 609 where required or provided. d. Show supervised conditions for required smoke control components such as fan power disconnect, pressure differentials switches, switches, fans not full speed, and doors/windows/dampers open or closed. e. Alarm, supervisory and trouble signals shall be transmitted to an approved supervising station in accordance with NFPA 72 [CBC 907.6.5]. iv. Provide a full scale color drawing of the Firefighters Smoke Control Panel (FSCP) for review and approval prior to fabrication [CBC 909.2]. a. Show individual control switches for fans and dampers or multiple dampers with identical actions, and automatic closing/opening doors required for smoke control [909.16.2]. b. The FSCP shall show status indicators for all smoke control equipment by pilot lamp-type indicators as follows [CBC 909.16.1]: • GREEN: Fans, dampers and other operating equipment are in their ON or OPEN status. Provide a green light to indicate Smoke Control Mode and another for Manual Mode. • RED: Fans, dampers and other operating equipment are in their OFF or CLOSED status.

• YELLOW: Fans, dampers and other operating equipment are in a fault status. Add two pilot lamp-type indicators at right top of FSCP to indicate panel is in smoke control mode: green-normal and red-smoke control mode. c. Provide a legend or matrix either on the FSCP or separately mounted adjacent to the FSCP showing the configuration of fans, dampers and doors in normal status mode and smoke control status mode. d. Alternate designs of the firefighters’ smoke control panel may be approved on a case-by-case basis by SFFD. e. Provide lamp-type indicator for supply airduct smoke detectors adjacent to fan control switch. E.g., garage and/or stairway fan. v. Include a reference copy of the approved mechanical plans. 3. Smoke control systems shall have an automatic weekly self-test feature. The self-test feature shall automatically command activation of each associated function(s). An audible and visual trouble signal shall be annunciated at the FSCP identifying any function that fails to operate within the required time period [CBC 909.12, 907; UL 864]. h. Smoke Control Systems Designed Per the 1995, 2010 CBC/SFBC or Later. Note: Due to the change in model code from the Uniform Building Code (UBC) to the International Building Code (IBC), there was no 2004 CBC/SFBC. 1. For existing smoke control systems designed per the 1995 Edition of the CBC/SFBC or later Edition of the CBC/SFBC, comply with the requirements of Section 5 for the modified portions of the system except as revised in this section. 2. Where modifications to existing smoke control systems are made and original approved reports are not available, provide a new Smoke Control Report, Special Inspection Program and Final Testing Report. 3. Where modifications to existing smoke control systems are minor, DBI/SFFD may waive requirements for new reports or amendments to the original approved reports on a case-by-case basis. Minor modifications do not include new FSDs, smoke barriers/walls, a new Fire Alarm system, changes in use/occupancy, replacement of equipment (not in-kind), or like changes to the building and its systems. 4. Where work is done to a building with a smoke control system provide on plans a narrative of the smoke control/management system(s) operation and a matrix of fire/smoke damper operations for normal and smoke control modes of the smoke management system(s). 5. Where building renovations do not affect the design or operation of existing smoke control systems, provide the following non- infringement statement on the permit drawings: “I have read the Smoke Control Report and confirm the building renovations on the drawings under my responsible charge do not affect the design or operation of existing smoke control systems.” The non-infringement statement shall be signed by the architect and engineers-of-record (mechanical and electrical). i. Smoke Control Systems Designed Per the 1992 CBC/SFBC or Earlier 1. For smoke control systems designed per the 1992 CBC/SFBC or earlier, comply with the requirements of this section. 2. Where building renovations affect the design or operation of existing smoke control systems, provide a smoke control narrative on the permit drawings that describes the building renovations and modifications to the existing smoke control systems. 3. Where work is done to a building with a smoke control system provide on plans a narrative of the smoke control/management system(s) operation and a matrix of fire/smoke damper operations for normal and smoke control modes of the smoke management system(s). 4. Where building renovations do not affect the design or operation of existing smoke control systems, provide the following non- infringement statement on the permit drawings: “The building renovations shown on the drawings under my responsible charge do not affect the design or operation of existing smoke control systems.” The non-infringement statement shall be signed by the architect and engineers-of-record. 5. SPECIAL INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS FOR SMOKE CONTROL SYSTEMS a. Special Inspector 1. CBC, Section 909 requires a special inspector to perform inspection and acceptance testing of smoke control systems. 2. The special inspector is responsible for verifying that the smoke control system is installed in accordance with the requirements of CBC, Section 909, and that the system achieves the performance defined in the Smoke Control Report. b. Inspection and Test Process 1. Two inspection and testing processes are required for smoke control systems: i. Special inspection/testing by a special inspector, and ii. When the special inspector is satisfied that the smoke control system is properly installed and functioning per design, DBI/SFFD inspectors witness final acceptance testing. c. Submittals 1. Two submittals are required to document special inspection: i. A written inspection and test program, and

ii. A report describing the inspection and testing performed (as required by CBC, Section 909.18.8, AB-046). d. New and Modified Smoke Control Systems 1. Inspection, testing and submittal requirements for projects involving modifications to existing smoke control systems are the same as for projects involving new smoke control systems. While new systems require 100 percent of the smoke control system to be tested, the extent of testing required for modifications to existing systems shall be approved by DBI/SFFD. 6. SPECIAL INSPECTION QUALIFICATIONS a. Special Inspector 1. The special inspector shall be employed by the owner, owner’s agent, architect or engineers-of-record but not the contractor or any other person responsible for the work [SFBC 106A.3.5]. 2. The special inspector shall be a qualified person who shall demonstrate competence, to the satisfaction of DBI and SFFD, for the inspection and testing of smoke control systems. 3. The special inspector may be the smoke control system designer, if qualified per 7.1.2. b. Testing Agencies 1. Testing agencies shall be engaged by the owner or owner’s agent; “The special inspector shall be employed by the owner, the engineer or architect of record, or an agent of the owner, but not the contractor or any other person responsible for the work” [SFBC 106A.3.5]. 2. Testing agencies that measure HVAC performance (TAB agencies) shall be certified by the Associated Air Balance Council (AABC) or the National Environmental Balancing Bureau (NEBB). 7. SPECIAL INSPECTION SUBMITTALS FOR SMOKE CONTROL SYSTEMS a. Special Inspection Program 1. General i. A written Special Inspection Program shall be submitted to DBI/SFFD for review and approval [SFBC 106A.3.5]. ii. The Special Inspection Program shall be prepared by the architect, mechanical engineer-of-record or the author of the Smoke Control Report. The Program may also be prepared by the special inspector if duly qualified. [CBC 909.18.8.2] • Include the special inspector’s resume with the special inspection program. iii. The Special Inspection Program shall be submitted with the complete Smoke Control Report for review with the Mechanical and Electrical drawings. The issuance of the mechanical and electrical permit is dependent on approval of the submittals of the Smoke Control Report and Special Inspection Program. 2. The Special Inspection Program shall include at least the following information: i. Provide a cover page showing the facility name, address, revision number, date of submittal and preparer. ii. Provide a signature page per the attached form; AB-047 Attachment 1 signature page. iii. Identify the components and systems that must be inspected to demonstrate proper installation. iv. Samples of Inspection Reports and time limits for submission of reports. v. Provide an overview of test methods and test approach. a. When leakage testing of residential smoke barriers is to be performed, the Special Inspection Program shall define the number or percentage of units (minimum of 10% of the units or 1 per floor, whichever is greater) to be tested. Include the method of testing, percentage of smoke barriers to be tested and pass/fail criteria. b. If cold/hot smoke visualization testing is required by SFFD, this must be specifically addressed in the Program description. Provide testing details and methods proposed. 3. Two hard-copies of the Program shall be submitted in booklet form to DBI for logging-in. One copy will be returned when approved. The Program documents shall be accompanied by two CD-Rs, each with a copy of the Program “burned” onto the CD-R in PDF format. Each CD-R shall be in a slim plastic “jewel case” with a clear cover. The permit application number, project name and address, report title, date and revision number shall be clearly marked on the CD-R. b. Documentation to Support Final Inspection by DBI/SFFD 1. When the special inspector determines that the smoke control system is complete and operating properly, then he/she shall write a letter documenting its status. The letter shall be provided to the DBI/SFFD inspectors. The letter is required prior to DBI/SFFD starting their final inspection. 2. Satisfactory completion of final inspection of the smoke control system by DBI/SFD inspectors is a prerequisite for TCO. c. Final Report for Special Inspection and Testing (Commissioning Report for CFO) 1. A complete Smoke Control System Commissioning Report meeting the requirements of CBC 909.18.8.3 shall be submitted to DBI/SFFD for review and approval. 2. Acceptance of the Report by DBI/SFFD is a prerequisite for TOC. 3. Include completed attachments 2 and 3; Special Inspection and Testing Checklist, Final Report; for each smoke control system.

Two hard-copies of the Report shall be submitted to DBI in booklet format for logging-in. The Report copies shall be accompanied by two CD-Rs, each with a copy of the Report “burned” onto the CD-R in pdf format. Each CD-R shall be in a slim plastic “jewel case” with a clear cover. The permit application number, report title, project name and address, date and revision number shall be clearly marked on the CD-R.
1. A copy of the Report shall be provided to the SFFD inspector.
2. A copy of the Report shall be maintained in the fire control room.
INSPECTION AND TESTING OF SMOKE CONTROL SYSTEMS a. General
1. This section provides specific requirements and clarifications for the inspection and testing of new smoke control systems. These requirements are in addition to those specified in CBC, Section 909.
2. Projects involving modifications to existing smoke control systems shall employ only those requirements listed below applicable to the project. b. SF Inspection and Testing Requirements
3. Special Inspector shall Inspect and test to the following approved documents: i. Smoke Control Report; ii. Fire Alarm system shop drawings with the detailed smoke control sequence of operations matrix and the approved Firefighter’s Control

Panel configuration; iii. Architectural plans, with emphasis on smoke barrier plans; iv. Fire Sprinkler plans, with focus on zoning and special design criteria required for smoke control design; v. Mechanical plans; vi. And Electrical plans. 2. Witness duct and shaft leakage testing. The test method shall be in accordance with SMACNA, HVAC Systems Testing, Adjusting and Balancing, Second Edition, 1993. Leakage testing shall be performed prior to the installation of dampers, but with all laterals installed. The test pressure and allowable leakage shall be in accordance with CBC, 909.10.2. Testing shall be performed during erection of ductwork and prior to concealment. 3. Witness leakage testing of the number of dwelling units defined in the Special Inspection Program. Leakage testing shall be accomplished using a calibrated door-fan test rig. Test pressure shall be approximately 0.05 in. WG or greater as determined by design. Measured leakage shall be compared to compartment leakage determined by calculation using allowable barrier leakage area ratios in CBC, 909.5 or architectural specification as applicable. 4. Witness airflow testing. 5. Visually inspect representative portions of the installed perimeter fire-safing to verify installation per its Listing and/or engineering judgment. 6. Visually inspect the Firefighter’s Control Panel (FFCP) and verify: i. The configuration is consistent with approved fire alarm drawings; ii. The panel is representative of the building smoke control system; iii. Indicator lights meet San Francisco requirements: • Green light: Fan ON or Damper OPEN; • Red light: Fan OFF or Damper CLOSED; • Yellow/Amber light: Damper/Fan FAULT or Loss of Power; iv. Verify that loss-of-power or airflow to each smoke control fan causes an immediate illumination of the associated FAULT light on the FSCP. v. Verify that fire alarm control/monitor modules are within 3 feet of HVAC equipment used for smoke control OR that the wiring between is supervised. vi. Verify that the blades on each FSD are monitored. Grouped FSDs with independent motors and jackshafts require the blades of each FSD to be monitored. vii. Verify that all VFD control panels are removed or the HOA on each VFD is password-protected. 7. The condition of the building shall be as follows during testing: i. Pressure testing shall be performed with: a. Permanent power to the building and all smoke control equipment; b. Windows and exterior doors CLOSED; c. Sub-ducted exhaust systems (toilet, kitchen and dryer) ON at fire-event speeds;

d. Dampers and fans that shut down during a fire event are CLOSED/OFF. ii. Proper operation of the smoke control system under standby power shall be verified (as a minimum) by: • Verifying that current and voltage under normal and standby power are equivalent iii. Current switches shall be adjusted after the building has been verified to be properly balanced. Adjustment shall be verified to indicate a no-belt condition, where appropriate. 8. The weekly self-test shall be observed and the following verified: i. A written report is produced. The report must clearly indicate a “start” of the test and an “end.” The report must clearly indicate any failures, but need not specify the component that fails. ii. The test shall cycle those components required for proper operation of the smoke control system as identified in the smoke control report. iii. Any failure during the self-test shall place a “TROUBLE” on the fire alarm control panel and notify Central Station. iv. Any alarm shall interrupt the self-test. 9. Special Inspector shall verify that documentation and equipment labels are in order. i. Verify that all fans and dampers used for smoke control are field labeled consistent with the control drawings (approved fire alarm drawings) and the Firefighter’s Control Panel (FFCP). Fan labels shall be red phenolic with 1 white lettering. Where the fan and the local disconnect/control panel are not immediately adjacent, both shall be labeled. ii. Verify that the following are available (or will be available) in the fire control room: a. As-built fire alarm (control) shop drawings; b. Smoke control event matrix (typically in the approved fire alarm shop drawings); c. The approved smoke control report; d. Weekly self-test reports; e. Final Smoke Control Special Inspection report. 9. REFERENCED PUBLICATIONS These documents are considered part of this Administrative Bulletin. a. Current edition of the California Building Code (CBC) / San Francisco Building Code (SFBC) b. Current edition of the California Fire Code (CFC) / San Francisco Fire Code (SFFC) c. Current edition of the California Mechanical Code (CMC) / San Francisco Mechanical Code (SFMC). d. Current edition of the California Electrical Code (CEC) / San Francisco Electrical Code (SFEC). e. NFPA 92 Standard for Smoke-Control Systems Guide to the 2006 IBC Smoke-control Provisions, Dr. John H. Klote and Douglas H. Evans, P.E., 2006 International Building Code. ASHRAE Guideline 5-1994, Commissioning Smoke Management Systems. SMACNA, HVAC Air Duct Leakage Test Manual, 2nd Edition, 2012. Signed by:

Tom C. Hui, S.E., C.B.O. 12/15/2016 Daniel DeCossio
Director Fire Marshal Department of Building Inspection San Francisco Fire Department

Approved by the Building Inspection Commission on May 18, 2011 & Revision August 17, 2016. Attachment 1: Signature Page Attachment 2: Special Inspection and Testing Summary Checklist Attachment 3: Special Inspection and Final Report AB-056 Disabled Access Compliance Status Documentation

NO. AB-056 :

DATE : March 8, 2005 (Updated 01/01/2023 for code references.)

SUBJECT : Disabled Access TITLE : Disabled Access Compliance Status Documentation PURPOSE : The purpose of this Bulletin is to establish a procedure under which permit applicants can achieve and document full or partial building accessibility. It is the intent of the Department of Building Inspection to document buildings or portions of buildings that are in compliance with current accessibility requirements, thus reducing the need for permit applicants to submit reference drawings and other duplicative documents in areas deemed in compliance. Such documentation of accessibility is to be reviewed and updated upon adoption of each new edition of the California Building Code or relevant amendment to that code. REFERENCE : Current edition of the San Francisco Building Code

Chapter 11B, Accessibility to Public Buildings, Public Accommodations, Commercial Buildings and Publicly Funded Housing
- Section 106A.3.3, Information on plans and specifications
- Section 106A.4.3, Validity of permit DISCUSSION : Project sponsors must meet certain disability access requirements as part of the permit, construction and building alteration process. The submittal of documentation to demonstrate disabled access compliance for each area of construction work or other building alteration has posed a burden on permit applicants and the Department of Building Inspection. To help reduce this burden while maintaining code compliance, the Department will accept a separate permit application documenting the status of disabled access compliance under current building codes. This will obviate the need for repeated submittal and review of multiple sets of identical documents for a single building. Such separate permit for disabled access compliance may then be referenced on subsequent permit applications, assuring required disabled access compliance under each such permit.

In order to demonstrate compliance with disabled access requirements, project sponsors must submit documentation accompanying permit applications. Such documentation may include drawings or, where a building or a portion of a building has been determined under previous permit to be in compliance with disabled access requirements, may include a Letter of Disabled Access Compliance Status referencing completed permits and related drawings on file with the Building Department. PROCEDURES The following procedures apply for the submittal and approval of permits which result in the issuance of a Letter of Disabled Access Compliance Status. If a building owner wishes to document full or partial access compliance, a permit application may be submitted indicating, as the description of work, Disabled Access Compliance Status. Such permit application for Disabled Access Compliance Status should include a permit cost valuation of $1.00. All review of submittal documents done by the Department of Building Inspection prior to permit issuance will be billed on an hourly basis in accordance with San Francisco Building Code (SFBC) Table 1A-B, Item 2, Back Check Fee. Any construction work that is determined to be necessary under this permit application shall be properly valued and appropriate permit fees shall be charged for such valuation. The Disabled Access Compliance Status permit application may be submitted concurrently with or prior to the submittal of other permit applications for construction or tenant improvement work. All permits shall be linked by clear statements on the permit applications for both the disabled access compliance work and any other construction work. The statement on the permit application for the disabled access compliance work should read, “To comply with Disabled Access required under Permit Application #__.” The statement on the permit applications for the tenant improvement work or other construction work should, similarly, note “Disabled Access work related to this construction is being done under Permit Application #.” Disability access within areas of tenant improvement shall be shown on the tenant improvement plans. Permits may be routed separately for plan review and may be approved separately. Plan Review Procedures a) All permits must be accompanied by three sets of submittal documents that indicate required compliance with those portions of the building that the project sponsor wishes to certify. Such portions may include parking, entry, path of travel, public areas such as lobbies, elevators, rest rooms, and other disabled access features. Individual tenant spaces are not included as part of this compliance status documentation. Submittal documents shall include a “key” map or other clear diagram of the areas to be reviewed for compliance. All submittal documents must be signed by a licensed architect or engineer. b) Other permits for tenant improvement work during the period when the Disabled Access Compliance Status Documentation permit application is under review must reference the Permit Application number for the Disabled Access Compliance Status Documentation permit. c) A permit issued for Disabled Access Compliance Status Documentation may be referenced by subsequent permits to demonstrate that disabled access compliance is being addressed or that such work has been completed and deemed satisfactory in meeting code requirements. Field Inspection Procedures Field inspection of disabled access features shall be done by an inspector with special expertise in this field as designated by the Director or otherwise in accordance with policies and regulations developed by the Department. Permit Time Limits a) Plan review time limits shall be as detailed in SFBC Section 106A.3.7, Application Expiration.

b) Following issuance of a permit for Disabled Access Compliance Status, if work is to be done, such work must be started and completed within the times allowed, based on the permit valuation. See SFBC Section 106A.4.4, Permit Expiration. c) Permit extensions shall apply per SFBC Section 106A.4.4, Permit Expiration. Permit Sign-Off a) Temporary occupancy may be allowed in accordance with the policies of the Department of Building Inspection. b) A final sign-off on the permit for Disabled Access Compliance Status Documentation will be made by the District Building Inspector or by other staff assigned by the Director following completion of all work. Issuance of Letter of Disabled Access Compliance Status Upon completion and final sign-off of any Permit Application for Disabled Access Compliance Status Documentation, the Department will issue a Letter of Disabled Access Compliance Status indicating the scope of approved disabled access compliance and any special conditions or exceptions that may apply, including such items as Unreasonable Hardships or Access Appeal Commission decisions. The Letter of Disabled Access Compliance Status must be copied onto any plans that are submitted for subsequent work on the building which intend to refer to this compliance permit. The Department has the authority to revoke any such letter at any time for any reason if disabled access is not being provided in full accord with the requirements of the law or in compliance with the conditions of the letter. A copy of the Letter of Disabled Access Compliance Status and the related approved permit documents shall be maintained by the Department of Building Inspection in an accessible, paper form to allow easy reference by staff and other interested parties. Such documents shall also be microfilmed or otherwise recorded as part of the permanent records of the property. Revisions/Reissuance of an Issued Letter of Disabled Access Compliance Status The Department will require that any issued Letter of Disabled Access Compliance Status conform to changes to disabled access regulations as they occur. This will require a review and update of each Letter of Disabled Access Compliance Status upon adoption of each new edition of the California Building Code or relevant amendment to that code. Compliance with such new code requirements will only be required if: • Such code requirements apply retroactively • Subsequent construction work or other building alteration triggers such additional disabled access requirements A project sponsor may apply for a permit to alter the scope of the Disabled Access Letter of Compliance. An additional permit and plans will be required to verify conformance with code requirements for disabled access when a Letter of Disabled Access Compliance Status is revised or reissued. When Access Appeals Commission decisions relate to portions of the building covered by this Letter of Disabled Access Compliance Status, such appeals decisions will be referenced in the letter and all Access Appeals Commission conditions must be met as a condition of the letter. When the Access Appeals Commission has defined a time period as part of an appeal decision, such time period will be noted by date of expiration on the Letter of Disabled Access Compliance Status. Issues related to that AAC decision must be reconsidered following the expiration of such time period. Attachment: Sample Letter of Disabled Access Compliance Status Originally Signed By: Jim Hutchinson, March 8, 2005 Acting Director Department of Building Inspection Approved by the Building Inspection Commission on March 7, 2005 Attachment A: Letter of Disabled Access Compliance Status AB-057 Local Equivalency for Approval of Roof Hatches in Lieu of Stairway Penthouses in Designated Buildings

NO. AB-057 :

DATE : July 19, 2004 (Updated 01/01/2023 for code references.) SUBJECT : Plan Review and Permit Process TITLE : Local Equivalency for Approval of Roof Hatches in Lieu of Stairway Penthouses in Designated Buildings PURPOSE : The purpose of this Administrative Bulletin is to provide standards and procedures for the application, case-by-case review and approval of requests for a modification based on Local Equivalency to allow the use of roof hatches as alternates to stairway penthouses in R-3 buildings where the stairway access to the roof does not strictly comply with the provisions of Section 1011.12 of the San Francisco Building Code.

