Builder Got Break on Safety Rules

A showcase effort to convert downtown office buildings into loft apartments skirted safety standards and exposed hundreds of tenants to potential fire hazards for nearly a year, according to veteran Los Angeles city fire and building inspectors.

City officials exempted the Old Bank District project from some building and fire code requirements that field inspectors said were crucial, records and interviews show. The exemptions allowed the $37-million development to fully open last year despite warnings by inspectors of potential dangers.

The hazards, the inspectors said, included stairwells that could fill with smoke in a fire, as well as a water-supply system for pipes and sprinklers that did not meet standards for a high-rise building.

Developer Tom Gilmore and the city officials who approved the 240-unit project said the complaints are groundless.

Gilmore’s successful conversion of old offices on the fringes of skid row into apartments has drawn national attention, as well as millions of dollars in city funds and federally guaranteed loans. The project along 4th Street at Spring and Main streets is the first under a city program to promote downtown housing by easing building requirements.

“If you were to look at our correction notices ... you would swear we were criminals, when in fact, if you look at them substantively, you will see we are in fact--and have always been since the day we opened--some of the safest buildings in Los Angeles,” Gilmore said.

David Keim, head of code enforcement for the city Department of Building and Safety, said Gilmore was freed from some code restrictions, but the allowances were either minor or were balanced by other safety measures.

“Had we thought there was any potential life-safety issue, the Fire Department and Building and Safety Department would not have approved any modifications,” Keim said.

Fire Capt. Robert Holloway, who eventually oversaw fire code enforcement on the project, said the safety issues were never life-threatening.

But a group of veteran inspectors voiced criticism of the exemptions granted Gilmore. They have asked that their names not be printed because they say they fear retribution from their bosses, who gave Gilmore approval to start renting his apartments beginning in September 2000.

“If it were minor stuff that would not impact the welfare of people there, it wouldn’t be an issue with us,” said one senior building official. “But we are no longer assuring that buildings are being constructed to the standard they are supposed to be. And this is a good example.”

The alleged fire hazards did not result in any tragedy. But inspectors who worked on the project said that might have been luck. Their job, they said, is to reduce the chance of death or injury, a responsibility that relies on a long checklist of fire and building safety standards. They said approval of Gilmore’s buildings shows how those standards can be compromised.

Besides the exemptions from safety standards, they said, two inspectors left for other assignments after Gilmore complained that they were being too strict.

“There seems to be a pattern ... of seeking ways to provide influential developers like Gilmore with economic advantages at the expense of public and firefighter safety,” said Mike McCosker, vice president of the United Firefighters of Los Angeles, the union that represents city firefighters.

The complaints by inspectors target both agencies that share responsibility for building safety in Los Angeles, the Fire Department and the Building and Safety Department.

Gilmore and officials from those two agencies disounted the significance of the code exemptions.

“We have got a lot of ... stupid stuff in these buildings in terms of overkill on the part of Building and Safety and the Fire Department,” Gilmore said.

He said he felt so harassed by some of the field inspectors that he asked top fire and building officials to replace them. Inspectors cited the city’s response as an example of special treatment.

Gilmore was especially critical of veteran fire inspector Monte Buckner, whom the developer described as a “cowboy.”

“Nobody building anything new wants this guy on their job,” Gilmore said, adding that the inspector is “famous for spending just insane amounts of time and energy on everybody’s part to the detriment of the project and without any fundamental improvement in life safety.”

Buckner rejected those claims, saying they show Gilmore’s “lack of knowledge of fire-safety issues.”

“I spent numerous inspection hours out there, because there were a lot of life-safety issues. And during the reinspections, the corrections were not completed,” Buckner said.

Capt. Holloway also rejected Gilmore’s criticism of Buckner. “I reviewed the items [cited by Buckner], and there is not one thing that is not code-based or is vindictive,” he said.

Holloway acknowledged that Gilmore asked for Buckner’s removal, but said, “I absolutely refused.” Normal work schedules determine which inspectors worked on the project, the captain said, explaining why Buckner did not stay on the project.

Fire Department records show that the project went through at least two of the five fire inspectors responsible for new construction in Los Angeles before Gilmore’s inspections were taken over by Holloway, their supervisor.

Fire union official McCosker said Gilmore was allowed to shop for an inspector.

