Department of Building Inspection

PRESENT:

ABSENT:

Daniel Shapiro, Chair

Jerome Cunningham,Member

Ann Cervantes, Member

John Demakas, Member

Mel Cammisa, Member

James Reed, Member

Dick Glumac, Member

Joseph Cassidy, Member

CITY STAFF:

Wing Y. Lau, P.E., Chief Building Inspector, DBI
Hanson Tom, Manager Permit Service, DBI
Captain Shembrie, Captain, SFFD

1.0

Call to Order and Roll Call.

Chair Daniel Shapiro called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m.

Roll was called and a quorum was established.

2.0

Review and Approval of Minutes of March 13, 2001 Meeting.

Board Member Glumac moved to approve the minutes as written. The motion was seconded by Board Member Camissa and passed unanimously.

3.0

Public Comment

Chief Building Inspector Wing Lau explained that public comment is the time for any member of the general public to make any comments regarding the minutes or agenda from a previous meeting.  Chair Shapiro then asked if there were any public comments. No comments were made.

4.0

Old Business

There was no old business.

5.0

New Business

5.1  File No. 2003.01: 1010 Market Street

Mr. Jim Fagler, an Architect with Asian Neighborhood Design, requested relief from a Building Code requirement that limits a door swing encroachment to a maximum of 12 inches over the property line onto the public way or sidewalk. The door in question is located at the back of the building on Golden Gate Ave and serves  a required  exit.  The door as proposed would lack entry hardware, be equipped with an alarm, and is intended for emergency exiting only. No entry would be allowed. This request is to allow the door to swing  a full 36 inches over the sidewalk. Moving the door outward would eliminate an alcove or niche that has provided shelter for illegal activities. The existing sidewalk is ten feet wide at this location and would easily provide a four foot minimum path of travel even if the door were fully open.

A minor sidewalk encroachment permit was approved by DPW as required.  However, the DBI  plan checker would not approve the condition under the permit because nothing in the code  allows him to waive the requirement.  Relief is requested for this specific door only.

Chief Building Inspector Lau, explained that department staff rejected the proposal because of a major concern for public safety.  If the door were allowed to swing a full 36 inches over the sidewalk then it would create a hazard to   unsuspecting pedestrians when the door unexpectedly opened.  The department might support the proposal if some additional protection were provided on both sides of the door.

Board Member Glumac explained that the board couldn’t override the code without some sort of equivalency or mitigation

Board Member Cammisa asked if an audible alarm would be added.

Mr. Jim Fagler explained that the alarm is currently on the inside only.  He would consider adding a planter or a railing if DBI prefers.

Board Member Cervantes asked if any other options have been investigated.

Board Member Cassidy suggested an alarm with a light operated by an automatic sensor.

Chair Shapiro asked the other board members if an alarm and a light would be acceptable. If so, it would need to activate before the door is opened. The timing on the alarm should be specified.

Board Member Glumac stated that there is typically a 2 or 3-second delay after the alarm sounds before the door will open.  He also questioned whether or not a planter would require an additional encroachment permit from DPW.

Mr. Jim Fagler confirmed that an additional permit would be required for the planter.

Chief Building Inspector Lau stated his concern for blind or hearing-impaired pedestrians who could be jeopardized by a door swinging open unexpectedly.

Chair Shapiro asked Mr. Lau if a warning horn or light would provide the kind of protection DBI is looking for.

Board Member Cervantes suggested a caution sign to go with the alarm.

Tenants of the building were then allowed to speak and voice their concerns about the health hazards, public nuisance, and illegal activities taking place at this door.  A petition from the tenants in the building was submitted with 48 signatures in support of the  new door configuration.

Board Member Glumac made a motion that the application be approved subject to the following conditions:  1.  This is a one time only approval, specifically for this building and no other project.  2.  Secondly the door would be provided with an audible alarm with sufficient time delay to warn the passerbys of door opening. There should be also a lighted sign, red in color or some other color recommended by  DPW that should also flash and say door opening.  3.  A planter or rail is required with DPW approval.  4. Plans shall be submitted to DBI.

Board Member Cammisa seconded the motion.

Board Member Cervantes made an objection. The planter or railing should be deleted.