REFERENCE : Current edition of the San Francisco Building Code

Section 104A .2.1, General
Section 104A .2.7, Modifications
Section 104A .2.8, Alternate materials, design, and methods of construction
Section 705.5 and Tables 601 and 602, Fire Resistance of Walls
Section 705.11 , Parapets
Section 1011, Stairways
Section 1011.12, Stairway to roof DISCUSSION : The installation of roof penthouses throughout the City is an issue of serious concern to the public and the Planning Department inasmuch as such penthouses may expand structures to larger than may be compatible with surrounding structures and may block sunlight and views. Roof penthouses are often a basis of extensive Planning and Building Department review, permit appeals and reconsideration during construction. The use of roof hatches in lieu of stair penthouses under certain conditions can do much to resolve the problems related to roof penthouses, could permit rapid processing and issuance, and, if installed in accordance with the following conditions, would not impair the code-mandated suitability, strength, effectiveness, fire resistance, durability, safety or sanitation of the standard method of roof access.

This bulletin does not apply to buildings under the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Fire Department, although requests to apply alternates and equivalencies to the regular code will be considered by the Fire Department on a case-by-case basis. The use of roof hatches under this Administrative Bulletin is limited to the following applications:

Where proposed roof hatches provide access to the roof of buildings under the jurisdiction of the Department of Building Inspection, and
Where a stairway to the roof is either required by code or voluntarily proposed, and
Where the roof hatch and its appurtenances are approved and constructed as detailed below, and
When the roof hatch is served by a stairway. Other applications for roof hatches in lieu of required fully complying stairways will be considered on a case-by-case basis under the review and approval procedures in the California Building Code regarding “Modifications” and “Alternative materials, alternate designs and methods of construction.” Note: Under Section 1011.12, Exception: In buildings without an occupied roof, access to the roof shall be permitted to be a roof hatch or trap door not less than16 square feet in area and having a minimum dimension of 2 feet. Procedure for Application of Local Equivalency Project sponsors wishing to apply Local Equivalencies must fill out and submit the request for Approval of Local Equivalencies on a standard form (Attachment A). Fees to be paid and scheduling of review of requests are as noted on that form. Following Department of Building Inspection and, as appropriate, other agency review, each request will be approved, approved with conditions, disapproved, or placed on “Hold” pending submittal of additional information. Further details of procedures for the review of Local Equivalencies and appeal of departmental determinations may be found in AB-005, Procedures for Approval of Local Equivalencies. Conditions of Local Equivalency Roof hatches in lieu of stairway penthouses may be permitted when the following approved equivalent provisions are met. This Local Equivalency allows roof hatches to be used in lieu of stairway penthouses and for such roof hatch to be considered as meeting the code requirements for a stairway to the roof if the below listed standard provisions are met:
Applicant shall submit drawings showing details of the proposed roof hatch, stairway, stair handrail, and other details as needed to demonstrate compliance, insofar as is practical, with the stairway requirements of the San Francisco Building Code. Submittal documents shall include a plan view showing the location of the roof hatch and stairway and shall include sections and/or elevations detailing the proposed installation.
Stairways shall have handrails on at least one side. At least one handrail shall extend at least 34 inches above the roof surface. Such handrail may be attached to the underside of the operable hatch so that it is in the correct position for handrails when the hatch is in the open position, or it may be secured to the roof or other construction. Minor breaks in the continuity of the handrail are permitted; handrail sections must be generally aligned.
If the opening for the stairway to the roof is within the distance where protection of openings is required, then parapets extending along the parapet wall at least the length of the opening shall be provided per Section 705.11.
The curb at the roof opening for the roof hatch on the side where the stairs emerge from the interior shall extend above the roof surface no more than nine inches, the curb at the roof hatch on other sides of the hatch shall not exceed 24 inches above the roof surface, and the maximum height of any portion of the hatch in a closed position shall not exceed 36 inches above the roof surface.
The rise and run of stairs to the roof shall meet regular code requirements.
The width of a stairway to a roof and the clear width of a roof hatch in its open position shall be not less than 30 inches, except that when serving an occupied roof with an occupant load of 10 or more or serving an occupied roof area greater than 400 square feet the width shall meet the specific requirements of the San Francisco Building Code. Handrails, lifting mechanisms and other equipment may encroach into the required width up to 1 1/2" when the roof hatch is in a fully open position.
When the roof hatch serves an occupied roof, the hatch latching mechanism shall be operable from the exterior. A permit application and related submittal documents shall detail all construction that is approved as a result of this Request for Approval of Local Equivalency. No work to install roof hatches in lieu of stairway penthouses shall be done prior to approval of such Permit Application and issuance of a permit. Signed By: Frank Y. Chiu, July 18, 2004 Director Department of Building Inspection Approved by the Building Inspection Commission on July 18, 2004 Attachment A: Procedures for Approval of Local Equivalency AB-058 Procedures for Seismic Instrumentation of New Buildings NO. AB-058 :

DATE : March 25, 2008 (Updated 01/01/2023 for code references.) SUBJECT : Building Seismic Instrumentation TITLE : Procedures for Seismic Instrumentation of New Buildings PURPOSE : To describe requirements and procedures for installing, monitoring, and reporting data from required or voluntarily installed seismic instruments in buildings. REFERENCES : Current edition of the San Francisco Building Code, Section 1604.11, Earthquake Recording Instrumentation. Current edition of the California Building Code Appendix L. Federal Emergency Management Agency, July 2000, Recommended Post-Earthquake Evaluation and Repair Criteria for Existing Welded Steel Moment-Frame Buildings, FEMA 352, Washington, D.C. CSMIP (California Strong Motion Instrumentation Program) Document: CGS/DGS SYSREQ 2007-TR State of California, System Requirements: Integrated Tri-Axial Accelerograph, Downloadable at: https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/Documents/Program-SMIP/SystemRqmts-TriaxialAccelerograph.pdf DISCUSSION : Information regarding building performance in earthquakes is important in improving construction practices to further reduce the risk of future earthquake damage by developing codes, standards, and mitigation measures. Such information also helps to understand the movement of buildings following earthquakes and provides data to guide in the inspection, testing and repair of post-earthquake building damage. San Francisco has adopted California Building Code Appendix L, requiring provision of instrumentation for the collection of building seismic data.

A. REQUIRED INSTRUMENTATION Installation Required As detailed in California Building Code Appendix L, every new building in San Francisco over six stories in height with an aggregate floor area of 60,000 square feet (5574 m2) or more, and every new building over 10 stories in height regardless of floor area, shall be provided with not less than three approved recording accelerographs with triaxial seismic sensors. Approval and Documentation of Instrumentation Project sponsors who are required to provide accelerographs for new buildings must submit two sets of submittal documents, as part of the building permit submittal documents, detailing the proposed installation. Such documents shall clearly identify the following: • Floor plans of building showing locations of accelerographs. • Specifications of accelerographs and related instruments and equipment. Plans will be submitted to DBI for approval. Approved plans will be transmitted to California Strong Motion Instrumentation Program. Guidelines for Installation of Accelerographs:

Location. The accelerographs shall be located in the basement, midportion, and near the top of the building. The preferred locations for the accelerographs are in small, seldom-used rooms or closets near a column. Instruments ideally should be vertically aligned. Adequate space shall be provided to mount the accelerographs and to contain an approved protective enclosure. The protective enclosure shall be securely fastened to the floor or ceiling.
Service Requirements. Each accelerograph shall be located so that access is maintained at all times. Access shall be unobstructed by room

contents. A sign stating “Maintain Clear Access To This Instrument” shall be posted in a conspicuous location near each instrument. This sign shall also include the phone numbers of the local building contact and the Department of Building Inspection. Each accelerograph requires AC power. A dial-up telephone line is required at the base-level accelerograph. 3. Installation Details. All accelerographs shall be installed with the same orientation relative to the building, with the orientation chosen such that the reference or long dimension of the instrument is aligned with a major axis of the building. The orientation shall be clearly and permanently marked on the floor near the location of each instrument. The accelerographs’ triggering threshold shall be set to 1% g, nominal. Auxiliary devices (e.g. telephone switch) shall be secured to the floor, ceiling or the enclosure. 4. The accelerographs shall be interconnected for common start and common timing. 5. The owner of the building shall be responsible for the correct installation and the required documentation of the accelerographs. Maintenance

Programs for the maintenance and service of the instruments, and remote and onsite access to the data, shall be provided by the owner of the building, subject to approval by the Director of DBI. Once each year, the building owner shall submit a form to DBI certifying that the equipment is in operating order and describing any changes in the equipment or access procedures. (See attached Appendix B – Instrumentation Program and Annual Renewal).
Log book on-site by owner.
Long Term Monitoring and Data Recovery. Upon acceptance of the installation, the California Strong Motion Instrumentation Program agrees to perform long-term monitoring of the accelerographs to help assure their correct operation. The California Strong Motion Instrumentation Program will perform periodic operational checks and function tests remotely via the provided phone line. California Strong Motion Instrumentation Program will notify the building contact person and Department of Building Inspection when any repair actions are needed. For instruments monitored by CSMIP, equipment operation will be remotely checked and the building owner will be notified of needed repairs. Needed repairs shall be made by the building owner. Data Recovery and Analysis Data produced by the instruments shall be made available to DBI upon request. Data shall be retrievable remotely by internet connection or modem. After a significant earthquake, California Strong Motion Instrumentation Program will recover the recorded data, process it and provide results to the designated building contact person and to the Department of Building Inspection. With the approval of the Department of Building Inspection, strong motion data from an instrumented building may be made public on the California Strong Motion Instrumentation Program web site, with the location of the building identified generically, with no specific building address provided. If the basement acceleration exceeds 5% g then the set of records must be transmitted to the owner and DBI. B. VOLUNTARY INSTRUMENTATION Voluntary instrumentation of new and existing buildings not required to be instrumented is encouraged. Compliance to the guidelines in this Administrative Bulletin is recommended for voluntary instrumentation. If inspections are required, data from instrumentation systems meeting the minimum standards of California Building code Appendix Lwill be considered for reduction of connection inspection requirements following an earthquake. More comprehensive instrumentation is strongly recommended, particularly for tall or irregular buildings. Originally Signed by: Vivian L. Day, C.B.O. Director Department of Building Inspection Approved by the Building Inspection Commission March 19, 2008 Attachments: APPENDIX A: Cabling, Communications And Equipment Specifications APPENDIX B: Instrumentation Program and Annual Renewal APPENDIX C: Guideline and General Considerations for Strong Motion Instrumentation in Tall Buildings AB-078 Criteria for Waiving Special Inspection Requirements for Signs, Awnings and Canopies

NO. AB-078 :

DATE : June 5, 2012 (Updated 01/01/2023 for code references) SUBJECT : Permit Review and Operation

TITLE : Criteria for Waiving Special Inspection Requirements for Signs, Awnings and Canopies PURPOSE : The purpose of this Administrative Bulletin is to establish criteria for waiving the special inspection requirements for signs, awnings and canopies meeting the conditions of this Administrative Bulletin. REFERENCES : Current edition of the California Building Code

Section 108A.1 Inspections, General
Chapter 17 Structural Tests and Special Inspections
Section 3107 Signs
Section 3105 Awnings and Canopies DBI Administrative Bulletin AB-046, Special Inspection and Structural Observation Procedure DISCUSSION : SFBC Section 1704.2 Exception 1 states that “Special inspections are not required for work of a minor nature or as warranted by conditions in the jurisdiction as approved by the building official.”

This Administrative Bulletin is to establish criteria for waiving the special inspection requirements for signs, awnings and canopies which are less than the sizes, weights and projection as specified below. Conditions of Waivers

Awnings and canopies a. For fabric awnings and canopies, engineering calculations and special inspection on welding are waived. b. For fabric awnings and canopies, special inspection on anchor bolts is waived, provided that: i. All expansion bolts are installed with the required torque per manufacturer’s ICC report, and, ii. There are at least 4 bolts per connection and bolts are at least 3/8 diameter and embedded at least 3 inches.
Signs For signs weighing less than 250 lbs., less than 24 sq. ft. in area and less than a 4 feet projection, engineering calculations and all special inspections are waived, provided that all expansion bolts are installed with the required torque per manufacturer’s ICC report. For signs less than 24 sq. ft. in area but exceeding the weight and projection limits above, special inspection on welding is waived. Special inspection on anchor bolts is also waived, provided that: a. Structural calculations are submitted showing that the stress level is not more than 25% of the design allowable; b. All expansion bolts are installed with the required torque per manufacturer’s ICC report; and c. There are at least 4 bolts per connection and bolts are at least 3/8 diameter and embedded at least three (3) inches. Originally Signed by: Vivian L. Day, C.B.O. June 5, 2012 Director Department of Building Inspection Approved by the Building Inspection Commission on 3/21/2012 AB-082 Guidelines and Procedures for Structural Design Review

NO. AB-082 :

DATE : November 21, 2018 (Updated 01/01/2023 for code references) SUBJECT : Permit Processing and Issuance TITLE : Guidelines and Procedures for Structural, Geotechnical, and Seismic Hazard Engineering Design Review PURPOSE : The purpose of this Administrative Bulletin is to present guidelines and procedures for Structural, Geotechnical, and Seismic Hazard Engineering Design Review of buildings and other structures. Such Review may be required by the San Francisco Building Code, by another Administrative Bulletin, or at the request of the Director of the Department of Building Inspection (SFDBI).

REFERENCES : Current edition of the San Francisco Building Code (SFBC)

Section 101A.2, Purpose
Section 104A.2, Powers and Duties of Building Official
Section 104A.2.8, Alternate materials, design, and methods of construction
Section 105A.6, Structural Advisory Committee
Chapter 16, Structural Design ASCE 7-16 Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures:
Section 16.5 Design Review, Seismic Response History Procedures
Section 17.7 Design Review, Seismically Isolated Structures
Section 18.5 Design Review, Structures with Damping Systems SEAOC, 1999, “Project Design Peer Review” (Chapter 4, October 1995) Recommended Guidelines for the practice of Structural Engineering in California, Structural Engineers Association of California, Sacramento, California DISCUSSION : See Commentary sections throughout this document.

SCOPE OF THIS BULLETIN This bulletin addresses Structural, Geotechnical, and Seismic Hazard Engineering Design Review of buildings and other structures (referred to herein as “Review”). Review may apply to design of new structures, or addition, alteration, or retrofit of existing structures. It may apply to projects designed to the prescriptive provisions of the SFBC or to projects incorporating exceptions to the prescriptive provisions of the SFBC, at the discretion of the Director of the Department of Building Inspection (SFDBI). Review may include one or more of the following disciplines:
Structural Engineering
Geotechnical Engineering
Site-Specific Seismic Hazard Assessment
Earthquake Ground Motion Selection and Scaling

Commentary: The term “Structural, Geotechnical, and Seismic Hazard Engineering Design Review” (or “Review”) used herein is often referred to as “Peer Review.” It encompasses “Design Review” as required by ASCE 7-16 Section 16.5 (Seismic Response History Procedures), 17.7 (Seismically Isolated Structures), and 18.5 (Structures with Damping Systems). The Director requires Review when implicated by these Building Code sections, and may require Review in other instances as deemed necessary by the Director. Reviewers and Review teams are distinct from a Structural Advisory Committee, which is a public body that the Director may convene in accordance with SFBC Section 105A.6 “to advise the Building Official on matters pertaining to the design and construction of buildings with special features or special design procedures.” 2. PURPOSE OF REVIEW If the Director determines that Review is required, the Director shall request one or more Structural, Geotechnical, or Seismic Hazard Reviewers having specialized knowledge and experience to provide their professional opinion on identified aspects of a project. The purpose of the Review is to provide an independent, objective, technical review of those aspects of the project design that are identified in the scope of the Review. For projects that are intended to be fully compliant with the prescriptive provisions of the SFBC, the purpose of the Review also includes advising the Director whether the design aspects in the scope of the Review satisfy the prescriptive requirements of the SFBC. For projects incorporating exceptions to the prescriptive provisions of the SFBC, the purpose of the Review also includes advising the Director whether the design aspects in the scope of the Review satisfy the requirements of SFBC Section 104A.2.8 (“Alternative materials, design, and methods of construction”) or other requirements or criteria identified in the scope of the review. The Review shall not be construed to replace quality assurance measures ordinarily exercised by the Structural or Geotechnical Engineer of Record in the design of a structure or development of geotechnical design recommendations. Responsibility for the design, and the responsibility to demonstrate conformance of the design to the SFBC, resides solely with the Engineer of Record. The responsibility for conducting plan check resides with the Director and any plan check consultants. The responsibility for acceptance of a design and any decisions on the issuance of permits resides solely with the Director. 3. ADMINISTRATION OF REVIEW Reviewers contract with SFDBI and are responsible to the Director. SFDBI is responsible for the payment of fees and other expenses for the professional services of the Reviewer(s). Reviewers shall provide their professional opinion to the Director and shall sign all written communication to the Director.

