1.

Call to Order and Roll Call – Roll call was taken and a quorum was certified.

COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENTS:

Rodrigo Santos, President
Alfonso Fillon, Commissioner
Noelle Hanrahan, Commissioner
Philip Ting, Commissioner

Bobbie Sue Hood, Vice-President
Roy Guinnane, Commissioner
Criss Romero, Commissioner

Ann Aherne, Commission Secretary

D.B.I. REPRESENTATIVES:

CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE REPRESENTATIVES:

Jim Hutchinson, Acting Director
Amy Lee, Assistant Director
Tom Hui, Acting Depurty Director
Sonya Harris, Secretary

Buck Delventhal
Catharine Barnes
Judy Boyajian

President’s Announcements.

The President had no announcements.

CLOSED SESSION:   Anticipated LITIGATION AS DEFENDANT:  Myers Natoma Venture, LLC and/or Myers Development Company, owners of the property located at 80 Natoma subject to a suspended permit.

Threatened litigation by Myers/Natoma Venture

a.

Public Comment on all matters pertaining to the Closed Session.

Mr. David Skinner stated that he represented the TransBay Joint Powers Authority (TJPA) and said that he understood that the Closed Session would relate to the pending litigation and the next item would deal with Prop H.   Mr. Skinner said that he thought there was some overlap on these two issues and said that he was particularly concerned about a letter written by the City Attorney’s Office from Andrew Schwartz dated September 23, 2004.  Mr. Skinner said that he was concerned about a conflict of interest relating to the capacity of the City Attorney’s Office representing the City to advise the BIC on issues that impact the Transportation Authority as well as TJPA which have been and are being represented by the City Attorney’s Office. Mr. Skinner stated that the letter stated that there is a distinction between the City acting in its regulatory capacity and its proprietary capacity and said that he was not aware of any authority that makes that distinction under the law and none was cited in the letter.   Mr. Skinner urged the Commission when considering Prop H and the intention of the voters not to consider the potential liabilities to the City as noted in this letter from Mr. Schwartz, but just to consider the issues and how Prop H impacts and applies to this appeal.

Ms. Alice Barkley said that she represented TRANSDEF and basically wanted to say that she agreed with Mr. Skinner’s statements.

Mr. Steve Atkinson representing Myers Development said that the Commission asked the City Attorney’s advice on Prop H and received it, but because TRANSDEF did not like the opinion they were now asking the Commission to ignore it.  Mr. Atkinson said that Myers Development did not think that Prop H applied and asked the Commission to ignore it.

b.

Possible action to convene to Closed Session.

President Santos made a motion, seconded by Vice-President Hood that the Commission convene into Closed Session.   The motion carried unanimously.

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 054-004

The Commission went into Closed Session at 9:20 a.m.

c.

CLOSED SESSION:  Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b)(2) and 54956.9(b)(3)(D) and the San Francisco Administrative Code Section 67.10(d)(2).
Confer with and receive advice from the City Attorney regarding threatened   litigation. Discussion in open session concerning this matter would likely and unavoidably prejudice the position of the City in the threatened litigation listed above. 

d.

Reconvene in Open Session to vote whether the Commission finds that it is in the public interest to disclose information discussed in closed session OR motion that the Commission finds that it is in the best interests of the public that the Commission not disclose its closed session deliberations concerning the threatened litigation listed above.    (Administrative Code Section 67.12.)

The Commission reconvened at 10:25 a.m.

President Santos made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Guinnane not to disclosure any information discussed in the Closed Session.  The motion carried unanimously.

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 055-004

NOTE;   THIS HEARING WILL BEGIN AT 9:30  a.m.OR AS SOON THEREAFTER AS THE MATTER MAY BE HEARD.

Continuation of CONSOLIDATED APPEALS – 80 NATOMA STREET
Appeal by Myers Natoma Venture, LLC, et al Represented by Steefel, Levitt & Weiss
Appeal by TRANSDEF Represented by Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps

Deliberation and possible decision by the Building Inspection Commission.

Mr. Steve Atkinson of Myers Development said that his office had sent the findings that they would recommend to the BIC Secretary the previous afternoon and stated that there was a change to finding #25 that was given to the Commissioners just prior to the meeting.  Mr. Atkinson urged the Commission to adopt the findings submitted on behalf of Myers Development and asked that the Commission act to take final action because this had been continued several times.

Ms. Alice Barkley representing TRANSDEF said that she did not agree with certain findings that had been submitted including any findings along with #25, which had just been submitted before the meeting, that says that 80 Natoma does not pose any concerns eminent or otherwise regarding danger to the public.  Ms. Barkley referred to the City Attorney’s letter dated September 23, 2004 from Andrew Schwartz that stated that findings by the Peer Review Panel were suspended because of the new foundation design.  Ms. Barkley stated that there was no foundation design that had been finalized and suggested that the Commission continue the Stop Work Order because there were still continuing safety issues.  Ms. Barkley asked that any findings stating that there were no more safety issues be deleted until there was a final decision made by the Peer Review Panel.

Mr. David Skinner of TJPA said that he would not repeat his comments from earlier but wanted to point out that the City and County of San Francisco adopted Resolution 1301 on January 2, 2001. Mr. Skinner said that this resolution specifically says that the City and County of San Francisco will actively pursue the implementation of Prop H working to connect the TransBay terminal to the CalTrans Terminal at 4^th and Townsend and the East Bay.  Mr. Skinner stated that the findings acknowledged that the San Francisco voters expressed their views overwhelmingly by 59% of them voting to approve Prop H.  Mr. Skinner said that he wished to state that he agreed with the comments made by TRANSDEF’s representative regarding the findings as they relate to safety issues.

Mr. Tom Radulovich stated that he was the Executive Director of Transportation for a local City, a member of the BART Board of Directors and an author of Prop H.  Mr. Radulovich said that Prop H was approved by the voters and read a section from the proposition to remind the Commission that no City agency was to take any action that would preclude or increase the cost of this downtown extension.  Mr. Radulovich said that this would include the BIC and urged the Commission not to lift the Stop Work Order.

Deputy City Attorney Andrew Schwartz stated that he represented the City in litigation with Myers Development Corporation (MDC) and said that the Department of Building Inspection had alternate findings that would correct a number of the findings submitted by MDC.  Mr. Schwartz said that at previous meetings issues of safety under the existing project were raised and said that an eminent professor from MIT raised concerns about the substantial greater settlement than that presented by the Developer.  Mr. Schwartz stated that Director Chiu had raised concerns in a letter dated July 9^th to the Developer about unresolved issues and those issues had still not been resolved to date.  Mr. Schwartz said that the findings by MDC claimed that there were no legitimate safety issues outstanding.  Mr. Schwartz said that the Director was fully authorized to suspend this permit and recommended that the Commission continue the Stop Work Order until those issues had been resolved.  Mr. Schwartz said that the findings should accurately reflect safety issues.

Mr. Tim Tosta of Myers Development said that he was concerned because MDC had not seen any City findings and said that the City Attorney had assured MDC that this would be an expeditious process and that was going back to July.  Mr. Tosta said that this had been a troublesome game of delays and said he wondered whom the actors were that were causing this delay.  Mr. Tosta said that TRANSDEF were the ones that initially pursued this issue and now all of a sudden the Joint Powers Authority were very interested in this even though that group had never attended any of the previous hearings.   Mr. Tosta stated that he was sure that the City Attorney’s relationships on this issue were very confusing to the Commission and said that it was baffling to him.  Mr. Tosta said that he did not know how the City Attorney could wear so many hats and said he did not think that it violated any ethical rules, but surely in the role of a lawyer, the City Attorney appears to be an advocate of this cause.  Mr. Tosta said that there had been no showing of any kind of safety issue with respect to the foundation or the seventy-five piles that had been driven.  Mr. Tosta said that the Peer Review Panel was forbidden by Mr. Schwartz to review the foundation issue and then had the gall to stand before the Commission and say that it was unresolved.    Mr. Tosta said that MDC wanted to get back to construction, get out of litigation and move on with everyone’s lives.

Mr. David Schoenbrunn, President of TRANSDEF, said that he resented and was offended by the assertion by Mr. Tosta that TRANSDEF had coordinated in any way with TJPA.  Mr. Schoebrunn said that TRANSDEF took action before DBI and the BIC out of concern that this most important transit project was being held up.

Mr. Jack Myers, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Myers Development Company said that it was over fifteen weeks ago that DBI took actions that caused his partners, lenders and company great stress and duress.  Mr. Myers asked that the Commission come to a decision today to let MDC get back to business.

There was no further public comment.

President Santos said that he would take comments from the Commissioners who had received volumes of paper on this issue.  President Santos said that being the structural engineer on the Commission he would begin and try to clarify some of the structural issues.  President Santos stated that he would take comments later on Prop H and other issues.  President Santos said that one of the issues before the Commission was the validity of the site permit that was issued in 1999, and altered in 2004, and the other issue to be dealt with was the structural adequacy of the foundation.

President Santos said that the Commission had received volumes of evidence regarding what type of work had been initiated on this site, and based on that evidence, it has been substantial even though the underpinning work that was done was not done under the street address of 80 Natoma.  President Santos said that 80 Natoma was a staging ground for this work and the work would not have been undertaken if the 80 Natoma project were not going forward.   President Santos said that, in his structural opinion, there was ample evidence that work had taken place that validated the original 1999 permit.  President Santos said that on June 7^th even though 80 Natoma was not a calendared item several members of the public appeared to question the efficiency of the structural review on this project.  President Santos stated that Treadwell and Rollo, a prominent foundation engineering firm, had completed five borings by August 9^th and said that he was satisfied with the foundation and soils data.  President Santos said that, as far as the permits that had been issued, the only permit that was issued besides the site permit was an addendum for the piles.  President Santos said that he visited the site and counted seventy-seven piles out of the four hundred forty-four that are scheduled; he felt that the adequate number of borings had been taken.  President Santos stated that he had had the opportunity at a previous meeting to question Dr. Yip and was reassured that the design was adequate to support the tower.  President Santos said that he also questioned Dr. Yip about being able to install additional piles and was assured by Dr. Yip that this was possible, but the need would be highly unlikely.  President Santos said that he felt that Dr. Yip of Treadwell & Rollo had confirmed the adequacy of the foundation system and soils report. 

President Santos said that he thought that Director Chiu had acted correctly in putting the Stop Work Order in place on June 7^th because of the information that was presented by the public; however, President Santos said that it would be his goal to lift the suspension and let Mr. Myers continue with the piling process.  President Santos stated that it was important that the Department ensure that any other structural addendum should include a comprehensive understanding of the mat foundation and the interface between the mat foundation and the piles.  President Santos said that there should be a global understanding of what he would say was a highly unusually heavy structure so that everyone felt comfortable and reassured.  President Santos said that this should include the mat, podium, super structure and their connection to the piles.  President Santos said that he hoped he had helped the other Commissioners to come to their own conclusions as to what the course of action should be.

President Santos made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Guinnane (after some discussion) that the Commission lift the suspension and allow Myers Construction to proceed with the piling system with the understanding that any other addendum should include a complete and comprehensive understanding of the performance of the mat, podium and superstructure regarding the connection to the piles.

Vice-President Hood asked what was meant by  “understanding”.  President Santos said that it would mean that there would have to be a full set of structural drawings.  Vice-President Hood said that this would have to be clarified in very understandable language and said that any future addenda would have to be reorganized from whatever had been approved so that all of the structural system would have to be in the next addenda; this would include the foundation, the connection of the foundation to the pilings and the superstructure. 

Mr. Hui said that the Department had an addendum for the partial piles, one for the foundation, one for the superstructure and the architectural and mechanical addendums would come next.  President Santos said that he would recommend combining the mat foundation and the superstructure.  Mr. Hui said that the Department could ask the developer to revise the addendum schedule to totally satisfy the Plan Checkers that everything complies with the Code requirements.

Vice-President Hood stated that what she believed was on the table was that there would be a condition for the Department lifting the stay that would require the Developer to revise the addenda schedule to include all of the structures including the foundation and the superstructure in the next addendum; before further construction could occur all of the structural issues would have to be known.  President Santos said that was correct.

President Santos said that he would amend the motion to lift the suspension to allow the piles to continue and then not to issue the second addendum until it included the mat foundation, podium and superstructure.  President Santos said that the next addendum would be the complete tower.  Vice-President Hood said that one addendum had already been issued for 444 piles and was based on the notion of using a mat foundation of a certain size, but issues had come up regarding the connection of that mat foundation to the piles as well as the connection of the superstructure above the foundation to the foundation. 

Commissioner Hanrahan said that this building was unusually large and the proposal was now to change it from a steel building to a concrete building and all of those issues really come to bear on this.  Commissioner Hanrahan stated that she felt it was important for the Department to have a complete idea of what is going to be the structure in order to approve the initial addendum and when the pilings go in the company would be incurring a significant financial cost.  President Santos said that it was important to clarify that if the Commission lifted the suspension Myers Corporation would be allowed to restart the pilings.  Commissioner Hanrahan said that this would not be her preference.  President Santos said that was the motion.  Commissioner Hanrahan said that she understood that.

Commissioner Guinnane said that he had gone to the property and verified the actual piers in place and said that he was troubled with the June 7^th meeting because when Director Chiu put this forward there was a discussion, but it was a one-sided discussion.  Commissioner Guinnane said that in reading all of the briefs from all of the parties it was obvious that Mr. Myers had numerous meetings with Director Chiu, City Planning and employees from both Planning and DBI.  Commissioner Guinnane said that Mr. Myers wrote a letter to Mayor Brown’s Office and got reassurances that the Mayor’s Office would not stand in the way and with all those assurances and with the alteration permit approved he closed 80 Natoma Street and whatever addresses are included in that project.  Commissioner Guinnane said that he would apologize to Mr. Myers personally, not for the Commission, but for his actions.  Commissioner Guinnane stated that he believed that Prop H did not apply, nor did it ever apply and said he was in agreement to lift the suspension and let Mr. Myers move on.

Commissioner Romero said that he was still concerned about the geotechnical ambiguity and the way that this building was being constructed.  Commissioner Romero said that the size of the building and the fact that it is a residential building was of concern.  Commissioner Romero said that he was compelled to support the Department and not compelled to vote yes on this.  

Vice-President Hood said that she learned more about the potential application of Prop H to this and said that she understood that it was a stretch and Prop H was not the governing factor, it was simply the adequacy of the technical responses.  Vice-President Hood stated that she wanted to note for the record that this building was based on having a site permit which had been found to be valid and then having an addenda schedule approved by DBI, which was done and the Acting Deputy Director reported what those addenda were.  Vice-President Hood said that there was during the process of design a change from a very deep mat foundation of approximately four stories without piles to a much thinner mat with piles and the geotechnical questions that came up arose out of that change.  Vice-President Hood said that this change would reduce the cost of the building.  Vice-President Hood stated that this triggered a problem of the connection between the mat and the piles and that connection was critical to have this work properly.  Vice-President Hood said that in most conventional situations the addenda process works well because the buildings were more conventional and people knew more or less what the designer wa doing and knew that if a certain type of foundation was done the superstructure could be connected.  Vice-President Hood stated that because of the innovation of the design the addenda process did not serve the public well in her opinion.  Vice-President Hood said that problems were not adequately dealt with before the issuance of addenda #1 and said that this was of great concern to her.  Vice-President Hood said that she understood that the Developer needed to minimize any losses due to delay, but said she was struggling to find some way to address that issue that was not addressed by requiring it to be addressed in the future, yet relieves the Developer of further financial loss as much as possible.  Vice-President Hood stated that she wanted to hear from the other Commissioners. 

