November 18, 2009

BUILDING INSPECTION COMMISSION (BIC)

Department of Building Inspection (DBI)

REGULAR MEETING
Wednesday, November 18, 2009 at 10:30 a.m.
City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 416
Aired Live on SFGTV Channel 78

ADOPTED March 17, 2010

MINUTES

The regular meeting of the Building Inspection Commission was called to order at 11:35 a.m. by President Murphy.

1.  Call to Order and Roll Call - Roll call was taken and a quorum was certified.

COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT:

Mel Murphy, President

Reuben Hechanova, Vice-President

Kevin Clinch, Commissioner

Robin Levitt, Commissioner

Criss Romero, Commissioner

Frank Lee, Commissioner, excused

Debra Walker, Commissioner

Ann Aherne, Commission Secretary

D.B.I. REPRESENTATIVES:

Vivian Day, Director, excused

Edward Sweeney, Deputy Director

William Strawn, Communications Manager

Rosemary Bosque, Chief Housing Inspector

Pamela Levin, Administration & Finance Division Supervisor

Sonya Harris, Secretary

Deputy Director Ed Sweeney said that he had two brief announcements: First, DBI has responded to some concerns of the Human Rights Commission in regards to the new computer system, and the Department will give further updates shortly. Commissioner Walker asked when that would be and Mr. Sweeney stated it would be next month. Mr. Sweeney said that his second announcement was that the fifth floor permit center has opened for business and encouraged the Commissioners to visit.

President Murphy stated that it was his understanding that the online computer system is being re-bidded. Mr. Sweeney said that it is up in the air because the Human Rights Commission has questions about the bidding process. Mr. Sweeney stated that he was not in on the meetings, but said that Director Day would be back next month to give the Commission an update.

Commissioner Walker said that the BIC had heard public comment about from a local business person about the process. Commissioner Murphy stated that it worries him about how long the process might take since the system was already supposed to be implemented. Commissioner Walker said that the computer system is being integrated into all of what the Department is trying to do right now and said that this has obviously been a priority for DBI for 10 years. Commissioner Walker said that she wanted to see it done right this time. Ms. Levin stated that the Department is working with the Human Rights Commission and has two weeks to respond to their concerns.

President Murphy called for public comment.

Mr. Chris Roberts stated that his company is an 18-year-old consulting firm located in San Francisco, and with regard to the last item in the report relative to the computer systems, more specifically the Permit Tracking System, said that he did make public comments at the last meeting. Mr. Roberts said that he is before the Commission today to make note of his continuing concern about the issue that was raised about the 14B waiver that was granted to the company, and in the context of that waiver it said there is a portion of the work that could be done by a local business. Mr. Roberts stated that based on the remarks he heard today there is an ongoing investigation, and said that the also had an opportunity to speak in front of the Human Rights Commission (HRC). Mr. Roberts said that the HRC indicated that there would be an expedited 15-day investigation. Mr. Roberts said that he wanted to convey how important it was in these trying economic times for part of that contract to go to local businesses in the City and County of San Francisco as the estimate for the project is about $9M. Mr. Roberts stated that he thought that there are capable businesses here in the City that would welcome some of that business. Mr. Roberts said that he is hopeful that the HRC’s investigation would produce an acceptable remedy to that situation.

Mr. Gabriel Ng stated that he is an architect and said that two weeks ago he sent a letter to DBI to express his frustration with the Department’s procedures regarding the permit process. Mr. Ng said that he has been dealing with the Building Department for 25 years and said that the last three years have been the worst. Mr. Ng stated that customers have to go into the Department many times for just one permit even for submission. Mr. Ng said that he was present to let the Commission know that there is a problem and said that he knows the permit process so it is more difficult for the average person trying to get a permit. Mr. Ng stated that he has been speaking with a lot of architects, engineers and contractors and said that everyone has the same feeling. Mr. Ng said that he hoped there would be improvements and that he hoped that the Commission would pay more attention in getting public input on how to streamline the process instead of what is happening right now. Mr. Ng said that a lot of contractors and homeowners say that because of the process they would rather not get a permit; in these economic times all of the small permits add up.