Commentary: SFDBI’s new process retains the Reviewer’s responsibility to the Director and aligns with a number of jurisdictions that contract directly with Reviewers and pass the cost through to the Project Sponsor. Previously, the City of San Francisco procedures for procurement of professional services have not been suited to directly contracting with consulting engineers, and Reviewers instead contracted with the Project Sponsor. The Reviewers nevertheless are responsible to and act under the instructions of the Director. The Structural Engineers Association Recommended Guidelines for the Practice of Structural Engineering in California, 5th Edition (1999) recommends that appropriate language regarding design responsibility be included in the Reviewer’s contract: “Responsibility for the structural design remains with the [Engineer of Record] because the [Reviewer] has no contractual ability to change or prepare contract documents. For this reason, an appropriate indemnification clause should be included in the [Reviewer’s] agreement with the client.” Responsibilities of the Chair of a Review Team On a project for which there is more than one Reviewer, the Director shall designate one of the Reviewers to serve as Chair of the Review Team. The Chair is responsible for leading the Review in his or her own discipline and for coordinating the Review. The Chair does not take responsibility for the professional opinions of Reviewers of other disciplines. Either the Reviewers jointly write a letter or letters expressing the opinions of the Review Team, or the Reviewers in each discipline write separate letters to the Director addressing the findings and review scope for their discipline. Reviewers provide their professional opinion only in their area of expertise. Distinction between Review reports and Construction Documents None of the reports or documents from the Reviewer(s) are Construction Documents. Under no circumstances should letters or other documents from the Reviewer(s) be put into the Engineer of Record’s project drawings or reproduced in any other way that makes Reviewer documents appear to be part of the Construction Contract Documents. The Engineer of Record is solely responsible for the Construction Contract Documents. Documents from the Reviewer(s) will be retained as part of SFDBI’s project files. 4. QUALIFICATIONS AND SELECTION OF REVIEWERS Each Reviewer shall be selected by the Director based on the Reviewer’s qualifications applicable to the project and considering availability relative to the project schedule. The Director may, at his or her discretion, consult with the Project Sponsor, the Engineer of Record, or others before selecting the Reviewer(s), with the final selection of the Reviewer(s) being the sole responsibility of the Director. Reviewers shall disclose to the Director, in writing, any potential conflict of interest related to the project, the desired scope of Review, or the ability of the Reviewer to be independent and objective in the Review. Each Reviewer providing professional engineering services shall be a Registered Design Professional holding a Professional Engineer (P.E.) license, in accordance with California law. Qualified engineering staff and reviewers not registered as a P.E., including reviewers from academia, can contribute to the review under the responsible charge of a registered P.E. Additional registration requirements for each Review discipline are specified below. Where suitably qualified, it is acceptable for one Reviewer to fulfill more than one of these roles. Structural Engineering Design Reviewers Structural Engineering Design Reviewers shall have experience in structural engineering pertinent to the review scope and type of structure. If applicable to the review scope, they shall have experience in: • Prescriptive requirements and, where applicable, the “alternative materials, design and methods” provisions of the SFBC • Performance-based engineering • Structural design and detailing for seismic performance • Seismic evaluation and retrofit of existing structures • Design of structures incorporating the materials, systems, and technologies to be incorporated in the project • Nonlinear response-history analysis • Applicable structural engineering research In addition to having the experience described above, the lead Structural Engineering Design Reviewer shall be registered as a Structural Engineer (S.E.) in California. Additional Structural Engineering Design Reviewers who work as part of the Review team are not required to be registered Structural Engineers. Geotechnical Engineering Reviewers Geotechnical Engineering Reviewers shall have experience in geotechnical engineering pertinent to the review scope and type of site and foundation. If applicable to the review scope, they shall have experience in: • Design of shallow and/or deep foundation systems of the type proposed for the project • Interpretation of geotechnical and geological investigations • Soil-foundation-structure interaction under static (gravity) and seismic loading conditions • Liquefaction, landslides, and other geological site hazards • Ground improvement • Static and dynamic earth pressures

• Effects of dewatering on the project site and its vicinity • Effects of construction-related activities on foundation performance of neighboring structures • Numerical modeling of geotechnical and seismic hazards, and associated soil-structure interaction issues In addition to having the experience described above, the lead Geotechnical Engineering Reviewer shall be registered as a Geotechnical Engineer (G.E.) or a Civil Engineer (C.E.) in California. Additional Geotechnical Engineering Reviewers who work as part of the Review team are not required to be registered Geotechnical or Civil Engineers. Seismic Hazard and Ground Motion Reviewers Reviewers of seismic hazard and ground motions shall have experience in these fields pertinent to the review scope and the hazard and ground motion approaches being used. If applicable to the review scope, they shall have experience in: • SFBC requirements related to hazard and ground motions • Fault sources and characteristics in the San Francisco Bay Area • Probabilistic and deterministic seismic hazard assessment • Site effects and site response analysis • Ground motion prediction equations • Selection and scaling of motions, and application of motions to a structure • Applicable research on seismic hazard and ground motion selection and scaling In addition to having the experience described above, the Reviewer of seismic hazard and ground motions shall be registered as a Professional Engineer in California or shall provide his or her services under the responsible charge of a registered Professional Engineer on the Review team. 5. PROJECTS REQUIRING REVIEW The Director shall require Review for projects where Review is required by the SFBC. The Director may require Review for other projects at the Director’s discretion. Table 1 lists project characteristics commonly considered by the Director in determining whether Review is required. Along with the characteristics in Table 1, the Director’s determination of whether a project requires Review, and what Review disciplines are required, may depend on factors such as: • Size, importance, occupant load, post-earthquake functionality requirements, or risk category of the structure • Characteristics of the site, foundation system, and adjacent structures • Irregular or unusual structural configurations • Pertinent qualifications within SFDBI to conduct an in-house review

Commentary: Project Sponsors are strongly encouraged to contact SFDBI early in the project design process and to request a pre-application meeting with SFDBI and the Engineer of Record to determine Review requirements. The SFDBI AB-028 “Pre-application and Pre-addendum Plan Review Procedures” specifies procedures for requesting and carrying out such a meeting.

Table 1: Project Characteristics considered by the Director in determining whether Review is required Review discipline Structural Geotechnical Site-specific Hazard e Projects that require Review Projects where Review is required by the SFBC a, b, c T T T Projects that typically require Review Projects incorporating exception(s) to prescriptive requirements of the SFBC c T T T Projects incorporating materials, systems, or technologies that are not directly addressed by the SFBC c T T T Buildings with structural height (hn as defined in ASCE 7) 240 feet or taller, including projects designed to the prescriptive provisions of the SFBC d T T T Projects that may require Review, depending on size, occupant load, importance, and similar considerations h Addition or alteration of existing structures, where seismic retrofit is required by the SFEBC f T T Projects on Site Class F sites requiring site responses analysis T T

Projects on sites with mapped or potential geologic or seismic ground deformation hazards T T Projects on sites with compressible soils below the foundation, having potential for long-term consolidation settlement under gravity loads g T Projects using ground improvement or special foundation systems T T Projects with dewatering that lowers groundwater by more than 10 feet, located adjacent to major structures or utilities T Projects with below-grade excavation deeper than 15 feet, located adjacent to major structures or utilities T

a Ground Motion Review is required whenever response-history analysis is used. b Where Review is required by the SFBC, such review process shall also conform to the specific requirements of the SFBC. The SFBC references ASCE 7-16, which requires design review in Sections 16.5 (Seismic Response History Procedures), 17.7 (Seismically Isolated Structures), and 18.5 (Structures with Damping Systems) c The Director shall determine which Review disciplines are required based on which disciplines relate to the code requirements, code exceptions, or technologies proposed for the project. d All projects of new buildings 240 feet or taller located in the City’s softest soils and/or liquefaction zones, as defined by the California Seismic Hazard Zone Map, released by the California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, dated November 17, 2000, shall include two Geotechnical Reviewers on the Engineering Design Review Team unless the project will include piles/drilled piers anchored to bedrock. Only one Geotechnical Reviewer is required for a project that will anchor piles/piers to bedrock. e Review of site-specific hazard is not required if the general (rather than site-specific) earthquake response spectrum is used. f See commentary regarding Review of existing structures. g Soils with potential for long-term consolidation settlement typically include normally to lightly overconsolidated clayey soils, such as Bay Mud and Old Bay Clay, though other soils may also exhibit such behavior. h It is intended that most projects in this category would not require Review, except for major structures based on the list of considerations above this table.

Commentary: Review may be appropriate for the seismic evaluation or retrofit design of existing structures when such an evaluation is carried out according to either (a) SFEBC Section 304 .3.1, which reference the ASCE 41 standard, or (b) SFEBC Section 304 .3.2, which requires a lateral strength of 75%/100% of that required for new buildings, sometimes assumed to be taken only in elements with structural detailing conforming to current code requirements. Review issues applicable to existing structures can include: • Establishing appropriate material properties. • Properly accounting for strength degradation, including acceptability limits for degrading components. • Use of materials not covered in building codes, such as fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP). • For evaluations per SFEBC Section 304.3.2, evaluating the behavior and compatibility of existing elements, including gravity framing.

SCOPE OF REVIEW SERVICES The scope of services for each Reviewer shall be approved by the Director. Each Reviewer shall provide to the Director a written copy of the proposed scope of services for the Reviewer’s contract with SFDBI. The proposed scope of services in the contract and any changes proposed to be made thereto shall be approved by the Director. The following describes possible review services for the disciplines addressed in this bulletin. Services common to all Review disciplines The scope of services for Review disciplines addressed herein shall include the following: • Define the scope of the Review. • Participate in meetings with the Engineer of Record, other Reviewers, and representatives of the Director, either in person or remotely, to discuss and resolve technical issues. • Review design criteria, methods, and assumptions, and compatibility of the criteria with the project objectives. • Review, typically by spot-check, analysis results, calculations, and structural drawings. As appropriate, conduct limited independent analyses or calculations as a check of the design. • Maintain a project Review comment log addressing the material reviewed, including Reviewer comments, the Engineer of Record’s

responses, and resolution of comments. • Prepare a letter report that summarizes the findings of the Review and provides the Reviewer’s professional opinion whether the aspects of the project in the Reviewer’s purview are in conformance with criteria identified in the scope of the Review. Prepare interim letters if required for partial permitting. At the discretion of the Director, the Review may be restricted to a single aspect, such as seismic design of the structural system, or it may include other aspects of design, such as design for wind resistance, design of special foundation or earth retaining systems, or the structural bracing of important non-structural elements. The Review may cover design-build or contractor-designed items that affect structural and geotechnical performance relevant to the intended scope of the Review. Structural Engineering Design Review services If a Review of Structural Engineering Design is undertaken, the scope of services shall indicate the aspects of design or structural elements (e.g. seismic design, dampers, etc.) that are included in the Review. The scope of services may include review of the following: • Structural performance goals • Structural basis of design and overall concept • Design methodology and acceptance criteria • Mathematical modeling and simulation, including input assumptions • Structural calculations • Interpretation of analysis results • Design and detailing of members and systems • Structural Construction Documents, including drawings, specifications, and quality control and inspection provisions Geotechnical Engineering Review services If a Review of Geotechnical Engineering is undertaken, the scope of services shall include review of geotechnical engineering methods and assumptions and the geotechnical aspects of foundation design, as well as evaluation of the recommendations regarding geotechnical aspects of construction, which may include load testing and construction monitoring. This may include review of the following: • Project geotechnical report, including draft versions as appropriate, and the final report • Geotechnical basis of design • Plans and drawings for the selected foundation system, including below-grade walls • Pertinent calculations performed in support of geotechnical or foundation recommendations • The proposed foundation system and its appropriateness for the structure and ground conditions encountered at the site • Allowable foundation bearing pressures for gravity, seismic, and other relevant loading conditions • Predicted foundation settlement, including expected and potential variation, under anticipated gravity and seismic loading conditions • Design earth pressure, including static and seismic, for below-grade walls • If used in the design evaluations, load-deflection characteristics of the soil-foundation system • The assessment of risk for liquefaction, landslide, or other site geologic hazards • Ground improvement recommendations, including static and seismic performance criteria • The potential effects of construction activities • Long-term interaction with foundations of existing adjacent and nearby structures • The proposed foundation load testing program and load test program results • The proposed quality control and quality assurance program for ground improvement • The proposed monitoring program for evaluating performance of shoring, dewatering, adjacent buildings, and nearby improvements

Commentary: Often, design of ground improvement systems (e.g. deep soil mixing) is performed by a design-build contractor. In that case, the design team should provide to the Reviewers design-build contractor’s calculations demonstrating that the ground improvement will perform as intended during the design ground motions. The contractor’s ground improvement plan – including test section, quality control and quality assurance procedures, and post-improvement verification field measurements – should be reviewed by the Geotechnical Engineering Reviewer. If design of deep foundations is performed by a specialty deep foundation contractor (e.g. torqued-in pipe piles), foundation performance criteria should be established by the design team, and verification load test results should be reviewed by the Geotechnical Engineering Reviewer.

Site-Specific Seismic Hazard Review services

If a Review of site-specific seismic hazard is undertaken, the scope of services shall include the review of site-specific earthquake spectra, the methods and assumptions used in development of the spectra, and SFBC requirements. This may include the review of: • Fault sources, and associated magnitude ranges • Site information and assumed shear wave velocity and other properties • Application of ground motion prediction equations • Adjustment for rupture directivity, orientation with respect to the fault, basin effects, maximum direction effects, or other effects • Site response analysis, including effect of the presence of deep foundations and/or ground improvement on site response • Comparison of spectra to code-minimum requirements • Soil-foundation-structure interaction effects, where included in the seismic hazard analysis Earthquake Ground Motion Review services The scope of services shall include the review of the motions to be used in the design, their selection, scaling to response spectra, their duration, and SFBC requirements. This may include review of: • Fault sources and characteristics • The method used for scaling or matching and the period range for scaling • Suitability related to record characteristics such as magnitude, distance, mechanism, Vs 30 or other site parameters, scale factor, and the presence and period of pulses • Orbit plots of the horizontal components of the records • The location and orientation of how the records are applied to the structure 7. REVIEW PROCESS Schedule Reviewers should be engaged as early in the design process as practical. This affords Reviewers and the design team an opportunity to evaluate fundamental design decisions, which could disrupt design development if addressed later in the design phase. Early in the design process, the Engineer(s) of Record, a representative of the Director, and the Reviewer(s) should convene a meeting to establish the scope of the Review, the methods and lines of communication, the timing of Review milestones, and the degree to which the Engineer(s) of Record anticipates the design will be developed for each milestone. Submittals by the Engineer(s) of Record to the Reviewer(s) The Engineer(s) of Record shall provide design submittals to the Reviewer(s). Submittals shall be organized and documented in a manner that facilitates review by the Reviewer(s). Where engineering software is used to perform structural or geotechnical analysis, the Engineer of Record shall identify the version of software used and shall indicate key assumptions and how the analysis is applied to the project. The Engineer of Record shall, as requested, provide copies of data input and output for the Reviewer(s) and shall indicate those aspects of the output that govern the design. Where the software used is not commercially available or commonly used in the industry for the purpose undertaken, the Engineer of Record shall provide verification records indicating that the software is capable of proper solution of analysis of the type performed on the project. If the software is not available to the Reviewer(s) for the evaluation of the input and interpretation of results, the Engineer of Record shall provide such data as the Reviewer(s) deem necessary to perform verification that the work is properly executed. Comment log Reviewer(s) shall provide written comments in a timely fashion to the Engineer(s) of Record and to the Director, with requests for response as necessary. The Engineer(s) of Record are responsible for responding to all comments. The Reviewer(s) shall maintain a log that summarizes Reviewer comments, Engineer of Record responses to comments, and resolution of comments. The Reviewer(s) shall make the log available to the Engineer(s) of Record, the Director, and the Project Sponsor as requested. For projects designed to the prescriptive provisions of the SFBC, the comment log may identify aspects of the project for which performance might be improved by introducing design enhancements exceeding the minimum requirements of the SFBC. It is not required for the design to be modified to comply with these enhancements unless so directed by the Director. Review findings reports At the conclusion of the Review, and at other times requested by the Director, the Reviewer(s) shall submit to the Director a written report documenting the scope of the Review, the comment log, and the professional opinions of the Reviewer(s) regarding the design’s conformance with the criteria identified in the scope of the Review. 8. DISPUTE RESOLUTION The Engineer of Record and the Reviewer(s) shall interact in a professional manner. Reviewers shall prepare comments in a respectful manner, shall prepare in writing all requests for response, and shall make reasonable requests of the Engineer of Record for additional evaluations or backup information. The Engineer of Record shall respond clearly and completely to Reviewer comments. The Engineer of Record and the Reviewer(s) shall attempt to develop a resolution on each issue raised. If the Engineer of Record and the Reviewer(s) are unable to resolve particular comments, the Reviewer(s) shall report the impasse to the Director, and the Director shall give the Engineer of Record and the Reviewer(s) the opportunity to explain their arguments.

The Director, as Building Official, makes all decisions concerning acceptance of a design and issuance of permits. The responsibility of the Reviewer is limited to providing his or her professional opinion to the Director. The Director, should the need arise, may address differences of opinion between the Engineer of Record and the Reviewer(s) in a method the Director deems appropriate. The Director also may engage additional outside consultants to assist in issue resolution.

/s/ 12/3/18 /s/ 12/3/18 Daniel Lowrey Deputy Director Department of Building Inspection Date Tom C. Hui, S.E., C.B.O. Director Department of Building Inspection Date /s/ 12/3/18 Gary Ho, S.E. Manager Department of Building Inspection Date

Signed by:

Gary Ho, S.E. December 3, 2018 Manager Department of Building Inspection

Daniel Lowrey December 3, 2018 Deputy Director Department of Building Inspection

Tom C. Hui, S.E., C.B.O. December 3, 2018 Director Department of Building Inspection

Approved by the Building Inspection Commission on November 21, 2018. AB-083 Requirements and Guidelines for the Seismic Design of New Tall Buildings using Non-Prescriptive Seismic- Design Procedures

NO. AB-083 :

DATE : March 25, 2008 (Updated 01/01/2023 for code references) SUBJECT : Permit Processing and Issuance TITLE : Requirements and Guidelines for the Seismic Design of New Tall Buildings using Non-Prescriptive Seismic-Design Procedures PURPOSE : The purpose of this Administrative Bulletin is to present requirements and guidelines for the seismic structural design and submittal documents for building permits for new tall buildings in San Francisco that use non-prescriptive seismic design procedures.

REFERENCES : Current edition of the San Francisco Building Code, Section 104A.2.8 Alternate materials, design, and methods of construction SEAONC, 2007, Recommended Administrative Bulletin on the Seismic Design & Review of Tall Buildings Using Non-Prescriptive Procedures , prepared by Structural Engineers Association of Northern California (SEAONC) AB-083 Tall Buildings Task Group ASCE/SEI 7-16, Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures, prepared by the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers 2003 NEHRP Recommended Provisions For New Buildings And Other Structures Part 1: Provisions and Part 2: Commentary (FEMA 450) SEAONC, 1999, Contractual Provisions to Address the Engineer’s Liability when Using Performance-Based Seismic Design, Structural Engineers Association of Northern California SEAOC, 2001, “Seismology Committee Background and Position Regarding 1997 UBCEq. 30-7 and Drift,” Structural Engineers Association of California DISCUSSION :

SCOPE This bulletin presents requirements and guidelines for seismic structural design and submittal documents for building permit for new tall buildings in San Francisco that use non-prescriptive seismic design procedures.

Commentary: It is intended that buildings designed to the requirements and guidelines of this bulletin will have seismic performance at least equivalent to that intended of code-prescriptive seismic designs, consistent with the San Francisco Building Code sections indicated below. To demonstrate that a building design is capable of providing code equivalent seismic performance, a three-step procedure shall be performed as specified in Section 4 of this Administrative Bulletin. Intended code seismic performance can be found in the commentary of FEMA 450. This bulletin intentionally contains both requirements, which are stated in mandatory language (e.g., “shall”) and guidelines, which use non- mandatory language. This bulletin is not written to cover essential facilities. For the purposes of this Administrative Bulletin, a non-prescriptive seismic design is one that takes exception to one or more of the prescriptive requirements of the San Francisco Building Code and Chapter 12 of ASCE/SEI 7-16 and the standards referenced therein, by invoking San Francisco Building Code, Section 104A.2.8, which allows alternative materials and methods of construction as approved by the Building Official. For the purposes of this bulletin, tall buildings are defined as those with hn greater than 160 feet above average adjacent ground surface. The height, hn is defined in the San Francisco Building Code as the height of Level n above the average level of the ground surface adjacent to the structure. Level n is permitted to be taken as the roof of the structure, excluding mechanical penthouses and other projections above the roof whose mass is small compared with the mass of the roof. Procedures other than those presented herein may be acceptable pursuant to the approval of the Director of the Department of Building Inspection.

Commentary: ASCE/SEI 7-16 Sections that discuss non-prescriptive or “alternative” seismic design procedures are reproduced below:

Exceptions & meaning →

11.1.4 Alternate Materials and Methods of Construction.¶

Alternate materials and methods of construction to those prescribed in the seismic

requirements of this standard shall not be used unless approved by the Authority Having Jurisdiction. Substantiating evidence shall be submitted demonstrating that the proposed alternate will be at least equal in strength, durability, and seismic resistance for the purpose intended.

Exceptions & meaning →

1604.4 Analysis.¶

Any system or method of construction to be used shall be based on a rational analysis in accordance with well-established

principles of mechanics. Such analysis shall result in a system that provides a complete load path capable of transferring loads and forces from their point of origin to the load-resisting elements. 2. STRUCTURAL DESIGN REVIEW Structural Design Review shall be in accordance with AB-082. At the conclusion of the review, the Structural Design Reviewer shall provide a

written statement that, in their professional opinion, the building elements under their review are equivalent in strength, durability, and seismic resistance of the building to those of a building designed according to the prescriptive provisions of the San Francisco Building Code. 3. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS Project submittal documents shall be in accordance with the San Francisco Building Code and Department of Building Inspection interpretations, Administrative Bulletins, and policies. In addition, documents relevant to the Structural Design Review shall be submitted by the Engineer of Record to the Director and to the Structural Design Reviewer. As early as practicable, the Engineer of Record shall submit to the Director an initial Seismic Design Criteria along with a description and initial drawings of the structure. The Seismic Design Criteria shall be consistent with the requirements of this bulletin, and shall be updated to incorporate issues resolved during the Structural Design Review process. The Seismic Design Criteria shall describe the proposed building and structural system, proposed analysis methodology, and acceptance criteria. The Seismic Design Criteria shall include any proposed exceptions to the prescriptive provisions of the San Francisco Building Code, modeling parameters, material properties, drift limits, element force capacities and deformation capacities. The Seismic Design Criteria shall identify all exceptions to the San Francisco Building Code prescriptive requirements that the Engineer of Record proposes. The Seismic Design Criteria shall be subject to review by the Structural Design Reviewer and approval by the Director. A summary of the Engineer of Record’s final Seismic Design Criteria shall be included in the general notes of the structural drawings. 4. SEISMIC DESIGN REQUIREMENTS The Engineer of Record shall evaluate the structure at the levels of earthquake ground motion as indicated in the subsections below. If nonlinear response is anticipated under any of the Risk-Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCER) ground motions specified in Section 4.3, the Engineer of Record shall apply capacity design principles and design the structure to have a suitable ductile yielding mechanism, or mechanisms, under nonlinear lateral deformation. The code-level analysis shall be used to determine the required strength of the yielding actions. The Engineer of Record shall include in the Seismic Design Criteria all assumptions and factors used in the application of capacity design principles.

