2.

President’s Announcements.

President Walker had no announcements except to wish everyone a Happy Thanksgiving.

3.

Director’s Report.  [Deputy Director Ray Lui]

a.   Status of MIS.

Director Hasenin reported that the Department continues to assess its needs and that MIS staff is looking at making some changes to aid in implementing some of the changes made to the permitting process.  Director Hasenin said that staff is finalizing the details of an RFP to get a better feel between in-house changes that could be done versus an off-the-shelf product that could be implemented.

b.   Financial Report.

Director Hasenin said that the trend that has been happening in the last few months continues and the Department is still projecting that some of the reserves will be used at the end of the year.  Director Hasenin stated that the Department continues to monitor expenditures and is only hiring for needed positions to stay within the budgeted amount.  Director Hasenin said that it is anticipated that the Department would be using about $3M of the reserves.

c.   Update on interdepartmental coordination meetings and recommendations.

Director Hasenin said that the Department continues to meet with the Planning and Fire Departments on a regular basis to look at issues that are of common interest. Director Hasenin stated that many departments are working on the Business Process Reengineering (BPR) plan that will get into more of the specific concerns and issues of all of the departments involved.

President Walker asked when there would be a formal presentation of the BPR.

Director Hasenin said that this was related to item 3f, but said that the report should be finalized in the next week and a half; should be going to the steering committee the week of December 10^th and then coming to the BIC for final approval at the December meeting.  Director Hasenin stated that there are approximately 200 recommendations that have come out of the meetings.  Director Hasenin invited Commissioners to attend the steering committee meeting.  Director Hasenin said that the Department was anticipating going to a government oversight committee of the Board of Supervisors for a presentation of the BPR so that they are aware of staffing implications or fee implications that will result from the BPR recommendations. 

d.   Update on the overall plan for the reconfiguration of DBI.

Director Hasenin reported that the Department is continuing to look at the option of finding another location, but said that this is a long, elaborate and complex project.  Director Hasenin said that he will continue to work closely with the City’s Real Estate Department to look at realistic and good options while at the same time look at the best way to utilize the space that is available at 1660 Mission Street.

Commissioner Murphy said that parking should be a major concern.

Director Hasenin said that parking is one of the main requirements along with the proximity to City Hall, close public transportation and being able to do all DBI business on one or two floors.

4.

Public Comment:  The BIC will take public comment on matters within the Commission’s jurisdiction that are not part of this agenda.

There was no public comment.

5.

Discussion and possible action regarding Supervisor Maxwell’s proposed legislation in Clerk of the Board of Supervisors File No. 071009.  Ordinance amending the San Francisco Building Code by adding Section 106.3.2.6 to require implementation of dust control measures for any demolition or construction project that has the potential to create dust and with specific provisions for projects that will expose or disturb soil, with provision for waiver by the Director for construction activities on sites less than one quarter acre that are unlikely to result in any visible windblown dust; amending the San Francisco Health Code by adding Article 22B to require, for projects over one quarter acre, that the project sponsor obtain approval of a dust control plan from the Director of Public Health unless the Director waives these requirements and to charge fees to defraythe costs of implementation; adopting findings.

Director Hasenin said that the Code Advisory Committee is recommending some change to this legislation and called on Chief Building Inspector Laurence Kornfield to give a quick overview and to answer any questions.

Mr. Kornfield said that he would be introducing Amy Brownell of the Health Department who was one of the lead people in the preparation of this legislation.  Mr. Kornfield said that this legislation is basically a way for the City to control airborne construction dust and said that the Department and the Code Advisory Committee worked very hard to make this not onerous for the construction Community.  Mr. Kornfield said that one of the changes was that the legislation would be for sites that are over half an acre (not one quarter acre).  Mr. Kornfield stated that DBI’s responsibility would be to inform contractors at the time that they get their permits that there are dust control requirements; the Department would provide assistance if there are any complaints or problems by referring to other agencies, but DBI would use the enforcement powers that exist within the Building Code to help other departments ensure enforcement.  Mr. Kornfield said that other departments do not have people in the field and do not control the permit work as DBI does.  Mr. Kornfield called on Amy Brownell from the Health Department.

Ms. Brownell said that she was from the San Francisco Health Department working in the Environmental Health Section.  Ms. Brownell stated that the Health Department strongly supports this legislation and said that the reasons behind this legislation are spelled out in the findings at the front of it that state that there are concerns that particulates in the air cause health problems.  Ms. Brownell said that any good contractor in the City already controls the dust when doing construction, but this would require those projects that are over half-an-acre to submit a plan to the Health Department to verify that there are no contaminants within the soil and the contractor would have to submit a dust control plan which would be signed by the Health Department and then referred back to DBI.