Chair Shapiro clarified the motion. An encroachment permit from DPW shall be included with the permit application. The new door shall be equipped with an audible alarm with sufficient time delay to warn pedestrians any time the door is opened. A lighted sign shall be installed that is either red or some other color recommended by DPW,  that would also flash and say door is opening.

Chair Shapiro called a vote.  The motion passed unanimously.

5.2              File No. 2003:02: 601 Townsend St. – (700-768 7^th St.)

Board Member Cammisa excused himself from voting because his firm is providing engineering services for this project.

Chief Building Inspector Lau stated that the appellant requests a variance from the requirements and limitations of Table 5-B and Section 1007.2.1 of the 2001 San Francisco Building Code.  Mr. Lau then asked Hanson Tom and Lt. Peter Shembrie of the Fire Department to present this case and to explain to the Board the intent and requirements of the code.

Hanson Tom, DBI described the existing building as a Type 4 (heavy timber) un-reinforced masonry building (UMB) with B occupancy.  The proposed project would involve a change in use from B occupancy to an A 2.1 assembly for the Exploritorium Museum.  Table 5-B in the building code limits A2.1 assembly use in Type 4 construction to buildings which are a maximum of two stories high. This building has three stories with an occupant load for the project calculated at 8,000 people for the upper three floors and 500 people in the basement.

The building is classified as a historical building and so the project sponsor would like to use the State Historic Building Code (instead of current code) to legitimize the change of occupancy and allow the use of all three floors.  A sprinkler system has been proposed. The state historic building code contains an exception allowing unlimited area when sprinkler protection is provided. The problem however is that the sponsor needs both area increase and story increase allowances. Sprinklers are typically only allowed as mitigation for one of the  deficiencies. This is the reason why this project has been presented to the Board for their review.

The project sponsor has made an effort to resolve the Department’s concerns.  They have provided a sufficient total number of exits for the occupant loads.  They have also provided an adequate number of stair enclosures.  In addition, they are proposing area separation walls to divide the building into three compartments for exiting. However, even with three 3 separated areas, the project still exceeds the maximum area allowed under current code. 

The current building code also requires a large main exit for A2.1 assemblies, capable of accommodating 50% of the occupancy load. The theory is that most people will leave a building in an emergency the same way they entered. Since the project sponsor is proposing area separation walls to create compartments, this means that each of the three compartments should have a main exit that accommodates 50% of the occupancy load within that compartment.  However, the exit configuration proposed will not provide a single main exit for each compartment. Instead the design relies upon three or more exits per compartment to support the exit load.

As  mitigation they are proposing to increase the sprinkler density and provide quick response sprinkler heads and smoke detectors throughout the area.  They are also willing to provide horizontal exiting.  With the horizontal exiting they will create an area of refuge in the event of an emergency.  Since the Exploritorium is mainly used by grade school children, one of the Department’s main concerns is that the project provide adequate fire safety and   exiting with this use in mind.

Captain Peter Shembrie stated that he had reviewed the project and had the same concerns as the Building Department. The project had not been reviewed yet by the fire marshal and his approval will be required.  That said, the proposal appears to be in the ballpark and he  believes that they are making a good faith effort. However, the building is grossly over area.  He is not 100% sure that the proposal mitigates all of the deficiencies.  With the careful review and guidance of the Board he believes he can go to the fire marshal and make a presentation to see if something else is needed in order to insure that all the occupants are safe.

Hanson Tom, DBI pointed out that the State Historic Building Code may allow double dipping (for both height and area increases) on type 4 buildings whereas the new building code would not.

Mr. Kerwin Lee made his presentation.  There are two separation walls that divide the building into three compartments.  The walls are masonry, a minimum of 21 inches in thickness. Where reinforced for shear, the walls may be as much as 29 inches thick. This is equivalent to 4-hr fire resistive construction.   

The basement will be used for support services such as storage and office, with some public functions. The 1^st  and 3^rd floors will be a public area for exhibits.  The 1^st and 3^rd floors were chosen for the exhibit area because the high ceilings create the most useful space in the building. The 2^nd floor will contain office as well as exhibit use. 

