Department of Building Inspection

Code Advisory Committee

DATE: May 17, 2000 (Wednesday)

TIME: 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.

LOCATION: 1660 Mission Street, Room 2001

MINUTES

Others present

Alan Tokugawa, DBI, Secretary CAC

Laurence Kornfield, Chief Bldg. Inspector, TSD

David Leung, TSD

Capt. Mario Ballard, SFFD

Inspector Bill Mitchell, SFFD

David S. Gast, AIA, Member of the public

Lee Phillips, Member of the public

1.0 Call to Order and Roll Call

The meeting was called to order at 9:15 a.m. A quorum was established with eight members present.

2.0 Approval of minutes of prior Code Advisory Committee (CAC) Regular Meeting of February 16, 2000 and the Special Meeting of April 5, 2000.

A motion was made to approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 16, 2000 as written. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously.

A motion was made to approve the minutes of the Special Meeting of April 5, 2000 as written. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously.

3.0 Report, discussion and possible action on the degree of involvement of the City of San Francisco and Department of Building Inspection (DBI) with the State Building Code development process, monitoring of the State Building Codes, and current status of DBI code development process.

Laurence Kornfield reported that Technical Services Division (TSD) has been attending almost every hearing of the California Building Standards Commission (CBSC) and also hearings regarding a replacement code for the Uniform Code for Building Conservation (UCBC) which the International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO) is promulgating in hopes that the State will adopt it. We are not participating in the (International Building Code) IBC 2000 Code Partnership with the State.

California Building Officials (Calbo) has announced that the State Fire Marshal is requesting a six month extension in the process of adoption of amendments to the IBC 2000 so we may be looking at a new State code in year 2002, and it may be even longer.

Laurence Kornfield, Zan Turner and Alan Tokugawa attended the IBC Conference in Birmingham, Alabama and sat through hearings on amendments to the already completed IBC 2000.

Alan Tokugawa will be attending the May 24^th meeting of the Building Standards Commission. Ned Fennie understands that this will be a meeting at which there will be an effort to convince the CBSC to adopt the International Code Conference family of codes rather than a mixed-bag of codes from different organizations, and he wondered if the Department of Building Inspection would be taking a stand on this issue. Mr. Kornfield stated that DBI had been asked by ICBO to support them in their effort to use the International Building Code family of codes but that DBI has not taken any official action.

[Jerry Cunningham arrived at this point.]

4.0 Report, discussion and possible action on the International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO) hearing on the Guidelines for the Seismic Retrofit of Existing Buildings (GSREB) which is to be a replacement document for the structural chapters of the 1997 Uniform Code for Building Conservation, an alternative code which establishes life-safety requirements for existing buildings that undergo alteration or change of use.

Laurence Kornfield reported on the ICBO’s plan to adopt a guideline for the seismic retrofit of existing buildings, which is essentially an update of the Uniform Code fore Building Conservation (UCBC). The UCBC was replaced by a vote at the International Code Conference about two years ago with the Uniform Code for Existing Buildings, which however, was noted by the ICBO membership that it had not been adopted in accordance with the rules of ICBO. The Director’s of ICBO thus did not publish the Uniform Code for Existing Buildings but instead took the technical portions (which was the old UCBC) and turn them into the Guidelines to be appended to the International Building Code.

At a meeting on May 1, 2000 (attended by Bob Bossi, Pat Buscovich and Laurence Kornfield), public comment was requested on the draft Guidelines. It appeared that the ICBO was once again trying to create a stand-alone document. At the request of the public attendees, the ICBO decided to stay with the Guidelines as an appendix to the International Codes. Mr. Bossi was upset that the ICBO was changing some of the conditions that used to apply to the UCBC upon which much of the San Francisco code was based. Thus if the ICBO decided to adopt the Guidelines as an appendix and the City adopted this appendix, some existing buildings would be out of compliance. This is still a project under development.

Since there are no more application section sections remaining in this guideline, there will be no triggers for applying to existing buildings but will remain as structural guidelines.

5.0 Report and possible action regarding coordination of San Francisco Building Code items with The Departments of Public Works and City Planning.