Mr. Heston Chow said that he is an architect who has been practicing in the City of San Francisco for more than 30 years and said that he was sad to say that right now DBI is taking more than three months to review and approve a plan that he put together in three days. Mr. Chow stated that in the good old days architects used to charge about 5% or 10% for time spent getting a permit, but if that were the case today architects would lose their shirts. Mr. Chow stated that the process has gotten to be so difficult that everybody is really having second thoughts about doing business or doing anything at all in the City of San Francisco. Mr. Chow said he hoped that some improvement would happen in the near future.

Ms. Mimi Lee stated that she is a new homeowner and said that she would also like to comment on the building process. Ms. Lee said that she represented two others in my T.I.C. building who wanted to obtain a kitchen and bathroom remodeling permit with many failed attempts. Ms. Lee said that she wanted to obtain a permit to remodel three kitchens, three baths, close one window and open a smaller one, both on the same side of the house. Ms. Lee said that intake personnel rejected her plans and asked her to separate her existing and new floor plans, even though there was only one wall to remove. Ms. Lee said that on her second attempt she brought the plans back with the changes and was once again rejected by the same staff who then told her that she needed to have site elevations for the closed and new windows. Ms. Lee stated that she brought

pictures to show the windows, but that was not enough as she was told by staff that the photos were for the Planning Department, but DBI still did not accept her plans without the elevations for the building permits. Ms. Lee said that on her third try, she came back to find out that the intake window was closed at 3:45 p.m. Ms. Lee stated that on her fourth attempt she had to go back to intake and finally made it through, and then spent another three hours waiting to go through building, mechanical and fire and eventually was sent down to the first floor to pay. Ms. Lee said that there was another hour wait to pay. Ms. Lee said that the staff person who helped her was very nice, but did not know what to do and had to ask other clerks through each and every step. Ms. Lee said that these were just homeowners who want to do some remodeling for their own use, but said that this process has prevented them from even stepping into the door and wasted a lot of valuable time. Ms. Lee stated that she and these other two homeowners are very frustrated by the fact that they cannot even get a simple permit and said that she had to take three half days and one full day off of work to finally get this through DBI. Ms. Lee said that if the last attempt could not get a permit, the owners were contemplating on not getting one altogether. Ms. Lee stated that people had warned them that a simple permit is not that easy for homeowners to get and said that because of these delays, she could not start her remodeling in time to move in before the end of that month and had to pay a mortgage and rent for at least one extra month. Ms. Lee said that while she was at DBI others like her were frustrated and lost over this confusing and inconsistent process and said that she would really like to know if the Department can make this process easier for the homeowners. Ms. Lee said that she wrote to DBI last October and still had not received any reply or acknowledgement of the receipt.

Secretary Aherne said that this item would include Item #3a which was continued earlier.

Ms. Pamela Levin said that she wanted to set the tone for the Commission regarding the supplemental by talking first about the month's reports. Ms. Levin said that the report was for four months of actual revenues and expenditures with a projection of a year-end surplus of $1.5M. Ms. Levin said that this is no more than about seven days of the Department’s payroll so the recommendation is that this surplus be maintained during the year and be used to help build up the fund balance.

Ms. Levin said that the estimated revenue from the development fee collection that was discussed was added and the expenditures will be contained in the supplemental which will be discussed later. Ms. Levin said that the revenue estimate for the vacant building registration fee was changed so that it matched the supplemental. Ms. Levin said that the Department has not received the actual responses from the property owners for vacant and abandoned building fees so the Department is being a little conservative on how much revenue is going to come in from that. Ms. Levin reported that the expenditures for the MOU’s had also been revised to reflect the supplemental. Ms. Levin said that the revenues were projecting a surplus of $2.4M overall and that includes $2.4M for operating revenues, which, again, is the $1.5M in apartment, rental units, and hotel license fees since that have been projected for about two months, $860,000 for charges for service, and all of that is offset by the $3,000 for the insufficient funds. Ms. Levin said that the Department was projecting $859,000 for charges for service which has been constant for the past few months so the Department is not seeing a downtick in revenues, but is also not seeing an uptick from any major recovery. Ms. Levin stated that DBI in terms of other revenues is showing a surplus of $1.2M which is the revenue associated with Code changes; there is $875,000 for the MOU's. Ms. Levin stated that the amount of refunds is projected to be $1.2M for the fiscal year; already $335,000 has been requested and there are several large refunds that are on the horizon that will probably have to be paid out.

