maxwell, president chiu, supervisor mar. shortly after i left for here i received an email from phil ryan, president of the golden gate tennis association. he to go to physical therapy for his fractured wrist so he couldn't be here. he asked ne to tell i that the -- me to tell you that the golden gate tennis association enthusiastically supports the

bocce ball courts. he said the association represents the tenants of the gateway, the largest planned rent controlled facility in the city, 2 did, 1,245 units. he said we fully support construction of bocce ball courts as a sound means to preserve and enhance recreational space in the most population intense neighborhood in the city. we're grateful to the generous gift to the filmly strapped city by union members. our support for this project was approved by the golden gate tenants association and anyone taking a contrary position does not speak for our association. so that's from golden gate tenants. i am speaking on behalf of the neighborhood network today. when i learned of this proposed project i took information to the next neighborhood network meeting and all of those present at the meeting were

supportive of this project. first of all, it's supportive -- not -- it's a passive recreational use on the embarcadero and i think everyone i know of who lives on the east side of the city wants more recreation on the embarcadero. it would have a calming effect. it's a sport where people of all ages can participate. it's not difficult to learn how to play bocce ball. you can be 4 years old or 90 years old. it would a -- have a calming effect on the area. we envision office tournaments, families playing together, neighbors playing together. visitors even playing together. currently just in herman plaza in the median strip located between the two embarcadero roadways are very busy and

management has received complaints from farmers market patrons and building tenants about the noise of the skate boarders and the so-called music. i have encountered this first hand so -- i see my time is up but i would definitely support and my neighborhood network supports the bocce ball courts. thank you. >> -- supervisor maxwell: any further public comment on this item? seeing none, then public comment is closed. planning department? would you please come forward? oh, rec and park, i'm sorry. i believe had you some comments, you were hearing some things and wanted to make some clarifying comments? >> sure. just a few quick comments. there is absolutely no plan for a fence as part of this. it's very open. the analogy i've been using is

it's like one of our city basketball courts where people can come and bring their basketball and play. it's just a pickup game spot. and we do have an existing m.o.u. between d.p.w. and boston properties to maintain justin herman plaza and this bocce ball court if accepted will continue to be maintained as it is currently. supervisor maxwell: any other colts? supervisor chiu and then supervisor mar. supervisor chiu: so the local 61 students and apprentices willing involved in constructing the field and the boston properties is the, kind of course the management of the area. is local 261 going to be involved with any of the maintenance of the courts afterwards? >> yes. supervisor mar: yes.

supervisor maxwell: supervisor chiu? supervisor chiu: just closing comments. first i want to address some of the issues that were raised in public comment. ernestine, i am very open to considering a business improvement district for the downtown area as i have a strong proponent in fisherman's whatever and other parts of the district and i have let the business community and property owners know that if that is of interest they would need -- i would need their support to move forward with that. i think it's approximately important to emphasize that this is a gift we can give back. if at some point down the road we decide as a city than it's

not the best use, i am very open to having that conversation and i look forward to having the conversation with where rincon hill and others are going to go advise is -- vis-a-vis the open space. and it is ms. crowley's birthday and i want to thank you for taking part of your day to come here and be a hart of this with it -- is. supervisor maxwell: happy birthy, yes. and i too want to thank the union folks for coming down and looking at this as something you can do. i hope you will consider maybe other projects you can be part of in our estimate i want to thank all of you involved in bringing this together. it's giving a gift. seems like it should be an easy thing but in san francisco there are a lot of people that want to be a part of that

giving, that you're giving to so they all want to have a say in that. supervisor mar in supervisor mar: i did have one other question. i want to thank the donors for creating a beautiful spot that gets people out and moving with a sport i'm not that familiar with, but i did see the youtube display of what bocce ball is and i'm looking forward to getting out there and trying it. i'm glad that this hasn't become an issue of pitting bocce ball players with children's playgrounds. i know that's an issue with some of the residents but my hope is that the businesses and others that support this will look at this as -- look at also good sites for potential playground spaces but i know that will take some time. thank you for bringing this forward. supervisor maxwell: and i have

played bocce ball and it's fun. it's a good sport to play. after that, colleagues, without further -- actually, if we could adopt the amendment? supervisor maxwell: all right. why don't we accept the amendment and the legislation as amended. so moved. madame clerk, is there any further business before -- before this committee? >> no, there are no further items. supervisor maxwell: colleagues, this meeting is adjourned.

