Department of Building Inspection

Code Advisory Committee

DATE: January 19, 2000 (Wednesday)

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

LOCATION: 1660 Mission Street, Room 2001

Others present

Alan Tokugawa, DBI, Secretary CAC

Lee Phillips, Public

Jeannette Lau, TSD

1.0 Call to Order and Roll Call

The meeting was called to order at 9:20 a.m. by Vice-Chair Zachary Nathan. Six members were present and a quorum could not be established. Chair Ned Fennie arrived later forming a quorum of seven members.

2.0 Approval of minutes of prior Code Advisory Committee (CAC) Special Meeting of November 17, 1999 and the regular meeting of December 17, 1999.

There was a motion to approve the minutes of the CAC Special Meeting of November 17, 1999. It was seconded and passed unanimously.

A typographical error was pointed out in the agenda of the CAC Regular Meeting of January 19, 2000, item #2, that the date December 17, 1999 should be December 15, 1999.

There was a motion to approve the December 15, 1999 minutes with typographical error noted. It was seconded and passed unanimously.

3.0 Nomination and election of the Chair and Vice Chair for the Code Advisory Committee. The term of office for each is one year and will commence with the CAC regular meeting of January 19, 2000.

Mr. Nathan asked if the CAC bylaws state that the committee should have a nomination at one meeting and election in the next meeting. Chair Ned Fennie said that that is his recollection.

Mr. Fred Freund wanted to re-elect the same seats but a quorum had not been established.

Alan Tokugawa mentioned that Chair Ned Fennie did not want to be the Chair in the next term; however, he wishes to be the Vice-Chair instead.

Jim Reed was nominated but declined due to too many assigned tasks.

There was a motion to nominate Zachary Nathan as the Chair and Ned Fennie to be the Vice Chair. It was seconded and all were in favor of the motion. Motion carries.

4.0 Report regarding the Building Inspection Commission hearing on a proposed ordinance (File #990442) which amends the Building Code by adding Section 106.4.1.4 to require the Structural Advisory Committee to review and make recommendations on all permit applications within the Edgehill Mountain Slope Hazard Area, which is generally bounded by Garcia Avenue, Vasquez Avenue, Kensington Way, and Ulloa Street and traversed by Edgehill Way; amending section 105.6.2 to enable the Department of Public Works and interested members of the public to select a member of the Structural Advisory Committee for permit applications located within the Edgehill Mountain Slope Hazard Area; amending Section 106.3.2 to require that the applicant for permit applications located within the Edgehill Mountain Slope Hazard Area provide substantial documentation that there exists sufficient infrastructure to support the proposed residential development and that the proposed emergency access routes meet standards in effect at the time of the application; amending Section 1701.5 to require special inspections throughout the construction process for sites located within the Edgehill Mountain Slope Hazard Area. [Supervisor Teng]

Alan Tokugawa reported that he was present at the BIC meeting when the recommendation was discussed. Interested members of the public were recommending that the BIC pass this ordinance considering all sorts of things that happened to them as a result of a landslide in the past and that they do not want to see this to happen again. They suggested that, in addition to the geologist, soils engineer, and structural engineer, an architect be added to the list of the Structural Advisory Committee. This recommendation was approved. A letter was sent to the Board of Supervisors stating that they recommend the addition of an architect as part of the Structural Advisory Committee. The Neighborhood and Social Policy group of the BOS passed this on. Another hearing was held and the same group of people showed up. Apparently, one neighbor, who did not come to the BIC meeting, showed up and voiced his displeasure. However, the Board of Supervisors subcommittee passed it anyway. They were going to pass it with the architect on there but it was pointed out by someone that the code did not allow a fourth person to be paid so they recommended that to be added as a consultant only. This particular ordinance was passed.

