wanted to say particular thanks to one of our staff members. kirk means. he took over a job after the previous person retired. lou aria passed away a few months ago. kirk has done the job of both of them and although it is new to him, he has done an extraordinary job. could i ask mr. fenni to say a word or two on behalf of the code advisory committee? >> i just wanted to tell you, there is a letter in your packet formally asking you to endorse our approval of the amendments. i wanted to talk about the

process we used. it is a process that alan and warrants developed a while ago because of the short timeframe, we had to jump on these amendments. we separate the code by discipline. we have four, five standing subcommittees. the amendments go directly to the subcommittee for their review. in some committees we have representatives of staff, general public, members of the fire department, so we can hide -- hammer out all of the details. once the said committee reviews those, they are moved to the full committee. that is when we review all other responses. basically, fire, life, safety, green building committee, mep, general, structural. i want to recognize a few of the

individuals. allen and lawrence came up with the idea to run this to the subcommittee. kirk has followed through with that process. it really speeds things up because we can get to the amendment. frankly, i think kirk spend a few late-night evenings on the administration with it. i also want to point out, the department of the environment was helpful in reviewing what are essentially the two big challenges. the green building -- cal green -- fitting into our green coat. he did a wonderful analysis, different spreadsheet to show that we were more or as restrictive. the one thing that floated to the surface, in cal green, there

is a medium building category. i think it is thousandto -- 5000 to 20000 --those would be small buildings to us in san francisco. so they are going to be captured in a way that is more akin to the larger buildings. i think that is all. if there are any other questions, i would be happy to answer. >> i have a strong concern for the gray water systems that we are in the process of looking into. is that part of the pummeling -- plumbing, progress moving forward? >> frankly, i am not the expert, so i do not know where that is coming into the picture.

>> gray water systems have become an issue. department of building inspection has tried to get ahead of the curve by adopting one of the policies in the gray water system so that we have a basis to review those things. we are working with the public utilities commission on gray water programs and there are two folks over there rosie jenkins, susie are the two staffs. they are aggressively trying to encourage, reclaim recycled water, bring water cycles. it is a big issue that you need to coordinate with the health department. they are addressed in some way,

raincoat, but not specifically authorizing gray water. there are water-related issues like storm water. the gray water is still under debate and we will be holding a number of meetings to encourage the department, if you are interested. >> i want to thank staff and our code advisory committee. clearly, this is a large project. people really give up themselves to best put this forward. i think, along lines of the new code, especially the green coat, maybe we could arrange to have an agenda item specifically letting everyone know what the

new rules are. i get approach a lot of by people wanting to build green. >> i think we want to give as much information as we can, just to let people know what they need to do and what is available. >> we will be preparing them for the public, educational purposes. >> i would love to have an agenda item. maybe it is more appropriate for our region in the neighborhood -- having a meeting in the neighborhood. >> possibly part of that

informational packet, seminar, would be an evaluation, impact of fees that would bring to mind is better to do it up front rather than later. the active role of green conservation, it is everyone's responsibility to implement it now. >> i just wanted to make mention about the calgreen, green building requirements. we're moving from prescriptive to performance. calgreen our performance-based code. they are evolving very quickly. it would be nice if we could tell everyone, this is what you

have to do, this will be good for the next 10 years. i think calgreen will become law in january. i would not be surprised if we see a emergency amendments coming from the state, reacting to calgreen, then pushing back. this is a moving target. there is a snapshot right now. six months from now, it will probably look different. fitch is moving, everybody should be encouraged to do what is on the books right now, but be aware, it is probably going to get tightened over time. if people are on the fence on whether or not they want to go green, it is probably better to do it now and get things in place now instead of having someone tell you one year from

now. stay tuned. this will be something that we will be talking about over the next few years. frankly, the department of the environment has been helpful in helping to craft a real word -- a world scenarios in which to implement this stuff. >> how one of the things that we should probably mention is the target audience. the code probably affects residential, business is, other buildings. maybe if we do presentations, you should look at the target audience -- this applies to residential. this portion applies to new commercial buildings perhaps, renovations, so we need to consider that. >> last time lawrence put

together a presentation, is have an escrow green building amended for published. part of the reason is homeowners are a diverse group. architecture is mainly commercial work. it is easier to target them. but trying to get to the individual homeowner to say all i wanted to do was change my water here, what do you mean i have to do this? it is hard to get that message out to them. i would in courage using multiple ways to get the news to folks. >> i want to thank you again, along with staff. i take pride in being part of the commission where we were ahead of the curved to pass the greenest building code in the country, and along with that,

progressive ideas will continue to push forward these ideas in a way that everyone wants to catch up the performance curve for both residential and commercial buildings will be the leading edge for energy conservation. any closing comments? >> thank you very much. the action we are requesting is that you approve the code and for them to the board of supervisors. i think that is it. >> so approved. >> public comment? >> good morning, commissioners.

[inaudible] this green coat sounds wonderful but we should always -- code sounds wonderful but we should always remember in this progress of endeavor, we need justice, it needs to be clear. we need to have seminars in our neighborhoods, public hearings -- what do you call it when they get together in a big high school and are encouraged to learn more? also, we are going to proceed to

be able to make the people, let them know that this will be a fair game. not just a game of the rich. thank you. i will keep on coming to make sure that we all have equal opportunity. that is what life is all about. the rich and poor should all live together happily. there should be no favoring of rich people. thank you. >> thank you, mr. morales. any additional public comment? >> move to approved.