The key issues for review by the Board are the allowable height and area (based upon occupancy and type of construction), and the size of the main exit.  Under Table 5-B an A2.1 assembly occupancy is limited to 2 stories within a type 4 building.  An assembly occupancy must also have a large designated main exit.

The existing building is a designated historic landmark, 3 stories high, and presently classified as a B occupancy with sprinkler protection throughout.

This request is to allow the 3^rd floor for  assembly use. 

The building contains an area of approximately 190,000 square feet. The maximum area under office use should only be 108,000 square feet counting the  allowable increases permitted by the code. For an assembly use the maximum area should only be 40,500 square feet or (13,500 x 3).

Board Member Shapiro asked if anything in the code says you can increase the area based upon an increase in sprinkler density.

Mr. Kerwin Lee responded that the current building code does not address this specifically.  However, Section 8-302.4 of the State Historic Building Code allows a building to be unlimited in area with the installation of a fire sprinkler system. The combination of quick response sprinklers, smoke detection systems for early warning, and area separations should allow museum occupants  enough time to leave so fire fighters can access the areas  inside the compartments.  It should be noted that separation walls are proposed but not required under the Historic Building Code.  As far as both height and area increases are concerned he believes that the State Historic Building Code permits this. 

The second issue is the width of the main exit. Section 1007.2.1 requires a main exit for an  A2.1 occupancy.  That main exit is supposed to provide exiting for 50% of the occupant load.  The main entrance is on Townsend St., which leads to a central area containing the elevator and main stair.  There will be a secondary main entrance on the side where the café is located.  Another entrance on 7^th Street is a historic entrance and will be used by tour groups and school buses.  Each of the three compartments contains a main entrance. 

100% of the required exiting will be provided by enclosed stairs, six of which are existing. Each compartment will have a designated main exit capable of accommodating approximately 50% of the occupant load.  The additional capacity will be provided by the use of a horizontal exit. When the occupancy load for these floors was calculated, the entire exhibition area was subjected to the occupant load factor 1 to 15.   No subtractions were taken for any of the exhibition equipment or fixtures even though these fixtures could account for as much as 15% of the total area. 

This occupancy requires four  exits distributed equally.  The concept of a horizontal exit is to create a 2 hr minimum horizontal separation across the building. When you travel from one side of the building to the other through this 2 hr wall you have basically left the hazard behind.  The 2 hr wall provides additional time to travel through the exiting system and leave the building.

Appendix C page 2 outlines all the exits including horizontal exits and stairs.  Each compartment will potentially have 2,083 people and the design will provide 143% of the required exits based on occupant load.  The project design has considered the City’s concerns regarding the number of children present in the building. We believe that that 100% of the exiting will be provided. 

We hope the Board will agree that all the elements of life safety have been considered and that what has been presented is equivalent to the minimum code requirements.

Board Member Cervantes asked if they had considered putting the offices on the 3^rd floor and the exhibits on the 2nd floor.

The Project Director replied that this had been considered but the 3^rd floor has the greatest amenities in terms of ceiling height. The  2^nd floor frankly did not work out programmatically because of ceiling height.

Board Member Shapiro noted that the theatre is located on the 1^st floor.

Board Member Glumac asked if the openings in the fire rated walls would be protected by automatic fire doors.

Mr. Kerwin Lee answered that openings will be protected where required.

Board Member Cassidy asked about the office space on the 2^nd floor. Will this space be leased by someone else? Will there be some kind of floor lighting?

The Project Director answered that every area will be lit as a means of egress and increases will be made if necessary.

Chair Shapiro referred to an earlier comment by Hanson Tom.   If you consider the historic building code which allows you unlimited area with sprinkler protection, and then you go back to the current building code which allows you to have a 3^rd floor with sprinklers, is that still considered double dipping?

Hanson Tom, DBI replied that a new building would not be allowed to gain both height and area increases from sprinkler protection. The State Historic Building Code is also very clear.  The use or character of the occupancy may be changed from its historical use provided the building conforms with the requirements for  the new use or occupancy as set forth in this code.  Such change in occupancy shall not mandate conformance with new construction requirements as set forth  provided the new use or occupancy does not create a fire hazard or other conditions detrimental to the safety of occupants and our fire fighting personnel.