5.0 Discussion and possible action regarding proposed ordinance regulating hazardous wastes on private property, and amending Building Code Sections 106.3.2.4.1 and 106.3.2.4.2 for clarity. This ordinance deals with permit requirements for analysis of suspected hazardous soils conditions, and results from the repealing of portions of Article 20 of the Public Works Code and relocating them to the Health Code and the Building Code. The possible action will be to make a recommendation to the Building Inspection Commission regarding disposition of this ordinance.

Frederic Freund asked if there was not enough legislation between the Federal and State that the City designate anymore on this sort of a thing.

[Mr. Tokugawa distributed a draft copy of the proposed ordinance from the Department of Public Health regarding permit regulation of hazardous wastes on private property.]

Alan Tokugawa stated that this was Article 20 of the DPW and was taken out of the Building Code. Since the Department of Building Inspection was separated from the Department of Public Works, the DBI decided to take this Article 20 which was pretty much enforced by the Department and was split into two sections. Part of it is analysis which is more the jurisdiction of the Public Health Department, and the enforcement portion which has to do with requirement of compliance when a permit was issued. Two paragraphs were added to the Building Code during the last code revision cycle. The rest of Article 20 went to the Public Health Code. The draft copy shows how the Public Health Code is being revised to take in all of the items from the Article 20 of the Public Works Code. They are suggesting that clarifications be made to the Building Code Section 106.3.2.4.1. as shown on page 7, line 12 of the draft. Mr. Tokugawa added that the staff suggests that this be approved.

Ned Fennie supports the amendment to the Building Code. He also added that the committee would like not to have to revise building code every single time the health code makes changes. He would rather see language that was either more generic or less specific in this case so that in the event the Public Health Code was amended, we did not have to amend our code. The use of specific language creates more administrative problem for the committee.

Mr. Zachary Nathan asked if there were other things that the committee had suggested to change in the building code that should be in the Public Health Code in the last code cycle. Mr. Tokugawa thought that this is the only one.

There was a motion to approve the ordinance with an amendment to remove references to Article 22A from those sections. It was seconded and passed unanimously.

6.0 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.

Alan Tokugawa reported that the Technical Services Division is very much involved in the State Building Code process and the IBC 2000 process. TSD is now planning to attend the Birmingham, Alabama Code Development meetings. In September, San Francisco will be the host chapter for ICBO’s AMB (Annual Business Meeting) 2000. Most of the staff are already attending many State functions and the ICBO Peninsula Chapter meetings. Mr. Tokugawa has been involved in the State Elevator Committee (CAL-OSHA).

Mr. Fennie asked who in the Technical Services Division staff are involved. Mr. Tokugawa added that Laurence Kornfield and Zan Turner, who are both involve in Seismic & Structural Engineering, himself, Richard Young, who is handling State Codes. Simon Tam is covering the Mechanical, Electrical and Plumbing aspects. It is hoped that DBI get a new person in TSD.

Mr. Nathan asked if the Director and Deputy Director have any functions in meetings. Mr. Tokugawa said that the Director attends quite a few of the ICBO functions but not sure of the Deputy Director.

Mr. Fennie asked how much TSD time is being spent in reviewing applications and making notes about what the committee wants. Mr. Tokugawa said about 25-30% is being spent but not sure of how much time Mr. Kornfield and Ms. Turner uses. He believes that this is going to ramp up when the State Codes come out. A meeting will be held on January 26 in Sacramento regarding IBC.

Chair Ned Fennie stated his concerns about the rapid-fire process of code development, and the timeliness of responses of the CAC to code issues. How could the expertise of the Committee be tapped in a timely manner so that a more well-rounded sort of response. He asked if there was any way to integrate the information collected and responded to by TSD and to get that information back to the CAC Subcommittees. Then if there were any responses from CAC, it could be folded into any DBI position with the comment that it is generally supported by the Code Advisory Committee. This will give additional credibility to the response. Mr. Fennie asked how the Committee can become more knowledgeable about the direction these issues are going ahead of time, and to help build the credibility of the response by putting it to the membership. Mr. Fennie stated that he gets e-mail messages from different code individuals on a regular basis and through these contacts he knows that the direction leads are headed. He is also able to forward his concerns or attend meetings when informed in this way rather than to react to a resolution that has already been made. He feels that the committee is not as plugged in as the group could be and hopes that the group will get more involved in these types of activities because it ultimately reduces the committee workload in the code cycle.