Ms. Levin reported that in expenditures the Department is an over-expenditure of $918,000 which is 2% of budget and this is why DBI is asking for a supplemental which is going to be totally funded by revenues. Ms. Levin stated that the over-expenditure is in salary and fringes totaling $718,000 for work that DBI is going to do with MOU's, the vacant and abandoned building ordinance and the development fee collection unit. Ms. Levin said that the Department is still projecting an over-expenditure in the City Attorney's work order based on historical trends. Ms. Levin said that year-to-date expenditures through October are 33% less than the same time last year so the Department has significantly reduced expenditures from last year.

Ms. Levin said that the Department was continuing to look at what can be done to provide better services to the community.

President Murphy asked for a further explanation of the $302,000 mentioned for projected revenues for Code changes. Ms. Levin said that this included the vacant building legislation and the Director’s hearing fee legislation that is being worked on so that the Department would get paid from the time of a complaint rather than after a Director’s hearing. Commissioner Walker asked if the registration of one and two units was included. Ms. Levin said that the one and two units’ fee is already being shown as part of the hotel/apartment license fees.

Ms. Levin explained the process to obtain a supplemental and said that if the Department wants to add any positions approval has to be obtained from the Board of Supervisors as that expenditure exceeds the budget. Ms. Levin said that the Department has prepared a supplemental appropriation in the amount of $919,000 that will be forwarded on to the Mayor's office and the Board of Supervisors as an amendment to the annual salary ordinance to add six limited-duration FTE's for this fiscal year which will be annualized to 12 next year. Ms. Levin stated that it would be for 12 people but for only six months of this year and next year for a full year. Ms. Levin said that these positions were needed for the work that is going to be done on the MOUs that the Department will be working on with the Port, the PUC, Treasure Island and the Trans Bay Joint Powers Authority. Ms. Levin said that DBI will be using existing staff for these projects, but need additional staff so that the regular work at DBI is not impacted. Ms. Levin said that staff is needed for the vacant and abandoned building ordinance and the Development Fee Collection Unit and the Department will be creating a registry, doing inspections and more code enforcement so clerical staff is also being requested; money is also being requested for a management position. Ms. Levin said that finally, there is $200,000 for the City Attorney work order, and that will be funded by charges for service. Ms. Levin stated that only a majority vote is needed from the Board of Supervisors and not a 2/3’s majority because the Department had cut positions earlier.

Commissioner Romero asked if Ms. Levin was asking the Commission to give a recommendation to approve the supplemental. Ms. Levin said that was correct and said that the Department was asking that the BIC give a recommendation on forwarding both the supplemental appropriation request and the amendment to the annual salary ordinance that is required by the process.

There was no public comment.

Commissioner Walker made a motion, seconded by Vice-President Hechanova to approve the supplemental. The motion carried unanimously.

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 050-09

Ms. Pamela Levin said that the Department was requesting approval by the BIC for an Ordinance that will increase DBI's Cash Revolving Fund from $600 to $2,000. Ms. Levin explained that the Cash Revolving Fund allows the Department to put cash in the registers in the morning and to have money in a safe that is used for change. Ms. Levin said that $600 does not allow for sufficient funding and sufficient cash within the Department and does not make good business sense or convenience for the customers. President Murphy said that he was in favor of anything that keeps the process moving faster. President Murphy asked what percentage of customers would be paying cash. Ms. Levin said that she thought it was around 30%, 35%, 40% in credit cards and then maybe half of the rest is cash. Ms. Levin stated that the shortage of cash does cause delays as people have to be sent from one floor to the other because they may have cash on another floor. Ms. Levin said that this has been approved by the Controller’s Office and then it has to go to the Board of Supervisors for their review and approval.

There was no public comment.

Commissioner Walker made a motion, seconded by Vice-President Hechanova to approve the increase in the Department’s Cash Revolving Fund. The motion carried unanimously.

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 051-09

President Murphy left at this point in the meeting and Vice-President Hechanova took over.

