Board of Examniers
DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING INSPECTION
City & County of San Francisco
1660 Mission Street, San Francisco, California 94103-2414
MINUTES
BOARD OF EXAMINERS
Monday, February 12, 2001
San Francisco Permit Center
1660 Mission Street, 2nd Floor, Room 2001
Members of Board of Examiners:
PRESENT: Mel Cammisa, Chair ABSENT: Ann Cervantes, Member
Joeseph Cassidy, Member Jerome Cunningham, Member
Manuel Flores, Member John Demakas, Member
Dick Glumac, Member James Reed, Member
Daniel Shapiro, Member
City Staff: Wing Y. Lau, P.E., Chief Building Inspector, DBI
Appellants: Walter Wong, Jaidin Consulting Group, L.L.C.
1.0 Call to Order and Roll Call.
Chair Mel Cammisa called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m.
Roll was called, new members were introduced, and a quorum was established.
2.0 Review and Approval of Minutes of April 27, 1999 Meeting.
2.1 Corrections of Minutes of April 27, 1999.
Mr. Glumac, Mechanical Engineer, indicated that on page 3 of the minutes, item #2 laboratory should be changed to read Underwriter’s Laboratory. He also instructed item #6 be added to clarify this is a one-time approval. Correction was also made to item #1 to assure Mr. Karl Guttmann’s name was properly spelled throughout the minutes.
The motion was made, seconded and approved by all members of the Board to approve the minutes as amended.
2.2. Review and Approval of Final Resolution.
Mr. Cammisa, Chairperson, stated the final resolution as written on the Notice of Decision of the Board of Examiner’s meeting of April 27, 1999 regarding Case No. 99-02(requesting a Variance to Section 406.2 of the 1995 San Francisco Building Code, Ms. Erica Rico, Plant Construction -Appellant), is what the Board approved.
Motion was made, seconded, and approved by all members of the Board to approve the Notice of Decision of the Board of Examiners meeting of April 27, 1999 as written regarding Case No. 99-02.
3.0 Public Comment
No further comment.
4.0 Old Business
No old Business
5.0 New Business
5.1 Schedule a Special Meeting with all Board Members to discuss the following items:
1. Election of the new Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson.
2. Review and adopt the updated rules of procedure of the Board of Examiner as required under the 1998 Edition of the San Francisco Building Code.
3. Discuss and consider recommending to the Building Inspection Commission that previous Board of Examiners members, who are no longer members, be officially commended for their contribution to the Board’s activities.
Mr. Lau, representative of DBI, stated that due to the board having seven new members and to discuss items 1-3 in section 5.1 (above) a meeting of all Board Members should be scheduled for next month, whether the board has a case or not.
It was agreed by all Board Members present to tentatively set the next meeting date on March 13, 2001 at 6 p.m. Mr. Lau will contact the members that are not present to verify that they can make this date.
5.2 File No. 2001-01: 2640 Broadway.
Mr. Cammisa, Chairperson, explained that Mr. Walter Wong, Jaidin Consulting Group, LLC is requesting a variance to allow a proposed 250 sq. ft. expansion at the existing attic level without triggering compliance with Section 506 and Table 5-B of the 1998 San Francisco Building Code, which requires an automatic sprinkler system to be installed throughout the entire building. Appellant requests permission to comply with Footnote 13, Table 5-B of the 1995 San Francisco Building Code.
The procedure that we will follow is that the Department of Building Inspection (DBI) staff will state their case and then the appellant will speak to the issue. Then the Board will discuss it and arrive at a resolution.
Mr. Lau, representative of DBI, explained that this is an existing single-family dwelling, which currently has three floors of occupancy, two residential floors over a garage and habitable room. Beneath the garage level is the "basement", which contains a mechanical room. The appellant is requesting to expand the attic space by 250 sq. ft. and create a new fourth floor of habitable space. Under the current 1998 San Francisco Building Code, a four story single-family building is required to be fully sprinklered. Under the 1995 San Francisco Building Code, on page 122, there was an exemption that allowed a single-family dwelling, where the lowest level is used only for parking and no more than one habitable room with no cooking or sleeping,
to be increased in height by one story if the garage level is fully sprinklered. The ceiling height of the garage was also restricted to no more than nine feet above grade at the street frontage. The appellants are requesting implementation of these previous requirements due to the relatively minor nature of the improvement. The building is currently about 5300 sq. ft., and the expansion is only about 250 sq. ft., which is less than a 10% increase in floor area. Due to the provisions in the current San Francisco Building Code requiring that it be fully sprinklered, the Department would like an interpretation from the Board with the understanding that this request would be a one-time approval only.
Mr. Wong, Jaidin Consulting Group, LLC presented plans to the Board and explained the proposal. He proposes to fully sprinkler the garage floor and to install hard-wired smoke detectors, and a fire alarm monitoring system for the entire house.
Mr. Cammisa, Chairperson, clarified that the proposal by Mr. Wong was not in compliance with 100% of the current code, but would implement provisions of the 1995 San Francisco Building Code. As an alternate, Mr. Wong proposed the installation of a sprinkler system with rapid response heads as well as smoke detectors on each level that will be connected to a monitored fire alarm system, which would notify the fire department.
Mr. Shapiro, Structural Engineer, asked Mr. Wong what the reason was for not wanting to install the fire sprinkler system.
Mr. Wong, Jaidin Consulting Group, LLC explained that to install a fire sprinkler system throughout the entire house would be very difficult. Installing the sprinkler system would require the removal of beautiful interior finishes, and cause a hardship, especially when considering the amount of work that is being proposed.
