Atherton building probe details spotty inspection records

There’s been a lot of talk among Atherton officials about cleaning up sloppy procedures and poor record-keeping practices in the town’s beleaguered building department.

But what exactly does that mean?

One example came to light at a recent Atherton City Council meeting, when some council members appeared astonished to learn that complete building inspection records had not been kept.

Building projects are subject to inspections at various points during construction, such as when a foundation is poured, when electrical work is done, and when construction is complete.

Atherton had the practice of checking a project’s inspection cards and then, once the project is “finaled,” giving the inspection records to the contractor to keep, rather than retaining them in building department files.

Since the probe of the building department, that practice has changed and the town now does keep all inspection records, said interim building official Gary Binger, who was hired to replace former building official Mike Hood, who retired June 30.

‘Unusual’

“I think it’s unusual,” said Leslie Lambert, Portola Valley’s planning manager, when asked about Atherton’s former practice of not keeping the records. “You wouldn’t be able to tell a future owner what got signed off.”

Portola Valley, like most jurisdictions, uses duplicate inspection cards, one of which is filled out at the job site with a copy that is kept at town hall, Ms. Lambert said.

Woodside keeps a computer database with detailed information from all building inspections, said Town Manager Susan George.

“When inspectors come in from the field with inspection notes, they are entered by project number into our access database, verbatim,” Ms. George said. “I don’t know what ultimately happens with the job cards themselves, but we do have a permanent record.”

Atherton does have some records of building inspections, said Mr. Binger, the town’s interim building official.

“The unusual part is that the town has not kept a hard copy of the final job card after the project is finaled out,” he said. “I can’t explain to you or anybody why it wasn’t done that way. Maybe it was just too many forms to keep.”

As a result, Atherton project files have only minimal information about inspections, such as the date, but none of the background information about problems or corrections, he said.

When the Atherton council questioned town staff about the practice August 16, it appeared that the only person who could explain why inspection cards were not kept was Mr. Hood, who has moved out of the state and is incommunicado.

At the meeting, Atherton Finance Director John Johns told the council that the latest internal audit of the building department might uncover an explanation for the practice.

“I don’t know that there could be a good explanation,” retorted Councilman Alan Carlson.