The Commissioners had many concerns about this legislation including the size of the lot being only one-half-acre as this would add another layer of bureaucracy to the permit process.  Commissioner Murphy said that this should apply to large projects like the Candlestick, Naval Yard or Treasure Island projects, but not small projects.  Commissioner Murphy said that he thought this was very unfair and asked if this was environmentally driven or politically driven.  Commissioner Murphy stated that it would just take one person on a block to make a phone call and shut any project down.

Commissioner Grubb asked if this ordinance would take precedence over anything that the Bay Area Air Quality Control Management Division does.

Ms. Brownell said that the BAAQM would still have all of their enforcement authority, but this would be a step up as their requirements are not as stringent as this new legislation. 

Commissioner Sattary asked if there was any study done to see what the impact of enacting this legislation would be both in the quality of improving the air and the impact on the construction industry.  Ms. Brownell said that there was no study done.

Mr. Kornfield said that the Code Advisory Committee (CAC) discussed this as the CAC represents the stakeholders, including construction, engineering and design and said that the Committee understood that there was no qualification to the cost, but said that this is a compromise between regulation and overregulation for public safety. 

The Commission discussed recent happenings at the Hunters Point Shipyard where there were many complaints because of the contractor neglecting existing rules and regulations.  Commissioner Sattary said that if the City enforced what is already in place 99% of those problems could have been prevented.  Ms. Brownell said that the controls at Hunters Point are much more stringent than this current proposed legislation and said that the issues at Hunters point were noticed and corrected. 

The Commissioners had concerns about the fact that this legislation is driven by complaint and commented that it would be better to educate both the public and staff of what is a threshold so that neighbors would not be calling in complaints and the dust would be gone by the time an Inspector gets to the site; the Inspector becomes the judge and jury in a neighborhood feud. 

Mr. Kornfield said that the Department was planning to do an education process for the Inspectors and in conjunction with the Health Department doing a segment on the Department televised public discussions that would educate the public as well.  President Walker stated that this could be one of the items for the Department’s Summit.

Mr. Kornfield said that there are already dust control requirements under State law and DBI gets complaints that are referred to the State Health Department.  Mr. Kornfield stated that the department gets calls for all kinds of things such as noise complaints and litter on the job and the Inspectors do not go out and slam the job shut.  Mr. Kornfield said that DBI works with the neighbors and the contractors to mitigate any problems and said that it does take special training to handle these situations. 

Commissioner Sattary asked for more information on particulate studies and Ms. Brownell said that she would be happy to supply more information.

President Walker said that there was a lot of discussion about the effect on the building community, but said that the health effects of this type of particulate matter are severe and affect primarily the eastern side of the City which is where most of the affordable housing is.  President Walker said that the Bay View/Hunters Point, South of Market , the North Mission and the water front would all benefit from this legislation and said that she would support it 100%.

Commissioner Sattary said that he was in favor of a better environment, but stated that he did not feel that the full implications of this legislation had been explained.  Commissioner Sattary stated that he would like more information as he thought that existing legislation could take care of this problem.  Commissioner Sattary said that he was concerned about making changes to the Code when there were already regulations in place.

Commissioner Sattary made a motion that he would like to delay voting on this legislation until more information is supplied by the CAC on how this would impact construction and more information from the Director as to how enforcement of this ordinance would impact the Department.  Commissioner Theriault said that he would second this motion, as he is in favor of some sort of regulation, but wanted more information on how this would function.

President Walker called for discussion on the motion.

Commissioner Romero said that he was not inclined to put this off and said that he did not need any more information or bureaucracy for the people living in these vulnerable areas.  Commissioner Romero stated that the people in these areas that are affected do not have many advocates.

Commissioner Theriault said that any large projects were scheduled far enough out and a delay in continuing this discussion for more information would have no impact.

Commissioner Grubb said that his e-mail was not working and as a result he did not receive a copy of the legislation so would like time to be able to read it.

President Walker said that she would not support the motion for delay. 

Commissioner Murphy said that he would support further study. 

Mr. Henry Karnilowicz said that he was a member of the CAC and said that the advisory committee believed that this legislation is going to pass and tried to make some positive changes.  Mr. Karnilowicz said that he agreed with many of the Commissioners who stated that this is just another layer of bureaucracy.

Mr. Phil Williams said that his personal concern was that this legislation would not be used as intended for health purposes, but would be used to halt projects.

Commissioner Romero said that the good thing about the San Francisco Board of Supervisors is that they do not wait for public approval before moving ahead with innovative ideas such as the plastic bag ban, domestic partner insurance and other issues that are eventually adopted by other cities.  Commissioner Romero said that San Francisco has become a model for many issues and said that he thought that this ordinance should move forward to prevent future health problems.