>> is there a second? >> roll call on the motion to approve the 2010 california code. [roll call] the motion passes unanimously. item 6. discussion and possible action regarding the 2010 cost schedules of building a valuation data. >> are we going to go back to public comment? >> no, we are going to do number six and then go back. >> hopefully, this will not take

too long, although you may have questions. every year, the department of building inspection, we have used the cost of valuation. cost the valuation under the building code is the basis for which we put a valuation on permits, which in turn, is the basis upon which we charge permit fees. the building valuation is not the valuation used by the assessor's office, the real cost of the building, but is a unifying format so everybody is charged the same amount of fees for the same amount of work, under the premise that we are being reimbursed for the services we are providing. if someone has their brother in law doing it for free, a professional contractor, it does not matter. we value everything equally.

in order to do that, the building code says we shall use the marshall swift building adopted schedule -- excuse me. with local modifiers. every year we look at the marshall swift index and attach a local modifiers. it comes to you to consider whether to adopt or not, revisions to cost schedule. this year, nationwide, there has been a decline in construction valuation under the marshall swift index. not necessarily -- well -- when me and my team study valuation, if we were to adopt a wholesale change in the marshall swift, we would see a reduction in cost

evaluation. we do not recommend that for a number of reasons. we do not believe it accurately reflects san francisco. we have seen an increase of about tuition -- the valuation, not the total amount of construction, the cost has not declined significantly. our service cost, secondly, have not proportionally declined either. they have stayed the same or gone up. my recommendation, even though i provide the documentation, my recommendation is we defer consideration of any adjustment or modification of cost of tuition until next year when we get the next cost valuation from marshall swift and then reconsider what our trends and costs are. the goal here is to match income to our scope of services.

the only way we can do that is to charge a correct amount of money. if we were to reduce cost evaluation year, we would have to find out a way to increase fees to increase services. there has to be in balance. we have the authority to maintain it, of course, and this is a simple way without doing a fee revision, on the leaves. -- i believe. >> is the marshals with updated on a yearly basis, nationally, regionally, how often are the numbers -- how often do they reflect accuracy? >> they may updated more than annually. we get an annual update. it comes at the beginning of february. it is a national scale, but we have local modifiers as well.

bay area multipliers. it is not really locally focused. it is pretty broad. regionally, modified. that is -- we do our best to make a reflection of san francisco, but it is not intended to be specific to san francisco. five years ago, we had discussions with builders, developers, city staff, asking whether if this is the way we wanted to do things. after a lot of analysis, looking at alternative ways to do this, we decided that this was the best thing that we could find, as long as it reflected the local index reasonably. >> have any questions? vivian?

>> i agree with the suggestion that we keep the 2009 martial swift downey is in effect -- marshall swift values in effect. >> public comment? >> motion to approve? >> motion to approve that we adopt the 2009 cost schedule -- >> we are actually not adopting in. that we keep the 2009 rates in effect. >> ok.

>> [roll call] >> and the action is to not adopt. [roll call] the motion passes. are we going back to 3? item 3. directors' report. update on tbi finances. >> good morning. i am the director of dbi. i am pleased to announce for the month of july we are showing an increase of revenues over last year's july figures, by about

16%, which is significant to our department. through the first half of august, we are still showing a percentage increase. we are not showing any declines. we are actually over budgeted in revenue right now. what we have done it is offset the overage in revenue right now with projected refunds, which we will reevaluate at the end of three months to see if we need that. if not, we would try to reach appropriate that for the staff. also, our expenditures are showing a decrease from the projected, due to the delay in the budget being adopted by the board. we were not able to build some positions as soon as we wanted to, plus we had additional retirees that we did not expect to have at the end of june. we are showing some decrease in expenditures. overall, we are on track with

our budget, if not over budgeted, so to speak. we are doing good in the department right now with the help of all staff. i would be happy to answer any questions. >> commissioners, any questions? >> good news. >> item 3b. update on proposed legislation. >> we are revising the current editions of the codes that we have to adopt. along with that, we will be bringing back some ab's back to you to bring them back up into more current standards, in the way that we actually process office policies, procedures, how we process administrative

bulletins, to take out some of the delay in the processing what is coming down from the

state, what is there, and how we can get it to service in san francisco. bringing the ordinance forward with storm water runoff and other ordnances, you will see that coming forward. the draft mandatory legislation will be ready at the city attorney's office for a slight review for the mayor to introduce shortly. maybe next month. on the other point of the proposed legislation is how to write off as policy and procedure.

what i will be doing in the meantime, drafting new office policies and procedures that are current with the comptroller's office and the city attorney's office, bringing those forward to you for review also. we are requiring any owner the they will have to have signatures from the tenants in the building to change the address or that they will notify the tenants as they take place. that will be coming out shortly, hopefully before the end of the year. it all depends on how fast i can get it approved before i can do the office policy. >> in streamlining the process, how much time will we be able to look at?

you mentioned about 90 days. >> hopefully at least one month. going to the coda advisory subcommittee, it is signed into effect. others do not. >> bringing me to the first comments on storm water ordinance, is there a way that they could harvest rainwater in those categories >> -- categories? >> puc is following that in the great wall or harvesting and

usage right now. i can bring those forward to show you where they are. >> hopefully this will be integrated in the effort that lawrence and both committees are involved with that area >> chair? >> to follow what on the process change around tenant notification, putting this on the agenda to present with you are doing in september. >> that would be great. >> mr. martine has brought this

up. thank you are about. mr. morales? >> this points out how they are responsive, although not as swiftly as he wanted in the category of addressing the issues that the public brings up that we will continue to follow up on. >> we will have a public comment at the end of item #3. threec, an update -- 3c, an update on permit drafting systems. >> yes, it is nearly ready for review. we have nearly