Department of Building Inspection

Board of Examniers

            There was no old business.        

5.0      New Business

Chief Building Inspector Wing Lau explained that both appeals under consideration tonight addressed the same issue at different locations. It was his recommendation that the Board should allow each appellant to speak but should hear these two cases concurrently.

The Board unanimously accepted Chief Lau’s recommendation.

5.1  Appeal No. 2003-03:  255 King Street 

                  5.2                  Appeal No. 2003-04:  255 Berry Street

Chief Building Inspector Wing Lau explained that both appeals request relief from the provisions of Section 1003.3.1.6, and Section 1120A.2.4 of the San Francisco Building Code. These code sections establish the requirements for level landings on each side of a door. Section 1003.3.1.6 says that the floor or landing shall be no more than 1” below the threshold of the doorway in occupancies, which are not required to be accessible. Section 1120A.2.4 says that accessible dwelling units shall have the floor or level no more than ½’ below the threshold. Exception 3 allows ¾” high threshold for sliding doors. Exception 4 allows an exterior deck or balcony to be 4” below the interior floor when the change in level greater than 1/2'” is ramped.

Both of the buildings are high-rises, with hundreds of either apartment or condominium units. The exterior decks are private, serve the accessible/adaptable dwelling units, and are accessed by sliding glass doors. One building (255 King) is substantially complete. All the doors have been installed. The second building (255 Berry) is still under construction but some of the doors have been installed already.

The track for the sliding glass doors protrudes approximately 2 3/4” above the interior floor level. The Building Department considers this condition a tripping hazard for the occupants. This track additionally limits access to the deck for disabled persons.

Several proposals have been offered as possible mitigation. 255 King Street requests that the threshold condition be allowed to remain with the installation of warning signs and threshold striping to prevent tripping. 255 Berry also offered to install warning signs under the first three of four proposed options. Option four offered the installation of a three-sided rubber ramp at the threshold.

Chief Lau concluded that the installation of a ramp could resolve the issue. However, he would like the Board to review and consider the different proposals offered in the appeals.

Chair Cammisa asked the Board if everyone understood the issues and the proposals.

Board Member Cervantes asked for a clarification on the threshold height. Is the actual height ¾” or 2 3/4”?

Chief Lau confirmed that the track or threshold height is approximately2 ¾”.

Board Member Cervantes further asked if the required number of accessible dwelling units in the building were a fixed amount such as 5%.

Senior Building Inspector Carla Johnson clarified that since the building is a high-rise served by an elevator, then all of the dwelling units need to meet basic accessibility requirements within the units for minimum door widths, halls, path of travel, clearances etc.   100% of the units shall be accessible/adaptable.

Jack Price, Architect with HKS, described the 255 King Street project as a high-rise apartment building. He confirmed that all of the units had been designed to be accessible and adaptable. Certain features like grab bars or lowered kitchen counters could be installed later if the occupant requests because blocking was installed in the walls and the cabinets were removable. Similarly, a ramp to the threshold could be installed later upon request.

These door units with the high thresholds were specified for the project because of water proofing concerns. In fact, the most significant issue in design today is water intrusion. High-rises are especially problematic because of the high winds and pressures that they are subjected to in the rain.

This building is completed and already 60% occupied. They are operating under a TCO. The threshold issue only came up last December when the Building Inspector was making one of their final inspections. None of the earlier building inspectors on the project identified this as a problem. In fact, numerous buildings in San Francisco have the same condition and the Building Department has approved it in the past. The building code does allow a level change of up to four inches at the exterior balcony. That said, it is not unreasonable to address the Department’s concerns and install warning signs at the doors and maybe hazard stripes at the threshold.

Chief Lau clarified that it is possible this condition was overlooked previously. That doesn’t mean it can be overlooked any longer. A threshold that is 2 ¾” high is potentially a tripping hazard to the occupants. This is a safety issue that comes up when you open the door and go outside on the deck.

Chair Cammisa asked if the Department believed that the other occupied units or buildings referred to would require correction also?

Chief Lau answered that he would need to consult with the City Attorney on that matter. If something is wrong it may need to be fixed.