President Santos said that right now there was no permit that had been issued regarding the connectivity between the piles and the mat so there would be ample opportunity for the experts to handle that.  Vice-President Hood said that she did not agree because if the pier foundation went ahead then the Developer had an approval from the Department for drilling those piers, but if for some reason they turn out not to be adequate or have to be increased then DBI issued a permit without adequate substantiation that those pilings were adequate.  Vice-President Hood said that this was a complicated issue that was not addressed.  Vice-President Hood that the piling design might not be adequate and said that she wanted any motion to reflect that.  President Santos said that the lifting of the suspension would only allow Mr. Myers to proceed with the number of piles that would be shown in the one final structural addendum and that would be a catchall condition. 

Deputy City Attorney Catharine Barnes said that the Building Code says that the fact that a Developer has one addendum did not guarantee that the Developer would get the next one.  Ms. Barnes said that if after further study it was determined that something more would be needed then the next addendum would only be issued after changes were made that would otherwise have been required initially, but there was no vested right to a second addendum just because someone was allowed to do the first.  Ms. Barnes said that there were other rights to the project assuming that the technical issues could be solved, but if there were technical issues that developed there was no guarantee that the next addendum would be issued.  Acting Deputy Director Tom Hui said that many of the items in question were addressed at the Peer Review meeting and said that there was a solution recommended.  Vice-President Hood referred to Code Section 106.3.4.2 and said that she would like this to be included in the BIC’s findings and said she would feel comfortable voting for the motion. 

Ms. Barnes said that this is an unusual building that does not conform to the fast track process in that its building design has changed and said that this was the appropriate moment for the BIC and DBI to intercede and make sure that the foundation is adequate for the superstructure.

Commissioner Ting said that he thought that this process had been extraordinarily complex and a very interesting process to go through.  Commissioner Ting said that there was a variety of issues including the validity of permits and Proposition H and said that it was amazing to him how many issues came up constantly.  Commissioner Ting stated that this was why it was more paramount that while this process moves along that the Building Department make sure that all these addenda are done accordingly and that safety was absolutely one of the primary concerns.  Commissioner Ting stated that he would agree that whatever was put forward in the future should be given a tremendous amount of review because as someone who is not an Engineer, it was very difficult to understand all of the various terminology given the technical nature of these schematics.  Commissioner Ting said that he was relying on the Department to give the BIC the proper advice and determinations to know that what is being approved is absolutely safe.  Commissioner Ting said that he thought that this was the time for the Commission to echo and to state its opinion regarding safety and the variety of concerns to the Department and having said that he did believe that since the project will have further checks and balances at the next addenda, that the BIC should go ahead and move forward and approve the proposal as put forward.

Vice-President Hood said that the Commission would have to make findings and said that she wanted a final chance to review the motion.  Commissioner Fillon said that some of the findings that were before the Commission were from the City Attorney that was involved in the lawsuit against DBI staff.  Vice-President Hood said that the Commission had three sets of findings and said that there were differences between those. Vice-President Hood asked if the Commission had to have approved findings before it could vote on lifting or not lifting the suspension.

Ms. Barnes said that customarily the Commission would vote its intent and then based on that intent and discussions, written findings would be developed by the City Attorney’s Office for the Commission and the parties to review and comment on.  Ms. Barnes said that she would provide the Commission the most comprehensive findings that reflected the record and the other parties would sometimes agree with that or may have a different set for the Commission and then the Commission would adopt written findings.  Ms. Barnes said that the timeline would be ninety days from the time of the first hearing and it could be done at the next regular meeting or there could be a special meeting.  Commissioner Guinnane said that he did not want to carry this decision on to another meeting and suggested that President Santos include in his motion that the findings would be adopted at the next meeting. 

