2.

President’s Announcements.

President Walker had no announcements.

 

3.

Mr. Charles Marstellar said that he was involved with the drafting of the Coalition on Seismic Safety Action Plan, and also worked with San Francisco Tomorrow (SFT), and both are environmentally oriented or community-based organizations.  Mr. Marstellar stated that he would like to suggest a joint meeting between the Building Inspection Commission and the Fire Commission, in order to discuss new technology.  Mr. Marstellar said that he attributes some of his comments to Mr. Kornfield, because he is well informed as a result of a conversation with Mr. Kornfield, on the Japanese foam based fire suppression systems used in Japan.  Mr. Marstellar stated that apparently there is new technology and the buildings in San Francisco that are multi-family could be retrofitted with block systems like they have in Japan called koura.  Mr. Marstellar said that it is a tradition in Japan to have these neighborhood warehouses with fire suppression equipment, but also the ability to store valuables so they could evacuate in case the fire is coming.  Mr. Marstellar stated that the Fire Department and DBI have common interests, and obviously high-rise or construction code requirements have fire ramifications.  Mr. Marstellar said that one of the members of their group, Gil Bendix, who was the former Chief Engineer for both fire and water indicated that these subsystems were designed for fire rescue, and said that fire suppression in buildings is engineered for specific rescue by the Fire Department.  Mr. Marstellar stated that this is something that most people are not aware of, so there needs to be a joint meeting to discuss these issues..

4.

Public Comment:  The BIC will take public comment on matters within the Commission’s jurisdiction that are not part of this agenda.

 

Mr. Gregory Ivri handed out a statement to the Building Inspection Commission.  Mr. Ivri proceeded to read from his typed statement and said that he was a concerned citizen of San Francisco.  Mr. Ivri said that lately he had been doing research on some public officials, and was very disturbed by what he found concerning Inspector Leo McFadden.  Mr. Ivri stated that he found at least four unethical and unacceptable acts of misconduct about Mr. McFadden.

 

Acting Director Amy Lee said that Mr. Ivri’s statements may not necessarily be true, and said that the Department would look into the matter.  President Walker confirmed that the Department would look into this.

 

Mr. Joe O’Donoghue of the Residential Builders Association said that on November 15, 2005 a building permit was issued over-the-counter, as a result of a ruling by three housing inspectors.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that the RBA got involved along with the Tenderloin Housing Clinic, and helped prevent two families from being evicted from a building at Golden Gate and Lyon Streets.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that the tenants won their appeal at the Board of Permit Appeals, but they could have been evicted due to an unintentional or intentional misstatement by housing inspectors.  Mr. O’Donoghue asserted that there is fraud going on because building permits are being issued and not going through the Planning Department review process.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that there is a serious problem of evictions going on and mentioned that an 84-year old woman, a 65-year old black man, and a woman who was pregnant were all being evicted.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that this could be avoided by DBI changing the Building Code so that these types of evictions could be prevented.

 

Mr. Patrick Buscovich said that he was a licensed, structural engineer that was representing one of the billboard sign companies in the City, so he was being compensated for this portion of the meeting.  Mr. Buscovich set up a presentation on easels, which displayed various pictures of billboard signs, along with their Notices of Violation (NOV).  Mr. Buscovich stated that he was asked to look at a random sample of fifteen billboard signs, and said that at least ten of them deviated from the approved plans.  Mr. Buscovich explained that the problem is that the signs are being extended either vertically or horizontally beyond the footage originally requested on the permits.  Mr. Buscovich said that in addition there are signs that are permitted for five columns, for example, and only two columns are put in which is not safe and the signs could one day blow over and kill somebody.

 

5.

Presentation by the Department of Telecommunications and Information Services (DTIS) and the Gartner Consulting Group regarding DBI’s New Permit Tracking System. [Samuel Kwong of DTIS, Christine Wilson and Richard Flowerree of the  Gartner Consulting Group and Gilbert Kwong of Central Computer]

 

Acting Director Lee thanked Sam Kwong and the Gartner Group for all of their hard work, and said that DBI hired the Gartner Group last year and they are still working with the Planning Department, but are basically finished with their review and assistance with DBI, and in the process of making recommendations as the Department moves forward to overhaul the Permit Tracking System.  Ms. Lee said that what was really important as the Department moves forward with its Information Technology (I.T.) process is that DBI is mapping a current business process, and this was not done before.  Ms. Lee stated that staff helped in explaining the work they currently do, and this information allowed the Gartner Group to tell what could be eliminated which is a key point in streamlining the process.

 

Mr. Sam Kwong introduced himself as the Principal Project Manager and said that his name is attached to the new Permit Tracking System, which simply means success and failure of this project is on him.  Mr. Kwong stated that this was a $7 million dollar project, and if the Commission wanted to know what was going on with the project they could call him.  Mr. Kwong stated that he has 25 years of I.T. experience and said he was proud to work with the Gartner Consulting Group who put this proposal together. 