Nathan Hong, representing the owner, Avalon Bay, emphasized that after they received a TCO, people started moving in. The low-rise portion of the building is mostly occupied, and the high-rise portion is already finished and partially occupied. It would be very difficult and disruptive to the occupants at this stage to make any changes if the Department and the Board decide that a ramp is required. He is afraid that the tenants may be unhappy and even decide to move out. He suggested notifying the tenants of the Department’s concerns and offering a ramp installation to those people who wanted it.

Board Member Cervantes asked if this problem had come up on other Catellus projects.

Jack Price replied that when this issue was raised, changes were made to their other projects under design and construction. As an example, at the 1^st and Folsom Street job the exterior deck level was dropped so that the slider unit was on the lower level and the top of the track was within allowable ranges adjacent to the interior finish floor.

Board Member Cervantes asked how a wheelchair user would get back into the unit if the interior were ramped? How about the exterior?

Jack Price replied that this would have to be an adaptable feature. Since the door slides back and forth in the track some special design would be required to bridge the gap

Board Member Glumac asked if the 1^st and Folsom Street project has resubmitted the new door design for permit.

Jack Price answered that if they had not done so already, they would soon. Certainly it had been their intention to design for disabled access as well as waterproofing. He hoped that the Board was not considering asking them to modify the threshold or track height at this recently completed building. This modification would void the warranty and would not be an acceptable solution.

Chair Cammissa asked how the handicap access is addressed when needed.

Jack Price responded that the units are designed for adaptability. Certain features can be added when requested or needed. There is blocking in the walls for the future installation of grab bars. The kitchen cabinets under the sink are removable to allow knee space under the counter. Ramps to the threshold could be installed the same way, only when needed.

----At this point, 255 King Street finished their presentation, and 255 Berry began theirs.----

Tom Kallia, Architect for 255 Berry Street, requested that the Board take separate actions on the two cases before them as there are a number of important differences. 255 Berry Street is a project that is still under construction. They are now finishing the seventh floor. There will be 100 condominium dwelling units. They are using basically the same window and door product as 255 King Street. He wanted to clarify that he is not here tonight to discuss or debate the code. Instead he would like the Board to consider his proposal as an alternative method of construction.

The first three solutions contain proposals for warning signs to be installed at the sliding doors and threshold areas. The fourth solution proposes a three sided ramped threshold to reduce the change in elevation to the allowable ¾”. This building has been designed to be 100% accessible from the entrance, parking, path of travel and into the dwelling unit. The balcony is the only issue that requires some consideration from the Board.

He is hoping that the Board would consider allowing them to install the ramps when the owners request them as an adaptable feature. Not everybody would mind having this condition without a ramp. However, if the Board fails to approve the warning sign proposal then the developer will go ahead and just install the ramps. Mostly they just need some clear direction so they can proceed.

Board Member Glumac commented on the proposed ramp. He reminded the architect that the material selected needed to meet the smoke and flame spread limitations. Certain rubber products do not comply.

Mark Kim, Architect, pointed out that the Fair Housing Act allows the original construction to be completed without access to the balcony. As an adaptable feature for wheelchair users they recommend the installation of a wooden, built-up balcony platform on the exterior side.

Board Member Cervantes asked what impact the platform has on guardrail height. If you build up the deck surface, don’t you have to raise the guardrail to meet the minimum height?

Tom Kallia confirmed that the guardrail would probably have to be adjusted. He would still prefer however that these issues be addressed post occupancy at the individual owner’s request.

Chief Lau reiterated that a post occupancy solution for disabled access does not address the immediate tripping hazard.

Board Member Glumac asked if there were any other provisions in the building code that were applicable to their review tonight. As an example, were there construction tolerances that could apply?

Chief Lau clarified that the disabled access code has very few allowances for construction tolerance. These tolerances would not apply here.

Board Member Cervantes reminded the Board that two code issues applied to their review. On the one hand, there may be a tripping hazard with the track. On the other hand there is an accessibility problem getting onto and off of the deck. She wanted to know if the design could be amended.