Laurence Kornfield reiterated that items were taken out of the San Francisco Building Code because they belonged in the Public Works Code. Meetings were held with the City Attorney’s Office and the Department of Public Works (DPW) who had assigned someone to work on the transfer. There has been neither communication from DPW since nor any response to requests for information or status. Similarly there are items in the Building Code that are clearly Planning Code issues and these will be brought to the attention of the City Planning Department for transfer to their code. Ned Fennie requested a list of these sections related to signs that should be placed in the Planning Code.

6.0 Discussion of alternate or equivalent means of achieving an approved second means of egress from existing residential buildings.

This item was placed on the agenda at the request of a member of the public, David Gast, who is an architect and contractor. [Mr. Gast also transmitted a memo explaining his request for clarification.] Mr. Gast was in attendance and he requested information on what the changes from the 1995 code to the 1998 code would be regarding allowable second means of egress and how the procedures for local equivalency as outlined in Administrative Bulletin AB-019 (draft) would affect the practice of architects, contractors and other people dealing with the building code. He also wanted to know if the Jomy-type pole ladders and other fire ladders would be allowed under any circumstance on a case-by-case basis. In addition, he wanted to know if the passageway from the rear yard would be exempted for one- and two-family dwellings as it was under the previous code. He hoped that the CAC would be able to make the requirements clearer and to reinstate some of the items under the previous code that seem to have been dropped under the new code. He felt that some of these items were crucial to practicing in San Francisco with its 25-foot wide lots.

Fire Inspector Bill Mitchell answered that R-3 (one- and two-family dwellings) were not under the jurisdiction of the State Fire Marshal and that this authority had been ceded to DBI. For R-1 (multi-family dwellings) occupancies, the Fire Department would under no circumstance allow the use of pole ladders as a required means of egress. Vertical ladders are considered to be for use by fire fighters only. Fire escapes are not allowed for new construction, and alterations with fire escapes on an existing building are being accepted on a case-by-case basis.

Laurence Kornfield stated that the Building Department does not allow the use of fire escapes for new buildings including single-family residences. Unless there are truly unusual circumstances, a new building should be designed to comply with the code. As far as exiting from a rear yard, the State Code says that you have to exit to a public way. The previous code allowed exiting to a rear yard, but this does not conform to the state law. It may be possible to request, on the basis of the size of a yard, to request an equivalency to exiting to a public way, i.e., an area of refuge.

A pole ladder (e.g., Jomy) will not be allowed since it cannot be considered as equivalent to a stair. Existing pole ladders can remain even with additional alterations as long as increasing area or occupant load does not trigger the need for a second means of egress. The pole ladders can be used as a supplementary means of egress.

Due to the narrow width of a standard lot in San Francisco, it is difficult to find room for an exit passageway, an entry stairway, and a usable multi-car garage. One of the local equivalencies allows the use of the garage, even in R-1 Occupancies with Fire Department consent, as a means of egress to the street.

Laurence Kornfield noted that there are two potential solutions to the problem of providing a complying second means of egress. One method would permit the installation of a stairway in the required rear yard area by making appropriate changes to the Planning Code. Another method would be the use of a "Slidex" -type telescoping fire escape stair that would approximate a complying stairway when fully extended.

David Gast asked in his memo whether the local equivalency Bulletins provided guidelines only, or if the conditions listed in the Bulletins were satisfied would the equivalency be granted. Laurence Kornfield stated that the Bulletins provided guidelines only, to be considered on a case-by-case basis, otherwise the conditions would create an alternate code which is not allowed by State law. It must be shown that you have a case that requires an exception to the code, and additional conditions may be imposed.

On a case-by-case basis, exiting through a garage may be allowed when access to the public way is difficult to achieve with an existing building. Alan Tokugawa added that California Building Code Section 1006.1, Exception, allows the use of a area of refuge at least fifty feet away from the building, and on the same lot, when certain conditions are met.

David Gast hoped that DBI will be able to clarify the process so that design professionals will know what to do or not to do without spending a long time trying to figure out the requirements.