Commentary: The purpose of each level of seismic evaluation is as follows: The code-level evaluation of Section 4.1 is used to identify the exceptions being taken to the prescriptive requirements of the San Francisco Building Code and to define the minimum required strength and stiffness for earthquake resistance. Minimum strength is defined according to San Francisco Building Code minimum base shear equations, with a response modification coefficient R, proposed by the Engineer of Record, reviewed by the Structural Design Reviewer, and approved by the Director. Minimum stiffness is defined by requiring the design to meet San Francisco Building Code-specified drift limits, using traditional assumptions for effective stiffness. Providing a non-prescriptive seismic design with minimum strength and stiffness comparable to code-prescriptive designs helps produce seismic performance at least equivalent to the code. Minimizing the number of exceptions to prescriptive requirements also helps achieve this aim. As indicated in Section 4.2, a service-level evaluation is required by this bulletin to demonstrate acceptable seismic performance for moderate earthquakes. The MCE-level evaluation of Section 4.3 is intended to verify that the structure has an acceptably low probability of collapse under severe earthquake ground motions. The evaluation uses nonlinear response-history analysis to demonstrate an acceptable mechanism of nonlinear lateral deformation and to determine the maximum forces to be considered for structural elements and actions designed to remain elastic.

Exceptions & meaning →

4.1 Code-Level Evaluation¶

The seismic structural design shall be performed in accordance with the prescriptive provisions of the San Francisco Building Code, except for those provisions specifically identified by the Engineer of Record in the Seismic Design Criteria as Code Exceptions.

Commentary: Code exceptions that have typically been taken for non-prescriptive designs of tall buildings in high seismic design categories include exceeding the height limitations of ASCE/SEI 7-16 Table 12.2.1. Other exceptions, including provisions related to R,ρ,Ω0, limitations on T, and various detailing requirements, may be considered at the discretion of the Director. The Engineer of Record is required to justify all exceptions to prescriptive code provisions. The scope of structural design review shall include all proposed code exceptions. The lower limit of ASCE/SEI 7-16 Eq. 12.8-5 and 12.8-6 for the calculation of the Seismic Response Coefficient applies to the scaling process of ASCE/SEI 7-16 Section 12.9. The value of R used shall be indicated in the Seismic Design Criteria, and shall not be greater than 8.5. The Engineer of Record shall demonstrate that the structure meets the story drift ratio limitations of the San Francisco Building Code using a code-level response-spectrum analysis and the following requirements: a) The design lateral forces used to determine the calculated drift need not include the minimum base shear limitation of ASCE/SEI 7-16 eq.

Exceptions & meaning →

4.2 Service-Level Evaluation¶

A service-level evaluation of the primary structural system is required to demonstrate acceptable, essentially elastic seismic performance at the service-level ground motion.

Commentary: To ensure code-equivalent seismic performance, the Director is requiring a service-level evaluation for new tall buildings utilizing non-prescriptive design procedures. There are circumstances where there is a reason to believe that the serviceability performance of the design would be worse than that anticipated for a code-prescriptive design. Some of these circumstances have been identified as follows: a) Where the Engineer of Record has taken any exception to code-prescriptive requirements for non-structural elements (ASCE/SEI 7-16, Chapter 13) b) Where the stiffness representation of any structural element in the code-level evaluation is significantly less than the effective linear-elastic stiffness described in applicable research c) For a structure that exhibits disproportionably large drift or accelerations for ground motions less than the San Francisco Building Code Design Basis Ground Motion (not reduced by R). While this bulletin does not require checking all non-structural elements at the service-level evaluation, it is expected that the building cladding will remain undamaged and that egress from the building will not be impeded when the building is subjected to the service-level ground motion. For the purposes of this bulletin, the service-level ground motion shall be that having a 43-year mean return period (50% probability of exceedance in 30 years). Structural models used in the service-level evaluation shall incorporate realistic estimates of stiffness and damping considering the anticipated levels of excitation and damage. The evaluation shall demonstrate that the elements being evaluated exhibit serviceable behavior.

Commentary: While essentially elastic performance is required in the service-level ground motion, it is not the intent of this bulletin to require that a structure remain fully linear and elastic. It is permissible for the analysis to indicate minor yielding of ductile elements of the primary structural system, provided such results do not suggest appreciable permanent deformation in the elements, strength degradation, or significant damage to the elements requiring more than minor repair. It is permissible for the analysis to indicate minor and repairable cracking of concrete elements. Where numerical analysis is used to demonstrate serviceability, the analysis model should represent element behavior that is reasonably consistent with the expected performance of the elements. In typical cases it may be suitable to use a linear response spectrum analysis, with appropriate stiffness and damping, and with the earthquake demands represented by a linear response spectrum corresponding to the service-level ground motion. Where response history analysis is used, the selection and scaling of ground motion time series should comply with the requirements of ASCE/SEI 7-16, Section 16.2, with the service-level response spectrum used instead of the design basis earthquake response spectrum, and with the design demand represented by the mean of calculated responses for not less than seven appropriately selected and scaled time series. As expressed by SEAONC [1999], it should be understood “that the current state of knowledge and available technology is such that the design profession’s ability to accurately predict the earthquake performance of a specific building is limited and subject to a number of uncertainties.” Actual performance may differ from intended performance.

Exceptions & meaning →

4.3 Risk-Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake-Level Evaluation¶

Ground Motion: The ground motion representation for this evaluation shall be the Risk-Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCER) as defined in ASCE/SEI 7-16, Chapter 21. A suite of not less than seven pairs of appropriate horizontal ground motion time series shall be used in the analyses. The selection and scaling of these ground motion time series shall comply with the requirements of ASCE/SEI 7-16, Chapter 16, with the following modifications: a) The MCER response spectrum shall be the basis for ground motion time series scaling instead of the design response spectrum. b) Either amplitude-scaling procedures or spectrum-matching procedures may be used. c) Where applicable, an appropriate number of the ground motion time series shall include near fault and directivity effects such as velocity

pulses producing relatively large spectral ordinates at relatively long periods.

Commentary: The procedures for selecting and scaling ground motion records, as presented here, represent the current state of practice. The procedures are written to retain some flexibility so that engineering judgment can be used to identify the best approach considering the unique characteristics of the site and the building. Selection and scaling of earthquake ground motion records for design purposes is a subject of much current research. The Engineer of Record may wish to consider alternative approaches recently proposed; however, some of the proposed approaches have not been adequately tested on tall buildings so their adoption should only be considered with caution. Aspects of particular concern include the long vibration period of many tall buildings and the contributions of multiple vibration “modes” to key response quantities. At near-fault sites, the average fault-normal response spectrum usually is larger than the average fault-parallel response spectrum due to the presence of a rupture directivity pulse in the fault-normal component of the ground motion. It is important to include in the suite of ground motions an appropriate number of motions that include near-fault and directivity effects so that design drift demands are appropriately determined, especially considering that Section 4.1 permits the design to be exempt from applying Equations 12.8-5 and 12.8-6 to drift calculations. If spectral matching is used, individual ground motion components should account for the distinction between fault-normal and fault- parallel hazard. Mathematical Model: The three-dimensional mathematical analysis model of the structure shall conform to ASCE/SEI 7-16 Section 12.7.3. The analyses shall consider the interaction of all structural and non-structural elements that materially affect the linear and nonlinear response of the structure to earthquake motions, including elements not designated as part of the lateral-force-resisting system in the code-level analysis (Section 4.1).

Commentary: This requires explicit modeling of those parts of the structural and non-structural systems that affect the dynamic response of the building. In addition, the effect of building response on all materially affected parts of the building must be evaluated. The stiffness properties of reinforced concrete shall consider the effects of cracking and other phenomena on initial stiffness.

Commentary: In addition to cracking, effective stiffness can be affected by other phenomena. These include bond slip, yield penetration, tension-shift associated with shear cracking, panel zone deformations, and other effects. The effective initial stiffness of steel elements embedded in concrete shall include the effect of the embedded zone. For steel moment frame systems, the contribution of panel zone (beam-column joint) deformations shall be included. The Engineer of Record shall identify any structural elements for which demands for any of the response-history runs are within a range for which significant strength degradation could occur, and shall demonstrate that these effects are appropriately considered in the dynamic analysis.

Commentary: For typical situations, element strength degradation of more than 20% of peak strength should be considered significant. P-Δ effects that include all the building dead load shall be included explicitly in the nonlinear response history analyses. Documentation submitted for Structural Design Reviewer review shall clearly identify which elements are modeled linearly and which elements are modeled nonlinearly. For elements that are modeled as nonlinear elements, submitted documentation shall include suitable laboratory test results or analyses that justify the hysteretic properties represented in the model. The properties of elements in the analysis model shall be determined considering earthquake plus expected gravity loads. In the absence of alternative information, gravity load shall be based on the load combination 1.0D + Lexp, where D is the service dead load and Lexp is the expected service live load.

Commentary: In typical cases it will be sufficient to take Lexp = 0.2L, where L is the code-prescribed live load without live load reduction. The foundation strength and stiffness contribution to the building seismic response shall be represented in the model. The foundation strength and stiffness characterization shall be consistent with the strength and stiffness properties of the soils at the site, considering both strain rate effects and soil deformation magnitude. Analysis Procedure: Three-dimensional nonlinear response history (NLRH) analyses of the structure shall be performed. Inclusion of accidental torsion is not required. When the ground motion components represent site-specific fault-normal ground motions and fault-parallel ground motions, the components shall be applied to the three-dimensional mathematical analysis model according to the orientation of the fault with respect to the building. When the ground motion components represent random orientations, the components shall be applied to the model at orientation angles that are selected randomly; individual ground motion pairs need not be applied in multiple orientations.

Commentary: Three-dimensional analyses are required to represent the inherent torsional response of the building to earthquake ground shaking. This is done by including in the NLRH model the actual locations and distribution of the building mass, stiffness, and strength. Accidental torsion is not required to be included in the NLRH analyses. (Accidental torsion is required for the code-level analysis of Section 4.1.) The Engineer of Record shall report how damping effects are included in the NLRH analyses. The equivalent viscous damping level shall not exceed 5%, unless adequately substantiated by the Engineer of Record.

Commentary: The effects of damping in an analysis depend on the type of damping model implemented. Some models may over-damp higher modes or have other undesirable effects. For each horizontal ground motion pair, the structure shall be evaluated for the following load combination: 1.0D + Lexp + 1.0E Alternative load combinations, if used, shall be adequately substantiated by the Engineer of Record. Demands for ductile actions shall be taken not less than the mean value obtained from the NLRH. Demands for low-ductility actions (e.g., axial and shear response of columns and shear response of walls) shall consider the dispersion of the values obtained from the NLRH.

Commentary: In typical cases the demand for low-ductility actions can be defined as the mean plus one standard deviation of the values obtained from the NLRH. Procedures for selecting and scaling ground motions, and for defining the demands for low-ductility actions, should be defined and agreed to early in the review process. Acceptance Criteria: Calculated force and deformation demands on all elements required to resist lateral and gravity loads shall be checked to ensure they do not exceed element force and deformation capacities. This requirement applies to those elements designated as part of the lateral- force-resisting system in the code-level analysis (Section 4.1), as well as those elements not designated as part of the lateral-force-resisting system in the code-level analysis but deemed to be materially affected.

Commentary: Elements not designated as part of the lateral-force-resisting system in the code-level analysis (gravity systems) may be subjected to substantial deformations and forces, including axial forces accumulated over many stories, as they interact with the primary lateral-force-resisting system. Non- structural elements such as cladding are evaluated according to code requirements. This bulletin does not require checking non-structural elements at the MCER level. The Engineer of Record shall identify the structural elements or actions that are designed for nonlinear seismic response. All other elements and actions shall be demonstrated by analysis to remain essentially elastic.

Commentary: Essentially elastic response may be assumed for elements when force demands are less than design strengths. Design strengths for non-ductile behaviors (e.g., shear and compression) of these essentially elastic elements are defined as nominal strengths, based on specified material properties, multiplied by strength reduction factors as prescribed in the SFBC. Design strengths for ductile behaviors of these essentially elastic elements are defined as nominal strengths, based on expected material properties, multiplied by ø=1.0. Alternative approaches to demonstrating essentially elastic response may be acceptable where appropriately substantiated by the Engineer of Record. For structural elements or actions that are designed for nonlinear seismic response, the Engineer of Record shall evaluate the adequacy of individual elements and their connections to withstand the deformation demands. Force and deformation capacities shall be based on applicable documents or representative test results, or shall be substantiated by analyses using expected material properties. The average result, over the NLRH analyses, of peak story drift ratio shall not exceed 0.03 for any story. All procedures and values shall be included in the Seismic Design Criteria and are subject to review by the Structural Design Reviewer and approval by the Director. Originally signed by: Isam Hasenin, P.E., C.B.O., Director Department of Building Inspection Approved by the Building Inspection Commission on March 19, 2008 AB-084 Guidelines for the Structural Review of Continuous Tiedown Systems Used to Resist Overturning of Light- Framed Wood Shear Walls

NO. AB-084 :

DATE : November 20, 2013 (Updated 01/01/2023 for code references) SUBJECT : Plan Check; Inspection TITLE : Guidelines for the Structural Review of Continuous Tiedown Systems Used to Resist Overturning of Light-Framed Wood Shear Walls

PURPOSE : The purpose of this Administrative Bulletin is to establish guidelines for the structural design, analysis, and plan check review and approval of continuous tiedown systems used to resist overturning forces within light-framed wood shear walls caused by wind and seismic loads. This Administrative Bulletin is not applicable to light-framed wood shear walls framed with cold formed steel studs, nor to shear walls sheathed with material other than wood structural panels. REFERENCES : Current edition of the San Francisco Building Code (SFBC) Current edition of the California Building Code (CBC) Product Standard PS 1-95 (for Construction and Industrial Plywood) of the United States Department of Commerce, and National Institute of Science and Technology Calculation of Diaphragm Action, an Engineering Standard of the International Code Council Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA-450-1/2003 Ed., NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures, Part 1: Provisions Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA-450-2/2003 Ed., NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures, Part 2: Commentary Nelson, R. F., Patel, S. T., “ Continuous Tie-Down Systems... for Wood Panel Shear Walls in Multi Story Structures,” Structure, March 2003, pages 18 - 20 Ghosh, A., Pryor, S., Arevalo, R., “ Multi-Story Light-Frame Construction, Understanding Continuous Tiedown Systems,” Structure, June 2006, pages 14 - 19 ICC Evaluation Service, “AC316 Acceptance Criteria for Shrinkage Compensating Devices, Effective July 1, 2010” DISCUSSION : Light-framed wood shear walls, when incorporated into a structure’s lateral force resisting system, will experience overturning forces arising from wind and seismic loads on the structure. These overturning forces are typically resisted by the use of tiedown devices that anchor the ends of the shear walls to the foundation. The tiedown system shall either be ICC listed or meet all the requirements of this administrative bulletin.

A “conventional” tiedown system typically utilizes cold-formed metal hardware bolted to the wood end posts of the shear wall and anchored to the foundation. Tensile overturning forces are carried by the wood end posts. A “continuous tiedown” system utilizes a continuous or coupled rod or cable assembly comprising bearing plates, shrinkage compensating devices, and couplers, wherein tensile overturning forces are carried by the rod(s) or cable(s) not the wood end posts. Continuous tiedown systems are not explicitly addressed by current prescriptive code requirements. Requirements: Plan check review and approval of continuous tiedown systems for any project shall be on a case-by-case basis in accordance with this Administrative Bulletin. The following requirements shall be the basis for plan check review and approval of continuous tiedown systems used within light-framed wood shear wall systems:

Shear walls shall be designed to comply with the drift requirements of ASCE 7-16 Section 12.8.6. Shear wall displacements shall be computed in accordance with CBC Section 2305.3. The component “da” of Equation 23-2 in CBC Section 2305.3 shall include, but not be limited to, elongation of the rod or cable, and deformations and displacements of shrinkage compensating devices, coupling hardware and steel bearing plates.
In a multi-story shear wall installation, the continuous tiedown system shall be restrained by bearing plates at each story of the multi-story shear wall. Skipping of stories, where bearing plates are omitted at intermediate stories, resulting in multiple stories being tied together, is prohibited. Shrinkage compensating devices shall be provided at each story of the shear wall.
The computed rod or cable elongation or stretch, together with computed deformations of shrinkage compensating device in compliance with ICC AC-316, coupling hardware steel bearing plate and crushing of wood top plates, within any story under strength level (Load and Resistance Factor Design) short-term duration loading, such as wind or earthquake loads, shall not exceed 0.250 inch, and for working stress level (Allowable Stress Design) short-term loading, they shall not exceed 0.179 inch. Elongation or stretch shall be computed as the product PL/EAe, where P is the axial load (pounds), L is the initial rod or cable length at the story under consideration (inches), E is the rod or cable modulus of elasticity (psi), and Ae is the effective tensile cross sectional area of the rod or cable (in2).
Calculations demonstrating compliance with the foregoing shall be provided for plan check review.
Construction documents, signed and sealed by the engineer of record for the design of the building, shall specify the particular proprietary system or systems.
Any modification to the tiedown system proposed after a building permit has been approved shall require filing of a new permit application documenting the proposed modification. Plan check review of the proposed modification shall be in accordance with the requirements of this Administrative Bulletin.
Mixing of conventional and continuous tiedown systems within shear walls along a common line is prohibited.
In addition to other inspections required by SFBC 1705, special inspection of continuous tiedown systems shall be provided. In addition to structural observations required by SFBC 1704.6, the engineer of record for the design of the building shall provide structural observation of continuous tiedown installations, including shear wall boundary nailing, shear wall end post sizes, bearing plates, couplers, shrinkage compensating devices, and anchor bolts, to verify conformance of the installed tiedown system to the structural design intent.