Chair Shapiro asked if the fire department had rejected this proposal

Hanson Tom, DBI confirmed that they had.

Chair Shapiro noted that the proposal emphasized the enhanced character of the life safety system.  Increased sprinkler density, quick response heads, and additional smoke alarms will be provided. Has there been any precedent to allow increases in height or area when you have an enhanced sprinkler system?

Hanson Tom, DBI responded that he has not seen this during his time with the Department.

Chair Shapiro asked if an enhanced sprinkler system reduces fire spread.

Board Member  Glumac responded that in his opinion there is a big improvement gained by changing regular sprinklers to the quick response type. It is the difference between one minute and six seconds. Additionally, he asked questions about the ventilation system. How many air chambers, etc?

Mr. Kerwin Lee says they will recommend that they have a smoke control system in the building.  .

Board Member Glumac said he was talking about using the HVAC system to purge smoke, activated by a smoke detector in the duct.

Mr. Kerwin Lee said that the smoke detector would shut down the system so that bad air is not recirculated.

Board Member Glumac speaking as the mechanical engineer on the board, feels that quick response sprinkler heads are a fair trade for the extra area. He suggested making the HVAC system work for smoke removal by automatic means. He would be willing to accept that as a second enhancement which could buy them another item of the code. 

Mr. Kerwin Lee responded that they would work with the fire department as far as what controls they would like to have in those areas.

Board Member Glumac made a motion that the application be approved with everything they submitted. In addition the HVAC system would be utilized for smoke removal by automatic means in case of fire. The design team would need to work closely with the fire department and the building department to fulfill all requirements.

Chief Building Inspector Lau reminded the board members that a decision made by them today does not necessarily have to be honored by the fire department because the fire department is regulated by the state fire marshal.  Any conditions adopted by the board will still require approval by the fire department/fire marshal. 

Captain Schembrie reiterated that the building is over 70,000 square feet. This is a very large area increase that has been requested. He does not believe that the fire marshal will be satisfied with what was presented today. He was hoping to get some more guidance from the commission regarding the two major items. He will look very closely at the proposal and have further discussions with Rolph Jensen and Associates and will take this back to the fire marshal for his review pending the Board’s decision. 

Board Member Glumac stated that it his understanding that when a building has exceeded the allowable area, two additional sprinkler supply lines to the building are required.  Is that the only problem?

Captain Schembrie responded that he would like to look at the total picture. What is the building’s use? What is the fire load? Can we make it safer for the occupants based upon what is going on there and who is going to be there This is what we have to look at closely, and take back to the fire marshal.

Chair Shapiro reiterated that whatever the board of examiners decides here today is only from the standpoint of the board and the city and does not in any way effect what the fire marshal has to say.

Board Member Cassidy stated that the original proposal was to increase the sprinkler density in the exhibition area only. We can expand that to all the other public areas including the theatre, café, classroom areas, etc.  If there is additional fire loading in the building it will trigger an increase in sprinkler density. You would increase the amount of water to that area.  As far as smoke detection is concerned, the original proposal was to provide smoke detection throughout the exhibition areas.  It can be expanded to the rest of the public areas such as the theatre, café, etc.  You do not need to put smoke detection in the office areas because those areas will be separated from the exhibition area by 1 hr construction.

Board Member Glumac restated the motion that the Board of Examiners with the following additions approves the application. The sprinkler density shall be expanded to all the other public and accessory use areas. All sprinklers shall be quick response type. The proposed smoke detectors shall be expanded to the same areas. The HVAC system shall be capable of purging and removing smoke in the event of fire.  Additionally, the designers of this project shall work closely with the SFFD and DBI and fulfill all the requirements that the SFFD come up with regarding density of water flows and density of smoke detection, etc.

Board Member Cassidy seconded the motion.

Hanson Tom, DBI stated that approval at this time is conceptual only.  The details must still be plan checked by the building and fire department during the permit review process.

Chair Shapiro agreed. It is assumed in the motion that any other requirements in the building code will be met.

Chair Shapiro called a vote on the motion to approve the application. The motion passed unanimously (with Cammisa abstaining).

6.

Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.m.