7.0 Report, discussion and possible action regarding review of standing (existing) Code Rulings issued under previous editions of the San Francisco Building Code. The report will give the status of Code Rulings assigned to the CAC subcommittees for review.

[The chart showing the status of Code Rulings and Administrative Bulletins was reviewed.] Alan Tokugawa explained the format of the matrix. Most of the code rulings have been deleted, and the documents marked "revise" or "update" are currently being worked on. Three of these drafts have been reviewed by the Administrative and General Design Subcommittee this morning and Alan will be making corrections per the comments made. The others will be completed on the basis of need.

A question was raised as to whether the CAC would be reviewing a new draft bulletin regarding Penalties for Work Without Permits, or Exceeding the Scope of Permits. The answer was yes they would be reviewing this later. Laurence Kornfield stated that it was going to the Building Inspection Commission today because they asked TSD to present a case for any new bulletin so it could be decided if that bulletin was really needed or not, and if so, how many public hearings at the BIC should be planned for it.

Ned Fennie noted that several of the local equivalency bulletins were not shown as having passed through the Subcommittees for recommendation of action by the BIC. Mr. Kornfield said that it was sent to the Director’s office in October, and that comments were just returned this week accepting the drafts except for the one dealing with fire escapes (to which revisions were made to address new buildings.) They are being prepared to go before the BIC. The matrix will be updated to show this progress.

A suggestion was made by Jerry Cunningham to find a more logical numbering system of the Administrative Bulletins. A discussion followed and it was decided that this current system is acceptable.

It was noted that without the Public Advisory Committee meeting on a regular basis to generate new topics for code rulings. There are several issues that have not been resolved, and the CAC should think about whether they should direct TSD to prepare bulletins on these: 1.) Should card readers be allowed at exit doors? 2.) Can a cup holder and bottled water next to a low drinking fountain serve as the high drinking fountain? 3.) Should computer rooms be required to have one-hour fire-rated walls as per National Electrical Code (data rooms) requirements? 4.) When is plenum-rated cable required in lieu of regular data cable? If the CAC sees a need for these bulletins, TSD would write a letter to the Director stating that the CAC has asked TSD to develop the documents.

Zachary Nathan asked if the Disability Access Advisory Committee is going to be reactivated because there were several disability access bulletins pending with this group. Laurence Kornfield said that this action would be up to the Director.

A motion was made to have the four previously proposed bulletins be drafted by the Department. These topics include: card readers at exit doors, including motion detectors; requirements for drinking fountains; requirements for one-hour walls at computer/data rooms, resolving NFPA 75 and NEC conflicts; defining where plenum-rated telecommunications/data cable is required in San Francisco. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously. A memo will be prepared to the Director to ask that these be placed on the BIC calendar.

8.0 Report and possible action on status of Administrative Bulletins regarding local equivalencies to California Building Code which are allowed on a case-by-case basis.

This was already discussed and these documents will be going to the BIC shortly, and that the fire escape bulletin is going to be revised to address new buildings.

9.0 Subcommittee Reports:

a. Housing Code Subcommittee:

Subcommittee Chair: Jim Reed

Subcommittee Member: Jerry Cunningham, P.E.

There was no meeting; no report.

b. Fire & Life Safety Subcommittee:

Subcommittee Chair: Jerry Cunningham, P.E.

Subcommittee Members: Charles Breidinger, P.E., Carolynn Abst

There was no meeting; no report.

c. Administrative & General Design Subcommittee

Subcommittee Chair: Arnold Lerner, AIA

Subcommittee Members: Zachary Nathan, AIA, Frederic Freund, Tony Sanchez-Corea, Dorie Lee

Three draft Administrative Bulletins were discussed:

1.) Discussion and possible action on recommendation of this subcommittee regarding Administrative Bulletin AB-035, Procedure for Assigning Street Numbers (Addresses.)

