Choose Your Location
|
![]() |
Newsom said he is looking at requiring private-property owners in The City to fix their buildings — especially “soft story” buildings with a garage on the first level — to help prevent the structures from buckling in a large earthquake, which experts expect to hit the Bay Area in the coming decades.
Seismic upgrades to a building include creating a stronger interior structure, such as using steel bars to reinforce masonry or concrete. Currently, required seismic retrofitting can be triggered if a property owner remodels or adds on a sizable space, according to Bill Strawn, spokesman for the Department of Building Inspection.
Neighborhoods such as the Marina district were famously destroyed during the 1989 earthquake when upper floors collapsed down on the first levels of buildings.
Newsom said the Department of Building Inspection has mapped out the “most vulnerable parts of San Francisco” to a violent quake. Residents might be surprised, however, that it is not the Marina but the Outer Sunset that is most vulnerable.
City officials now need to go door to door, individual by individual and “address some responsibility,” Newsom said. “I do believe it’s the responsibility of property owners in San Francisco that live in this area to seismically retrofit their buildings,” he said. “No one wants government necessarily to tell them what to do, but in this case we have a moral and ethical obligation to do it.”
In 2000, the Department of Building Inspection began the Community Action Plan for Seismic Safety, an effort to investigate earthquake risks in The City, but that effort was suspended before it could be completed.
The department then restarted CAPSS with “the idea being that if analysis shows [soft story] buildings are more at risk then we could seek legislation to make that happen,” Strawn said.
Shawna McGrew, who lives at 32nd Avenue and Kirkham Street in the Outer Sunset, said she had discovered that her home was not bolted to her foundation.
While she supports seismically upgrading homes, she said she had concerns about The City requiring work that would be a large cost to the homeowner.
“It’s my home; it’s my home to lose,” McGrew said. “It’s a good idea, but who pays for it?”



Comments from Examiner Readers
6:52 AM MST on Sat., May. 31, 2008 re: "Quake safety an ‘obligation’"
Report as inappropriate
1:06 AM MST on Sat., May. 31, 2008
re: "Quake safety an ‘obligation’"
Report as inappropriate
4:51 PM MST on Fri., May. 30, 2008
re: "Quake safety an ‘obligation’"
Report as inappropriate
12:41 PM MST on Fri., May. 30, 2008
re: "Quake safety an ‘obligation’"
Report as inappropriate
11:20 AM MST on Fri., May. 30, 2008
re: "Quake safety an ‘obligation’"
Report as inappropriate
10:38 AM MST on Fri., May. 30, 2008
re: "Quake safety an ‘obligation’"
Report as inappropriate
livinintheloin.com said:
Is there a map that outlines the risk zones? The map here just points to SF.
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
I disagree that it is your home to lose. One collapsed home becomes a fire and on a windy day, it becomes a big neighborhood fire, especially watermains are damaged by a quake. The expense of bolting, while significant, is not nearly so high as one would expect, certainly less than the cost to you of being in an unbolted house when it comes down on top of you. Only about 1 in 8 Californians has earthquake insurance.
3 agree | 0 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
For apartment buildings with garages underneath them, reinforcing them at the owner's expense should be absolutely mandatory. This also includes newer buildings. Espeically if they are in soft soil areas. No ifs and or buts. Finally someone (Newsom) with the courage to speak up about a very taboo subject. Bravo!
3 agree | 0 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Gavin, Not all of us have your kind of money. What a creep.
0 agree | 2 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
I think the city should mandate renters buy renters insurance to protect their personal property.
2 agree | 1 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
I could see mandating this for landlords -- renters have no ability to retrofit their homes and have their lives and personal property at stake -- but for individual homeowners, I'm with Ms. McGrew: it's my home, it's my home to lose.
1 agree | 0 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree