DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING INSPECTION
City & County of San Francisco
1660 Mission Street, San Francisco, California 94103-2414
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
Unreinforced Masonry Building (UMB) Appeals Board
Tuesday, November 24, 1998
10:00 A.M.
War Memorial Building
401 Van Ness, Room 428
San Francisco, California 94102
MEMBERS OF THE BOARD
Ms. Betty Louie, Chairperson
Ms. Lucia Bogatay, Vice Chairperson
Ms. Faye Bernstein
Mr. Rob Birminghan
Mr. Tim Carrico
Mr. Tom Mangold
Mr. Frank Rollo
Mr. Ralph Teyssier
Mr. Chad Thompson
DEPARTMENT REPRESENTATIVE
Mr. Hanson Tom (415) 558-6157
Ms. Margaret Cui (415) 558-6196
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
REPRESENTATIVE, Ilene Dick
Deputy City Attorney (415) 554-3920
Page 2
11-24-98 meeting
CALL TO ORDER
The Chair called the meeting to order at 10:10 AM and announced that Mr. Teody Marucut would be
recording the minutes for today's meeting.
ROLL CALL
The roll call showed a Quorum present.
COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT:
Ms. Betty Louie, Chairperson
Ms. Lucia Bogatay, Vice Chairperson
Ms. Faye Bernstein
Mr. Rob Birmingham
Mr. Tim Carrico (entered 11:23 a.m.)
Mr. Frank Rollo
Mr. Ralph Teyssier
COMMISSION MEMBER ABSENT:
Mr. Tom Mangold
Mr. Chad Thompson
D.B.I. REPRESENTATIVE:
Mr. Hanson Tom, Division Manager
Mr. Gary Ho, Engineer
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE:
Ms. Helen H. Kwak, Deputy City Attorney
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of February 27, 1998 and March 27, 1998 were approved.
PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no public comment.
NEW APPEAL
Appeal No. 98-005
Old St. Mary's Church
Mr. Marco Scanu, C.E.
660 California Street Forell/Elssesser Engineers, Inc.
For this project, the Appellant is proposing that portions of the structure be upgraded by using a
vertical core reinforcing method. The SFBC does not prescribe to any such method of upgrading.
Because Member Rollo was involved in the design for this project, the City Attorney's office advised
the Board that member Rollo will be recused and that he is to refrain from any participation in the
discussion of the Appeal.
Mr. Gee Hecksher, architect for the project, presented a brief historical background of Old St Mary's
Church. The Church has a designated Landmark status. After the 1906 earthquake, only the walls
remained. Since then, the Church has been modified several times. The tower, and the east and west
walls are original to the building. In 1929, the Church underwent an expansion at the north end with
some modifications made to the remaining walls.
Page 3
11-24-98 meeting
The present day project is to seismically reinforce the structure while maintaining the historic
character and fabric of the building. It was with this thought in mind, that a vertical core
reinforcement system was recommended for two side walls of the Church. The current construction
is of solid brick masonry with plaster over the brick on the interior. It is the Appellant's desire not to
disturb the interior nor the exterior of the Church. The vertical coring method would achieve this
goal.
Mr. Marco Scanu, project engineer, stepped forward to provide further information to the Board. The
Church was originally built in 1854. There were no major renovations to the Church prior the 1906
earthquake. In 1909, the church was rebuilt using the existing masonry walls. The wood frame
system was supported by steel girders and columns. In 1929, there was a radical structural
modification to the building.
Only certain piers have been identified for use of the center coring method. Each pier would have 3
center cores. Polyester resin and epoxy grout would be used.
Mr. Gary Ho, from DBI, noted that while the design does comply fundamentally with the SFBC, the
center core method would hamper rocking forces. Mr. Ho followed his comments with questions to
Mr. Scanu.
Mr. Hanson Tom noted that the base shear would increase substantially. Mr. Tom thinks the 104(f)
approach must be taken.
Member Bernstein was concerned with the out of plane bending and the compressive strength of the
masonry.
Member Teyssier had questions about the grout and lintels.
Ms. Bernstein noted points that needed resolution: the development of the anchor system and the
analysis of the lintels.
Member Teyssier noted that the concept is good, but that more review is needed. He suggested that
the Board draw up a list of concerns that could be addressed by the Appellant.
Member Teyssier also reminded the Board that objectives of the Ordinance included consideration for
public safety and the mitigation of the loss of life in the event of a major earthquake.
After more discussion, it was decided that Members Bernstein and Teyssier, along with Mr. Tom and
Mr. Ho would draw up a list of concerns and submit them to the Appellant for response. The Board
has also voiced its general support for new methods of retrofitting that would save time and money
for building owners.
Member Teyssier motioned that the matter be continued. The Board agreed.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Mr. Rollo commented on past appeals that dealt with newer methods of reinforcement that came
before the Board.
Mr. Tom noted 2 previous cases that approved center coring methods. Each decision was made on a
per case basis.
Page 4
11-24-98 meeting
Mr. Tom noted that as we become more confident in our experience with newer methods of
retrofitting, those positive results may warrant future code changes.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:50 A.M. The next meeting of the
Board is Friday, January 22, 1999 at 2:00 P.M.
Respectfully submitted:
_________________________________
Hanson W. Tom, S.E.
Department of Building Inspection
Representative, UMB Appeals Board