Originally Signed by: Tom C. Hui, S.E., C.B.O., Director Department of Building Inspection Approved by the Building Inspection Commission on May 18, 2011, revision approved 11/20/2013 AB-088 Collection and Storage of Trash, Recycling, and Compostable Materials

NO. AB-088 :

DATE : March 25, 2008 (Updated 01/01/2023 for code references) SUBJECT : Resource Conservation TITLE : Collection and Storage of Recyclable, Compostable and Trash Materials PURPOSE : The purpose of this Administrative Bulletin is to provide standards and procedures for local implementation of the California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991, and the related adopted Model Ordinance, which require that local jurisdictions enforce regulations to assure that adequate areas for collecting and loading for recyclable materials are provided in development projects. Under these regulations, cities are mandated to enforce requirements for certain new development projects and building alterations as detailed below. REFERENCES : California Public Resources Code, Division 30, Part 3, Chapter 18, California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991. California Integrated Waste Management Board, Model Ordinance Relating to Areas for Collecting and Loading Recyclable Materials in Development Projects, Resolution No. 93-57. Current edition of California Green Building Standards Code, sections 4.410.2 and 5.410.1. Current edition of the San Francisco Building Code, Section 106A.3.3, Information to be provided on plans to determine compliance with codes and regulations. San Francisco Environment Code Chapter 19 (Mandatory Recycling and Composting; Refuse Separation Ordinance); San Francisco Refuse Collection Space Design Guide; San Francisco Environment Code Section 902(b)(1). DISCUSSION :

The City and County of San Francisco enforces state and local codes regarding Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling. These codes will help meet locally zero waste commitments of reducing total generation of solid waste in 2030 by at least 15% below 2015 levels, and reduction in solid waste disposal of at least 50% below 2015 levels. For the purpose of enforcement of these regulations in San Francisco, recycled materials are those which are diverted or recovered from the solid- waste stream. The word trash refers to materials that are non-recyclable and non-compostable. This Administrative Bulletin details procedures for local enforcement of the requirements of state and local policies. These include the Model Ordinance adopted by the California Integrated Waste Management Board, Resolution 93-57 regarding Areas for Collecting and Loading Recyclable Materials in Development Projects. State law prohibited the issuance of permits for certain development projects after July 1, 2005 unless adequate space is provided for collection, storage, and conveyance of such materials. In addition, San Francisco Environment Code Chapter 19, Mandatory Recycling and Composting: • Requires all persons in San Francisco to separate and deposit all recyclables, compostables or trash in appropriate containers designated for each type of refuse; • Requires owners or managers of multifamily or commercial properties to provide adequate refuse collection service to tenants, employees, contractors, and customers of these properties; and • Requires containers of appropriate number and size for the recyclable, compostable, and trash quantities reasonably anticipated to be generated at the location, with collection containers placed as close together as possible in order to provide all occupants with convenient access to containers designated for each type of refuse. Well-designed refuse collection areas support successful participation in San Francisco’s mandatory recycling and composting programs that will apply when the building is completed. General Requirements: Applicability As detailed in the Model Ordinance and California Green Building Standards Code The following projects or portions of projects are required to provide adequate areas for collecting and loading recyclable materials, compostable organics, and trash: • Newly constructed non-residential buildings (CalGreen 5.410.1);

• Newly constructed residential buildings with 5 or more dwelling units (CalGreen 4.410.2); • Any new public facility where solid waste is collected and loaded, and any improvements for areas of a public facility used for collecting and loading solid waste; • A new subdivision or tract of single-family detached homes if solid waste is collected and loaded in a location that services five or more living units; • Any one of the above types of projects that is existing to which an addition is made that adds 30 percent or more to the existing floor area of the project; • Any one of the above types of projects that is existing to which multiple additions are made over a one-year period that cumulatively add 30 percent or more to the existing floor area of the project; • Any one of the above types of projects, occupied by multiple tenants, to which one or more tenant improvements are made under building permit over a one-year period by any one tenant that adds 30 percent or more to that tenant’s leased area, in which case that tenant’s leased area shall be provided with sufficient recycling areas; Solid-waste collection methods and storage In accordance with the City and County of San Francisco’s zero waste goal and targets and to facilitate compliance with mandatory recycling and composting requirements that will apply to the building when it is completed, the amount of space provided for the collection and storage of recyclable and compostable materials shall be sufficient to allow recovery of 100 percent of the facility’s recyclable and compostable materials and any remaining trash. Space shall be sufficient to accommodate containers consistent with both current methods and percentages of solid-waste storage and removal, and with projected needs when San Francisco’s zero waste goal is met. All areas designated for the collection and loading of recyclable, compostable and trash materials shall be integrated into the design and, when appropriate, the structure of the project. Areas for recyclable and compostable materials shall be at least as convenient and usable as spaces provided for non-recyclable and non-compostable trash disposal, and shall be located in the same areas whenever possible. When separate locations must be provided due to space constraints, the locations for collection of recyclable and compostable materials shall be at least as convenient as trash disposal locations. Each dwelling unit in a covered project shall include areas within the dwelling unit designed and designated for storage of recyclable, compostable and trash materials. Any chute system for solid-waste disposal in a covered project must be designed for equal convenience to all users to separate the three refuse streams of trash, recycling and compostable materials. Guidance on Recycling Design Guidance in providing adequate areas for collecting and loading of recyclable, compostable and trash materials is available: • The Department of the Environment (415-355-3700) has published the San Francisco Refuse Collection Space Design Guide and an Adequate Refuse Collection Space Calculator to estimate the floor area necessary to provide adequate space collecting and loading of recycling, composting, and trash service in San Francisco.. See https://sfenvironment.org/refusecalculator. For additional assistance: • The City’s permitted refuse haulers will provide assistance in determining appropriate collection, storage and loading locations, dimensions and other requirements (for contact information please call the Department of the Environment at 415-355-3700); • The California Integrated Waste Management Board, Planning and Assistance Division can provide a “Recycling Space Allocation Guide” and other assistance (916-322-4027). This publication is available at https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/Publications/Details/832. • US Green Building Council provides recycling area guidelines in various publications. Information is available on the USGBC website at www.usgbc.org/resources. Procedures: Submittals For each covered project, the submittal documents accompanying the permit application shall provide sufficient detail to assure compliance with these requirements, including the following specific information:

Size and location of storage, collection and loading areas for all recyclable, compostable and trash materials, including space within individual dwelling units.
Type, size and number of collection containers for all recyclable, compostable and trash materials.
Type of proposed material handling equipment (e.g. compactors, balers, tippers, turntable systems, etc.)
Collection routes to conveniently access all recyclable, compostable and trash loading areas, including sufficient vertical and horizontal maneuvering clearances for collection vehicles.
Type and number of chutes proposed for recyclable, compostable and trash materials.
Signage for proposed collection, storage, and loading areas and containers.
Path-of-travel and other access for persons with disabilities to collection facilities, when required.
If not all in one location in the submittal documents, an index of locations in the submittal documents of the above required information. Review Submittal documents will be reviewed by Department of Building Inspection staff, who may consult with staff of other agencies such as Department of the Environment.

When approved as part of a building permit, requirements for adequate areas for collecting and loading of recyclable, compostable and trash materials become part of the required building construction. Maintenance of facilities Maintenance of facilities designed for collection, storage and loading of recyclable, compostable and trash materials is required under San Francisco Existing Building Code 101.4.4. Originally Signed by: Isam Hasenin, P.E., C.B.O., Director Department of Building Inspection Approved by the Building Inspection Commission on March 19, 2008 Attachment A: Model Ordinance of the California Integrated Waste Management Board Relating to Areas for Collecting and Loading Recyclable Materials in Development Projects AB-093 Implementation of Green Building Regulations

NO. AB-093 :

DATE : Effective January 1, 2023, Revised December 13, 2023 SUBJECT : Administration and General Design TITLE : Implementation of Green Building Regulations PURPOSE : The purpose of this Administrative Bulletin is to detail standards and procedures for the implementation of the Green Building requirements of the San Francisco Green Building Code effective January 1, 2023. REFERENCES : 2022 San Francisco Green Building Code San Francisco Administrative Bulletin 005: Procedures for Approval of Local Equivalencies 2022 California Green Building Standards Code San Francisco Environment Code, Chapter 7 2022 San Francisco Building Code DISCUSSION : Approved construction documents and completed projects must conform to the Green Building requirements established in the San Francisco Green Building Code, which combines all mandatory elements of the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code (“CALGreen”) and stricter local requirements. Herein, “locally required measures” refers to the combination of prescriptive measures required by the California Green Building Standards Code, local amendments, and other relevant local requirements. At various project milestones, particularly at the conclusion of construction, the Department of Building Inspection must verify that Green Building requirements have been met. Under these implementation procedures, the majority of verification is required to be provided to the Department of Building Inspection via a formal third- party certification under green building rating systems referenced in the San Francisco Green Building Code, or by a third-party licensed design professional. Note: Future local, state or other regulations may change the scope and implementation of Green Building requirements. Projects that submit a complete application for a building permit must meet the requirements in effect at that time. Project sponsors should verify that they are meeting all applicable code requirements, which may modify the standards and procedures addressed in this Administrative Bulletin.

IMPLEMENTATION: Green Building Requirements to be Applied The San Francisco Green Building Code applies to all new construction in San Francisco, as well as most alterations and additions. To identify the green building requirements that apply to a project: • Use Attachment A, Table 1 of this bulletin to find the overall green building standard [Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), GreenPoint Rated, or ‘Locally Required Measures Only’] that applies, based on occupancy, project size, and whether the project is new construction or alteration. Attachment A, Table 1 also identifies the submittal required in order to confirm compliance with local requirements. • Attachment B consists of four tables that summarize specific required measures:1

° Table 1: Requirements for projects meeting a LEED standard ° Table 2: Requirements for projects meeting a GreenPoint Rated standard ° Table 3: Requirements for all non-residential projects that are not required to meet a LEED standard (includes certain new construction as well as certain additions and alterations) ° Table 4: Requirements for residential additions and alterations Mixed Occupancy Buildings For mixed occupancy buildings where local standards reference a green building rating system (Attachment A, Table 1), the project sponsor may apply a single green building rating system to the entire building. Each portion of the building must meet the Local Requirements applicable to that occupancy. Applicability of Green Building Regulations Based on Date of Building Permit Application Application of Green Building requirements is based on the date of submittal of a building permit application. The applicable date of the San Francisco Green Building Code 2022 is January 1, 2023. In the case of Site Permits, the effective date shall be the date that the Site Permit application (not an addendum) is filed with the Department of Building Inspection. Table 1 summarizes the green building requirements that apply based on the date a complete application is submitted. Addenda to site permits and revisions to permit applications received before January 1, 2023 are required to meet the green building requirements that applied on the date a complete application for site permit was submitted. If a site permit addendum or revision changes the scope of the project such that current codes are generally applicable, then current green building requirements are also applicable. For details, see the appropriate version of Administrative Bulletin 93: “Implementation of Green Building Regulations,” as summarized in the following table: Table 1: Applicability of green building requirements based on date of application for building permit in San Francisco Green Building Requirements Effective Dates Administrative Bulletin 93 Version Green Building Requirements Effective Dates Administrative Bulletin 93 Version San Francisco Green Building Code (2022) January 1, 2023 through December 31, 2025 This bulletin San Francisco Green Building Code (2019) January 1, 2020 through December 31, 2022 April 2021 Revision San Francisco Green Building Code (2016) January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2019 January 2018 Revision San Francisco Green Building Code (2013) January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2016 January 1, 2014 San Francisco Building Code 13C (2010) July 18, 2012 through December 31, 2013 July 18, 2012 San Francisco Building Code 13C (2010) January 1, 2011 through July 17, 2012 January 1, 2011 San Francisco Building Code 13C (2007) November 3, 2008 through December 31, 2010 September 24, 2008

PROJECT SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS Applicability Attachment A, Table 1 should be used to determine which green building requirements may apply to the project. Department of Building Inspection staff will screen all building permit applications to confirm which Green Building regulations apply, as summarized in Attachment A, Table 1. Every application for a Site Permit subject to these regulations must include a completed Green Building Site Permit Submittal (GS-1). Permit applications for new construction projects will not be accepted for processing without Green Building Site Permit Submittal GS-1, and permit applications for an addition or alteration will not be accepted without submittal GS-2, GS-3, GS-4, GS-5, or GS-6 as applicable. At the time of the first architectural or superstructure addendum, whichever comes first, the submittal package for all applicable projects must include a checklist incorporated into the project plans indicating the required green building measures.2 This checklist must reference, as appropriate, location of green building features in the submittal documents. The Green Building Submittal (GS-1, GS-2, GS-3, GS-4, GS-5, or GS-6) shall include this checklist, shall detail the green building requirements to be met, and shall indicate which addendum or other document will provide compliance details for each required performance measure or credit. The Green Building Submittal may be reformatted as needed to conform to plan submittal size if all the required information is provided. Compliance with the Green Building Requirements may be documented in any of the following methods:

Registration and submittal for certification under LEED. For buildings that propose this option, the permit applicant must provide submittal documentation showing that the project will meet the appropriate LEED certification requirements. See the “Energy Compliance Guidelines for LEED projects” section below for details.
Registration and achievement of GreenPoint Rated status. For buildings that propose this option, the permit applicant must submit

documentation showing that the project meets all requirements necessary to GreenPoint Rated certification. 3) Documentation of compliance with either LEED or GreenPoint Rated standards without registration and certification from those systems. The Green Building Compliance Professional of Record must provide submittal documentation showing that the project will meet the appropriate standards. 4) Registration and submittal for another rating system or documentation of equivalency as approved by the Director. For buildings that propose to meet such alternate standards, the Green Building Compliance Professional of Record must provide submittal documentation detailing compliance with the proposed standards. 5) Where neither LEED nor GreenPoint Rated is required, submit documentation of compliance with Locally Required Measures in effect at the time of permit submittal, as indicated. Municipal projects3 of 10,000 square feet or larger are required to obtain LEED Gold certification by San Francisco Environment Code, Chapter 7. For such projects, only method 1) above may be used. Green Building Compliance Professional of Record For methods 3), 4), and 5) above, the owner or owner’s agent must employ a Green Building Compliance Professional of Record who personally reviews and verifies compliance with San Francisco Green Building Code requirements, or who directly supervises persons providing on-site review or verification thereof. For methods 3), 4), and 5) above, the qualifications for Green Building Compliance Professional of Record include a license or registration as an Architect or Engineer, and specialized understanding of Green Building standards and technologies: • for LEED projects, such specialized understanding shall include LEED accreditation and successful completion of at least one LEED certified project. • for GreenPoint Rated projects, such specialized understanding shall include the GreenPoint Rater designation, or the project team shall include a person who is a GreenPoint Rater. • For projects solely required to meet Locally Required Measures, such specialized understanding, shall include either: International Code Council (ICC) Certified CalGreen Inspector certification, the GreenPoint Rater designation, LEED accreditation, or equivalent training and certification as approved by the Director. For residential alteration and addition projects where the area of the project is less than 25,000 square feet and which increase total conditioned floor area of the building by no more than 1,000 square feet, a Green Building Compliance Professional of Record is not required.4 In such cases, the applicant may complete the green building submittal. In all cases, applicable green building requirements apply to the entire project, and are not limited to the area of addition. The Department of Building Inspection may request verification of such training or experience and may make an administrative determination as to the qualification of a person to act as such a Green Building Compliance Professional of Record. A Green Building Compliance Professional of Record is responsible for providing verification to the Department of Building Inspection that all Green Building design and construction requirements are met. Where a Green Building Compliance Professional of Record is responsible for verifying compliance with the requirements of the San Francisco Green Building Code, and no third party green building certification is to be achieved, project documents may be reviewed in detail in plan review and inspection, at standard hourly rates for staff time. Compliance Guidelines: Energy The 2022 San Francisco Green Building Code requires building permit submittals to show that they meet the compliance margin required by the applicable rating system or local code, and comply with the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards in effect at the time of permit submittal. In each case below, standard California Energy Standards documentation must be prepared using software approved by the California Energy Commission for demonstrating compliance with the applicable provisions and version of the California Energy Code. The following guidelines explain when additional calculations and documentation are required. • Buildings meeting a LEED for Building Design and Construction (BD+C), or LEED Core and Shell standard for compliance with the San Francisco Green Building Code must prepare and submit all standard documentation required by the California Energy Commission to demonstrate compliance with the California Energy Standards (Title 24, Part 6) in effect on the date of permit application.6 • Where calculations based on Title 24 Part 6 California Energy Standards are used to document that ‘points’ are earned for energy efficient design and construction, the compliance margin cited in the applicable certificate of compliance (CF1R-PRF-01E for single family and NRCC- PRF-01 for commercial and multifamily) submitted for compliance may be utilized without modification. Residential all-electric buildings which demonstrate prescriptive compliance and apply GreenPoint Rated J5.1 Option Two: All Electric Compliance may submit the applicable CF1R or NRCC report. • Where the ASRHAE 90.1 option in LEED v4 (or subsequent) rules is used to document ‘points’ being voluntarily earned for energy-efficient design and construction, the supporting analysis must be submitted, and must include a detailed accounting of all on-site building energy use, including all: exterior and security lighting; elevators; process loads; and receptacle loads. Documentation to be retained in the records of the project must include all information required for LEED certification by the Green Building Certification Institute. Buildings meeting a LEED for Homes or GreenPoint Rated standard must use California Energy Commission-approved compliance software and submit documentation to demonstrat

urity lighting; elevators; process loads; and receptacle loads. Documentation to be retained in the records of the project must include all information required for LEED certification by the Green Building Certification Institute. Buildings meeting a LEED for Homes or GreenPoint Rated standard must use California Energy Commission-approved compliance software and submit documentation to demonstrate that the proposed building both: • Complies with the California Energy Efficiency Standards in effect on the date of application for building permit, AND • Meets the minimum energy performance requirements of the applicable green building rating system. Where California Energy Commission-approved compliance software is used to document the minimum energy efficiency requirements of the green building rating, all submittals related to compliance and the green rating system must be generated in a manner consistent with the guidance

of the applicable green building rating system, and must faithfully represent the design as proposed. The most straightforward way to demonstrate compliance calculations are consistent with the calculations of the green building rating system is to use a single simulation run, so that the compliance run number is consistent throughout the compliance documentation. Compliance Guidelines: All-Electric New Construction San Francisco Building Code 106A.1.17.1 requires all-electric design and construction for all projects that submit an initial application for permit to construct new buildings on or after June 1, 2021. All space-conditioning, water heating, cooking, and clothes drying systems must be all- electric, and installation of infrastructure, piping systems, or piping for distribution of natural gas or propane to such uses indoors or outdoors is prohibited. The ordinance allows limited installation of gas piping systems for commercial food preparation, and if, after exhausting all options, all-electric construction is determined to be physically or technically infeasible. See Administrative Bulletin 112 for details. Compliance Guidelines: Construction Site Runoff Pollution Prevention Construction site runoff pollution prevention requirements depend upon project size, occupancy, and location in areas served by combined or separate sewer systems. Projects required to meet a LEED standard (see Attachment A, Table 1) must, at a minimum, prepare an erosion and sedimentation control plan per LEED Sustainable Sites prerequisite 1. However, more stringent local requirements may apply to any project, whether or not LEED is to be applied, such as a stormwater soil loss prevention plan or a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). To confirm the construction site runoff pollution prevention requirements applicable to your project, please contact the SFPUC: sfpuc.org/programs/pretreatment-program/construction-site-runoff. Compliance Guidelines: Design for Post-Construction Stormwater Management Projects that disturb 5,000 square feet or more of ground surface in the separate and combined sewer areas, or that create or replace 2,500 square feet or more of impervious surface in separate sewer areas, must meet Stormwater Management Requirements as determined by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC), and must submit a Stormwater Control Plan to the SFPUC for approval. The SFPUC has developed San Francisco Stormwater Management Requirements and Design Guidelines to aid project teams in meeting local requirements for stormwater controls, which are available online at: sfpuc.org/construction-contracts/design-guidelines-standards/water-efficient-landscape. Compliance Guidelines: Water Efficient Irrigation Projects that include at least 500 square feet of new or modified landscape are subject to the San Francisco Water Efficient Irrigation Ordinance.7 Details are available online at: sfpuc.org/smr. New Large Commercial Interiors and Major Alterations to Existing Buildings The application of San Francisco Green Building Code Sections 5.103.3 or 4.103.3 to Major Alterations to Existing Buildings is based on a determination as to whether a “significant upgrade” is proposed to both the structural system and to one or more of the mechanical, electrical and/or plumbing systems in an area of more than 25,000 gross square feet in a Group B, M or R occupancy. For the purpose of enforcement of the San Francisco Green Building Code, a significant structural upgrade shall be determined to take place when a structural alteration takes place in 30% or more of the area of proposed construction. Areas to be counted toward such a determination include areas tributary to the vertical load carrying components (joists, beams, columns, walls and other structural components) that have been or will be removed, added or altered. The application of Section 5.103.4 to New Large Commercial Interiors requires that the first time tenant improvement work in an area of at least 25,000 square feet must meet the green building standards detailed in the ordinance. This requirement applies regardless of the date of construction of the building, including the first time a space undergoes a tenant improvement after or concurrent with a major alteration as defined in San Francisco Green Building Code Section 202. Note that all first-time commercial tenant interior improvement work of less than 25,000 square feet must comply with all applicable CALGreen requirements; see Attachment B, Table 3 or Green Submittal Form GS-3 for details. Accessory Dwelling Units The construction of an accessory dwelling unit within an existing structure or attached to an existing structure is an alteration or addition. For the purpose of compliance with local amendments to California Green Building Standards, construction of a single freestanding dwelling unit accessory to an existing structure is considered an addition. See Green Submittal Form GS-5 for details. Historic Building Requirements for “Historic Resources” Based on Planning Department Determination For purposes of applying the specific provisions of the San Francisco Green Building Code related to historic buildings, the Planning Department shall determine whether a building is an historical resource. This Planning Department review applies a standard based on the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as to whether a structure is or might be considered an “historic resource”. Based on such information, the Green Building Compliance Professional of Record shall confirm that submittal documents properly reflect the requirements of the Code. Projects which retain, rehabilitate or repair significant historical architectural features may receive credit toward Green Building requirements, per Attachment A, Table 3. Alternate Building Code Applicability Under the California Historical Building Code Based on Department of Building Inspection Qualification For buildings that are quali

documents properly reflect the requirements of the Code. Projects which retain, rehabilitate or repair significant historical architectural features may receive credit toward Green Building requirements, per Attachment A, Table 3. Alternate Building Code Applicability Under the California Historical Building Code Based on Department of Building Inspection Qualification For buildings that are qualified to use the California Historical Building Code, project sponsors may apply the alternate provisions of that code. Buildings are determined to be qualified to use the California Historical Building Code upon specific request to the Department of Building Inspection. Buildings that qualify to use the California Historical Building Code include buildings that are on federal, state or local adopted lists or surveys, buildings that are determined by the City to be eligible for such a list or survey, or buildings that have otherwise been determined by the City to be potential historic resources. The applicant must confirm with the Department of Building Inspection whether code provisions for historic buildings will be applied to the entire building, specific items, or specific areas. Eligibility to use the California Historical Building Code is a separate process from the determination by the Planning Department that a building is an “historic resource,” but the Department of Building Inspection coordinates with the Planning Department on the review of requests for qualification to use the California Historical Building Code. Demolition