Commissioner Theriault asked if he could make a friendly amendment to the motion that this item be heard at the next meeting which is December 19, 2007.  Commissioner Sattary said that he would agree to the amendment.

The Commissioners voted as follows:

The motion carried on a vote of 4 to 3.  This item will be heard again at the December 19^th meeting.

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 061-07.

6.

Discussion and possible action to adopt findings submitted by the City Attorney’s Office regarding appeal on 770 Powell Street heard at the October 17, 2007 BIC regular meeting.

President Walker said that this item was to adopt the findings as submitted by Deputy City Attorney Catharine Barnes.  Ms. Barnes said that she had a few minor corrections to the findings, but said that the Commission should just consider the findings.  Ms. Barnes said that she did not hear back from the project sponsor or the appellant.

Commissioner Sattary complimented the City Attorney on the clearness of the findings and made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Theriault, that the findings be adopted with minor non-substantive corrections. 

The motion carried unanimously.

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 062-07

7.

Presentation by the Mayor’s Green Building Task Force.

Director Hasenin introduced Mr. Phil Williams, the Chair of the Mayor’s Task Force on Green Buildings. 

Mr. Williams said that his presentation was not in an ordinance format and said that he was basically presenting a review of the task force report and recommendations that were originally authored and presented to the Mayor in June.  Mr. Williams said the report represented the combined efforts of members from San Francisco’s architectural, technical design, development, financial and construction communities.  Mr. Williams stated that the task force focused on opportunities to improve performance of private sector buildings and then recommend new and heightened green building standards in San Francisco, in conjunction with the “Livable City Initiative” and “Climate Action Plan”.  Mr. Williams explained that the task force focused their deliberations on building types where the expertise of the group was greatest and said that if the recommendations were to be adopted they would be the most progressive of any city in the United States.    Mr. Williams reported that the group focused on the following project types:  New Large Commercial, High-Rise Residential, Mid-Size Commercial, New Multi-Family Residential, Major Alterations & Tenant Improvements and New Small Family Residential.  Mr. Williams stated that the performance requirements gradually increase over a five-year period (2008-2012) to generate the greatest environmental health, social and economic benefits and to be readily understood and accepted by the public, the building community, and City Departments.  Mr. Williams said that as part of the recommendations the task force was now going to transition into a new “San Francisco Green Building Advisory Committee”.

Mr. Williams showed a Power Point Presentation outlining the background, task force membership, objectives and methodology and the recommendations for investing in green buildings and the future of the task force.  The presentation covered incentives and mandates in other jurisdictions and in particular the roles of San Francisco Departments in implementing green building initiatives.  Mr. Williams said that the “San Francisco Green Building Advisory Committee” would be coming back to DBI and the Commission as legislation moves forward. 

President Walker thanked Mr. Williams for a very interesting presentation and asked him to thank the task force as well.

8.

Commissioner’s Questions and Matters.

a.    Inquiries to Staff.  At this time, Commissioners may make inquiries to staff regarding various documents, policies, practices, and procedures, which are of interest to the Commission.

b.   Future Meetings/Agendas.  At this time, the Commission may discuss and take action to   set the date of a Special Meeting and/or determine those items that could be placed on the agenda of the next meeting and other future meetings of the Building Inspection Commission.

Commissioner Theriault said that the dust ordinance would be coming back at the next meeting and possibly appointments for the Board of Examiners.  Commissioner Grubb requested an item regarding the Litigation Committee process and President Walker stated that there will be a Closed Session regarding that item.  President Walker asked the Commissioners to let Secretary Aherne know if there were any other items for an agenda. 

Secretary Aherne announced that the next meeting would be held on December 19, 2007 and all Commissioners confirmed that they planned to be present.

9.

Public Comment:  The BIC will take public comment on matters within the Commission’s jurisdiction that are not part of this agenda.

The Brown Act forbids a Commission from taking action or discussing any item not appearing on the posted agenda, including those items raised at public comment.  In response to public comment the Commission is limited to:

(1)

responding to statements made or questions posed by members of the public; or

(2)

requesting staff to report back on a matter at a subsequent meeting; or

(3)

directing staff to place the item on a future agenda.  (Government Code Section 54954.2(a))

There was no public comment.

Adjournment.

Commissioner Grubb made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Murphy to adjourn the meeting.  The motion passed unanimously.

The meeting was adjourned at 11:50 a.m.

BIC RESOLUTION NO. 063-07.

Respectfully submitted,

__________________

Ann Marie Aherne
Commission Secretary