Mr. Tom Tobin, project manager for the Applied Technology Council for the CAPSS project, said that he wanted to report that Task Two report which is the revision of the report that was seen in the past regarding the 2005 San Francisco earthquake risk is underway. Mr. Tobin stated that ATC has resurrected the program and updated the way this is being done so the numbers that will be seen will change and they will be better and more useful for recommending policy positions. Mr. Tobin said that the report would be rewritten to emphasize the effect of losses on the community as opposed to just simple citywide or area wide dollar losses and will talk about the interruption of housing and damaged buildings and so forth. Mr. Tobin said that the draft report will be released in January to the Advisory Committee and in February there will be a workshop to discuss the contents of the report which will be completed by March 15. – That is the baseline for San Francisco's earthquake risk.

Mr. Tobin reported that the Task Three study which has to do with guidelines for repairing and retrofitting buildings is underway. Mr. Tobin stated that issues will be discussed in April and that report should be completed by the end of April. Mr. Tobin said that then the key will be the Task Four report which will be the recommendations submitted to the BIC and other decision makers to consider on how to deal with San Francisco’s earthquake risk. Mr. Tobin said that this report will be in draft form in May, a discussion will be held in June and the report should completed by the end of June.

Mr. Tobin announced that the Applied Technology Council (ATC) and the American Society of Civil Engineers is going to have a conference in San Francisco from December 9 through 11; that conference is on dealing with existing buildings.

Mr. Tobin stated that ATC has acquired FEMA funding that is sort of supplemental to this project in the amount of $300,000 to look at retrofit guidelines for soft-storied buildings; that project team is underway. Mr. Tobin said that there was a report at the last advisory committee meeting with some rather exciting approaches. Mr. Tobin stated that the idea is to do enough retrofitting on the collapsed floors, the ground floors so that the building will not collapse, but still remain soft so that the upper floors will resist the damage that would occur if that motion was driven upstairs. Mr. Tobin said that he thought this was a very interesting approach that could improve the earthquake performance of retrofitted buildings in San Francisco as well as do it for less money.

Mr. Tobin asked for any questions.

Commissioner Hechanova said that on the category of retrofit or at least where there is some damage, typically it is going to take some time before it can be fixed and asked if those buildings would still to be at risk. Mr. Tobin said that this questions the heart of the policy issue and said that the approach that the ATC team is taking is that the amount of damage will have to be measured to see how strong the earthquake was. Mr. Tobin stated that when there is a situation where the shaking was very strong, but there was only a small earthquake with a lot of damage, clearly that would indicate that the building is very weak and the repairs probably should include retrofitting. Mr. Tobin said that on the other hand, if there was strong shaking and the building does fairly well though still damaged that would be an indication that the building has performed very well. Mr. Tobin said that there is an area in between that needs to be identified for tolerance and what the City of San Francisco and its decision makers need. Mr. Tobin said that he hoped that CAPSS would make that transparent enough so that the City can make that decision, but there will be someplace in there where repairs made as fast as possible is good for the City and other cases where doing some retrofitting would be good for the City.

Commissioner Walker said that the CAPSS as well as the SPUR report dealing with preparing for the next earthquake, resiliency as it were, all had a major discussion leading to a recommendation of considering this concept of “shelter in place”. Commissioner Walker stated that “shelter in place” means that instead of relying on tens of thousands of people being homeless, the reports would obtain data to be able to see if that is a feasible standard to be able to strengthen buildings to the point that people could live in them while they're being repaired.

Commissioner Walker said that it is not yet known what that looks like yet, what the cost would be, what the savings would be ultimately as opposed to more severe damage. Commissioner Walker stated that that is process that is being considered and all of the information is being gathered so that the City and the stakeholders will be able to make that evaluation on whether it makes sense.

Commissioner Walker said that there is a side discussion going on about repurposing the City’s roughly a quarter of a billion dollars that is remaining from the Unreinforced Masonry Bond that could be made available in the form of low-interest loans and other incentives for building owners to help them do this retrofitting. Commissioner Walker stated that the idea of a mandatory program is being considered and said that there is potential State funding sources that flow to mandatory as opposed to voluntary programs.

Commissioner Walker thanked Mr. Tobin and all of the other groups that have really volunteered their time to help the City make those decisions. Commissioner Hechanova said that the prime objective of being able to go back and reside while making repairs is huge. Commissioner Walker said that it would mean that recovery would be quicker if people would be able to stay in their own homes, even if there is potential delays or interruptions of infrastructure like power, water, that kind of thing, even if those are delayed, the structures would be safe enough for people to stay in so a large number of people would not be displaced. Mr. Tobin said that the report that will be done in June will be making recommendations for these issues.