It was noted that there was nothing in the bulletin that stated that alphabetical letters could not be combined with the numbers (alphanumeric). The request was made that the Department check with the Post Office to see if they deliver to alphanumeric addresses. Generally, for apartments, the street address is a single number, and the individual apartments are given letter designations. Alan Tokugawa said he would check with the Post Office to see if they deliver to alphanumeric addresses, but that it seemed fairly clear that the bulletin allows only numbers for a primary entrance opening onto the street. This document is not being changed much except to clean up the Purpose and Description paragraphs, and that the body of the text is intact as originally written into the 1909 San Francisco Building Code.

2.) Discussion and possible action on recommendation of this subcommittee regarding Administrative Bulletin AB-042, Board of Examiners, Request for Variance, New Materials, or Alternate Methods of Construction.

One issue discussed was to have a shorter time for review of field questions when construction is already underway. The four week minimum time period to get on the Board’s calendar seems onerous, and a shorter time was requested. It was suggested that the diagram be changed to show that the fire department approval is also required at each level of appeal. It was explained that the four week time period, though onerous to the applicant, is the actual time required to prepare and deliver the appeal packages, post notices, and to allow the Board members sufficient time to review the cases. There isn’t any practical way to shorten the time.

3.) Discussion and possible action on recommendation of this subcommittee regarding Administrative Bulletin AB-028, Pre-Application Plan Review Proceedings.

Most of the comments were regarding the sample question and corrections to them. Also discussed were who should take the meeting notes and how long it should take to return comments to the applicant. Due to a lack of staff time, the Fire Department expects the applicant to take the notes

d. Mechanical, Electrical & Plumbing Subcommittee:

Subcommittee Chair: Charles Breidinger, P.E.

Subcommittee Member: Jim Reed

There was no meeting; no report.

e. Structural Subcommittee:

Subcommittee Chair: James Guthrie, S.E.

Subcommittee Member: Andy Forrest, P.E.

There was no meeting; no report.

f. Disability Access Subcommittee

Subcommittee Chair: (To be selected)

Subcommittee Members: Arnie Lerner, AIA., Zachary Nathan, AIA

There was no meeting; no report.

10.0 Secretary’s report on upcoming events and tasks for the Code Advisory Committee (CAC).

Alan Tokugawa reported that the CAC members received a large packet of documents, but that most of it was purely informational. It included documents showing how codes are adopted in California, the status of TSD regarding attending State agency meetings, and the State Fire Marshals 15-day modification notice for their proposed revisions to the California Building Code. The role of the CAC in the near future will be to review draft bulletins as they are transmitted to the members. Subcommittee meetings will be held regularly once again.

Alan Tokugawa reported that there is a proposed bill in the State Assembly that would create a Rehabilitation Code Advisory Committee that would be charged with determining whether a Rehabilitation Code would be necessary in the State. If found to be necessary, a Rehabilitation Code would be developed. TSD would recommend that the Department oppose this code on the basis that it does not make a distinction between an alteration versus a rehabilitation, and also because the current code adequately covers the issue. Another code would be redundant.

Another proposed bill is in the Senate that would require the building official to annually inspect marinas within their jurisdiction. It is not clear what constitutes a "marina." Would this include the docks, and boat ramps as well as the buildings? TSD recommends that this bill be opposed as it will create additional work for the department, and a certain occupancy type is singled out for inspections annually. There are a lot of marina-type areas in San Francisco that are not a part of the Port Authority.

It was noted that it would be helpful if the CAC supported the recommendations of the TSD so that a memo could be sent to the Director and he sends a letter to our legislative lobbyist so that some action can be taken.

11.0 Committee Member’s and Staff’s identification agenda items for the next meeting, as well as current agenda items to be continued to another CAC regular meeting or special meeting, or a subcommittee meeting. CAC discussion and possible action regarding administrative issues related to building codes.

An item from the last meeting which requested a member of the City Planning Department to participate in a discussion of required rear yard areas will be continued to another meeting.

12.0 Public Comment on items not on this agenda but within the jurisdiction of the Code Advisory Committee.

There was no public comment. Chair Zachary Nathan was congratulated and given best wishes for his rapidly approaching wedding.

13.0 Adjournment.

The meeting was adjourned at 10:50 a.m.