 

Mr. Richard Flowerree said that he and Christine Wilson, who did all of the work, would be talking about the goals of the new permitting system, the overall steps in the project, and details around dates and various activities.  Mr. Flowerree stated that they would also discuss the scope of the activities that Gartner and Central Computing were involved in for this engagement, a methodology in time frame that was used, and details along with key findings and recommendations.  Mr. Flowerree said that he was very impressed with the DBI staff, and stated that the systems being used are complicated, antiquated, and difficult to use but staff are still doing a heroic job serving the public.  Mr. Flowerree stated that the presentation would cover the following topics:  Customer service, transparency of data with the public and between agencies, insure data and financial accountability, reduce permit-processing time, and insure a secure system.  Mr. Flowerree said that hopefully through the adoption of this new system, the staff’s workload would be eased.  Mr. Flowerree stated that the Gartner Group was also involved in helping draft the Request For Proposal (RFP), and following the issuance of the RFP a vendor will be selected, and finally they would talk about the systems implementation. 

 

Ms. Christine Wilson, the Engagement Manager for the Gartner Group discussed the following points in her Power Point presentation:

 

Presentation Agenda

• Goal for the New Permit Tracking System (PTS)
• Overall Permitting Project Steps
• Scope of the Gartner/Central Computer Engagement Activities
• Engagement Methodology and Timeframe
• Sample Deliverables
• Key Findings and Recommendations
• Next Steps

Ms. Wilson elaborated on the above topics in addition to talking about many detailed sub-topics, which she thoroughly explained to the Commission.  Ms. Wilson said that the Gartner Group had participation throughout this entire work plan from the other Departments that participate in the permitting process, such as:  The Planning Department, Department of Public Works, Bureau of Street Use and Mapping, and the Mayor’s Office of Disability.  Acting Director Amy Lee as well as several of the Commissioners added their comments or questions about the New Permit Tracking System, and also made statements about how this process was carried out in the past and offered suggestions as to how it should be carried out throughout this current endeavor.

 

Mr. Kwong said that there were several questions about security of the new Permit Tracking System, and stated that thanks to the banking and insurance industries, along with what other municipalities have done, today when data is changed it is tracked, dated, time-stamped, and who did it is listed.  Mr. Kwong said that the management has to be vigilant in checking on these things.  A question arose about the transition plan from the old system to the new one, and Mr. Kwong gave credit to Steve Young and DBI’s I.T. people who have been helping to put in the new system.

 

Acting Director Lee stated that she would be giving the Commission an update once a month on the progress of the new system.

 

President Walker called for public comment.

Mr. Joe O’Donoghue of the Residential Builders Association said that he was 57 when he first started coming to these Commission hearings, and will be 72 by the time the Department has a process.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that the amount of money that has been spent in this Department in excess of $10 million and another $9 million laid out, is incredible.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that it is refreshing to hear a report doing a critique, but as Commissioner Murphy mentioned the “chosen few” who have the power to change things are still at DBI.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that about six weeks ago a permit was issued and backdated when the Notice of Violation was put in the wrong door, and the neighbor who mistakenly received it complained, so as a result the “chosen few” backdated the permit to show that it was always there.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that one security method that could easily be incorporated in the software is to be sure that any change becomes part of the permanent record.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that he hopes that the vendors would look into what happens when the computer system goes down, as it has in the past.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that this was a good report.

 

6.

Report on structural review procedures for new tall buildings.  [Acting Director Amy Lee and DBI Structural Engineer Raymond Lui]

 

Acting Director Lee said that the DBI would be having a hearing before Sophie Maxwell’s office, and the Land Use Committee at the Board of Supervisors at the end of the month, and will go over similar issues regarding tall buildings.  Ms. Lee stated that basically the Planning Department has entitled several high-rise residential buildings, and there is new technology, new design features so in addition to the comprehensive seismic strategy this is one of the main features.

 

Raymond Lui, DBI Structural Engineer, greeted the Commission and said that he was sure they have seen a lot of cranes around San Francisco as well as a lot of construction going on, and a lot of that construction is tall buildings.  Mr. Lui stated that the Department has created an Administrative Bulletin to help designers, developers, and DBI staff to understand what is going on, and some of the issues DBI needs to look at in terms of reviewing these tall buildings.  Mr. Lui said that this Administrative Bulletin acts as a guideline that consists of code rulings, policies, procedures, or pre-approved local equivalencies.  Mr. Lui stated that the Department is working on this draft, and will be doing the final version with the input of the engineering community, in order to get it technically correct so that nothing falls between the cracks.  One overhead slide explained AB-xxx as follows:

 

Administrative Bulletin AB-xxx

 

• Guidelines for the structural review of new tall buildings (240 feet or more)
• Present requirements and review process for prescriptive code design and alternative design of new tall buildings.