Vice-President Hechanova called for public comment.

Ms. Nonie Richen said that she was President of the Small Property Owners of San Francisco and said that she did not think that the CAPSS report has address some of the needs and challenges of small property owners. Ms. Richen said that many small business owners are mom and pop landlords who actually live in their buildings and although they may have millions of dollars of equity in the building, they depend on the income from the building for their livings and really are people of fairly modest incomes. Ms. Richen stated that one thing that the report did not mention was the necessity of an owner paying move out costs for tenants who are displaced. Ms. Richen explained that this could cost $75,000 in a five-unit building. Ms. Richen said that that there is a Rent Ordinance Section 37.7 that gives different periods of amortization and different amounts for this cost. Ms. Richen stated that the bottom line is that landlords can only charge a maximum of 10% of tenants’ rent per month to recoup any costs. Ms. Richen thanked the Commission for the opportunity to speak.

Mr. Peter Wright introduced himself as a small owner in the City and a member of the Small Property Owners of San Francisco. Mr. Wright said that he wondered why CAPSS is concerned with the entire City as it seemed to him in looking at a map and the report that it shows that the landfill areas in the City are the most vulnerable. Mr. Wright said that this would be the place to start as the report states that there are 4,400 buildings that are soft buildings of this type, but only about 2,800 of them require serious work or some work. Mr. Wright stated that it would be very disruptive to take on 2,800 buildings in this City at one time and said that this would have to be done over a phased period starting with the landfill areas. Mr. Wright asked that this be taken into consideration so that this would not be too onerous on the property owners as the costs are quite outstanding and amazing. Mr. Wright said that the report says that the average costs would be between $60,000 and $130,000 and said that for a small property owner trying to make up this cost or even a portion of it that could not be passed through would be very onerous.

Mr. Bob Noelke stated that he was also with the Small Property Owners and said that the association would love to have Mr. Tobin come to their meetings and explain the entire CAPSS program and to get some input from the owners. Mr. Tobin said that he would be glad to.

Mr. Noelke said that he has concerns as to prioritizing in the sense that there are large building with upwards of ten units that have more occupants and consequently might be a bit more dangerous. Mr. Noelke suggested that buildings be looked as it terms of soil as well because in the last earthquake buildings that were on good ground regardless of whether they were retrofitted or not, they made it through. Mr. Noelke said that it was also his experience that those buildings that were not on such good ground but had been retrofitted had done well. Mr. Noelke said he questioned as to why the threshold was five units and said that he thought maybe it should be higher or there should be categories such as soil condition. Mr. Noelke said that another thing to consider is that in the lower story that is where there are often garden apartment where low and moderate income people live and those would have to be cleared out. Mr. Noelke stated that this might be a good opportunity to maybe legalize some of them, but said that many of them are already legal so there is population that would be impacted. Mr. Noelke said that he thought that the four-year time frame was very short considering the amount of monies, the disruption, how long it takes to get plans, getting an engineer's study and all of that. Mr. Noelke said that there are several other organizations in the City such as the Professional Property Managers Association, the San Francisco Apartment Association and many tenant organizations that would want to be involved in this issue.

Vice-President Hechanova called on Mr. Tobin to address some of the issues raised in public comment. Mr. Tobin said that he certainly appreciated the comments made and extended an invitation for any organizations that are interested to join the advisory committee. Mr. Tobin stated that there are monthly meetings where these issues are discussed and said that the project is richer for having opinions of property owners and property managers and others as well.

Mr. Tobin said that the comments primarily had to do with what ATC is calling the Task Six Report which was requested by the Mayor’s Office by the en of last February to deal with the larger buildings that are three or more stories in height, wood frame, built before the mid 1970's and had five or more residential units. Mr. Tobin stated that the bottom line on that report is that there was a recommendation that there be a mandatory program that would be based on some priorities like those priorities that were just mentioned that would give some emphasis to areas where the risk was greater, but pointing out that throughout the whole City, these kinds of buildings are unusually vulnerable. Mr. Tobin said that this is a City issue, but it is also an issue for the property owners as they are at risk in terms of their building collapsing especially those that are soft story.

