before hvac contractors feel confident in doing these systems. that's the change being scoped, but i'm showing here the viewer is that part of our process we try to show the scale of what properties are at stake here, what's going to be developed? can you show us? >> i did read the answer. i just felt it was -- >> no, the question you posed last time, we definitely researched. we developed the softness values, my planning colleagues in terms of the dark red. i'll show you a blow up south of market. the dark red and light red are the areas that have the most likelihood of being developing and then being subjected to

article 38 enhanced ventilation requirements. and the other thing i wanted to point out is that enhancement requirements are still an open ended goal. i'm telling you it's this filter today, but they may come up with a completely different way of meeting that goal and it is -- these are the lots where people want to make their living as developers and we want to support them doing that so as designs become feasible, we would be seeking to share those designs with people and let them know of our collective knowledge of what is possible. that's the process we've been trying to implement here by meeting with everybody and sharing our information. single family homes will not have any problem meeting this requirement or duplexes. it's very easy to put a filter in front of a single family's heating and air system.

we've decided that review fees should be graduated according to the size and value of your property so that a single family home would not be undually punished by having our review. i actually am much more hopeful as to what the feasibility will be and i feel some of these buildings have already been built, but clearly there is a learning curve. >> commissioner walker. >> yeah, i just want to remind us all that the reason that we're doing this is that people get sick because of breathing the air that's not filtered and the areas that are identified have an increased level of respiratory illnesses and everything else associated with breathing the air. i know that whenever we begin to mitigate this type of thing it's painful.

i think the city is behind it and hopefully can be proactive in both offering funding sources of low interest loans for these type of thing, as well as doing what we can on the state level to help make these things possible, sharing corridor space, et cetera, without risking increased fire or smoke danger when trying to leave a building that's engulfed. so i really want to commend the work of the health department and ultimately it will save time and money as far as blendsing the ceqa and our local agency evaluations. it's hard when we feel like we're putting the cart before the horse, but i would say that if you ask people who are

having respiratory issues in some of these areas it's probably too late. i would hope we can support this because it's time, probably over time. i get the concerns. i appreciate the concerns. anyway, i just wanted to say that. >> i concur with everything, and from up here i understand the spirit of what we're trying to do here and you said the seriousness of this. procedurally this is what supervisor cohen's office -- is that correct? >> [inaudible] land use committee september 7. >> so then [inaudible] and then goes up to the board of supervisors for implementation and approval. >> yes. >> so the timeframe on this would be -- just an estimate. >> you know, i haven't gotten

those figures yet from the supervisor's office, but assuming the earliest would be heard on september 7 back into full board by the end of september to more hearings -- i would say the earliest approval date would be end of october and then usually, like, a 30 day effect ffective after that so november, december is likely implementation time. >> it doesn't have to come back to us for approval. it's just -- we're just having a kind of a symbolic conversation here really the way it feels because from what my feeling is which will be we'll have a law passed where we'll have no real implementation policy in place and have to deal with the concerns brauths up. it's going to be put in in january, so that's the concern. you want to do good government

and good policies, but we haven't got the -- i don't want to debate. what i want to do is it's going to go to land use. >> we plan to be in front of planning commission. >> the question is, will there be a genuine effort to try and give implementation to people who are going to have to implement this. i'm not sure how to bid something i don't know how to put in. i'm not even trying to get to the cost factor of things. but as somebody that's been doing this long enough, i keep pushing the point, you're trying to do good work here, but you're not giving us anything to help implement what you're trying to do. >> we need a process -- part of the stakeholder community keeps -- >> we're given options on how to enforce with you're trying to do. the code advisory was great to

have that meeting, but i talked to can i recollect about it, i didn't get notice of it, nobody did. and somebody frb fire kind of made these con clougss. clusions. we could have been a little more organized. i know people who would have flown down there and addressed these questions. why aren't we doing this proactiveness with us to get this done. i don't understand that. >> if you'd like me to close the loop on seattle i'm willing to the that work. i could talk to the engineer that brought that forward to us because his voice wasn't adequately heard. >> he was the one that sent it on and he didn't get an invite to the code advisory and so i didn't even know about the meeting that it was on. now, was i told about it? i don't think so. i was? >> i'm going to [inaudible]. >> the guy that introduced the

idea was not there. questions were going to be brought up were not given up upfront so they could be dealt with and addressed. maybe we could have gone to seattle and found out how they addressed those concerns. >> okay. i feel that sentiment and that's true, that that process wasn't handled in its ideal way. >> yeah. >> let me call on planning. >> president mccarthy, commissioners, i just do want to clarify one thing about implementation. as karen mentioned, ceqa is already requiring this so small projects coming through, we are applying as mitigation measures that this is required. so then when those projects go through the building permit process we've been working with james and his mechanical staff and karen and bph to work with

the developer on an approval of those projects so we'll definitely, as you guys all know, that map that karen shows where that's where our growth is happening so we are seeing more and more of this that's happened, but i wanted to clarify that implementation of the ordinance is happening now and i appreciate all your concerns. >> yeah. and we do it through z ducts and so on and if we chose not to do -- we have options there, you know. i know you're trying to not to bundle it together, but -- i understand it's been implemented. now you want to improve on that. i get that. but the -- well, all of the above, but the improvements you're asking of us is how do we do it. and i'm not getting -- do you know how we're going to implement this? >> in terms of --