For a replacement building which is to be constructed on a site on which one or more buildings were demolished after the effective date of this ordinance, the Planning Department, during the course of permit review, shall confirm applicable Green Building requirements, as found in Attachment A, Table 2. Requests for Approval of Equivalencies Project sponsors wishing to propose alternates or equivalencies for the specific requirements referenced in the San Francisco Green Building Code or its referenced standards may do so as described in Administrative Bulletin 5, “Procedures for Approval of Local Equivalencies.” Note that related state and local requirements continue to apply, including, but not limited to: California Green Building Standards Code (Title 24 Part 11); SFPUC Stormwater Management Ordinance; and SFPUC Water Efficient Irrigation Ordinance. A proposal for an alternate or equivalent method of compliance may be submitted with initial permit application or at a later date. Proposals for alternate or equivalency to San Francisco Green Building Code must include:

Proposed approach. If more than one equivalency is proposed, each alternate must be presented separately.
Requests must be accompanied by a complete analysis of Green Building Code and other code-related issues, and must be recommended by and signed by the Green Building Compliance Professional of Record for the project. The analysis must include calculations or other documentation for each specific element, confirming that the proposal meets or exceeds the applicable requirements.
The Department of Building Inspection staff will review the proposal and may, at its discretion, request review by other City staff or other professionals expert in the subject matter under review. The project sponsor will be responsible for all additional costs incurred for such review, including review time by City staff, charged at the hourly rate as set forth in the San Francisco Building Code, or direct costs for other consultant review.
The Department of Building Inspection staff may request additional information as part of the review.
The Department of Building Inspection will issue a decision to approve, deny or require modifications to any submitted alternate or equivalency.
Project sponsors may appeal any decision to the Deputy Director, Director, and appeal bodies as detailed in the San Francisco Building Code. Note that the 2022 San Francisco Green Building Code recognized GreenPoint Rated v.9 and all LEED v4 rating systems (see SFGBC 101.10), and allows the application of more recent versions of these rating systems. New residential projects of any size may therefore utilize LEED for Homes Midrise, LEED BD+C, or GreenPoint Rated without triggering the above process for confirming equivalency. Similarly, major alterations to residential buildings may use LEED for Building Design and Construction, GreenPoint Rated Multifamily New Home, or GreenPoint Rated Multifamily Existing Home to comply, provided applicable local requirements are met. Project Completion: Verification that Green Building Requirements are Met in New Construction and Major Alterations Verification that green building requirements for new construction and major alterations have been met requires submittal of Attachment E, Green Building: Final Compliance Verification prior to final inspection. Attachment E may be completed using any of the following methods:

If the project has been submitted for certification under LEED, once certification is awarded the project sponsor shall provide documentation to the Department of Building Inspection that the Green Building Certification Institute has certified the project.
If the project has been submitted to be GreenPoint Rated, project shall provide to the Department of Building Inspection documentation that Build It Green has provided a GreenPoint Rated certificate to the project.
If the project is built to meet LEED or GreenPoint Rated standards but will not be certified, the Green Building Compliance Professional of Record must sign Attachment E.
If the Director has approved a proposal to modify local green building requirements on a case-by-case basis per Administrative Bulletin 005 (Procedures for Approval of Local Equivalencies), the Green Building Compliance Professional of Record must sign Attachment E and provide documentation the approved approach has been applied. Temporary Certificate of Occupancy A Temporary Certificate of Occupancy may be issued pending final compliance certification. However, no final Certificate of Completion may be issued until Green Building Final Compliance Verification (Attachment E of this bulletin) has been received, reviewed, and accepted by the Department of Building Inspection. Quality Assurance and Compliance Review All projects are subject to comprehensive review by the Department of Building Inspection or its agents. Project sponsors must maintain comprehensive records to allow verification that all requirements have been met. Buildings that receive certification through LEED or GreenPoint Rated will generally be accepted as being fully compliant. The Department of Building Inspection may review any aspect of green building projects. Failure to Comply with Green Building Requirements Failure to meet all required Green Building requirements will subject a project sponsor to all enforcement and abatement remedies detailed in the San Francisco Building Code. Signed by: Patrick O’Riordan, C.B.O. 4/16/2024 Director Department of Building Inspection

Original version approved by the Building Inspection Commission on September 24, 2008, revision approved: 12/13/2023.

1 Attachments are provided for reference only. For complete details on any specific requirement, refer to the San Francisco Green Building Code. 2 Such a checklist is required for each applicable project, including where Form 3 or Form 8 is used to apply for a permit. 3 Municipal projects, including leasehold improvements, are projects authorized by any department of the City and County of San Francisco. A municipal “leasehold” means a building or space where the City is a tenant. 4 Projects which are “major alterations” to residential occupancy (with project area of 25,000 square feet or greater; and significant structural upgrade; and significant mechanical, electrical, or plumbing) continue to require either registration and certification, or verification by a Green Building Compliance Professional of Record. 5 Procedures for verification of compliance for small residential alterations are subject to revision. 6 LEED BD&C (v4) and LEED CS (v4) minimum energy efficiency requirements are less strict than California 2013, 2016, 2019, and 2022 Title 24 Part 6 Energy Standards. 7 The San Francisco Water Efficient Irrigation Ordinance is stricter than both the landscape irrigation efficiency measures in California’s Green Building Standards (Title 24 Part 11) as well as California’s Model Water Efficient Landscape requirements (AB 1881.) Attachments: Attachment A, Table 1: Summary of Requirements Attachment A, Table 2: Additional Requirements in Case of Demolition Attachment A, Table 3: Reduced Requirements for Retention of Significant Historical Architectural Features Attachment B, Table 1: Requirements for Projects Meeting a LEED Standard Attachment B, Table 2: Requirements for Projects Meeting the GreenPoint Rated Standard Attachment B, Table 3: Requirements for All Non-residential Projects Not Required to Meet a LEED Standard Attachment B, Table 4: Requirements for Residential Additions and Alterations Attachment C: Instructions for Green Building Submittals Forms for Submittal: GS-1: Green Building Site Permit Submittal Form GS-2: Green Building Submittal Form for LEED or GreenPoint Rated Projects GS-3: Green Building Submittal Form for Other Non-Residential Alterations, Additions & New Construction GS-4: Green Building Submittal Form for Non-residential Interior-only Alteration Projects GS-5: Green Building Submittal Form for Residential Alteration + Addition Projects GS-6: Green Building Submittal Form for Municipal Projects Attachment D: Supplementary Energy Compliance Documentation Attachment E: Final Compliance Verification Attachment F: Recommended Project Implementation Procedures Attachment G: Selected Green Building Resources Attachment H: Review of Energy Performance Requirements AB-094 Definition and Design Criteria for Voluntary Seismic Upgrade of Soft- Story, Type V (Wood-Frame) Buildings

NO. AB-094 :

DATE : April 13, 2010 (Updated 01/01/2023 for code references) SUBJECT : Permit Review and Operation TITLE : Definition and Design Criteria for Voluntary Seismic Upgrade of Soft-Story, Type V (Wood-Frame) Buildings

PURPOSE : The purpose of this Bulletin is to establish definitions and acceptable design criteria for voluntary seismic upgrade projects for soft-story Type V (wood-frame) buildings that may qualify for various incentives, such as expedited permit review and fee adjustments. REFERENCES : Current edition of the San Francisco Building Code

Section 1613, Earthquake Loads
SFEBC Section 304.4, Minimum Lateral Forces for Existing Buildings City and County of San Francisco Ordinance 54-10, Seismic Strengthening of Soft- Story, Wood-Frame Buildings AB-004, Priority Permit Processing Guidelines Current edition of the California Existing Building Code, Appendix A - Chapter A4 Current edition of the California Historical Building Code, Chapter 8-7 and 8-8 ASCE/SEI Standard 31-03, Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings ASCE/SEI Standard 41-06, Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings Ordinance 54-10, Seismic Strengthening of Soft-Story, Wood-Frame Buildings DISCUSSION : A clear definition of “soft-story Type V (wood-frame) building” and the basic design criteria for seismic upgrades to such buildings are essential to the permit submittal and approval of projects that wish to take advantage of City-sponsored voluntary incentives to implement seismic upgrades of potentially seismically hazardous buildings.

Permits for voluntary structural work that do not reference meeting a specific code standard or that do not qualify for incentives for voluntary seismic upgrade work permit processing may meet any level of upgrade if such work does not increase the hazard of the building. Chapter 5E of the San Francisco Existing Building Code requires the mandatory retrofit of Soft Story Type V (wood-frame) buildings, built prior to 1978 with 2 or more stories over a weak story and having 5 or more residential units. Buildings falling within the scope of SFEBC Chapter 5E are not eligible for the incentives offered in this bulletin. The application and incentives of AB-094 apply to buildings with 4 or fewer residential units or other occupancy classifications. IMPLEMENTATION Building owners who wish to take advantage of voluntary seismic upgrade incentives must meet the definition of a soft-story Type V (wood- frame) building and must comply with the retrofit standards as detailed below. DEFINITIONS For the purpose of this Administrative Bulletin the following definitions shall apply: Soft-story Type V (wood-frame) building means a building that meets the following criteria: A. a Type V (wood-frame) building as defined in the San Francisco Building Code, and B. was constructed prior to May 21, 1973, and C. has a ground floor (1st story) level in which a. at least 50% of the floor area of the ground floor is used for Occupancy Classifications A (assembly), B (business), M (mercantile), S (storage, open or enclosed parking garages), or U (private garages), or b. the building has been determined to have either a Weak Story or Soft Story deficiency when evaluated using the ASCE 31 Tier 2 procedure, or c. the building has been determined to have a soft-story deficiency based on engineering analysis acceptable to the Building Official. RETROFIT STANDARDS The standards to be applied to the seismic upgrade of soft-story wood-framed buildings in order to qualify for voluntary upgrade incentives shall be one of the following: A. Meets the requirements of Appendix A - Chapter A4 of the California Existing Building Code, CEBC, or B. Meets the requirements of ASCE 41 for the Partial Rehabilitation Objective (Section 1.4.3) (Life Safety Performance Level: S-3) in the BSE-1 earthquake hazard level, or C. Meets any other alternate rational design and/or construction methodology that demonstrates compliance with the intent of San Francisco Existing Building Code Section 304.4. For qualified historic buildings, seismic upgrade designs may use the provisions and analysis techniques referenced in the California Historical Building Code, Chapter 8-7, Structural Regulations, and Chapter 8-8, Archaic Materials and Methods of Construction to assist in meeting the retrofit standards. For the purposes of this bulletin, mitigation of the soft-story conditions at the ground floor (1st story) shall be considered the part of the voluntary soft-story wood-frame upgrade work eligible for incentives. Additional seismic upgrade work may be undertaken on the floors above the ground floor; however such additional seismic retrofit work is not considered part of the voluntary soft-story upgrade work and will be subject to standard permitting requirements. PERMIT PROCESSING Submittal Documents and Building Permit Application Building permit applications for voluntary, soft-story Type V (wood-frame) building upgrade work must clearly state the intention to qualify for

voluntary incentives in the Project Description portion of the building permit application form. Submittal documents should include the following: A. Dimensioned plans showing all exterior walls, interior partitions and any lateral load-resisting, or plans showing Occupancy Classifications and uses of the ground floor if that is the method of qualifying as a soft-story building under this Administrative Bulletin, and B. A photograph of the building exterior, and C. Structural upgrade plans and necessary supporting calculations and documents prepared by a licensed design professional showing how seismic upgrade will meet the standards adopted in this Administrative Bulletin. Included in these submittal documents should be a listing of archaic materials and values for those materials, if these are to be used as part of the lateral force resisting system. Expedited Permit Processing Building permit applications for voluntary soft-story wood-frame seismic retrofit will be expedited as authorized under AB-004 and will be tracked by the Department of Building Inspection for reporting purposes. Originally signed by: Vivian L. Day, C.B.O. April 21, 2010 Director Department of Building Inspection Approved by the Building Inspection Commission on April 21, 2010 Attachment: Excerpts from Ordinance 54-10, Seismic Strengthening of Soft-Story, Wood-Frame Buildings AB-098 Post-Earthquake Repair and Retrofit Requirements for Wood-Frame Residential Buildings with Three or More Dwelling Units

NO. AB-098 :

DATE : July 2, 2012 (Updated 01/01/2023 for code references) SUBJECT : Permit Review and Operations TITLE : Post-Earthquake Repair and Retrofit Requirements for Wood-Frame Residential Buildings with Three or More Dwelling Units PURPOSE : The purpose of this Bulletin is to establish policy for interpreting the San Francisco Building Code regarding post-earthquake damage retrofit triggers for wood-frame residential buildings with three or more dwelling units and to detail the scope and criteria for such triggered retrofits. REFERENCES : Current edition of the San Francisco Existing Building Code

Section 202, Definition of Disproportionate Earthquake Damage
Section 202, Definition of Substantial Structural Damage
Section 304.4 Minimum Lateral Force for Existing Buildings
Chapter 4, Repairs Current edition of the California Historical Building Code, CCR Title Part 8 Current edition of the California Existing Building Code, Appendix A- Chapter A4, or Current edition of the International Existing Building Code, Appendix A- Chapter A4 with NCSEA/SEAOC amendments ASCE/SEI Standard 31-03, Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings ASCE/SEI Standard 41-06, Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings, with Supplement 1 California Health and Safety Code, Section 17920.3 CAPSS Report, Here Today—Here Tomorrow: The Road to Earthquake Resilience in San Francisco, Post-Earthquake Repair and Retrofit Requirements (ATC-52-4 Report), http://www.sfcapss.org/PDFs/PostQuakeRepair.pdf DISCUSSION : San Francisco Existing Building Code Section 405.2.3.1 triggers seismic evaluation, and possibly retrofit of buildings, when earthquake-related damage reaches the level of “substantial structural damage to vertical elements of the lateral-force-resisting system.” Substantial structural damage is defined in Section 202 as, in essence, a loss of lateral capacity of 20 percent or more in any horizontal direction. The code does not give specific rules for identifying a 20-percent capacity loss nor guidance as to how to calculate capacity loss, so implementation of these code provisions relies on interpretation by the Department of Building Inspection. This Bulletin presents the Department’s interpretation of 20-percent lateral capacity loss in terms based on visual indicators of such damage, and details the scope of required retrofit for buildings that exhibit earthquake-induced substantial structural damage.

In addition to substantial structural damage, San Francisco Existing Building Code Section 405.2 triggers structural evaluation and possibly retrofit

when earthquake-related damage reaches the level of disproportionate damage, which is defined in Section 202 as, in essence, a lateral capacity loss of 10 percent or more in an earthquake of limited intensity. This Bulletin presents the Department’s interpretation of a 10-percent capacity loss based on visual indicators of such damage and provides evaluation and retrofit scope for buildings with such earthquake induced disproportionate damage. Residential buildings that incur substantial structural damage or disproportionate damage as detailed in this Bulletin are considered to be “substandard” per California Health and Safety Code Section 17920.3 (b) Structural hazards and (o) Inadequate structural resistance to horizontal forces. APPLICABILITY A building is eligible to apply the interpretations and provisions of this Bulletin if all of the following criteria are met: A. The building has at least one story in which the seismic force-resisting system is a wood light-frame system in at least one direction, and B. The building has only wood floor and wood roof diaphragms, and C. The building has a continuous foundation, and D. The building contains a residential occupancy group R-1, R-2, R-3.1, or R-4 as defined in San Francisco Building Code Section 310. At the discretion of the Department of Inspection, a building in occupancy group R-3 with one or two residential units may be deemed eligible if it is structurally and architecturally similar to the typical residential buildings with three or more units addressed in this Bulletin. Buildings of other construction types and occupancies may also apply the provisions of this Bulletin on a case-by-case basis when approved by the Department of Building Inspection. Other methods of determining capacity loss based on analysis, testing, or other objective data may be allowed at the discretion of the Department. Qualified historic buildings are permitted to be evaluated or retrofitted using the provisions in the California Historical Building Code, provided that such standards do not result in seismic performance less than the evaluation and retrofit engineering criteria detailed in this Bulletin. EVALUATION PROCEDURES For the purpose of determining if a building has incurred substantial structural or disproportionate damage, visual observation and classification of damage patterns may be used in lieu of a calculation of percentage loss of capacity. All determinations of substantial structural or disproportionate damage, including visual observation and classification of damage, shall be made by a licensed design professional and shall be submitted in accordance with San Francisco Existing Building Code Section 405.2.3.1. For damage not deemed to be either substantial structural damage or disproportionate damage, repairs shall restore the building to its permitted pre-earthquake condition by methods acceptable to the Department. Buildings with Substantial Structural Damage Substantial structural damage to vertical elements of the lateral force-resisting system shall be deemed to exist when a “triggering damage pattern” is observed in any system or components listed in Table 1. Table 1 also includes earthquake-induced substantial structural damage indicators for gravity load-carrying components. These are defined in San Francisco Existing Building Code, Section 202 as “any component, or any group of such components, that supports more than 30 percent of the total area of the structure’s floor(s) and roof(s),” and the remaining capacity of any damaged components, “with respect to all dead and live loads, is less than 75 percent of that required by this code for new buildings of similar structure, purpose and location.” Per San Francisco Existing Building Code, Section 502.2, the provisions of this Bulletin apply to substantial structural damage to gravity load-carrying components only when that damage has been caused by earthquake. Buildings with Disproportionate Damage Disproportionate damage to vertical elements of the lateral force-resisting system shall be deemed to exist when any of the earthquake “triggering damage patterns” is observed in any system or component listed in Table 1. Table 1 also includes disproportionate damage indicators for gravity load-carrying systems, which include any component, or any group of components, that supports more than 10 percent of the total area of a structure’s floor(s) and roof(s), and in which the remaining capacity of any damaged components, with respect to all dead and live loads, is less than 75 percent of that required by this code for new buildings of similar structure, purpose and location. The provisions of this Bulletin apply to disproportionate damage to gravity load-carrying components only when such damage has been caused by earthquake, as SFEBC Section 405.2.2 notes that a building with disproportionate damage is subject to the provisions and requirements for substantial structural damage.

Table 1: Substantial Structural Damage and Disproportionate Damage Patterns for Wood Frame Residential Buildings with Three or More Dwelling Units Damage Pattern Triggering Damage Substantial Structural Damage Disproportionate Damage Wood-frame shear panels (wall segments or piers) and sheathing. When any of the following damage patterns is observed: • Stucco or plaster loose at more than one wall stud, or • Nail pull-through at wood or gypsum board sheathing at more than one wall stud, or • Visible permanent in-plane racking, or • Diagonal shear cracking across half or more of a plaster or stucco panel, or • Horizontal flexural cracking across half or more of a plaster or stucco panel, or • Loss of nailing connection from sheathing to top plate or sole plate, or • Any other indicators of sheathing delamination or panel mechanism. In any story, in any direction, where the sum of the length of all wall segments and piers with any of the listed damage patterns is 20 percent or more of the total length of wall segments and piers in that story and direction. Only wall segments or piers contributing significant strength or stiffness to each wall line of the pre-damaged structure shall be considered. Large openings do not count toward the summation or total length of wall segments and piers. In any story, along any wall line, where the sum of the length of wall segments and piers with any of the listed damage patterns is 20 percent or more of the total length of wall segments and piers along that wall line in that story. Only wall segments or piers contributing significant strength or stiffness to each wall line of the pre-damaged structure shall be considered. Large openings do not count toward the summation or total length of wall segments and piers.

Connections and load path elements. When any of the following damage patterns is observed: • Hold-down pullout or stud fracture at hold- down, or • Sliding of sole plate at floor line, or • Sliding of sill plate at top of footing, or • Any other indicators of lateral load path failure. Any Connections and load path elements When any of the following damage patterns is observed: • Failure of diaphragm-to-wall connections at rim joist or blocking, or • Collector or chord failure. At any floor level, where the damage affects the load path to more than one pier or wall segment, or affects the load path to the only pier or wall segment along a wall line.