 

Mr. Lui said that DBI has defined tall buildings as 240 feet or more, and it may seem arbitrary but it also makes sense when compared with some of the current height requirements in the code. The current code mentions heights of 160 or 240 feet, so DBI has called these “tall buildings”, as opposed to high rises or super-high rises, because the Fire Department defines a high rise as 75 feet.  Mr. Lui explained that a prescriptive code design basically utilizes all of the provisions of the code and conforms to the current San Francisco Building Code (SFBC) without any exceptions.  Mr. Lui stated that this AB explains the need for a peer review panel, that is not currently in the building code but DBI feels it provides a better level of understanding and ultimately provides a better design.  Mr. Lui said the bulk of his discussion of the AB is alternative design, and this is a design that basically utilizes an alternative seismic design and analysis methodologies.  Mr. Lui read several portions of the code that pertained to alternative design and stated what it basically said was that anyone can design any building or structure using anything, provided that they can prove such a building meets code expectations for suitability, strength, effectiveness, fire resistance, durability, safety and sanitation.  Mr. Lui stated that a designer could build any tall building if they can prove that it works, and this AB allows for certain exceptions to code designs.  Mr. Lui said that in his opinion one of the most important parts of this Administrative Bulletin is the requirement for a structural peer review, as San Francisco residents and builders are fortunate to live in the Bay Area because there are a group of internationally renowned engineers, geologists, and professors who live here and are available for input.  Mr. Lui said that what ultimately comes out of the structural peer review process is good seismic performance.  Mr. Lui introduced Dr. Joe Maffaei to explain some of the background information that went into this Administrative Bulletin, and said that he has been on a lot of National Building Code committees and has done a number of peer reviews for concrete – tall buildings for the cities of Seattle and Bellevue and is currently helping DBI with this AB.

 

Mr. Joe Maffaei said that he has led peer review panels for approximately ten tall buildings in Seattle, Bellevue, Washington and Sacramento.  Mr. Maffaei gave a very detailed presentation that addressed seismic performance in general as well as design requirements for tall buildings. Mr. Maffaei highlighted the following points:

 

• Three levels of seismic performance:  Minor Level of earthquake ground motion without damage.  Moderate Level of earthquake ground motion without structural damage, but possibly some non-structural damage.  Major Level of earthquake ground motion without collapse, but possibly with some structural as well as non-structural damage.
• Showed a drawing of a bell curve of performance that demonstrated the levels of impact following an earthquake.  The bell curve shifts when seismic design is improved, and this improves the probability of surviving an earthquake without collapse or irreparable damage.
• Three different types of high rise structural systems that are commonly being built: 

Concrete Core Wall Building– Meets the requirements of the code through alternative design provisions, not the prescriptive design provision, and the peer review is used in that process.

 

Moment Frame– A frame made of columns and beams, and its flexure in those columns and beams that resist the earthquake forces.  

 

Dual System– Has the moment frame, but it also has either a concrete core wall, which is the most typical type of dual system or a braced frame system, so it has two combined lateral force resisting systems in it.

 

• The concrete core wall buildings are the ones that are being built with seismic peer review:  In San Francisco the seismic peer review typically has a panel of three experts.
• Some of the most important seismic risks in San Francisco are:  Fire following an earthquake, Damage to existing buildings, and Non-Structural damage such as sprinkler piping for example could cause a large amount of damage.
• Conclusions were:  Capacity design concrete wall buildings will provide excellent seismic performance compared to the intentions of the building code.  Alternative design is permitted in the building code.  It is possible to improve new building performance through both policies of DBI and through changes to the San Francisco Building Code.

 

Commissioner Hirsch said that he had some comments, rather his personal opinions regarding tall buildings.  Commissioner Hirsch stated that his opinions were certainly not those of the Structural Engineers Organization of Northern California (SEONC), but said he believed that other structural engineers have some concerns that he would like to bring forward.  Commissioner Hirsch said that he recognizes that alternate design is permitted in the code, but he is not certain that the three- step process that Mr. Maffaei outlined is truly an alternate design.  Commissioner Hirsch stated that he did not believe that there was one standard of safety for a tall building versus a low-rise building.  Commissioner Hirsch said that the issue with the alternate design is not specifically prescribed by this code, allowing alternate design, but there is also a question about something that is proscribed by the code.  Commissioner Hirsch stated that one paragraph that was not quoted is paragraph 1630.423 which states, “Only combination of dual systems of special moment resisting frames shall be used to resist seismic forces in structures exceeding 160 feet in height in seismic zone 3 and 4” – That is a flat out, “thou shall not”.  Commissioner Hirsch also stated that he was not comfortable because the proposed Administrative Bulletin does not mention redundancy requirements.  Commissioner Hirsch said that he was not sure if an Administrative Bulletin supersedes a code, and the Department does not want to be open to a challenge that this AB does not meet the code, so perhaps DBI should be going for a code change if that could be done within the City of San Francisco.  Commissioner Hirsch also mentioned that there are two projects that Mr. Klemencic designed that are already under construction and have had some benefit from the peer review process, as well as thorough engineering but they went through this prior to this AB being promulgated, much less being passed.