Mr. Nathan mentioned that there were proposed amendments to the State Historic Building Code discussed in committee meetings and thought that the expertise of the people involved then was helpful and that the City had quite a bit of input into that amendment process.

Mr. Fennie suggested that there be a standing agenda item which related to input of State or National code developments pertaining to that subcommittee. Mr. Fennie asked if the code developments are coming in an e-mail form or printed in hard copies. Mr. Tokugawa said that they are being printed in hard copy although a lot of them are on web pages.

Arnie Lerner said that it was a good idea as it brings the Committee along in the process. It should be a standing agenda item so that a report could be made to keep the committee informed all along.

State Code will be published in July 2000. The State is supposed to be making amendments to the IBC and IRC and would make their own Mechanical, Plumbing, and Electrical portion since they are not recommending adoption to the International Mechanical, Electrical, or Plumbing Codes. Once the State Code is published in July, the Code Advisory Committee will start their review.

Mr. Fennie suggested to invite Stuart Posselt of the California Building Standards Commission to give a presentation on the status of the State Code process. Arnie Lerner suggested to agendize this particular topic in the next regular meeting of the CAC.

Lee Phillips, member of the public, felt that based on past experience, that it would be possible to get someone from the Building Standards Commission to make a presentation.

Alan Tokugawa should take the initiative to disseminate information to the CAC as he feels would be the most efficient and timely manner, and to add a transmittal which asks that responses be returned by a date certain or it will not be included in any response package, if there is one.

Ned Fennie asked Alan Tokugawa to add this agenda item in the next meeting and make a proposal on a plan for disseminating information to CAC members.

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

This item will be discussed in the next CAC regular meeting.

8.0 Discussion and possible action regarding CAC review procedures for proposed ordinances and resolutions, including automatic review by appropriate CAC subcommittees and requests for representatives from Supervisor’s Offices or other technical personnel to be present at discussions.

Mr. Fennie thought that the committee’s standard procedure was that the subcommittees had a list of Building Code chapters that pertain to their expertise and that any proposal should be directed to them. These procedures were imposed so that the committee will not lose time in waiting for the full committee to turn assignments to subcommittees and that it would automatically be included in their agenda. Mr. Tokugawa said that this would be done. Mr. Fennie felt that the Committee’s administrative procedures should be amended to require that anytime a proposed ordinance is sent for review that the ordinance’s sponsor should be invited to attend the CAC meeting and make a brief introduction of it. In this way, the CAC would not be in the dark about the context of the legislation. If it is more expedient to have the sponsor address the subcommittee, then this should be done. Otherwise valuable time is spent in discussion which is not germane to the topic. There must be someone on the Supervisor’s staff who would be available to provide this service even for a short five or ten minutes. The agendas for CAC are being sent to Supervisor’s staff now.

9.0 Review, discussion and possible action regarding review of revisions to ADAAG (Americans with Disabilities Act - Accessibility Guidelines) requirements and possible ramifications to the California Building Codes.

Mr. Fennie note that ADAAG provisions are guidelines, not requirements. Mr. Nathan reported that public comment is being taken now on this topic at Federal level in ATBCB (Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board) and that a revised document is available for review. The deadline is sometime this coming spring, the exact time is not known. It is the intent of the State to move in the direction of becoming consistent with the Federal requirements to remove conflicting standards. This may become a controversial issue with the disabled community.

10.0 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.

Alan Tokugawa presented a updated status chart for review. There were a few more Code Rulings discovered, and these were added to the list for review. The Code Rulings were assigned to Subcommittees as follows:

BC-212-1 Parapet Safety Program Structural Subcommittee

BC-303(a)-1 Permit Processing and Handling Admin & Gen Design Subcomm.