Mr. Tobin said that regarding the issues raised about relocation is one that was not discussed at all in the report. Mr. Tobin said that if a new standard is called for in retrofitting these buildings the idea was to keep the work out of the upper floors to avoid the disruption that has been seen in other retrofit programs where work is done in people's apartments in great numbers. Mr. Tobin stated that he recognizes that in San Francisco there are a large number of buildings that have people on the ground floor that would still be affected by this and ground-floor business tenants such as restaurants and others as well. Mr. Tobin stated the hope is that the kind of retrofitting that can be done can be minimally invasive by dealing with outer walls and that sort of thing at the ground level and that will be minimally invasive in terms of the amount of concrete and steel or wood that goes into it so that the projects are more affordable. Mr. Tobin said that a cost of $60,000 or $130,000 is a huge cost for any owner regardless of what the situation is, but said that the Citywide benefit, as has been seen in other earthquakes where damage to one building really affects the neighboring buildings, it affects the neighborhood businesses. Mr. Tobin said that the idea is that ideally there ought to be some incentives that will help owners carry this out as the City, the community, and the neighborhoods benefit from individual owners' expenditures. Mr. Tobin said that the CAPSS project would love to have this kind of dialogue with the Small Building Owners Association and would love for them to participate.

Commissioner Walker said that the advisory committee has been talking about incentives and working with the various building owners to see what that list of incentives would need to be in order to help, specifically around relocation. Commissioner Walker said that in the sort of drive-by inventory of the potential universe of buildings, the likelihood is that the displacement on the ground floor, if it had to occur would affect more commercial tenants. Commissioner Walker stated that in working within the existing funds available for loans, the amount of latitude is being discussed for making incentives available in terms of temporary displacement accommodations, fees, whatever as well as loans, both low-interest, and deferred as this is a public benefit for everybody. Commissioner Walker said that this project’s goal is to make the City more resilient when this happens, and to save lives by doing work in advance rather than losing lives by doing nothing. Commissioner Walker stated that she knows that the apartment owners have been involved amid ongoing advisory meetings and said that if more representatives want to attend now would be a great time because the details are going to be worked out and the committee wants to make sure it works for everybody. Commissioner Walker said that the idea is to try to find incentives that make sense and to leverage both local and the potential of both State and Federal funding to make that happen.

Commissioner Levitt asked when the next CAPSS meeting would be held. Commissioner Walker stated that it would be January 13^th from 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. at DBI in the second floor conference room.

Vice-President Hechanova asked if this report could be used to at least to help move forward the insurance industry. Vice-President Hechanova said that coverage of a safe building that would be easier to repair as opposed to one that has to be totally dismantled and rebuilt again should be cheaper. Mr. Tobin said that the insurance industry’s participation in CAPSS has been zero. Mr. Tobin stated that when it comes to single-family houses and condominiums, this is something that is covered now by a State program called the California Earthquake Authority and they do participate in the committee meetings. Mr. Tobin said that many commercial buildings do have earthquake insurance and said that the market-based incentives that have come from that relationship has caused a lot of retrofitting to take place in commercial buildings and commercial loans. Mr. Tobin said that there is a gap where buildings neither have earthquake insurance, or where the programs if they are available are very expensive and undesirable.

Mr. Tobin said that he thought that the insurance industry is missing out in San Francisco because the insurance industry is looking at earthquake shake damage as the issue and the real issue to the insurance industry is fire following an earthquake. Mr. Tobin stated that the buildings that have fallen and collapsed to the ground floor are the kinds of failures that cause fires to occur and that is where the insurance industry has a huge exposure. Mr. Tobin said that the insurance issue is a huge deal.

Mr. Tobin said that in looking at what happened in the North Ridge earthquake in the areas where a lot of apartment buildings were lost, it was a chicken and egg kind of situation.

Mr. Tobin stated that an individual building owner would try to borrow money for repair and the lender would look at the neighborhood and say there are five other buildings that are broken in your neighborhood and decide that it would be a terrible investment. Mr. Tobin said that getting somebody to go first was very difficult and said that it required City efforts and City funding to break free of commercial lending. Mr. Tobin said that if insurance funds would help jump-start the recovery process and could probably save months if not a year or so on just that recovery process.

8. Review and approval of the minutes of the September 16, 2009 meeting.

_______________________

Ann Marie Aherne

Commission Secretary