 

Raymond Lui, DBI Structural Engineer, said that he could address most of Commissioner Hirsch’s comments and he stated with regard to the buildings that Mr. Klemencic designed DBI initiated a peer review process early on into the original schematic design phase.  Mr. Lui stated that one of those buildings has been under review for over three years, and that is one of the reasons for this AB to allow designers and developers to realize there is going to be a certain amount of time that their building is going to undergo a lot of scrutiny to get approved.  Mr. Lui said that the two buildings have undergone the peer review process, and DBI has essentially gone through the three-step process that was discussed:  The code level, earthquake, the serviceability level of performance, as well as the collapse prevention performance.  Mr. Lui stated that Commissioner Hirsch is saying with alternate design even though the designer is using methods that are currently prescribed in the code, they are ignoring a few things that they do not really want to deal with, but when you step back and look at rational analysis it does not mean you can not use what is currently in the code.  Mr. Lui said that to say you cannot use the methods that are currently in the code as an alternate design is incorrect, and because it is in the code it gives it a little more backing. 

 

Commissioner Hirsch stated that it is not an alternate design; it is an alternate procedure.  Mr. Hanson Tom, Principle Engineer for DBI, thanked Commissioner Hirsch for his comments and said that there have been numerous discussions about the idea of alternative design, and the procedures that DBI employs.  Mr. Tom stated that the Department brought several experts to the meeting today, such as Mr. Ron Hamberger who is the chair for one of DBI’s peer review teams, along with Professor Moehle and perhaps they could share their experience about this process with the Commission to help provide a better understanding.  Acting Director Amy Lee said that Mr. Hamberger also assisted in writing the code sections and is very much a part of that, and can speak to the intent of the code.

 

Mr. Ron Hamberger said that even though he has been brought up to speak against Commissioner Hirsch, he would like to note that they are associates and friends.  Mr. Hamberger addressed three points that Commissioner Hirsch brought up:  One of them was what an Administrative Bulletin can do in terms of revising or altering the code, second is alternative procedures and can they be used to do something that is specifically prohibited by the code, and the third item is the redundancy provision.  Mr. Hamberger said to give some of his background; he informed the Commission that he personally wrote the first draft of the current seismic provisions in the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC), which forms the basis for the present San Francisco Building Code.  Mr. Hamberger stated that he also played a very major role in writing the provisions that are now in the International Building Code, which will eventually be adopted by the State of California as the next California Building Code (CBC).  Following are some of the highlights of the three points that Mr. Hamberger addressed:

 

1)   What an Administrative Bulletin can do in terms of revising or altering the code:

• The City of San Francisco is very limited as to the types of amendments that it can make to the California Building Code.
• Basically hills, wind, and earthquakes are the only reasons that a city and county can amend the Building Code: You can only amend the Building Code to make it more severe.
• The intent of an Administrative Bulletin is not to change the code, not to add requirements to the code, but merely to say this is the way the Building Department interprets the requirements of the code.

 

2)   Alternative procedures and can they be used to do something that is specifically prohibited by

      the code:

• The alternative procedures clause in the Building Code says that you can design any type of structure, using any construction materials, and any design methods, as long as you can demonstrate to the building official that the building as designed and constructed from that process will provide equivalent performance.  The Peer Review process is usually involved in these cases.
• Mr. Hamberger believes that you can use that alternative procedures clause to design a building that is made out of materials that are not covered by the Building Code.
• Commissioner Hirsch believes the alternative clause does not allow you to do something the Building Code tells you specifically you cannot do, however Mr. Hamberger’s opinion is that it does allow you to do so as long as you can demonstrate to the building official that the performance will be equivalent or better than what is in the book.

 

3)   The redundancy provision.

• Mr. Hamberger said that he is an engineer that feels having a redundancy requirement in the code is a good thing.
• Having redundancy in a building does not shift the bell curve to the right, but it narrows that curve down a little bit.  According to Dr. Maffaei this reduces the possibility of severe damage and potential collapse of the building.
• Mr. Hamberger stated you could achieve the same reliability, not by narrowing that curve down but physically moving it to the right, by making it much stronger than the typical building that could be designed for and meets the letter of the code.

 

Vice-President Lee said that he felt that the peer review panel process is probably a good thing because it encourages invention, new design, new technology, and possibly the use of new materials. Vice- President Lee also mentioned the following points:

• AB-xxx basically says if you want to build a tall building out of mud, and that mud holds up under standards then go ahead and build it.
• It is important that the Department decides what the process is, and Vice-President Lee asked how this process compares to other cities in California such as: Los Angeles or San Diego.
• How are members of the peer review panel selected, how are they paid, are they paid directly from the project sponsor or do they go through the Building Department.
• Are terrorist attacks considered as factors into these new structural buildings?