>> good morning. today is wednesday, august 18, 2010. this is the regular meeting of the building commission. i would like to remind everyone to turn off their electric devices. the first agenda -- item on the agenda is roll-call. [roll call] we have a quorum. the next 10 and is president announcements. >> i have no announcement, other

than we will move the items 5 and 6 forward in front of the directors' report. >> item 5. report, discussion, and possible action to approve code amendments to the 2010 california building, mechanical, electrical, pummeling -- plumbing, residential, and green building codes and recommend approval to the board of supervisors. >> good morning, members of the commission. this impressive display of books here it is the next code cycle. this is the 2010 california building code, mechanical code, energy, and so forth. every three years, the state

adopts a new code. by law, we are required to use the state code, and we are given authority to amend it based on local conditions, climate, topography. we have done this many times over the years. excuse me come up to 1984, we had our own code. since that time, we have had to take state coach, and by law, we have six months to make local changes and bring them toward to have an effective date of colon with the federal code. in doing your code update every cycle, we develop a code of

cycle adoption plan, schedule, and i will point out, we are always on a tight timeframe because the city only gives us six months to make changes. that might be ample time for other jurisdictions, but we have to take the code to through the various subcommittees. i know some of you attended those hearings. we then had in-house staff comment, review, analysis, we have to bring it to the full board, mayor, mandatory 30-day waits -- so we are just always on a tight time frame. of course, the code never comes out early from the state. it always comes out exactly on time or blight, as it was this year. with that preface, we have with us the chair of the code

advisory committee. he will say one or two things about it. we are pleased that this year is a consensus document that has undergone tremendous review. our basic premise in the code cycle was to bring forward previous amendments with as few modifications as necessary just to implement some of the code and changes that were made at the state level. the most significant issue related to the code this year have to do with the state's adoption of two new codes. one is called calgreen, the green building code, and the residential code. our biggest challenge -- carrying forward old amendments and finding places is a housekeeping matter.

it takes time and effort, committees have to reach amendments and make sure that they go to the appropriate place. but the big thing is figuring out how to integrate them into san francisco's code. i want to talk about these changes, the calgreen code. as you know, san francisco adopted its own green building ordinance a couple of years back. we were way ahead of the state with regard to buildings. the state this year has adopted a california green building code and included language that said any local jurisdiction with their own code, they can continue their authority with local requirements, as long as they are at least pass strict as state requirements. what that required us to do is to take this state building code

and look at our own, and for each provision, is this as strict as the state? if not, we need to bring it forward. in order to do that, we need to do a complete matrix for each provision. the city cannot have any code that are less restrictive than the state. either equal or more restrictive. what we ended up doing with the california green building code was bring in into our previous green building chapter, 13c, the environmental concerns chapter, and bring forward those more restrictive provisions in the state code -- and there were many -- and as well integrating our own green building code. that was done with a great help of the department of the environment, contracts with held

on consultants. months and months, half a dozen hearings, public hearings on the green building code. it will make some differences in san francisco. it will make it more difficult and expensive to build certain types of buildings but the state said you must do it. it is interesting, and a green building stuff is happening so fast, everybody getting up to speed, it is almost standard practice now for most construction types, these days. the other big change in the code is the residential. the state, for the first time, and then did something called the international residential code, irc, and it applies to one

and two-family dwellings. they adopted the code because many small towns and cities around the state primarily have some division construction, construction on lots that do not require the complexity that san francisco has. this is the san francisco building code. that is a substantial piece of documentation for a small builder in tracy to build a subdivision. so the state wanted to come up with a simple way for builders, designers, to build these homes without having all of the special requirements. this would apply to one, two- family dwellings separated by a property line up at least 3 feet or separated from and the

adjoining building by at least 6 feet on another parcel. no more than three stories high, so on. it turns out, we do not have many laws in san francisco where you are building a new building, 3 feet from the adjacent property line, 6 feet from another parcel. so our big challenge was trying to figure out how you have this new, focused presidential code, which is really developed for another use, but we are required to adopt and use the california residential code. what we did is go through the california residential code and once again look at what provisions were you there more restrictive than the regular

