►
Description
San Bruno City Council Meeting February 11, 2014
8b. Adopt 2013 Fire and Building Code Ordinance
B
Good
evening,
honourable
vice
mayor
and
members
of
the
City
Council,
my
name
is
David
Wolter
anon,
the
city's
Community
Development
Director,
the
state-mandated
2013
California
Building
Codes,
including
fire
code
with
proposed
local
amendments,
were
first
presented
to
you
at
your
january.
Twenty
eight
twenty
fourteen
meeting
at
that
meeting
staff
provided
an
overview
of
the
codes
as
well
as
the
proposed
local
amendments
council
indicated
its
support
for
the
codes
and
the
local
amendments.
With
one
exception,
the
council
asked
that
the
proposed
local
amendment
pertaining
to
a
requirement
to
install
fire
sprinklers
involving
specified
larger
additions.
B
B
Otherwise,
council
waived
first
reading
introduced
the
2013,
California
Building
Code
ordinances
and
sets
tonight
februari
11
2014
for
second
reading
and
adoption
of
the
ordinances
staff
returned
the
local
amendment
pertaining
to
the
fire
sprinkler
requirement
to
the
council
at
a
special
meeting
of
council
on
February
6th.
At
that
meeting,
the
council
majority
did
not
support
this
proposed
local
amendment.
Citing
concerns
about
cost
the
small
number
of
homes
that
would
be
captured
by
this
requirement
and
the
relatively
low
incremental
life
safety
benefit
of
fire
sprinklers
over
the
installation
of
smoke
and
carbon
monoxide
detectors.
B
Otherwise,
council
approved
the
proposed
local
amendments
that
evening
tonight,
staff
is
recommending
that
the
council
hold
a
public
hearing
on
this
matter.
Wave
second
reading
and
adopt
the
2013
fire
and
building
code
ordinance
is
to
be
adopted
by
reference
with
the
approved
local
amendments.
Staff
has
modified
the
fire
code,
ordinance
that
was
included
in
your
packet
to
delete
the
identified
section,
section,
903,
point-to-point,
8.1
pertaining
to
the
fire
sprinkler
requirement
for
the
additions
and
our
retrofits
to
one
and
two
family
residential
structures.
B
C
I
wasn't
present
at
the
at
the
first
meeting.
I
was
absent,
with
notice
by
the
way
and
I
had
some
questions
that
I
forgot
to
bring
up
at
the
at
the
second
meeting,
and
these
are
more
procedural
things.
But
I
was
wondering
about
sections
that
are
that
there
are
there's
language
in
each
section
that
I
was
curious
about,
and
one
of
them
is
regarding
the
city's
requirement
to
enforce
these
things.
C
And
it
says
in
there
that
no
section
of
the
city's
building
code
shall
impose
a
mandatory
duty
of
enforcement
in
the
city
and
I'm
wondering
when
it
comes
to
state
building
codes
and
when
it
comes
to
our
amendments,
is
this
basically
saying
that
we're
not
we're
not
being
forced
by
the
state
to
enforce
them
and
we're
not
taking
on
the
responsibility
locally
to
enforce
them?
What
does
that
really
mean
legally.
E
E
That's
a
good
question,
I
I'm
afraid
I,
don't
know
the
answer
to
that,
but
I'm
my
the
building
official
may,
but
it
may
be
a
requirement
under
when
adopting
by
reference,
to
explicitly
indicate
that
to
make
sure
that
it's
clear
that
we're
we
don't
have
a
duty
to
enforce
those
those
codes,
just
as
we
do
not
have
a
duty,
a
mandatory
duty
to
enforce
any
other
ordinance.
Okay,
any.
E
So
I'll
be
happy
to
answer
that
the
that
provision
is
the
same
as
other
provisions
in
our
code
would
say
that
violation
of
municipal
ordinances
is
can
be
charged
as
a
misdemeanor.
They
are
not
often
charged
as
misdemeanors,
but
they
can
be,
and
that
also
allows
the
discretion
to
staff
to
use
all
of
the
other
enforcement
tools
that
are
in
the
code.
So,
for
example,
there
is
a
fine
and
code
fine
process
with
a
hearing
and
those
sorts
of
things
that
we
use
routinely
for
for
other
code
enforcement.
C
E
C
D
C
So
there
was
a
section
and
I
discussed
this
with
a
city
manager
earlier
where
it
was
to
me
not
exactly
clear
that
the
section
referred
to
commercial
and
not
residential
properties.
I
didn't
see
that
stricken
or
adjusted
in
this
copy,
and
so
I
was
just
wondering
if
we
could
elaborate
and
I'm
sorry
I,
don't
believe.
D
F
Yeah,
all
it
is
talking
about
is
when
sprinklers
are
are
installed.
We
have
a
curtain
ordinance
that
that
sprinklers
are
mandatory
when
new
buildings
are
installed
and
the
three
references
that
it's
referring
to
is
a
FP,
a
pamphlet
13d,
which
is
for
which
would
be
a
reference
for
new
homes
when
sprinklers
are
installed
in
new
homes
and
the
other
213
are
would
be
multi.
Residential
properties.
13
would
be
commercial
properties.
So
it's
just
making
a
reference
to
the
standard
that
we
use
when
sprinklers
are
installed
and
what.
F
Well,
it
it
in
that
reference,
it's
referencing,
the
commercial
part
of
the
of
the
ordinance,
so
I
know
it.
It
seems
to
be
a
little
confusing,
but
it
just
it
does
reference
it
talks
about
alterations
and,
as
I
mean
additions
and
alterations,
but
that
had
to
do
with
the
two
ordinances
that
were
being
proposed.
One
was
the
residential
ordinance
and
one
was
a
commercial
ordinance,
since
we,
you
know,
omitted
the
residential
ordinance.
It
just
makes
reference
now
to
the
commercial
ordinance.
F
C
E
Appears
that
the
title
of
section
903
point
one
point
two
is-
is
what
it
is
in
the
in
the
state
code
and
without
looking
at
whole
thing
it's
difficult
to
say
why
it's
titled.
That
way,
what
I
can
say
is
that
I
don't
believe
that
subsection
one
little
a
needs
to
be
removed,
because
what
number
one
says
is
automatic
fire
sprinkler
system
shall
be
installed
in
the
occupancies
and
locations
as
set
forth
in
this
section.
So
the
if
the
section
does
not
require
an
installation
in
the
occupancy,
then
a
B
and
C
don't
apply.
E
G
Commend
the
city
attorney
for
for
clarifying
like
I'm
in
reading
code
books
for
30
years
and
we're
always
looking
for
the
out
and
we're
looking
for
the
exception
and
that's
the
day.
Is
that
it?
Ok,
if
I'm
going
through
the
code-
and
it
says
fire
sprinklers,
doing
nude
fire
sprinklers
additions,
alterations,
I
get
ok,
I'll
read
through
this
and
I'll
check,
13d
pamphlet,
13d
and
it
says
only
for
new
residential,
then
I
know
I'm
off
the
hook.
F
G
I
do
have
another
question
related
to
the
I
guess
the
previously
amended
and
ordinance
I'm
looking
at
90.
Three
point
six
point
one:
this
is
in
reference
to
a
belief,
commercial
buildings
or
non-residential
non
one
and
two-family
residential
buildings,
I'm
just
curious,
I,
7,500
square
feet
of
remodeling
of
any
type
of
building.
That's
not
a
residential
single-family!