 

The Building Inspection Commission took a 5 to 10 minute break at:  11:40 a.m. and reconvened at 11:56 a.m.

 

Mr. Hanson Tom, Principal Structural Engineer for DBI, stated that perhaps he could entertain some of the questions and explain the peer review process.  Mr. Tom said that he was personally in charge of most of the peer review panels at the Department of Building Inspection.  Mr. Tom stated that whenever the person has special features or really different design methods, DBI usually invokes the structural peer review process.  Mr. Tom explained that staff works closely with the Structural Engineer’s Association and the Department writes a letter to the President of SEONC telling them the characteristics, design features, and criteria of the whole project, then the President of SEONC recommends some panel experts.  Mr. Tom said that this is usually done according to DBI’s Structural Advisory Committee and the Building Department selects one panel expert, the Design Professional selects a panel expert, and then jointly the third one is selected.  Mr. Tom stated that peer review panels consist of experts in the fields of structural design, ground motion, and academic research staff.  Mr. Tom said that DBI oversees the peer review panel and everything is done through the Building Department, however the Department does not have funds to pay them, so according to Code Section 106.5 the project sponsor is responsible for compensation for the peer review process.

 

Acting Director Amy Lee said that if a person wants to develop a project of this size DBI requires a peer review process, and requires the person to pay for this peer review process.  Ms. Lee stated that if the project sponsor does not pay then they do not get the permit.  Ms. Lee said that because the money is being paid directly by the developer does not necessarily mean that they are somewhat influential in the peer review decision-making process.  Ms. Lee stated that as Mr. Tom mentioned the Department of Building Inspection serves as the project management of the peer review team, and that team answers   to DBI and not to the project applicant.  President Walker asked Ms. Lee about the University Of California’s peer review process compared to DBI’s and Ms. Lee responded that the Department is looking into improving its peer review process, as part of the new Administrative Bulletin.  Mr. Patrick Buscovich, Hanson Tom, and others mentioned the fact that the Bay Area fortunately has an excellent pool of structural engineers, design community, and members from the academic community to choose from.

 

Mr. Jack Moehle introduced himself as a Professor of Structural Engineering at the University of California, Berkeley as well as the Director of the Pacific Earthquake Engineer Research Center.  Mr. Moehle stated that most of the buildings that are being discussed today are of reinforced concrete construction, and stated that he has chaired the Seismic Provision Committee of the American Concrete Institute for the last eleven years, so he has some experience and knowledge in the code development process.  Mr. Moehle said that the intent of the code was not to prescribe these alternative designs, in fact the alternate means and method of the provision of the code is suitable for going higher with these kinds of systems.  Mr. Moehle stated that although the Building Code covers very tall buildings, it provides provisions for them and these buildings require a certain amount of efficiency in their design and in how they carry loads.  Mr. Moehle said that this does result in some reduction in redundancy in some cases, so this is why he thought the peer review process is very important.  Mr. Moehle stated that in his experience the peer review process has resulted in better buildings, and in some cases reduced cost.  Mr. Moehle said that in response to Commissioner Lee’s question he has worked in Los Angeles, and their peer review process is similar to the one in San Francisco and also their panels typically consist of three members as well.

 

Mr. Andy Merovich, President of the Structural Engineers Organization of Northern California (SEONC), said that SEONC is a volunteer organization of structural engineers, which has about 1,700 members.  Mr. Merovich stated that SEONC has been involved in the process of the development of this Administrative Bulletin.  Mr. Merovich said that he appreciated the outreach that Amy Lee and her staff has exhibited to bring SEONC into the process, because it affects the practice of engineering, in how buildings are getting built in San Francisco.  Mr. Merovich mentioned that SEONC has ad hoc committees that are: The Blue Ribbon Advisory Committee and the Seismology Committee.  Mr. Merovich stated that both committees have been involved with AB-xxx and provided a broad range of input regarding the technical requirements of this AB, and they will also offer suggested modifications to it over the next month.  Mr. Merovich said that SEONC strongly supports the role of the peer review process in the design of buildings using alternative design methods.  Mr. Merovich stated that typical buildings being constructed are not 240 feet tall, so there is a specialized subset of structural engineering knowledge that is necessary to design them properly, and the peer review process is vital in these cases.  

 

President Walker stated that there was a reference to some of the taller buildings that actually use prescribed code, and asked if that might not actually be as safe as possible or if there was anything in DBI’s system that catches this type of situation.  Mr. Joe Maffaei, structural engineer, said that this is meant to be covered in this Administrative Bulletin and said he thought this is one of the best reasons to move forward with it.