Damage Pattern Triggering Damage Substantial Structural Damage Disproportionate Damage Gravity load-carrying members, connections, and load path elements. When any of the following damage patterns is observed: • Floor framing-to-column/wall shear connection damage, or • Loss or substantial reduction of seat bearing, or • Crushing, fracture, or shortening of posts, wall studs, or similar components, or • Column, post, or pier damage due to deformation incompatibility, or • Subsidence or differential settlement of foundation, or • Any other indicators of member failure, load path failure, or loss of bearing capacity. In gravity load-carrying components defined in San Francisco Building Code, as supporting, as a group, “more than 30 percent of the total area of the structure’s floor(s) and roof(s),” and the remaining capacity of any damaged components, “with respect to all dead and live loads, is less than 75 percent of that required by this code for new buildings of similar structure, purpose and location.” In gravity load-carrying components supporting, as a group, more than 10 percent of the total area of the structure’s floor(s) and roof(s), and the remaining capacity of any damaged components, with respect to all dead and live loads, is less than 75 percent of that required by this code for new buildings of similar structure, purpose and location. Permanent lateral deformation indicating increased P-delta instability. When permanent story drift of 2 percent or more is observed in any story. • When permanent story drift of 1 percent or more is observed in any story, or • A pattern of jammed doors or windows repairable only by structural repair and not by minor adjustments or rehanging doors or windows. Damage indicating torsional instability. • When there is significant stiffness loss on more than one perimeter wall line, or • Significant strength loss not balanced between wall lines on opposite sides of the building. • When there is significant stiffness loss on more than one perimeter wall line, or • Significant strength loss not balanced between wall lines on opposite sides of the building, or • Any visually noticeable permanent torsional deformation. Further Evaluation and Retrofit Scope for Buildings with Substantial Structural Damage For buildings with substantial structural damage, further evaluation and retrofit shall proceed in accordance with San Francisco Existing Building Code Section 405.2.3.1 subject to the following guidelines: A. Evaluation and retrofit shall consider the entire structure, including all stories and all directions, regardless of where in the structure the triggering damage occurred, except that for certain building types and damage patterns, partial retrofit may be permitted under one of the alternative criteria documents given in the “Evaluation and Retrofit Engineering Criteria” section of this Bulletin. B. Gravity load-carrying components need not be considered for evaluation and retrofit except when they are also part of the building’s seismic force-resisting system or are subject to San Francisco Existing Building Code Section 502.2. C. Nonstructural components need not be considered for evaluation or retrofit unless subject to separate building code requirements, ordinances, or regulations. D. Load combinations that include wind or earthquake effects shall be considered. Further Evaluation and Retrofit Scope for Buildings with Disproportionate Damage For buildings with disproportionate damage, further evaluation and retrofit shall proceed in accordance with San Francisco Existing Building Code Section 405.2.2 subject to the following guidelines: A. Evaluation and retrofit shall consider the entire structure, including all stories and all directions, regardless of where in the structure the triggering damage occurred, except that for certain building types and damage patterns, partial retrofit may be permitted under one of the alternative criteria documents given in the “Evaluation and Retrofit Engineering Criteria” section of this Bulletin. Exception: When the disproportionate damage is limited to connections or load path elements and does not affect wood-frame wall segments, piers, or other vertical elements of the lateral force-resisting system, the evaluation and retrofit scope may be limited to components throughout the building in directions similar to or performing the same function as the components with damage. B. Gravity load-carrying components need not be considered for evaluation and retrofit except when they are also part of the building’s seismic force-resisting system or are subjected to San Francisco Existing Building Code Section 502.2.

C. Nonstructural components need not be considered for evaluation and retrofit unless subject to separate building code requirements, ordinances, or regulations. D. Load combinations that include earthquake effects shall be considered. Load combinations that include wind effects may be ignored. EVALUATION AND RETROFIT ENGINEERING CRITERIA If, after evaluation, the pre-earthquake building is determined to satisfy the criteria of San Francisco Existing Building Code, Section 405.2.3, then the building need not be retrofitted, but shall be restored to its pre-earthquake capacity. When retrofit is triggered by earthquake damage at any level, the engineering criteria for retrofit shall be permitted to use earthquake loads that are 75 percent of those prescribed by the San Francisco Building Code for new construction, in accordance with SFEBC Section 405.2.3. Alternatively, any of the following codes, standards, or guidelines may be used as alternative evaluation or retrofit criteria for qualifying buildings: A. Meets ASCE 31-03 for the Life Safety Performance Level, or B. Meets ASCE 41-06 for the Life Safety Performance Level (S-3) in a BSE-1 earthquake hazard level, or C. If the triggering damage involves only a soft, weak, or open front first story, meets CEBC Appendix A - Chapter A4 or IEBC Appendix A - Chapter A4 with NCSEA/SEAOC amendments, or D. Meets San Francisco Existing Building Code Section 304.4. Originally Signed by: Tom C. Hui, S.E. July 2, 2012 Acting Director Department of Building Inspection Approved by the Building Inspection Commission on June 20, 2012. AB-099 Post-Earthquake Repair and Retrofit Requirements for Concrete Buildings

NO. AB-099 :

DATE : July 2, 2012 (Updated 01/01/2023 for code references) SUBJECT : Permit Review and Operations TITLE : Post-Earthquake Repair and Retrofit Requirements for Concrete Buildings PURPOSE : The purpose of this Bulletin is to establish policy for interpreting the San Francisco Building Code regarding post-earthquake damage retrofit triggers for concrete buildings constructed before May 21, 1973 and to detail the scope and criteria for such triggered retrofits and other repairs. REFERENCES : Current edition of the San Francisco Existing Building Code

Section 202, Definition of Disproportionate Earthquake Damage
Section 202, Definition of Substantial Structural Damage
Section 304.4, Minimum Lateral Force for Existing Buildings
Chapter 4, Repairs Current edition of the California Historical Building Code, CCR Title Part 8 ASCE/SEI Standard 31, Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings ASCE/SEI Standard 41, Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings, with Supplement 1 California Health and Safety Code, Section 17920.3 CAPSS Report, Here Today – Here Tomorrow: The Road to Earthquake Resilience in San Francisco, Post-Earthquake Repair and Retrofit Requirements (ATC-52-4 Report), https://sfgov.org/sfc/sites/default/files/ESIP/FileCenter/Documents/9761- atc524_compressed.pdf FEMA 273: NHERP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings FEMA 306: Evaluation of Earthquake Damaged Concrete and Masonry Wall Buildings: Basic Procedures Manual FEMA 308: The Repair of Earthquake Damaged Concrete and Masonry Wall Buildings FEMA 356: Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings (FEMA, 2000)

DISCUSSION : San Francisco Existing Building Code, Section 405.2.3 triggers seismic evaluation, and possibly retrofit, of buildings when earthquake-related damage reaches the level of “substantial structural damage to vertical elements of the lateral-force-resisting system.” Substantial structural damage is defined in Section 202 as, in essence, a loss of lateral capacity of 20 percent or more in any horizontal direction. The code gives no specific rules for identifying a 20-percent loss or guidance as to how to calculate capacity loss, so implementation of these code provisions relies on interpretation by the Department of Building Inspection. This Bulletin presents the Department’s interpretation of a 20-percent lateral capacity loss for concrete buildings constructed before May 21, 1973. In addition to substantial structural damage, San Francisco Existing Building Code, Section 405.2 triggers seismic evaluation, and possibly retrofit, when earthquake-related damage reaches the level of disproportionate damage, defined in Section 202 as, in essence, a lateral capacity loss of 10 percent or more in an earthquake of limited intensity. This Bulletin presents the Department’s interpretation of a 10-percent capacity loss for concrete buildings constructed before May 21, 1973. For concrete shear wall and infill buildings, the evaluation procedures developed in FEMA 306 and the simplified version of the methodology in FEMA 308 are used determine whether a building with substantial structural damage or disproportionate damage needs to be restored to its pre- earthquake capacity or retrofitted. Substantial structural damage or disproportionate damage may also be deemed to exist when damage to specific building components or conditions reaches the severity of “earthquake triggering damage” based on visual observation and classification. For concrete moment-frame buildings, repair and retrofit requirements are based only on visual observation and classification of specific components damage. Residential buildings that incur substantial structural damage or disproportionate damage as detailed in this Bulletin are considered to be “substandard” per California Health and Safety Code Section 17920.3(b) Structural hazards and (o) Inadequate structural resistance to horizontal forces. APPLICABILITY: A building is eligible to apply the interpretations and provisions of this Bulletin if all of the following criteria are met: A. The building has cast-in-place concrete bearing walls or cast-in-place concrete frames, and B. The building has at least one floor diaphragm constructed with cast-in-place concrete. Buildings of other construction types may also apply the provisions of this Bulletin on a case-by-case basis when approved by the Department of Building Inspection. Other methods of determining capacity loss based on analysis, testing, or other objective data may also be allowed at the discretion of the Department. Qualified buildings may be permitted to be evaluated or retrofitted using the provisions in the California Historical Building Code, provided that such standards do not result in seismic performance less than the evaluation and retrofit engineering criteria detailed in this Bulletin. DEFINITIONS: For the purpose of this bulletin, the following definitions shall apply: • CONCRETE SHEAR WALL: A concrete wall which resists lateral forces applied parallel to the plane of the wall. • CONCRETE MOMENT FRAME: A building frame system in which seismic shear forces are resisted by shear and flexure in members and joints of the frame, including slab-column moment frames. • CONCRETE INFILL FRAME: A concrete moment frame having panel(s) of masonry that participate in resisting lateral forces that are placed within the frame members. • NONSTRUCTURAL REPAIR: Repairs that improve the visual appearance of damage to a component. These repairs may also restore the nonstructural properties of a component, such as weather protection. Any structural benefit is negligible. This is defined as “Cosmetic Repair” in FEMA 308. EVALUATION PROCEDURE AND RETROFIT SCOPE Concrete Shear Wall and Infill Frame Buildings General Substantial structural damage to elements of the lateral force-resisting system shall be deemed to exist when the results of a FEMA 306 evaluation shows that capacity loss exceeds 20% for a concrete shear wall or infill frame building, or when any of the “triggering damage” criteria for substantial structural damage described in Table 1 is observed in an eligible building. Additionally, disproportionate damage shall be deemed to exist when a FEMA 306 evaluation shows a capacity loss exceeding 10%, or when any of the “triggering damage” for disproportionate damage described in Table 1 is observed in an eligible building. Overview The flowchart in Figure 1 shall be followed to determine the post-earthquake damage repair or retrofit requirements related to substantial structural damage to concrete shear wall and infill frame buildings. The process begins with a determination of whether the damaged building has sufficient pre-earthquake capacity to satisfy San Francisco Existing Building Code, Section 304.4, which references the May 21, 1973 milestone requirements of San Francisco Existing Building Code, Section 304.4. If the building in its pre-damaged state satisfies this code provision, then the building need not be retrofitted regardless of the level of damage, and restoration to pre-earthquake capacity is sufficient. Alternatively, if a full FEMA 306 evaluation (labeled as “Optional FEMA 306 Evaluation” in Figure 1) shows a capacity loss of less than 5 percent, nonstructural repair to the building instead of restoration to pre-earthquake

capacity shall be permitted, except that individual component damage or condition repair per Table 1 is also required. If the building does not meet the San Francisco Existing Building Code, Section 304.4 requirements per San Francisco Existing Building Code Section 304.4, then a full FEMA 306 evaluation (labeled as “Mandatory FEMA 306 Evaluation” in Figure 1) is required, and nonstructural repair, restoration to pre-earthquake capacity, or retrofit requirements may be triggered as shown in Figure 1. In addition, individual component damage or condition repair per Table 1 is required. Figure 1: Flowchart for Post-Earthquake Repair and Retrofit of Concrete Shear Wall and Infill Frame Buildings

FEMA 306 Evaluation Process A FEMA 306 evaluation process for the pre-event structure and the damaged structure shall be performed using the guidelines below:

The evaluation shall use the nonlinear static procedures defined in FEMA 306 to determine the capacity for pre-event and damaged conditions. FEMA 306 was developed at the time FEMA 273 was also in development, prior to the publication of FEMA 356. Since then, additional research and development effort was incorporated into FEMA 356 and later into ASCE 41. Therefore, the comparable, more current equations in ASCE 41 shall be used in performing a FEMA 306 evaluation rather than the FEMA 273 equivalents.
The global displacement demand shall be determined in accordance with ASCE 41.
The performance objective shall meet the requirements of ASCE 41 for Life Safety Structural Performance Level (S-3) at 75% of the spectral demand associated with the current code value at the building site. Simplified FEMA 308 Evaluation Process The following simplified version of the FEMA 308 approach, based on loss in performance, L, may be used for the purpose of determining threshold triggers for restoration to pre-earthquake capacity and retrofit. The process is similar to that outlined in Figure 1. The FEMA 308 parameters shall be determined using the guidelines as follows. For further definition of the FEMA 308 parameters needed for the evaluation.
To use this method, first determine the following performance capacity and loss indices:
• Pre-event (Undamaged) Performance Index: P = dc / dd, where dc is the global displacement capacity for the selected performance objective and dd is the maximum global displacement demand for the selected ground motion. This performance index is calculated using component properties for the pre-event conditions in accordance with the methodology outlined in FEMA 306. • Damaged Performance Index:

P’ = d’c / d’d, where the prime symbol (’) denotes that the global displacement capacity and demand, d’c and d’d, respectively, are determined for the components in their damaged state using FEMA 306. • Loss: L = 1 – (P’ / P), where L is the performance loss of a building due to earthquake damage, and is given by the ratio of the damaged performance index, P’, to the undamaged performance index, P, for a specific performance objective. L ranges between 0 and 1. 3. To determine whether earthquake damage is acceptable and neither restoration to pre-earthquake capacity nor retrofit is triggered, the performance loss, L, is compared against the FEMA 308 Table 3-1 threshold parameters defined below: • Lr(min): The Loss threshold below which neither restoration to pre-earthquake capacity nor retrofit is triggered, shall be defined as follows: Lr(min) = 0.05 for earthquake event with Sa0.3 ≤ 0.4g Lr(min) = 0.05 for earthquake event with Sa0.3 > 0.4g • Lr(max): The Loss threshold above which either restoration to pre-earthquake capacity or retrofit is triggered. For this simplified procedure, Lr(max) may be taken to be the same as Lr(min) since Lr does not vary: Lr(max) = 0.05 for earthquake event with Sa0.3 ≤ 0.4g Lr(max) = 0.05 for earthquake event with Sa0.3 > 0.4g Alternatively, the Damaged Performance Index, P’ may be used to determine whether earthquake damage is acceptable and neither restoration to pre-earthquake capacity nor retrofit is triggered by comparing P’ against the FEMA 308 Table 3-1 limit parameters defined below: • P’min: The Damage Performance Index limit below which restoration to pre-earthquake capacity or retrofit is triggered, is not used since Lr does not vary for the simplified method. • P’max: The Damage Performance Index limit above which neither restoration to pre-earthquake capacity nor retrofit is triggered regardless of the value of Loss, L, shall be defined as 1.0. 4. If a building is required to be restored to its pre-earthquake capacity or retrofitted per step 2, the Performance Loss, L, is compared against the FEMA 308 Table 3-2 threshold parameters defined below to determine if retrofit is triggered: • Lu(min): The Loss threshold below which earthquake damage does not trigger retrofit but requires restoration to pre-earthquake capacity, shall be defined as below: Lu(min) = 0.10 for earthquake event with Sa0.3 ≤ 0.4g Lu(min) = 0.20 for earthquake event with Sa0.3 > 0.4g • Lu(max): The Loss threshold above which earthquake damage triggers retrofit, shall be taken to be the same as Lu(min) since Lu does not vary for the simplified method: Lu(max) = 0.10 for earthquake with Sa0.3 ≤ 0.4g Lu(max) = 0.20 for earthquake with Sa0.3 > 0.4g Alternatively, the Undamaged Performance Index, P may be used to determine whether restoration to pre-earthquake capacity or retrofit is triggered by comparing P against the FEMA 308 Table 3-2 limit parameters defined below: • Pmin: The Pre-event Performance Index limit below which existing earthquake damage triggers retrofit, is not used since Lu does not vary for the purpose of the simplified method. • Pmax: The Pre-event Performance Index limit above which existing earthquake damage does not trigger retrofit and restoration to pre- earthquake capacity is sufficient regardless of the value of Loss, L, shall be taken as 1.0. Retrofit Triggers due to Specific Component Damage or Conditions In addition to the retrofit triggers per the FEMA 306 and 308 methodologies described above, damage to any of the specific components or other conditions noted in Table 1 below shall trigger retrofit shown in the “Action Required” column of the table if damage is observed to reach the severity of “triggering damage.” The conditions noted in Table 1 are primarily related to gravity-load-carrying component damage, load path failures, or significant damage in individual components. For damage less than the “triggering damage,” repairs shall be made to return the building to original strength or condition by methods acceptable to the Department of Building Inspection. Table 1: Triggers for Specific Components or Conditions in Concrete Buildings Components or Conditions Triggering Damage Action Required Substantial Structure Damage Disproportionate Damage Table 1: Triggers for Specific Components or Conditions in Concrete Buildings

Components or Conditions Triggering Damage Action Required Substantial Structure Damage Disproportionate Damage Shear cracks in gravity load- carrying columns or bearing walls supporting less than 30% of the area of a roof or an individual floor. Preemptive diagonal tension crack meeting the “Moderate” or worse criteria of the RC2H component in Section 5.5 of FEMA 306 or any component with “Extreme” damage per Section 5.5 of FEMA 306. Preemptive diagonal tension crack meeting “Moderate” criteria of the RC2H component in Section 5.5 of FEMA 306, except that inclined crack widths are to be taken as between 1/16" and 1/8". Replace component. Shear cracks in gravity- load- carrying columns or bearing walls supporting 30% or more of the area of a roof or an individual floor. Preemptive diagonal tension crack meeting the “Moderate” or worse criteria of the RC2H component in Section 5.5 of FEMA 306 or any component with “Extreme” damage per Section 5.5 of FEMA 306. Preemptive diagonal tension crack meeting “Moderate” criteria of the RC2H component in Section 5.5 of FEMA 306, except that inclined crack widths are to be taken as between 1/16" and 1/8". Replace component and retrofit lateral system to SFEBC Section 405.2.4. Leaning story (excessive drift) in a concrete moment-frame building. Permanent lateral displacement of 1% of the story height or more resulting from earthquake damage. Permanent lateral displacement of 0.5% of the story height or more resulting from earthquake damage. Retrofit lateral system to SFEBC Section 405.2.4. Beam-column joint shear at joints with at least one exterior face in columns supporting less than 30% of the area of a roof or individual floor. Cracking representative of joint shear at the beam-column joint with cracks at least 1/8" wide or offset along the crack at least 1/16". Replace component. Beam-column joint shear at joints with at least one exterior face in columns supporting more than 30% of the area of a roof or individual floor. Cracking representative of joint shear at the beam-column joint with cracks at least 1/8" wide or offset along the crack at least 1/16". Replace component and retrofit lateral system to SFEBC Section 405.2.4.

Components or Conditions Triggering Damage Action Required Substantial Structure Damage Disproportionate Damage Components or Conditions Triggering Damage Action Required Substantial Structure Damage Disproportionate Damage Punching shear damage at slab around columns without intersecting beams in columns supporting less than 30% of the area of a roof or individual floor. Evidence representative of potential punching shear such as fresh circular cracking in the slab around a column with or without vertical offset at the crack. Replace component. Punching shear damage at slab around columns without intersecting beams in columns supporting more than 30% of the area of a roof or individual floor. Evidence representative of potential punching shear such as fresh circular cracking in the slab around a column with or without vertical offset at the crack. Replace component and retrofit lateral system to SFEBC Section 404.3. Separation of floor-to-wall connections. • Permanent separation or sliding at joint of 1" or more, or Retrofit connection using forces from SFEBC Section 404.3. • Permanent movement that results in inadequate bearing of supported member. Delamination of more than 30% of cast-in-place topping from precast floor or roof framing where topping serves as the diaphragm. Permanent separation of topping from precast members. Replace damaged topping slab and tie new slab to underlying precast members using SFEBC Section 404.3 forces and current detailing. Fractured bars at diaphragm chords or collectors. • Permanent separation or sliding at joint of 1" or more, or Replace damaged bars and tie or splice new components to surrounding structural elements using SFEBC Section 404.3 forces and current detailing. • Permanent movement that results in inadequate bearing of supported member.

Concrete Moment-Frame Buildings The process for determining whether repair or retrofit is triggered for a concrete moment-frame building begins with a determination of whether the damaged building has adequate pre-earthquake capacity to comply with San Francisco Existing Building Code, Section 304.4. If this is satisfied, then the building need not be retrofitted regardless of the level of damage, and restoration of the building to its pre-earthquake capacity shall be undertaken. Unlike concrete shear-wall and infill buildings, nonstructural repairs shall not be permitted even if a full FEMA 306 evaluation has determined that the capacity loss is below 5 percent. For non-complying buildings, if any of the component damage or conditions given in Table 1 is present, the building shall be retrofitted as required by Table 1.