BC-304(b)-1 Method of determining Valuation Admin & Gen Design Subcomm.

for Office Tenant Improvement

CR-307(d).94 Temporary Certificates of Occ’y Admin & Gen Design Subcomm.

Related to Completion of Disabled Access Features

BC-3801(d)-2 Standards for Fire Extinguishing Fire & Life Safety Subcomm.

Systems

BC-3805(a)-1 Fire Department Hose Valve Fire & Life Safety Subcomm.

Pressures on Class I and Combined Standpipe Systems

Jim Guthrie noted that BC-502-1, Live Work Quarters, is noted as going to Structural only, but it was intended that it go to Administrative & General Design and Fire & Life Safety Subcommittee as well.

Alan Tokugawa said he would also include a list of about a dozen Housing Code Rulings and assign them to the Housing Committee for review to clear them out properly.

Mr. Fennie asked that the Subcommittees go back and check the accuracy of this chart.

Alan Tokugawa stated that the procedure for Code Rulings which had been reviewed and acted upon by the CAC, and concurred with by DBI staff, is to send them along with a cover letter to the BIC for their review and action. These are collected and submitted in a batches so the BIC would not have to look at them one at a time.

11.0 Subcommittee Reports:

a. Housing Code Subcommittee:

Subcommittee Chair: Jim Reed

Subcommittee Member: Jerry Cunningham, P.E.

Chair Jim Reed reported that the Subcommittee is continuing with their on-going comparison of the Housing Code and Building Code searching for possible conflicts. The meeting was well-represented by Housing Inspection Services and a representative from Supervisor Gavin Newsom’s office was in attendance as well. There are questions as to what happens in cases of conflict between what was initially in the Housing Code before July 1999 and the current 1998 State Code that is now enforced under the San Francisco Building Code. Does the old section get "grandfathered" in, or does the new code supercede everything that is in the Housing Code? DBI was asked to get a ruling from the City Attorney’s office as to which code takes precedence, and what exactly is enforceable. It is hoped that the City Attorney can attend the next meeting.

a. Fire & Life Safety Subcommittee:

Subcommittee Chair: Jerry Cunningham, P.E.

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

No report.

b. Administrative & General Design Subcommittee:

Subcommittee Chair: Arnold Lerner, AIA

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

Chair Arnie Lerner reported that the Subcommittee deleted Code Ruling BC-4607, Removal of Business Sign Within 90 Days, as being redundant with Code requirements. The Subcommittee also asked Alan Tokugawa to revise the remaining code rulings so that they could just review the drafts and not have to contend with existing language which may be changed by staff anyway. Regarding the Code Rulings on Site Permits, the Subcommittee asked that DBI staff members be available at the next meeting to discuss procedural questions. The Code Ruling on Pre-Application Meetings was also discussed and Alan will prepare a draft of that for review at the next meeting.

b. Mechanical, Electrical & Plumbing Subcommittee:

Subcommittee Chair: Charles Breidinger, P.E.

Subcommittee Member: Jim Reed

No report.

c. Structural Subcommittee:

Subcommittee Chair: James Guthrie, S.E.

Subcommittee Member: Andy Forrest, P.E.

No report.

d. Disability Access Subcommittee:

Subcommittee Chair: (To be selected)

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

No report.

12.0 Secretary’s report on upcoming events and tasks for the CAC.

The latest copy of the IBC 2000 will be sent to the CAC as soon as they are obtained from the publisher. A joint meeting with the BIC will be set up as soon as practical, possibly a couple of months from now.

13.0 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.

There was a request for a report on how the new case-by-case interpretations [local equivalencies] and how that is being implemented, and whether it is a successful program or not.

There should be a report on the update of the State Building Code and election of Chair and Vice-Chair of the Committee.

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

There was no public comment.

15.0 Adjournment.

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