 

Commissioner Lee stated that he still had some reservation about the idea of the sponsor paying the panelist directly.  Acting Director Lee said that the Department could try to create some sort of a fund account that the project sponsor would pay and DBI would control when the payments were processed.  Mr. Hanson Tom said that Commissioner Lee was also concerned with continuity, and asserted that the Department maintains continuity with each particular project and staff makes sure that they are committed to the peer review throughout the whole process.  President Walker and Acting Director Lee said that the Department could give a report at a later meeting, as to how they would be working to change the peer review process. 

 

President Walker called for public comment.

 

Mr. Charles Marstellar asked if the Department would be developing a code for buildings that not only survive a quake and provide for shelter post quake, but also is there actually going to be a building that would ill be in the City’s landscape for 50 years after a big quake.  Mr. Marstellar stated that District Five, run by Supervisor Mirkarimi, has been undertaking a community organizing process where participants are looking at the issue of shelter, in accordance with emergency operations.  Mr. Marstellar said that the City now realizes that citizens are going to be living in buildings post quake, so the concerns are the length of time people will be staying there, how long water will be disrupted, will it flow again, and so on.

 

Mr. Patrick Buscovich stated that he was the Secretary of the Blue Ribbon Committee of SEONC, and said that there are two committees looking at seismology.  Mr. Buscovich said that seven engineers attended the last meeting and there was a lot of debate, yet the only item they were able to reach unanimous consensus on was peer review, and improving the peer review process.  Mr. Buscovich stated that every one of the engineers agreed that this is what everyone should be paying attention to.

 

Mr. Joe O’Donoghue of the Residential Builders Association said that this was a very erudite and excellent presentation, in so far as the number of board members that are doing high rise buildings.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that the project sponsor’s interest in paying outside consultants is to build a seismically safe building, because of insurance problems.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that the Department has a problem in the process right now, and there might need to be a code change.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that at Spear Street there is a high-rise construction building under construction that has had a major failure.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that he was shocked that the Commission did not bring this up or that the Director did not make a report to inform the Commission of this happening.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that the problem was basically that soil was sent to Seattle, Washington from the Spears Street construction site for analysis and the person made a major error because torque is not in the soil in San Francisco.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that as a result of the torque not being there, there is no friction so what happened was a major shoring caved in and this could have resulted in deaths of citizens if there was an earthquake or a cave-in from the rain.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that this was not reported by the project sponsor nor picked up by the Department.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that due to a crack in the street the Department sent Carla Johnson to inspect the site and she called in the Occupation Health and Safety Administration (OSHA).  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that OSHA shut the job down for a number of days while the engineers tried to remedy the soil.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that the fact that there was a major potential catastrophe and this Commission was not informed about it shows that there is a problem of enforcement in the Department.

 

President Walker stated that the Commission was informed of the situation involving the Spear Street high-rise and that it was resolved by the Department.  Acting Director Lee said that the Department handled the issue.

 

Mr. Ron Klemencic stated that he was the engineer of record for One Rincon Hill and others.  Mr. Klemencic said that he had a few points to make about what other similar issues other cities are facing such as:  Los Angeles, Sacramento, Seattle, and Bellevue.  Mr. Klemencic stated that the Canadian Code has addressed the issue of the construction of tall concrete buildings for years and years, so there is a lot of precedence out there.  Mr. Klemencic said that Los Angeles has recently accepted a document drafted by the Los Angeles Tall Building Construction Design Council, fashioned similar to the AB that is proposed here, and in fact it is somewhat more liberal.  Mr. Klemencic stated that a number of years ago there was recognition that cities were going to build tall buildings and create housing in urban districts throughout the country, and now the challenge is to come up with the geometry of whatever system that happened to be in.  Mr. Klemencic also mentioned that the number of 240 feet is a product of some folklore from the 1940’s, and discussed the brief history of how it was added to the code.

7.

Report on the Community Action Plan for Seismic Safety (CAPSS).  [Chief Building Inspector for Technical Services Laurence Kornfield]

 

Mr. Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector in the Technical Services Division said that he has been involved with CAPSS since the Structural Engineers Association assisted the Department in the development of the 1998 Building Code.  Mr. Kornfield stated that an outside consultant, the Applied Technology Council (ATC), was hired in 1998 to help DBI understand what the scope of seismic safety issues in San Francisco really were and that should be handled by the Building Department.  Mr. Kornfield said that a program began to implement the Community Action Plan for Seismic Safety (CAPSS) in 2001, and it continued until the spring of 2003, in accordance with a very detailed work plan.  Mr. Kornfield stated that at that point the Building Inspection Commission for fiscal reasons and other reasons asked that it be temporarily suspended.  Mr. Kornfield said that he was giving an update on the program, and that the ATC, which is a non-profit organization, has proposed completion of this part of the CAPSS Program.  Mr. Kornfield stated that the scope of the CAPSS Program has significantly increased, and that many people are relying on the outcome of the program.  Mr. Kornfield said that the Department of Building Inspection as well as several other departments are looking forward to the results, some of them are:  The Office of Emergency Services, Planning Department, Redevelopment, and the Mayor’s Office.  Mr. Kornfield stated that this would involve an almost two year program at a cost of approximately $790,000 to complete with a very large and qualified staff working directly with him and the Department of Building Inspection, along with a large Project Advisory Committee.