>> in the small building. >> as karen was saying, we have seen examples we're continuing to work wb mechanical engineers working on those buildings. >> this is going to be passed and packaged before we're actually going to see anything from your staff or anybody on how to implement this, right? >> karen's going to show a slide about various options on how to implement for a smaller belding. er building. rjts part of our work in meeting with the various stakeholders was to untangle the overlaps of title 24 and let people see where those items come from. in a single family home it's

about putting this tiny piece of hardware in front of your furnace in the furnace system. and if we're doing green building there may not be a heating system but there's a way to bring in fresh air because that's required and that air can be filtered. >> in the mid rise buildings there's a single point of supplier exhaust and those can be filtered and we've shown an example. in the high-rise building we took an unusual [inaudible] and provide both heat and air-conditioning to each individual unit and the engineers discussed that type of system amongst themselves and clearly it was a more

luxury building and secondly the maintenance issues may be more difficult because the air filters are located at individual units as opposed to central location. where we took this title 24 information from was that lawrence berkley lab had developed a website that show the updates to title 24 that became effective this july and described in clear energy terms how you engineer low rietz buildings in particular because that's where the law got upgraded. high rietz buildings i feel like they've known how to do this because of their fire safety issues. they really -- their concerns with us have been mostly cost concerns. they would prefer not to provide filtered air to the entire building, only lower floors. our issues with them have been to demonstrate that air pollution is not predictably always clean at higher floors, but i have a lot of sympathy from people who are building

smaller buildings and i feel we need to dep a set of expertise among the community that they hire that help them design their buildings. i'm still committed to doing that. i don't feel any of us as regulators say walk away, go deal with it yourself because that's only going to make our work harder. we'll come up with our adequate descience and deny approvals . that doesn't work. our goal is to make people successful at what they're doing and i'm committed to doing that. i'm not sure the [inaudible] will pan out for our state, but i'm willing to close the loop where we didn't do a good job collectively where we didn't do a good job to provide the expertise. i'm happy to finish that project. anyway, i'd like to say this is one of the fact shooetd sheets

we offered -- >> can i ask the question, if you're already required to do it under ceqa, how come there's an issue? >> it's z ducts. we want to get away from the z ducts in the smaller buildings? the air taking the air from -- >> the z duct technology hasn't a howed allowed you to filter the air. >> if ceqa requires you to provide filtered air -- i mean, i'm curious why -- >> anybody subject to article 38 would not be able to provide filter air. there hasn't been that much building in this time period so we're -- >> the small builders have -- because the air is very important to the building so we've been doing through z

ducts and i would concur that the levels of how good these filters are is dependent where you are and so on. the other part is the [inaudible] is kind of expanded now so it's good government. there's no problem with trying to do what we're trying to do but how do we implement it. a lot of people say the z ducks work fine, but they're not working -- >> they work fine for delivering air, but don't have a way that filters the fresh air intake and somebody is working on that design and they'll probably get a great pats ent out of it if they come up with a filter box that works. >> i don't want to go design in here. if i could get mz cohen from your staff, just an acknowledge then -- i think you acknowledged it that you've got to have something in place to implement this law and make sure it's done correctly. >> i mean, my goal is to help

your stakeholder community feel there are solutions for them. >> obviously the train has left the station in a lot of areas here, but i think there's a solution out here if we could all just put on our thinking hats here and maybe it's the low rise approach rather than the high-rise approach and i'd love to dig deeper into the seattle solution. i'm not -- >> as i said, this whole process has allowed our three agencies to work together more efficiently. we're implementing the old way and new way simultaneously. the only delays have been if the applicant themselves doesn't have the information organized. i think the machine is ready to serve your needs and we've been on a lot of site visits and i encourage your colleagues to include us on any future site

visits. >> thank you for everybody coming out today. thank you. >> just a question, is there someone from here from planning in the group? >> that's the gentleman that just spoke to us. as i understand, plan's perspective on this is that each -- under ceqa there will be a requirement and under the requirement it will be up to the engineers an architect to determine what fits their system. >> there's a performance standard they need to meet and that's the merv 13 filter which we're codifying into law. >> is there any public comment on item 9? seeing none, item 10, discussion of possible action on the annual performance evaluation for the director. >> what happens now with that? do we have to do anything more

