Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the High Rise Code Interpretation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners press state fire marshal interpretation that could make rooftop decks count in high-rise measurement
Summary
DBI and SFFD staff discussed a reposted State Fire Marshal interpretation (02/2017) that rooftop decks may be counted as occupied floors when measuring the 75-foot threshold for high-rise classification, prompting questions about project status, exceptions and next steps to seek clarification from the state.
Commissioners and agency staff spent a significant portion of the Aug. 21 meeting discussing whether rooftop decks should be counted as occupied floors when measuring the 75‑foot trigger that determines high‑rise status under a State Fire Marshal (SFM) interpretation originally issued in February 2017.
An SFFD representative (assistant fire marshal) said the interpretation — which classifies certain rooftop decks as occupied floor space for the purpose of measuring the 75‑foot high‑rise threshold — was posted again recently without new rationale and without notifying local fire officials. He described outreach to the SFM’s office seeking a meeting to understand the interpretation’s rationale and whether limited local carve‑outs or clarifications are possible.
Staff described past local practice of not treating open rooftop accommodations as occupied floors and said projects are typically governed by the rules in place at the application date. Commissioners raised concerns about how planning department open‑space requirements and the increasing intensity of rooftop uses (permanent cooking, assemblies, hardscapes) could change building‑code consequences; assistant fire marshal and DBI staff noted that other code requirements (egress, assembly loads) still apply and that each rooftop is reviewed case by case.
Director Tom Hui and staff said they will coordinate with the city attorney and the fire department to seek state clarification. No immediate binding change to local permitting practice was announced; staff said they will follow the interpretation unless the city attorney determines otherwise or the SFM provides a different ruling.