“If a developer is complaining about a fire inspector, he is ... complaining about the cost to him of the fire code being enforced,” McCosker said. “And if [the developer] is accommodated by Fire Department management, then that is at the expense of the public and the firefighters who serve them.”

Gilmore’s buildings are the first approved under the city’s so-called adaptive reuse ordinance. The program, created in 1999, is intended to help developers revive downtown by relaxing parking, zoning and seismic-safety rules. About 40 downtown buildings, with about 3,400 units, are being converted by various developers.

After a building has met all code requirements, it is issued a certificate of occupancy. A building also can be given a temporary certificate of occupancy if it fails to meet some requirements but is deemed safe to open by both departments.

The first two buildings to open in Gilmore’s project were granted temporary occupancy certificates. Permanent certificates of occupancy were issued in February, more than a year after they opened their doors to tenants.

The project’s first building, the 70-unit San Fernando, was occupied in September 2000 under a temporary occupancy certificate. The temporary certificates are intended to provide a grace period for a developer to make minor code corrections.

Tenants of the San Fernando were still moving in nearly a year after its temporary certificate of occupancy had expired.

After that expiration, according to a correction notice issued in October 2001, inspectors found problems at the eight-story structure that included fire doors not properly sealed, trash rooms with no smoke detectors, and no floor-level exit signs to guide tenants out of the building in a fire.

“Any one of those items I would have gotten prior to a [temporary certificate of occupancy],” said one veteran building official.

Senior building and fire officials said the potential hazards were worse at the Hellman and Continental buildings, which encompass almost an entire block.

During the renovation of the 104-unit Hellman, Gilmore installed a system for supplying water to sprinklers and fire hoses that did not meet standards for a high-rise building.

Instead of requiring Gilmore to replace the system, officials classified the building as a “modified high-rise,” a category they later said does not exist. The exception was granted on the condition that the system--which used a water pipe with a smaller diameter than the code normally requires--would pass a performance test.

But the final test of the lines did not take place until December, almost a full year after the first residents moved into the Hellman. The water lines failed the test.

“If they had had a major fire, they may not have had the water pressure to cover the entire building,” one veteran city inspector said.

Both Gilmore and officials who signed off on the project deny that the water line was ever a safety issue.

“There is no doubt in my mind we could have effectively fought a fire,” said Capt. Holloway.

Gilmore said the 4-inch lines did not meet the Fire Department’s testing requirements--which mandated 6-inch lines--but would have been sufficient in a fire.

City officials said they did not seek penalties against Gilmore or his contractor for installing the substandard piping. “They paid the price for it,” said the Building and Safety Department’s Keim, referring to the expense of later replacing the pipe.

But Gilmore got city help to cover the expense. In December, the Los Angeles City Council approved a $1.3-million loan to Gilmore, in part to pay for additional fire system costs, records show.

City records show that the total cost of the project was first estimated at $30 million, with $3.8 million loaned to Gilmore by the city and $23 million secured in a mortgage guaranteed by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Gilmore contributed $3.8 million in equity on the property. The final cost rose to about $37 million.

In refurbishing the Hellman Building, Gilmore’s company decided not to cover some steel beams with fire-retardant coatings. While the coating is required in new buildings, and was insisted upon by inspectors before the Hellman opened, the city waived the requirement on grounds that the structure would have a new sprinkler system.

A group of Hellman residents last fall appealed the city’s decision to allow the exposed beams, as well as the building’s classification as a modified high-rise.

“This is not about stopping the development of downtown Los Angeles,” resident Patricia Gentry told the city Building and Safety Commission. “This is about ... having a safe building.”

Neighbor Steve Grace agreed. “When a developer comes before the city, he has the right to push [building and safety standards]. But the city has to stand its ground.”

The Building and Safety Commission denied the residents’ request to hear from field inspectors and other department officials familiar with the case, and in February rejected their appeals on a 5-0 vote.

The adjacent Continental Building was cleared for occupancy in September without passing a required safety test of the stairwell pressurization system, records and interviews show.

The system is supposed to blow air through stairwells during a fire to keep them clear of smoke.

Senior inspectors said the department did not follow the standard practice of bringing in outside experts to test the system with instruments to measure the air flow.

Building and Safety Department Assistant Bureau Chief Tom Stevens said he was able to determine that the stairwells were adequately pressurized simply by standing in the doorways.

“You open the door,” he said, “and you can feel the air pressure.”