Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the 125 Crown Terrace Collapse topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
DBI stabilizes hillside house at 125 Crown Terrace, orders independent review after collapse
Summary
The Building Inspection Commission heard an extended report on the Dec. 2013 partial collapse of a house at 125 Crown Terrace. DBI installed emergency shoring, ordered a parallel staff review and an independent peer review, and will provide a detailed report on inspections, plan checks and a recent revaluation of the permit.
A hillside house at 125 Crown Terrace partially collapsed, prompting the San Francisco Department of Building Inspection (DBI) to install emergency shoring and launch parallel investigations, Director Tom Hui told the Building Inspection Commission on Dec. 18, 2013.
"Yesterday, we issued the emergency shoring to hold up the structure, to secure it," Hui said, describing the department's immediate priority as public safety and protection of adjacent properties. Hui said DBI staff will request a written report from the permit holder explaining what happened and will commission an independent peer review "to make sure we do it right." He added that senior and principal engineers will also review the project in parallel with the peer review.
Commissioners pressed staff for a detailed account of plan checks and inspections that preceded the collapse and for transparent public reporting. "I totally don't understand how this happened," Commissioner Walker said, stressing the near-miss for public safety and requesting a comprehensive report from the director and the inspectors who had been assigned to the project.
The commission also raised questions about permit valuation. Staff said an anonymous complaint prompted a re-evaluation using the Marshall & Swift valuation tool; DBI staff reported a recalculation that produced a figure of roughly $620,000 compared with an original permit valuation of $300,000. Department staff said the higher figure resulted from a Marshall & Swift review and that some earlier filed permits and fees were not used in the final calculation.
Tom Hui described next steps as: (1) obtaining a cause report and a corrective-action plan from the responsible parties; (2) an independent peer engineering/geotechnical review; (3) a parallel internal staff inspection review led by senior inspectors; and (4) consultation with the city attorney as needed. Hui said he would return to the commission with a fuller update.
Commissioners requested that the follow-up include all inspection reports, special inspection records, the special-plan-review documentation used because of the hillside location, and an itemized accounting of permit valuations and any correction notices. Several commissioners indicated they would hold a special meeting if necessary and asked DBI to prepare a public-facing communications plan to explain DBI's findings and next steps.
The commission did not vote on enforcement action at the Dec. 18 meeting; members directed staff to report back with a detailed investigation and recommended next steps.
