Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Plumbing Code Deletion topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Commission moves to remove local plumbing-code amendment after staff warns of duplicative, costly requirements

Building Inspection Commission · September 19, 2018
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The commission unanimously approved removing a local addition (section 603.3) to the plumbing code that duplicated California Plumbing Code requirements and could impose costly devices for common fixtures; staff urged reverting to the state code and asked PUC/Health to pursue formal channels for any stricter rule.

The Building Inspection Commission voted unanimously on Sept. 19 to remove a local plumbing-code amendment (local section 603.3) that had referenced San Francisco Public Utilities Commission water-quality rules, after testimony that the local language duplicates state standards and can be more restrictive without clear technical justification.

Mike Mitchell, supervising plumbing inspector, told the commission the local provision had become onerous in some cases. He used vending machines in a high-rise (Salesforce Tower) as an example: the local requirement asked for a reduced-pressure-principle device, which would carry high initial installation and annual costs for multiple floors, whereas the California Plumbing Code permits a different ASSE-certified device that staff consider sufficient.

Mitchell said he had met with the public-health department and PUC water-quality staff but that neither office could cite concrete failure examples requiring the more restrictive device. DBI staff recommended retracting the local addition and falling back to the California Plumbing Code; if PUC or public-health want the stricter language, Mitchell said they should bring it forward through the commission and Board of Supervisors process.

A motion to approve the deletion was moved and seconded; the roll-call vote was unanimous.