For concrete frame buildings with any interacting walls, in addition to the Table 1 checks, the evaluation procedure and retrofit scope given above for concrete shear wall and infill frame buildings shall be applied. When a FEMA 306 analysis is used to determine loss of capacity outlined in this bulletin for concrete shear wall and infill frame buildings, the moment-frame capacity may not be included in development of the force- displacement pushover curve. EVALUATION AND RETROFIT ENGINEERING CRITERIA When retrofit is triggered by earthquake damage at any level, the engineering criteria for retrofit shall be permitted to use earthquake loads that are 75 percent of those prescribed by the San Francisco Building Code for new construction, in accordance with SFEBC Section 405.2.3. In addition, any of the following alternative codes, standards, or guidelines may be used as alternative evaluation or retrofit criteria for qualifying buildings: A. Meets the requirements of ASCE 31-03 for the Life Safety Performance Level, or B. Meets the requirements of ASCE 41-06 for the Life Safety Performance Level (S-3) in the BSE-1 earthquake hazard level, or C. Meets the requirements of San Francisco Existing Building Code 304.4. Originally Signed: Tom C. Hui, S.E. July 2, 2012 Acting Director Department of Building Inspection Approved by the Building Inspection Commission on 6/20/2012 AB-100 Post-Earthquake Repair and Retrofit Requirements for One- and Two-Family Units

NO. AB-100 :

DATE : July 12, 2012 (Updated 01/01/2023 for code references) SUBJECT : Permit Review and Operation TITLE : Post-Earthquake Repair and Retrofit Requirements for One- and Two-Family Units PURPOSE : The purpose of this Bulletin is to establish policy for interpreting the San Francisco Building Code regarding post-earthquake damage retrofit triggers for one- and two- family dwellings of wood-frame construction and to detail the scope and criteria for such triggered retrofits. The Bulletin also provides guidance on the scope of required building repair if retrofits are not triggered. REFERENCES : Current edition of the San Francisco Existing Building Code

Section 304.4, Minimum Lateral force for existing buildings
Section 202, Definition of Disproportionate Earthquake Damage
Section 202, Definition of Substantial Structural Damage
Chapter 4, Repairs Current edition of the California Historical Building Code, C.C.R. Title Part 8 Current edition of the California Existing Building Code, Appendix A - Chapter A4, or the current edition of the International Existing Building Code, Appendix A - Chapter A4 with NCSEA/SEAOC amendments ASCE/SEI Standard 31, Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings ASCE/SEI Standard 41, Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings, with Supplement 1 California Health and Safety Code, Section 17920.3 CAPSS Report, Here Today – Here Tomorrow: The Road to Earthquake Resilience in San Francisco, Post-Earthquake Repair and Retrofit Requirements (ATC-52-4 Report), https://sfgov.org/sfc/sites/default/files/ESIP/FileCenter/Documents/9761- atc524_compressed.pdf CUREE EDA-2: General Guidelines for the Assessment and Repair of Earthquake Damage in Residential Woodframe Buildings FEMA 306: Evaluation of Earthquake Damaged Concrete and Masonry Wall Buildings: Basic Procedures Manual

DISCUSSION : San Francisco Existing Building Code, Section 405.2.3 triggers seismic evaluation, and possibly retrofit of buildings, when earthquake-related damage reaches the level of “substantial structural damage to vertical elements of the lateral-force-resisting system.” Substantial structural damage is defined in San Francisco Existing Building Code, Section 202 as, in essence, a loss of lateral capacity of 20 percent or more in any horizontal direction. The code does not give specific rules for identifying a 20- percent capacity loss nor guidance as to how to calculate capacity loss, so implementation of these code provisions relies on interpretation by the Department of Building Inspection. This Bulletin presents the Department’s interpretation of a 20- percent lateral capacity loss based on visual indicators of such damage, and details the evaluation procedure and retrofit scope for buildings that exhibit earthquake-induced substantial structural damage. The Bulletin also provides guidance on the scope of required repair of building components or assemblies if such retrofits are not triggered.

In addition to substantial structural damage, San Francisco Existing Building Code, Section 405.2.2 triggers structural evaluation and possibly retrofit when earthquake-related damage reaches the level of disproportionate damage, which is defined in San Francisco Existing Building Code, Section 202 as, in essence, a lateral capacity loss of 10 percent or more in an earthquake of limited intensity. This Bulletin presents the Department of Building Inspection’s interpretation of a 10 percent capacity loss based on visual indicators of such damage and provides evaluation procedures and retrofit scope for buildings with such earthquake induced disproportionate damage. Residential buildings that incur substantial structural damage or disproportionate damage as detailed in this Bulletin are considered to be “substandard” per California Health and Safety Code Section 17920.3(b) Structural hazards and (o) Inadequate structural resistance to horizontal forces. APPLICABILITY A building is eligible to apply the interpretations and provisions of this Bulletin if all of the following criteria are met: A. The building includes at least one story in which the seismic force-resisting system consists of a wood light-frame system in at least one direction, and B. The building has only wood floor and roof diaphragms, and C. The building contains a residential occupancy group R-3 as defined in San Francisco Building Code, Section 310. At the discretion of the Department of Building Inspection, a building in this group may be evaluated and repaired or retrofitted using the criteria for a residential building with three or more units under AB-098 if the building is structurally and architecturally similar to that group of buildings. Buildings of other construction types and occupancies may also apply the provisions of this Bulletin on a case-by-case basis when approved by the Department of Building Inspection. Other methods of determining capacity loss based on analysis, testing, or other objective data may also be allowed at the discretion of the Department. Qualified buildings may be permitted to be evaluated or retrofitted using the provisions in the California Historical Building Code provided that such provisions do not result in seismic performance that is less than the evaluation and retrofit engineering provisions detailed in this Bulletin. EVALUATION PROCEDURES AND RETROFIT SCOPE For the purpose of determining if a building has incurred substantial structural damage or disproportionate damage per San Francisco Building Code, visual observation and classification of damage and severity may be used in lieu of a calculation of percentage loss of capacity. All determinations of substantial structural damage or disproportionate damage, including visual observation and classification of damage and severity, shall be made by a licensed design professional, and evaluation shall be submitted in accordance with San Francisco Existing Building Code, Section 405.2.3.1. For damage not deemed to be either substantial structural damage or disproportionate damage, repairs shall restore the building to its original strength or condition by methods acceptable to the Department of Building Inspection. Buildings with Substantial Structural Damage Earthquake-induced substantial structural damage to elements of lateral force-resisting system of a building shall be deemed to exist when any of the components and conditions is observed to reach the severity of “triggering damage” given in Table 1. For buildings with such substantial structural damage, evaluation and retrofit, where required, shall proceed in accordance with the “Action Required” column shown in Table 1 and the “Further Evaluation and Retrofit Engineering Criteria” section. Buildings with Disproportionate Damage Disproportionate damage to elements of the lateral force-resisting system of a building shall be deemed to exist when any of the components and conditions is observed to reach the severity of “triggering damage” given in Table 1. For buildings with such disproportionate damage, evaluation and retrofit, where required, shall proceed in accordance with the “Action Required” column shown in Table 1 and the “Further Evaluation and Retrofit Engineering Criteria” section. Table 1: Substantial and Disproportionate Damage Triggers for Repair and Retrofit of One and Two-Family Dwellings Components and Damage Condition Triggering Damage Action Required Substantial Structural Damage Disproportionate Damage Table 1: Substantial and Disproportionate Damage Triggers for Repair and Retrofit of One and Two-Family Dwellings Triggering Damage

Components and Damage Condition Substantial Structural Damage Disproportionate Damage Action Required Stone or masonry veneer, incidental URM wall (non- chimney) • Appearance similar to “Heavy Damage” as described in Section 7.5 of FEMA 306, or • Appearance similar to “Moderate Damage” as described in Section 7.5 of FEMA 306, or Remove and replace damaged elements. • Failure of anchorage to backing in over 20% of the wall area • Visible failure of anchorage to backing anywhere • URM foundation piers • “Moderate Damage” as described in Section 7.5 of FEMA 306, or Retrofit crawl space or under- floor area. • Continuous footings with crawl space or under-floor area • Visible relative movement of supported joist or beams on support of 1" or more, or • Permanent movement that results in inadequate bearing of supported member Cracks in continuous footings without visible related soil failure or movement Crack width of less than 0.25" No retrofit required. Repair to original strength in accordance with Section 4A.3 of CUREE EDA-2. Crack width or offset of greater than 0.25" No retrofit required. Obtain design professional guidance for repair. Cracks in continuous footings with visible related soil failure or movement Cracks and visible related soil failure or movement • Obtain design professional guidance for mitigation of soil movement and repair of footing, and • Mitigate any soil issues as recommended by design professional. • Post-and-beam crawl space or under-floor area • Permanent lateral displacement of 2" anywhere, or • Permanent lateral displacement of 1" anywhere, or Retrofit crawl space or under- floor area in accordance with IEBC Chapter A3. • Cripple wall with stud height not exceeding 4 feet • Visible relative movement of 1" or more between supported joists or beams and their supports, or • Visible relative movement for more than 50% of the supported joists or beams and their supports • Permanent movement that results in inadequate bearing of over 50% of the supported members Anchorage of floor/wall framing to foundations Permanent movement of 1" anywhere Retrofit crawl space or under- floor area in accordance with IEBC Chapter A3. • Hillside structure where height of supports from foundation to the point of bearing for the floor assembly above exceeds 4 feet • Permanent lateral displacement of 2" or 2% drift, whichever is greater, at downhill cripple wall stud in any direction, or • Permanent lateral displacement of 1" or 1% drift, whichever is greater, at downhill cripple wall stud in any direction, or Retrofit from the foundation level to a level above with a full-plate diaphragm, specifically addressing the torsion created by walls of varying height, supports, or other causes. • Cripple wall with stud height exceeding 4 feet • Failure of connections in downhill supports if post- and-beam braced frame or moment frame, or • Signs of movement that could lead to failure of the downhill supports, or • Separation of uphill framing from foundation support or indication of relative movement during shaking of 1" or more in the direction parallel to the slope • Visible relative movement of the uphill support in the direction parallel to the slope Weak Story: when any story has less than 80% of the strength of the story above in either direction • Permanent lateral displacement of 2" or more, or Retrofit soft story and any support system below. • Indication of any lateral movement in story of 4" or more during shaking in any direction Stories other than weak stories • Permanent lateral displacement of 2" or more anywhere in any direction, or • Retrofit from damaged story down to the foundation, and • Permanent lateral displacement of 1" anywhere if torsional displacement is observed, or • Repair walls not part of the designated lateral force-resisting system in accordance with Section 5.8 of CUREE EDA-2. • Indications of excessive response such as severe cracking of brittle walls nail fracture or pullout in wood, multiple jammed doors, and/or broken windows Connection between two parts of a structure including wings, split levels, porches, and beam to post connections • Permanent separation or sliding at joint of 1" or more, or Provide structural separation with independent gravity support for each structure or a seismic tie that will transfer 20% of the weight of the lighter portion across the joint. • Permanent movement that results in inadequate bearing of a supported member

Unreinforced masonry chimneys Damage patterns described in Chapter 7 of CUREE EDA-2 that require replacement of any chimney bricks or flue tiles or substantial extent of mortar Earthquake caused horizontal cracking at roof line or at the top of fire box Minimum retrofit/replacement according to Appendix 7A of Chapter 7 of CUREE EDA-2. Any chimney • Earthquake induced separation of chimney from the surrounding or adjacent wood framing, or

• Clear movement from a hand pushed “rock test” as described in Section 7.7.3 of CUREE EDA-2. For Substantial Structural Damage: Repair/replace attic ties if present. If no tie to wood framing is evident, provide new engineered tie or replace chimney according to Appendix 7A of CUREE EDA-2 For Disproportionate Damage: Repair/replace chimney according to Appendix 7A of CUREE EDA-2. Ceiling plaster Falling or delaminated ceiling plaster greater than 10% of area within any room. Determine extent of delamination or deteriorated plaster and replace. Ceiling material Cracks in ceiling material indicating permanent movement or local crushing of ceiling material at crack. If cracks are caused by movement of joists at their supports, provide tie across area of slippage. Otherwise, repair. Roof tiles Damage to anchorage of roof tiles, unanchored or slipped tiles. Determine extent of missing or deteriorated anchorage and replace damaged tiles.

FURTHER EVALUATION AND RETROFIT ENGINEERING CRITERIA: If, after an evaluation per San Francisco Existing Building Code, Section 405.2.3, the pre-earthquake building is determined to satisfy the criteria, then the building need not be retrofitted, but shall be restored to its pre-earthquake capacity. When retrofit is triggered by earthquake damage at any level, the engineering criteria for retrofit shall be permitted to use earthquake loads that are 75 percent of those prescribed by the San Francisco Building Code for new construction, in accordance with San Francisco Existing Building Code, Section 405.2.3. Alternatively, any of the following codes, standards, or guidelines may be used as alternative evaluation or retrofit criteria for qualifying buildings: A. Meets the requirements of ASCE 31-03 for the Life Safety Performance Level, or B. Meets the requirements of ASCE 41-06 for the Life Safety Performance Level (S-3) in a BSE-1 earthquake hazard level, or C. Meets the requirements of CEBC Appendix A - Chapter A4 or IEBC Appendix A - Chapter A4 with NCSEA/SEAOC amendments, or D. Meets the San Francisco Existing Building Code, Sections 315, 320. Originally Signed: Tom C. Hui, S.E. July 2, 2012 Acting Director Department of Building Inspection Approved by the Building Inspection Commission on 6/20/2012 AB-105 Voluntary Sprinkler Protection for Existing High-Rise Buildings

NO. AB-105 :

DATE : November 21, 2012 (Updated 01/01/2023 for code references) SUBJECT : Administrative Permit, Fire and Life Safety TITLE : Voluntary Sprinkler Protection for Existing High-Rise Buildings PURPOSE : The purpose of this Administrative Bulletin is to outline the procedure for documenting voluntary sprinkler protection of select high-rise buildings in DBI’s Permit Tracking System. It applies to existing high-rise buildings that (1) were built before State law required sprinkler protection in high-rise buildings (July 1, 1974) and (2) were excluded from San Francisco’s high-rise sprinkler retrofit ordinance (Ord. 377-93) and not required to comply with California Fire Code 1103.5.4.

REFERENCES : Current edition of the San Francisco Existing Building Code

Section 314.27.1, General
Section 314.27.2, Additional requirements
Section 314.27.3, Permissible omissions Current edition of the San Francisco Fire Code
Section 903.2.15, Automatic sprinkler system–existing high-rise buildings DISCUSSION : San Francisco has many high-rise buildings that were built before the State required sprinkler protection in high-rise buildings. The City and County of San Francisco passed a high-rise sprinkler retrofit ordinance in 1993 (#377-93) to address this situation. This ordinance was codified in SFEBC Section 314.27. Basically, the ordinance required complete sprinkler protection in high-rise commercial buildings and tourist hotels built before the State law took effect. It also created a number of technical requirements specifically for high-rise buildings covered by the ordinance. It did not apply to pre-1974 high-rise residential buildings where occupants are primarily permanent in nature (currently classified as R-2 occupancies but classified as R-1 prior to 2008), mixed-use occupancies containing an R-1 or R-2 occupancy, or historic buildings. This Administrative Bulletin is intended to provide a mechanism for pre-1974 high-rise buildings to be recorded as fully sprinklered in DBI’s Permit Tracking System when they are voluntarily sprinklered throughout. It is similar to the process required for high-rise buildings covered by the ordinance but it is voluntary and more streamlined and culminates with an approved Administrative Permit rather than an approved “Umbrella Permit.”

The following criteria and procedures shall be followed to obtain an Administrative Permit for complete sprinkler protection of pre-1974 high-rise buildings exempted from the high-rise sprinkler ordinance. A. Sprinkler Criteria 1. Schedule a pre-application meeting with SFFD to resolve applicable San Francisco requirements for the subject building. For example, the San Francisco Fire Code requires new high-rise buildings to have two fire pumps and two on-site water supplies for buildings over 200 feet high, fire department connections on each side of the building facing a street, and two risers per zone. These requirements may or may not be applicable, on a case-by-case basis, for existing pre-1974 high-rise buildings not covered by the ordinance. 2. For buildings that do not have any sprinkler protection, the new sprinkler system shall be designed and installed in accordance with the applicable edition of NFPA 13 in effect when the sprinkler permit application is submitted. 3. For buildings that are partially sprinklered, the existing sprinkler systems can remain as-is provided (a) the existing sprinkler systems have been maintained, (b) they are zoned on a per floor basis, and (c) the applicable sprinkler permits can be located in DBI’s files. If any of these provisions are not met, the appropriate resolution shall be determined through a pre-application meeting with DBI and SFFD. If any portion of the building is not sprinklered, the new sprinkler system shall be designed and installed in accordance with the applicable edition of NFPA 13 in effect when the sprinkler permit application is submitted. 4. For buildings that are believed to be fully sprinklered, proceed to sprinkler special inspection. B. Sprinkler Special Inspection 1. The building owner/manager shall engage a fire protection engineer to perform a sprinkler special inspection of the building and prepare a Sprinkler Special Inspection Report. The fire protection engineer shall be licensed in the State of California. 2. The sprinkler special inspector shall review DBI’s files to identify previous sprinkler permits for the subject building. 3. The sprinkler special inspector shall walk the entire building to verify complete coverage. 4. If the building does not have sprinklers in some areas, these deficiencies shall be transmitted to the building owner/manager and corrected by a licensed sprinkler contractor before the Administrative Permit application and Sprinkler Special Inspection Report are submitted for review and approval. 5. If the building does not comply with applicable requirements from the San Francisco Fire Code as determined by the pre-application meeting with SFFD (See A.1 above), these deficiencies shall be transmitted to the building owner/manager and corrected by a licensed sprinkler contractor before the Administrative Permit application and Sprinkler Special Inspection Report are submitted for review and approval. 6. For buildings that are completely sprinklered and comply with applicable San Francisco requirements, proceed to Sprinkler Special Inspection Report. C. Sprinkler Special Inspection Report 1. The sprinkler special inspector shall prepare a Sprinkler Special Inspection Report to be submitted with the Administrative Permit application. 2. The Sprinkler Special Inspection Report shall include the block and lot numbers, a brief description of the building, a table listing all sprinkler permits for the building including the sprinkler permit for correcting observed deficiencies, if any, and a statement that the building is fully sprinklered. If any sprinkler permits are still open, they must be closed before the Sprinkler Special Inspection Report is submitted for review and approval. 3. The report must be signed and stamped by the sprinkler special inspector. D. Administrative Permit Application 1. A standard building permit application and two copies of the Sprinkler Special Inspection Report shall be presented to Initial Permit

Review (IPR). The submitter shall clearly state on the form that it is an Administrative Permit to document complete sprinkler protection. There is no construction so the value of construction on the form is $1.00. 2. After receiving a permit application number, the submitter shall hand-carry the permit application and Sprinkler Special Inspection Reports to DBI and SFFD stations for approval signatures. 3. After receiving all approval signatures and paying all permit fees, a Job Card and approved permit including a copy of the approved Sprinkler Special Inspection Report will be issued. 4. Inspection requests shall be made and final signatures obtained on the Job Card from the SFFD and subsequently from the DBI Building Inspector. Whenever future renovations are made to an existing high-rise building which has an Administrative Permit confirming complete sprinkler protection, the approved Administrative Permit application number shall be clearly indicated on the permit application for renovations. Signed by: Tom C. Hui, S.E. November 21, 2012 Acting Director Department of Building Inspection Approved by the Building Inspection Commission on 11/21/2012 AB-106 Procedures for Implementation of SFEBC Chapter 5E

NO. AB-106 :

DATE : September 19, 2013 (Updated 01/01/2023 for code references) SUBJECT : Seismic Strengthening of Soft Story Wood Frame Buildings TITLE : Procedures for Implementation of SFEBC Chapter 5E PURPOSE : The purpose of this Bulletin is to establish procedures for implementation of the Mandatory Seismic Retrofit Program for Wood Frame Buildings, Chapter 5E. REFERENCE : Current edition of the San Francisco Building Code (SFBC) Current edition of the San Francisco Existing Building Code (SFEBC)

SFEBC Chapter 5E, Mandatory Seismic Retrofit Program for Wood Frame Buildings
SFBC Section 104A.2.7.1, Local equivalencies.
SFBC Section 104A.2.8, Alternate materials, design, and methods of construction Administrative Bulletin AB-107, Application of Engineering Criteria to SFEBC

Exceptions & meaning →