Ms. Barnes said she understood that the motion would be to lift the suspension, require a change in the addendum schedule and then approve the findings at a later date.  Vice-President Hood said that she wanted to make sure that the Commission was not giving up the right to have the findings be binding as part of the decision.  Ms. Barnes stated that the decision would not be complete until the Commission approved the written findings.  Ms. Barnes said that the motion made today would not be technically binding until the Commission adopted the findings.  Ms. Barnes said that the vote would be made today so that the findings would be prepared. 

Secretary Aherne called for a vote on the motion.  The Commission voted as follows:

Commissioner Romero      
Commissioner Hanrahan
Commissioner Fillon
President Santos
Vice-President Hood
Commissioner Ting
Commissioner Guinnane

No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

The motion carried by a vote of five to two.

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 056-004

Commissioner Guinnane said that he would propose to put the findings for 80 Natoma on the next regularly scheduled meeting.  Secretary Aherne stated that the next regular meeting would be October 4, 2004.  Commissioner Ting said that he wanted to make a comment on Special Meetings and stated that he thought that there needed to be very specific criteria in order to call a Special Meeting.  Commissioner Ting said that there should be an action item and some specific emergency in order to call a Special Meeting and a Special Meeting should not be called to respond to allegations or items in the press.  Commissioner Ting said that in those cases he would suggest that the Acting Director and the President of the Commission should be allowed to respond on behalf of the Department.  Commissioner Ting said that he wanted to state this for the record and asked the President’s indulgence when scheduling Special Meetings.  President Santos said that this was a point well taken. 

Vice-President Hood asked about the Abatement Appeals Board.  Secretary Aherne reported that because of noticing requirements DBI staff had asked that the Abatement Appeals Board meeting before the October 18, 2004 meeting. 

Mr. Tosta asked that the findings for 80 Natoma be scheduled for a Special Meeting on September 27, 2004 because it was very distressing for the Developer to have to wait any longer.  Mr. Tosta said that people had come in after the hearing was closed with documentation and asked that the Commission make a prompt decision.  Mr. Tosta said that time could be the life or death of this project and asked for the Commission’s consideration of a Special Meeting.  Mr. Tosta said that Myers could not begin any work until the findings were adopted.  Vice-President Hood said that the Commission would have to consider all of the findings and said she did not see how all of this could be sorted out by Monday. 

Commissioner Romero made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ting, that the meeting be held on October 4, 2004 as stated. 

Commissioner Guinnane asked if it were true that the Stop Work Order was not lifted until the Commission adopted the findings.  Ms. Barnes said that the Commission’s action was not complete until the findings were adopted.  Ms. Barnes stated that she did not know if the Department had some other way of lifting the Stop Work Order, but the decision on the appeal would not be complete. 

President Santos said that October 4, 2004 was only ten days away.  Vice-President Hood said that she felt that the Commissioners needed that much time to sort out the findings.  Commissioner Ting said that he would like more time also.  Commissioner Guinnane asked what was so critical for this to be heard before the fourth.

Mr. Myers said that the issue was time and said that he has had to go back to his partners and lenders every week and explain another reason for another five days or another two weeks, whatever it is.  Mr. Myers said that this was catastrophic to the capital support that he has for this project.  Mr. Myers said that the Commission has made it very clear how it feels about this subject and Mr. Tosta did an excellent job of describing the confusion and chaos that gets interjected here. Mr. Myers stated that it was simply a matter of eroding away the confidence of his capital support and said that he would like this matter resolved.  Commissioner Guinnane asked if there was any way that the Commission could meet before the fourth. 