code -- and believe it or not, there were some -- and ones that were more specific. for example, all new residential buildings must have spiked -- fire sprinklers. that is not in the regular california code. we have to bring that provision forward. it has an exemption for alterations and additions. those are some of the things we had to go through. we took all those elements that we come were more restrictive and put them into the regular san francisco building code with a key that says that it is from the presidential code. -- residential code. we were concerned about having two separate codes, builders would have to carry two separate code books, engineers would have to understand two different

codes. the regular california code standard for fire, protection, the egress, for all buildings in the city, so that we do not have a double standard. >> are we required to comply with the residential code, which was developed for smaller writ -- jurisdictions -- does that not mean that smaller jurisdictions are required to comply with the codes that we comply with? >> buildings that fall under the residential code, if you have a building, like in the downtown area, they have to use the regular california code. >> if you are using a one, two- unit building, you have to stick with the regular code? >> at this point, you do have to stick with the regular code.

however, it does have some caveat. if your building is -- here is what it might say. you are building a residential building. you have to use the regular code. we had to bring about stuff in. interesting to me is the fact that the residential code was developed by the state with the concept of basically providing the same level of construction and safety, fire protection, as the regular fire -- as the regular code. maybe we are more restrictive. nonetheless, we had to go through in every case where they were more restrictive. >> it is curious to me. if you are building a two-unit building, you would have this as

an alternate, but we are required to enact more restrictive requirements into our code? >we always make our commitments to the state code but it seems like the residential code would be an alternate. >> it is a hybrid, a mix of both. >> yes, you could always use the original code, as it was intended to be more restrictive, but it turns out, they did not pay attention to all the details. i think there are 25 carry- forwards. >> i wonder what other things that i did not see when i was looking through it. >> how much more time as the

review process been extended? >> the code review was a big problem for us, but now that it is all in the code, probably not a significant effect on our daily operations. everything is clearly in there. once we do training -- >> that is what i was going to ask. do we have some level of training so they are familiar? public not reach will only take place at the point where they are applying for their permit. >> as part of the plan, we have this coded option cycle which we are talking about today. then we have the next piece which is reviewing our

administrative bulletin to make sure that they are all correct. then we have this. every year we try to do outreach, energy code training. we are coming up on it. it is already august. we will really focus on that in the next few months before the code becomes a effective. -- effective. there are few issues in chapter one that i should mention. i know you have not had a lot of time to review this, but chapter one changes -- things like changing the appeal of masonry.

most of that done is is done ate board of appeals. having a seismic investigation and survey committee. we have a lot of other seismic hazards, the groups that have been developed through the city. that is purely a superfluous, believe. we had some changes to the use of the code reinforcement rehabilitation fund. dbi money going to the office of housing. now we are retaining some of that money to do some code enforcement, which i believe is a good strategy. we have fees and fee adjustments to be done on a separate time

ordinance. we do not generally tried to do all of that related stuff. that is part of the code cycle. that has a different review process and timeline. the director will be bringing forward something in the near future. the housing code is simply carrying over the previous code. we are simply keeping our the updated based on the changes in the safety code. although, i understand part of the future plan will be to review the housing code and make sure that it is up to date. we are getting ready to do that. the next steps in this are updating the administrative bulletin, training. this code goes to the public

publisher. for your general information, we do not pay the publisher to publish the code. he gives us free copies and they make their money by selling copies to the public. the contract is based on them in committing himself to the public at the lowest cost. it is not that they are finding a way to challenge the public but they are required to sell out the lowest price. there will be a new bid later this year. >> will then be in place by implementation time? >> the contract expires by the end of 2011, so we will start right after this is done. soon we will start the new rfp.

>> you mentioned online the wing. is that free? >> yes, the contract requires that they maintain all of our amendment on line and up-to- date. when there is a change, even to an administrative bullet, they put it online. they are up there right now. recently, i am pleased to say, state codes, for the first time, are available online. for the past few years, it was only purchased because they had a copyright. there was a negotiated deal with the states that would allow other agencies to put up the actual state code online. that has been a big help to a lot of people, actually.