Mr. Cammisa, Chairperson, asked that it would be an aesthetic hardship because you would have to tear up a lot of the interior finishes in the building.
Mr. Wong, Jaidin Consulting Group, LLC explained that when installing a sprinkler system, you must provide for complete water coverage, and almost the entire ceiling would have to be removed. Also, the sidewalk limits access to the water line.
Mr. Cassidy, licensed general contractor, inquired if the interior was molded plaster.
Mr. Wong explained it was.
Mr. Cammisa, Chairperson, asked Mr. Wong what the impact would be of installing a central fire alarm system?
Mr. Wong, Jaidin Consulting Group, LLC explained that a smoke detection system is less invasive to install, just running wire to the smoke detectors; unlike the sprinkler system where you would have to cut into the finishes to install the piping.
Mr. Cammisa, Chairperson, stated that any fire alarm work that is done must be in compliance with the San Francisco Building Code and the San Francisco Electric Code.
Mr. Glumac, Mechanical Engineer, stated that just to summarize for the Board, that the equivalency that Mr. Wong is asking to be approved is that instead of sprinklering the entire building he is proposing to
sprinkler the basement only with quick response heads and a flow switch on that system will be hooked up to a fire alarm system. Then in addition he will have smoke detectors on each level. Mr. Glumac then asked Mr. Lau if there were any legal implications to the Board approving this?
Mr. Lau, representative of DBI, stated that the Board could make the decision. Mr. Lau asked Mr. Wong what type of smoke detectors would he be installing?
Mr. Wong, Jaidin Consulting Group, LLC explained that he would be using hard-wired smoke detectors throughout the house.
Mr. Lau, representative of DBI, explained that Mr. Wong would be upgrading the current smoke detectors by providing hard-wired smoke detectors in every room, which is above and beyond what the current Building Code requires. The Building Code states that for the existing buildings you are only required to have battery operated smoke detectors, and hard-wired smoke detectors are required for new portions only.
Mr. Glumac, Mechanical Engineer, asked Mr. Wong if the proposed plans show smoke detectors included in the attic space and the new room in the attic.
Mr. Wong, Jaidin Consulting Group. LLC explained that the smoke detectors will be shown on the plans at the time of filing, providing them throughout the entire building and tying them to the alarm monitoring system.
Mr. Flores, Local 22 Representative, asked Mr. Wong how many smoke detectors are presently in the house.
Mr. Wong, Jaidin Consulting Group. LLC explained that there are presently 2 battery operated smoke detectors in the bedrooms now. Mr. Wong explained that he is now proposing to put in approximately 12 hard-wired smoke detectors throughout entire building. There will be a central alarm panel tying into an alarm monitoring system. The entire garage level including all rooms will have a sprinkler system and smoke detectors.
Mr. Cammisa, Chairperson, stated that the 12 smoke detectors are an approximate number.
Mr. Shapiro, Structural Engineer, asked Mr. Lau to explain why the SFBC was changed to require sprinklers throughout the building.
Mr. Lau, representative of DBI, explained that in 1995 there was a San Francisco amendment (footnote 13) that under the previous code we can have a story exclusion based on the 1975 Building Code. Footnote 13 has been carried over from the 1975 Building Code, in which San Francisco allowed buildings at the street level (basement), which is an unoccupied level except for the garage, to be sprinklered on that level only. In 1998, we modified the Building Code to try to fully adopt the Uniform Building Code and this is why the amendment has been removed from the current Code.
Mr. Glumac, Mechanical Engineer, made a motion to approve the application (File No. 2001-01) with the following requirements:
1. Sprinkler entire basement and garage floor. The sprinklers will be designed by a licensed P.E., that is either a mechanical or civil engineer, or a fire protection engineer, or a licensed C16 contractor, who is specifically engaged in sprinkler work.
2. The smoke detectors will be provided throughout the building on all levels including the attic.
3. The fire alarm system, which will connect all smoke detectors and sprinkler alarm valve, will be connected to an alarm panel, which will send a signal to an outside agency and as usual that agency will then notify the SFFD.
4. All these provisions shall be presented with the proper plans to the Building Department for proper approval and building permits. This is a one-time only approval for the proposal made by Mr. Wong.
5. This sprinkler system variance is a one time only approval.
Mr. Lau, representative of DBI, clarified with Mr. Wong that his proposal will include sprinklering the garage level and the sub-basement below the garage (basement and first floor on drawings).
Mr. Glumac, Mechanical Engineer, made a motion to modify item #1 to read that the sprinkler system will be provided throughout the basement and the first floor, which is the garage floor.
Mr. Shapiro, Structural Engineer, seconded the motion.
Mr. Cammisa, Chairperson, opened the floor for any further comments.
Mr. Cassidy, licensed general contractor, stated that he thinks this is a reasonable thing to do because the architecture inside the house would really be ruined if the owners had to bring in a sprinkler contractor. They would lose all the moldings and plaster. Mr. Wong’s proposal sounds reasonable especially since there is going to be a monitoring system.
Mr. Cammisa, Chairperson, called for a vote on motion to approve application (File No.2001-01 re: 2640 Broadway).
AYES: Cammisa, Cassidy, Flores, Glumac, and Shapiro.
NAYES: None
6. Adjournment
Meeting was adjourned at 6:34 p.m.
P:\boardexaminers\02-12-01min1.doc