 

Mr. Tom Tobin, the Project Engineer under the Applied Technology Council, said that he was present to speak about this proposed program and that he had not been involved in the past.  Mr. Tobin stated that there are several steps involved:  One is to characterize what existing risk there is to San Francisco, where it really hits home, which communities, which kinds of buildings, which kinds of uses, and how are the people and the organizations and businesses that inhabit these buildings would be affected by an earthquake.  Mr. Tobin stated that the second aspect is what to do with this information, what to expect, how to reduce that future risk, that future damage and those implications, as well as how to recover quickly.  Mr. Tobin summarized that the program has two key elements to it, analysis of what the risk is, and coming up with guidelines for recovery or repairs in the aftermath.  Mr. Tobin said that the Department’s workload is going to expand greatly with very critical, tough, individual decisions that need to be made on different buildings.  Mr. Tobin also stated that these decisions could take a long time and impede recovery, which could result in people and businesses being hurt, and the community not coming back.  Mr. Tobin mentioned that he would be working with Bill Holmes and Laura Semant, and said that he will be the Project Manager and would be available to meet with the Commission as often as they would like.  Mr. Tobin stated that working with the community is of critical importance so that the community can state what their interests are. 

 

Acting Director Lee said that there would be additional meetings to discuss the CAPSS contract language, so that the Department could move forward with the project.  Ms. Lee stated that she just received the new revision of the contract and said she would be working with Mr. Kornfield to figure it out.  President Walker asked Mr. Kornfield if he could lay out a time frame of this process. Mr. Kornfield stated that it should take perhaps 22 months for the contract, a couple of months to get it up and running, and get the Advisory Committees going.

 

Commissioner Hirsch stated that for the record and for the public, that the funding of the CAPSS Program comes from the Strong Motion Implementation Program, funds brought back from the State, which can only be used for a program such as this.  Commissioner Hirsch said that funding for CAPSS does not come out of any budgetary item or fees collected by the Department.  Acting Director Lee said that DBI still needs to do an appropriation cycle, and needs to work with staff to make sure that even though the funds are there, the Department still needs authorization.

 

Commissioner Murphy asked once the CAPSS Program was implemented who would be doing the inspections.  Mr. Kornfield said that this is an analysis and impact study so there is not a staff requirement for inspection, as a result of this specific program.  President Walker asked if Mr. Kornfield could give a summary of the purpose of the CAPSS Program.  Mr. Kornfield stated that San Francisco’s seismic safety of buildings has been addressed in the past through a series of programs, such as the Parapet Program to reinforce chimneys and architectural appendages, as well as the brick-building program.  Mr. Kornfield said that the CAPSS Report is intended to determine what are the impacts of earthquakes, and how does the Department reduce the things that have the greatest impact on the City to get it up and running quickly after an earthquake. 

 

Commissioner Lee stated that he thought this was a good outline of the CAPSS Program, but said he was concerned about the advisory panel.  Commissioner Lee asked how many members comprise this panel, and said there seemed to be some sectors missing such as: the construction trade representative, small property owners, churches, and so on.  Commissioner Lee mentioned that he would like to see the Department go beyond the same people that DBI works with every day because this is going to affect a larger part of San Francisco.  Commissioner Lee said that he would also like the Department to do more outreach, and get other community organizations involved, as well as have staff attend community monthly meetings.

 

Commissioner Murphy said that he thought that most people are going to want to do this work voluntarily, especially most homeowners.  Commissioner Murphy asked who was going to be responsible for implementation.  Acting Director Lee stated that the contract proposes that the Department bring the proposals for implementation to the Commission for their review and input.

 

President Walker called for public comment.

 

Mr. Joe O’Donoghue of the Residential Builders Association  (RBA) said that the RBA supports the CAPPS Program as it is now reconfigured, but originally there was a problem with it.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that some of the problems with the program in the past were sloppy accounting procedures and contracts.  Mr. O’Donoghue mentioned that the Department itself had a problem with sloppy accounting involving the computer division, and also the City Attorney’s office was submitting improper billing. Mr. O’Donoghue said that the CAPSS Program is vitally needed and it is going in an excellent direction at the hands of Laurence Kornfield.  Mr. O’Donoghue also suggested that Mr. Kornfield might need additional staff to work on this project.

 

Mr. Charles Marstellar said that he was encouraged to see so many structural people in the audience today, because it calms his fears that he might be living in the wrong place.  Mr. Marstellar stated that San Francisco Tomorrow decided that it might be a good idea to have NERT Training televised so that it could reach more people, and also to distribute seismic safety backpacks or Red Cross Survival Kits.  Mr. Marstellar said that the Mayor discussed this with SFT and Mr. Marstellar stated that this kit could be a lifeline because it contains food and water for seven days.  Mr. Marstellar said that there are other efforts underway to involve the citizens in the reality of the seismic risks that everyone will face.