Ms. Alice Barkley said that she wanted to remind the Commission that there was currently an agreement between Myers and the City Attorney’s Office on the lawsuit with DBI that stipulates that Myers would not do any work until at the earliest September 28, 2004.  Ms. Barkley said that there was a continuing process that Myers was engaging in where all parties were going back to DBI at 1:00 p.m. to a Peer Review meeting to discuss a different foundation system. Ms. Barkley said that if Myers was participating in that she would ask why they would be driving piles that would totally conflict with something that was still being discussed.  Ms. Barkley stated that she did not see any urgency given that Myers was going down two tracks. 

Mr. David Skinner of the TJPA said that he thought he could shed some light on the timing and why today’s date was so important to the Developer.  Mr. Skinner said that on the following Tuesday the Transportation Authority was scheduled to meet in the morning to consider a new proposed project, which would involve a different project than the one being discussed.  Mr. Skinner stated that this would be a different building with the TransBay Terminal tunnel underneath and it was being determined if that would be feasible.  Mr. Skinner said that in the afternoon after the Transportation Authority meeting the Board of Supervisors would be meeting to determine whether to adopt a resolution on necessity to acquire the subject property by eminent domain for the TransBay Terminal project.  Mr. Skinner said that he thought this was all about leverage and said he thought that Myers would like the Commission to determine that Myers was fully vested and could go in and build this project any time so that Myers could go before the Transportation Authority and the Board of Supervisors to say that if they did not do what Myers wanted he could go ahead and start building.  Mr. Skinner said he believed that was why timing was so important.

Mr. Tosta said that Mr. Skinner had said that he wanted to hold Myers hostage and said that this process of misrepresenting to the Commission the state of the foundation and the state of the soils was a dishonorable hostage undertaking.  Mr. Tosta said that this was why a bunch of people came down to the BIC on the seventh with no notice to Myers whatsoever and fed a complete line of fiction to the BIC.  Mr. Tosta said that there was a misrepresentation of soils samples and the nature of the foundation.  Mr. Tosta said that these folks had been working to maintain a hostage taking position until it was determined that they have their way.  Mr. Tosta stated that this was a very difficult case, but either Mr. Skinner was naïve or very disingenuous. 

Vice-President Hood said that she believed that a topic had now been introduced in violation of the Brown Act and said she was tired of this going on.  Vice-President Hood said that a reasonable date had been set which was only ten days away.  Vice-President Hood said that the Commissioners needed time to review the findings.  Vice-President Hood called the motion and asked for a vote.

Commissioner Romero      
Commissioner Hanrahan
Commissioner Fillon
President Santos
Vice-President Hood
Commissioner Ting
Commissioner Guinnane

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

The motion carried unanimously.

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 057-004

Secretary Aherne said that she wanted to know when the findings would be submitted because she was still getting information on today’s meeting at 5:30 p.m. yesterday.  Ms. Aherne stated that the Commissioners would need time to review the findings.  Vice-President Hood said that she would like two of the Commissioners to meet with the City Attorney to get a proposal that would represent what the BIC had said rather then hear debates from all of the different sides.  Commissioner Fillon said that the Commissioners could receive the findings from the City Attorney.  Vice-President Hood said that she wanted the findings to be close to approvable.  Ms. Barnes said that any Commissioner could call her with their suggestions on the findings.  Ms. Barnes said that there could be a date set for her to have the findings ready and she would submit them to the Commissioners and the parties.  Vice-President Hood asked if a draft could be ready by the 28^th.  Ms. Barnes said that would not be a problem.  Ms. Barnes said that all parties would have an opportunity to make comments on those findings.  Commissioner Romero made a suggestion of noon on Friday.  Ms. Aherne said that noon on Thursday would be better.  Vice-President Hood said that would be too late to make any changes.  Ms. Aherne said that it would be final on Thursday and no changes could be made after that time.  Commissioner Ting suggested that a draft should be ready on Tuesday and comments should be final by noon on Thursday. Ms. Aherne said that she would not accept anything after noon on Thursday. 

SUMMARY OF REQUESTS BY COMMISSIONERS

Findings on 80 Natoma to be finalized before noon on Thursday, September 30, 2004 – Secretary Aherne

Page 12