Greg Okay, so bear with us. We’re going to reboot this system so everybody can see everybody. There’s Oakland. Where’s LA? Susan There we go. Greg Okay. Good job Susan Ida walks the floor. Greg Can you all hear us in each location? In Oakland, can you hear us? No. Susan Well, they might be on mute, so they might have to unmute. Greg Yes, see if you’re on mute in Oakland. [Speaker off mic]. Derek Oakland, we want to make sure that we can hear you also, so please unmute the control, and verbally respond. Greg What does that sign say? Derek Can’t read the sign. I’m sorry. Greg Let’s walk up close and read it. [Speaker off mic]. W We’re on mute, right? Derek We are on mute it says. Greg Can you unmute? We can’t get—how about Los Angeles. Can you hear us? We can’t hear you either. Derek We’re on mute locally. I think that’s the red— [Speakers off mic]. Greg We’re not hearing either one of them. We’re on mute. [Speakers off mic]. Greg You still can’t hear us. Correct, we’re working on it. Thank you. They’ve unmuted, and we still can’t hear them. Derek I believe that our speaker is on mute as indicated by the red icon.
Greg Any comments on this provision? Any concerns on this provision? Kaylan Greg, this is Kaylan. I’m going to keep my comments brief today. I think that should be circulation path instead of circulation route. Greg Okay, a rationale for that. Kaylan A circulation path is defined and circulation route isn’t. Greg Okay, great. Kaylan And, to avoid confusion where some code users confuse accessible route and circulation path. Greg So, you would replace route with path, correct? Kaylan Correct. Greg Any concerns about that from other members? Gary I can agree with what she’s commenting, Gary Layman. Greg Okay. Gary It sounds good. Greg Does everybody—go ahead, I’m sorry. Gary I agree with Kaylan. I support that. Greg Okay, so the ACC then is supporting this provision from Kaylan. No concerns. Okay. Thank you. I think we’re ready to move on. Any other comments on this. Okay. Thank you. Susan The next item is 11B-608.5, and this is Susan Moe. That is on page 61 of 70 of your document. What we’re looking at there is amending 608.5 and removing the sentence that says controls and faucets shall be of the single-lever design. Think about what we found is there are other types of controls that you could use like a push button that would meet the requirements for operable parts, so this will make this section consistent with the standards, with the model code, and we’re just realizing that we don’t want to limit those controls to only a single-lever design. Greg Comments. Arfaraz That can be a problem, especially in situations where [Indiscernible] equipment is required. You typically see a push button there, and that’s okay. I think it’s okay to have a push button. It’s the ability to stay on or turn off that is not addressing a push button control. An able-bodied person can get away from scalding hot water,
Dara No, but you also have required fire doors. Carol That’s right. Derek That’s an existing—we’re not proposing to add or delete that language. It’s only provided for context. Arfaraz So, my question is if it’s already addressed in 404.1 under exception 2, why should you add another exception in 404.2.9? Derek To cover the case where the detention-grade doors are—because detention-grade doors are more durable, more solid, and typically much heavier. They’re often plated in thick steel for security purposes. They do tend to weigh more and are typically more difficult to operate and to open the doors. So, that’s the issue that we’re trying to address here. Soojin So, you’re broadening the exception to allow doors that are operated not by security personnel, but by other people. Derek Yes, this exception would do that. Debbie Similar to the way the required egress doors are given the 15-pound allowance, they are proposing that because these doors are generally made of 12, 14-gauge, some of them go up to 300 pounds in weight. Due to the nature of the size and weight of the doors, they have proposed that code amendment. Greg Okay, I think we’ve heard concerns. It sounds like most people support moving forward with this. A couple people have concerns about the weight, so I say we move on. So, 11B-405.9.2— Arfaraz Excuse me. I’m not sure that I say I support this, so I just want to be clear that at least, I for one, am not supportive of this. Greg Okay, let’s step back the now that we’ve had the full conversation. Who has issues with this the way it is being proposed? We have a couple people in the room. Kaylan or Vidal, do you have any concerns? Vidal No. Kaylan No, sir. Greg No, okay. Anybody in Oakland and LA? Arfaraz. So, three folks have concerns. Okay, thank you for that. Debbie The next one is closely related. You can find it on page 47. It’s also been submitted by CDCR, and it’s related to doors with vision lights. They are requesting an amendment that would include an exception under 11B-404.2.11
Gene Yes. [Speakers off mic]. Greg The way it stands now, I think we’re looking for if there’s no opposition to the change that’s made here, which is just a clarification to the existing code, the issue of the cane user is a separate issue that’s not currently addressed either in the existing or in the proposed, so that would have to be something that either the next cycle or— Derek DSA would have to take a look at that separately. Greg Yes, so given that, does anybody oppose this current language for what it’s defined to do this go-around? Any opposition to this? Carol Can I repeat what you’re saying then? What you’re saying then is should we keep the current code language? Greg No. I’m saying is there any opposition to the proposed change here. The concern that’s been raised about the cane is not addressed either in the existing current code or the proposed, so that would have to be dealt with in the next cycle or at some future point, but we’re just looking for opposition to this change as proposed. It sounds like there’s no opposition to this but recognition that yes, the cane Gary. I’m sorry. Go ahead. Then, Kaylan and Vidal, I want to weigh in with you quickly, too. Gary Gary Layman with CALBO. At our last meeting I did make comment about a concern of the picket coming down similar to what Gene has indicated, but after listening to Derek’s response and comments to it, and then reading shall provide a continuous and uninterrupted barrier along the length of the ramp, that kind of concurs that it has to be a solid, smooth surface. So, we’re happy with how it’s written. Greg Okay. Thank you. Kaylan or Vidal, any other comments? Vidal This is Vidal. When we’re looking the agreement, we’re agreeing to a proposed amendment, correct, the one that was just read? Greg Yes. Vidal Okay, that there’d be a continuous barrier, uninterrupted. Greg Yes. Vidal Alright. I agree. Greg Okay. Kaylan. Kaylan I would just second what Gary said. I’m good.