|
ROLL CALL
The roll call showed a Quorum present.
|
COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENTS:
|
Ms. Betty Louie, Chairperson
|
|
|
Ms. Lucia Bogatay, Vice Chairperson
|
|
|
Mr. Frank Rollo, Sr.
|
|
|
Mr. Chad Thompson
|
|
|
Mr. Howard L. Zee
|
|
|
Mr. Tony Thompson
|
|
COMMISSION MEMBER ABSENT:
|
Ms. Faye Bernstein
|
|
D.B.I. REPRESENTATIVE PRESENT:
|
Gary Ho, Structural Engineer
|
|
CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE REPRESENTATIVE
|
Judith Boyajian Deputy City Attorney
|
|
|
Chair Louie called the UMB Appeals Board Meeting to order.
Chair Louie welcomed new members of the Board, Howard Zee and Tony Thompson. Also welcomed new recording secretary, Serena Fung.
It was noted that four members of the Board have either resigned or cannot be located: Tom Mangold, Rob Birmingham, Tim Carrico and Ralph Tessier. The minutes of the last meeting in 2001 will be submitted for approval at the next meeting.
Member Rollo nominated Betty Louie as Chairperson for the Board. Lucia Bogatay seconded the motion.
Vote:
Ayes: Members Lucia Bogatay, Frank Rollo, Sr., Chad Thompson, Howard L. Zee and Tony Thompson
Abstain: None
|
|
APPELANT
Appeal No. 03-001
Building Permit Application No. 2001/01/24/0456
Building Address: 44 Campton Place
Project Architect: William Frederick Heijn
The subject building is a one-story structure with unreinforced masonry bearing walls. The roof is of concrete slab supported on steel beams. SFBC Section 1613C.1.1 requires that all unreinforced masonry walls shall be anchored at the roof and floor levels.
Project architect appeals that such anchors are not required for this building as its walls are restrained at the top by the bonding between the walls and the concrete slabs and also the steel beams.
The Appellant, Mr. William Frederick Heijn provided photographs of the exterior of the building to assist his explanation of the appeal.
Testing was time consuming and very labor intensive. The nature of the substance prevented testers from boring any deeper.
Mr. Heijn’s position is that although the code is very specific in requiring ties between an unreinforced brick wall and the roof, he could not find any other section of the UMB Code that recognizes alternate construction techniques which might make the above unnecessary.
He feels that there already exists a condition that is far stronger than any ties that they would be required to install by drilling and setting them in epoxy. Because the building is surrounded by taller buildings, there would be no chance of the walls falling outward should there be an earthquake.
Mr. Heijn objects strongly because he does not think that installation of these required ties would strengthen the structure. Being forced to do so would only add an undue financial hardship on the owner of the restaurant. While it is not physically impossible to install those ties, it is costly. The restaurant would also be closed for an unknown length of time.
He hopes that the Board will recognize that the existing bond of the brick, which was tested and given very high values, is of sufficient strength to hold the entire structure in place without the installation of additional steel ties.
Gary Ho was asked to state the City’s position on the appeal. Member Ho cited the SFBC Sections that require that all unreinforced masonry walls be anchored on the roof level. Mr. Ho felt it necessary that the Board discuss whether or not bonding between walls, beams and slabs provide equivalent anchorages to those specified in the Building Code.
Chair Louie took questions from Members of the Board.
Member Rollo reminded members of the Board range of authority in reference to any appeals that are outlined in Ordinance 210-95. Where there are practical difficulties in carrying out the literal provisions of the Code, the Board could grant a variance for individual cases. The Board must first find that a special individual reason makes compliance with the strict letter of the code impractical. The Board could grant variances from the Code requirements for special cases where: 1) new materials 2) new methods or 3) new types of construction are not involved and where the enforcement of the compliance therein would result in unreasonable hardship.
Member Rollo questioned whether the Board was being asked to issue a variance on the basis of unreasonable hardship because there are no new materials, new methods, or new construction techniques are involved.
Mr. Ho added that a fundamental issue is whether or not the existing wall anchors would still be intact should an earthquake occur. Mr. Ho stated that the Appellant is proposing a different design concept which, in the Appellant’s opinion, provides equivalency to the Code. Member Rollo reiterated that the Codes very clear and that they do not provide for any exceptions.
Chair Louie confirmed that there were two issues to consider: One regarding the compliance or compliance with equivalency with the building codes and the second regarding hardship, either of which could perhaps exempt the Appellant from compliance.
There was a lengthy technical discussion with questions from all members of the Board regarding the issues of equivalency and financial hardship. Having determined that the Appellant could not show equivalency nor could the Appellant prove that there was undue hardship. Member Chad Thompson seconded the motion. A short discussion ensued before the vote was taken.
Vote:
Ayes: Lucia Bogatay, Betty Louie, Frank Rollo, Sr., Chad Thompson, Tony Thompson, Howard L. Zee
Noes: None
Chair Louie explained to the Appellant, Mr. Heijn, that their application was rejected and suggested that Appellant find a different method of retrofitting this building that would be in compliance to the building code.
|
|
Public Comment.
The UMB Appeals Board will take public comment on matters within the Commission’s jurisdiction that are not part of this Agenda.
Mr. Jacques Janot, building’s owner, addressed the Board. He stated that the building had been remodeled in 1989 and at that time everything was fine. He commented that this current problem has caused an undue hardship for him and his partner.
|