Tom Kallia replied that since a number of sliders are already installed, they would not be able to comply with a new design. If this is the Boards direction, then he would propose that the ramps be installed

Chief Lau commented that based upon the two presentations given tonight, it may be necessary to rule on each project individually. He suggested that the decisions not be precedent setting for other properties.

Board Member Flores asked if the doors had already been installed.

Tom Kallia confirmed that the doors had been installed up to the fourth or fifth floor. The remainder of the doors had been delivered and were on-site awaiting installation.

Board Member Flores asked Chief Lau to clarify a comment he made earlier. Would the decision made today have any impact on other projects that have already been completed and signed off?

Chief Lau responded that other projects are a separate issue and are not covered by today’s hearing.

Nathan Hong, representing Avalon Bay (255 King Street), interjected his request that the Board rule separately on the two different appeals. The 255 King Street project is distinctly different from the 255 Berry Street project because construction is complete and many of the units are occupied. It would require a major retrofit at this point to replace the carpets and attach a ramp.

Board Member Glumac made a motion to grant 255 Berry Street their appeal and accept proposal number 4 to install a ramp at the sliding doors throughout the project. Proposals 1 thru 3 are not necessary if the ramp is installed. The material selected for the ramp must meet all other building code requirements for flame spread and smoke. This approval would be one time only for this project alone.

Board Member Cervantes seconded the motion, which passed unanimously 4 to 0.

------At this point the hearing for 255 King Street resumed.----

Chair Cammissa asked if there was any further discussion on 255 King Street at this time.

Jack Price, Architect, summarized that the building has already completed construction and is 60% occupied. The threshold issue only came up during the final inspection walk-thru with the Building Inspector. If the issue had come up earlier then they would have been in a position to do design a different solution. If they were asked to install ramps at this stage it would require lifting up and probably replacing all of the carpets in this area. Now that this issue has been raised he hopes that DBI will flag this item during the plan check process so that everyone will be able to get it right the first time. He proposes the installation of warning stripes similar to what you would find at the top and bottom of stairs.

Board Member Glumac asked how many of the occupants have tripped and fallen at the threshold?

Nathan Hong replied, none.

John Peterson, representing Jaidin Consulting Group, suggested that the occupants of the residential units would be familiar with all the features of their apartment including the location of the threshold. This is not a public use space.

Jack Price commented that individual dwelling units are allowed to have a step within the unit or at a door. The occupants are familiar with the layout and unlikely to trip.

Board Member Cervantes asked how visitors would know about the tripping hazard.

Jack Price responded that Avalon Bay is not suggesting that nothing be done. On the contrary, they are proposing to address the Department’s concerns for the tripping hazard by installing warning signage.

Board Member Cervantes questioned the legal implications. If this appeal is granted tonight, what happens to all of the other buildings that have the same condition?

Chief Lau replied that he would need to consult with the City Attorney. Right now he does not know the addresses or details of the other buildings.

Board Member Glumac asked how the threshold would be addressed if a handicapped person moved in.

Jack Price responded that a ramp would be installed as an adaptable feature when requested.

Board Member Glumac asked for details of the warning signage.

Jack Price answered that he was open to suggestion. The lettering could be one inch high and say something like ‘Beware of Step below’. There could also be a graphic showing a person tripping. The threshold could also have a yellow hazard stripe to make it more visible.

Board Member Glumac stated that after considering the facts presented and in light of the information that a number of projects with similar conditions have been reviewed and approved in the past, he would like to make a motion that the proposal for warning signs at the handle location and hazard stripes at the threshold be accepted as equivalent to the code.

Chief Lau asked for clarification on the accessibility issue.

Jack Price answered that Avalon Bay would address this as a post occupancy issue. A ramp could be installed at the interior and a platform could be installed at the exterior similar to the Fair Housing guidelines.

Board Member Glumac stated that this information could be added to the motion, although it may be superfluous since law requires accommodations.

Board Member Cervantes seconded the motion, but proposed a possible amendment. She asked the architect if wedges would be a preferable alternative to the signs?

Jack Price replied that wedges would not meet code requirements.

Board Member Cervantes commented that neither did hazard signs.

The motion without amendments passed unanimously, four to zero.

6.           Adjournment

     Meeting was adjourned at 7:32 p.m.