 

Mr. Patrick Buscovich said that he is the Vice-President of the Applied Technology Council and has been on the board for the last seven years.  Mr. Buscovich stated that during the 1989 earthquake he was one of three people tagging buildings, and said that he learned many lessons during that event.  Mr. Buscovich said that without the clarity of CAPSS it was like looking at the trees from the forest, but with CAPSS he has been able to put on his glasses and look at the true meaning of what happened in 1989.  Mr. Buscovich stated that the 100 year anniversary of the 1906 earthquake was coming up, and the similarities of what happened in 1906 and 1989 are mind numbing and to avoid repeating them a third time CAPSS is the way to solve that problem.

 

President Walker proposed that Item 8, Discussion of contract terms & questions from the Controller’s Office; possible action to approve contract regarding the BIC search for a permanent Director of DBI, be continued because it would require a lot more discussion.  President Walker stated that Item 8 would be the first agenda item of the Commission’s next meeting.

 

9.

Review and approval of the minutes of the September 19, 2005 meeting.

 

Commissioner Hirsch made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Romero to approve the minutes of the September 19, 2005 meeting.

 

The motion passed unanimously.

 

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 021-06

 

10.

Review and approval of the minutes of the January 23, 2006 meeting.

 

Commissioner Lee made a motion seconded by Commissioner Romero to approve the minutes of the January 23, 2006 meeting.

 

The motion passed unanimously.

 

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 022-06

8.

Review Commissioner’s Questions and Matters.

• Inquiries to Staff.  At this time, Commissioners may make inquiries to staff regarding various documents, policies, practices, and procedures, which are of interest to the Commission.                                    
• Future Meetings/Agendas.  At this time, the Commission may discuss and take action to set the date of a Special Meeting and/or determine those items that could be placed on the agenda of the next meeting and other future meetings of the Building Inspection Commission.

President Walker stated that she would like to request that the item of a review of the signage rules and processes within the Department about billboard signs be agendized for a future meeting.  President Walker said that she would like to request a joint meeting with the Planning Commission and the Building Inspection Commission, and also a joint meeting of the Fire Commission and the Building Inspection Commission.  Secretary Aherne said that she called and spoke to Linda Avery since she had not heard from Planning, and Ms. Avery said she was going to talk to the President of the Planning Commission.  Secretary Aherne stated that she would follow up on this, and report back to the Commission.  President Walker said that the next Building Inspection Commission meeting would be on May 1, 2006.

 

12.

Public Comment:  The BIC will take public comment on matters within the Commission’s jurisdiction that are not part of this agenda.

 

The Brown Act forbids a Commission from taking action or discussing any item not appearing on the posted agenda, including those items raised at public comment.  In response to public comment the Commission is limited to:

 

 

Mr. Henry Karnilowitz said that he wanted to address an item that was on the agenda of the March 20, 2006 meeting regarding the appeal by Regan Carroll for DBI not wanting to issue a site permit and addendum.  Mr. Karnilowitz stated that he thought the Commission’s decision to deny the appeal was faulty for a couple of reasons: one of them was that the Commission was instructed by the City Attorney to deny the appeal, which was improper.  Mr. Karnilowitz said that the City Attorney happens to own and live in a property which is virtually across the street from where this approval was for, so that is a conflict of interest.  Mr. Karnilowitz stated that secondly the Central Permit Bureau told the applicant that once a fee was paid that the permit would be issued; therefore the payment of the school fee really constituted entering into a contract wherein DBI could not withhold the issuance of the permit.  Mr. Karnilowitz said that if the applicant comes back with an appeal he hoped the Commission would endorse the issuing of the permit.

 

Secretary Aherne said that for clarification to the Commission, Mr. Carroll has filed for a re-hearing for one of the properties.

 

Mr. Joe O’Donoghue of the Residential Builders Association said he referred to the Ellis Act earlier, and precisely what he had in hand is a notice of termination to all of the tenants at 1635 McAllister Street.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that a 65-year-old and an 84-year-old senior African-American, and women who are pregnant are being evicted.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that certain sponsors in real estate are making complaints to the Housing Inspection Division, against their own buildings in order to avoid Planning review.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that the RBA has helped tenants before to save their housing, along with the Tenderloin Housing Clinic and are interested in preserving affordable housing.

 

13.

Adjournment.

Commissioner Hirsch made a motion, seconded by Vice-President Lee, that the meeting be adjourned. 

 

The motion carried unanimously.

 

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 023-06

 

The meeting was adjourned at 12:58 p.m.

 

 

Respectfully Submitted,


_____________________
Sonya Harris
Assistant Secretary

 

Edited by,

 

______________________

Ann Marie Aherne
Commission Secretary