than just be apprised and discuss? that's it from our side? >> i mean, i can bring it back here any time you want to listen to me go off again. >> i'm going tore more involved and we're going to try -- my goal is to come up with an agreed design before this become law, three months. >> [inaudible]. >> i think we're past that and i don't -- i think we're past. how do we get this into the smaller buildings, which we agree we don't have a solid direction there and we're all ears o figure that out, right? >> i'm ears, okay. >> thank you. >> thank you. we're on item 10, discussion

and possible action on the annual performance for the public director. any public comment on matters pertaining to closed session? seeing none, need a motion to convene a closed session. >> i make the motion that we convene in closed session. >> second. >> motion and second. all commissioners in favor. >> i. >> i. >> can i make a suggestion before we start the closed session? the way the two items are agent diezed we'd go into closed session first for the evaluation of the director, then come out of closed session, then you have to vote to go back into closed session for item 11 and return again and it's -- procedurally it seems easier to call both items together, go in a closed session once, address the two items in closed session and

reconvene in public for single time. >> can i amend my motion then that we go into closed segsz for both items 10 and 11. >> i would like to second that amendment. >> the motion has been amended to items 10 and 11, which 11 is included the performance evaluation for the vip secretary, myself. is there any public comment? seeing none, are all commissioners in favor? >> i. >> any oppos >> hello, this is the build building inspection commission meeting, we are reconvening. at this time we are on item 10 and item 11d. do we have a motion to revon veen in open session to vote on

to disclose and all discussions held in closed session. >> we make a motion to reopen and we are not disclosing what was discussed in closed session. >> second. >> motion and a second. to reconvene and not disclose what was discussed in closed session. all commissioners in favor? >> i. >> opposed? okay. and that was a unanimous vote for both items 10 and 11. we are now on to item 12, commissioners questions and matters. 12a inqueries to staff any inqueries? >> no. we're good there.

>> i can be contacted at any time if you have any ideas. >> item 12b, future meetings and agendas to determine items placed on agenda for next meeting and other future meets of building inspection commission. and our next meeting is on september 17. >> commissioner lee, some clarification. >> are we planning on the october 2 [inaudible]? >> yeah, october 2 is the confirmed date. >> what time? >> 1:00 am. -- 10:00 am. >> can we have a confirmation on that? >> yeah. i'll contact you about that. >> when do you think we [inaudible] october 2? >> well, as of right now it's on. i guess what commissioner lee,

and you deserve bli bring up the point we're worried about the ocela, but right now we're on tore get there. >> that issue can be talked about whether we're on or not. and then the issue of code enforcement, i think those are the two that were okayed. >> the code enforcement issue and your issue in the sense that this was brought up last week, i believe, in regard to the b and b. >> in regard to everything. i submitted this a month ago. >> in general, they talked about -- in relation to ocel and bb working together and a bunch of different things. >> yeah, the code enforcement is really about our working together on enforcement in general. >> okay. are there any further comments?

i will try to look into that vice president mar. any public comment on items 12 a and b. seeing none, review and approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of may 21, 2014. >> [inaudible]. >> second. >> motion and a second. any public comment? none. are all commissioners in favor? >> i. >> any opposed? the minutes are approved. and item 14, adjournment. motion to adjourn? >> move to adjourn. >> second. >> motion and second. are all commissioners in favor? >> i. >> any opposed? then we're now adjourned, it is 12:17 pm. you.

>> what do you think about working at an airport and i love it is busy all the time. >> we want it to be an those away was this is a venture if i didn't love it i'll be an accountant. >> we want the experience that is a non-airport experience the

negative stigma we're trying to erase that. >> everything is in a bad food to excite them about the food and they have time to learn about us. >> people are imitated by traveling and the last thing to do is come to a place fill of chaos. >> telling me how the extent of napa a farms came about. >> it was a vision of the airport director he had a suspicion of a really cool gourmet speciality market locally friendly products this market local flavors this is the best. >> can we get a little tour. >> absolutely (laughter) ♪ ♪ >> so first on our tour. >> we have the clock we like to

call it. >> this is coordinating it is made in san francisco. >> what about the customer presence. >> we like to get the permanent farther i love the cappuccino and you have to go to multiple places for the cupcakes the cup a cakes from kari's people want to live here they're longing phone call for one thing in one spot in you know anything about san francisco the cheese the most popular cheesy think a lot of the people from the west coast say so this the real san francisco sour dough and they're curious. >> you find people respond to the idea of organic and absolutely. >> this is autumn. >> thank you, thank you and

there's a lot of personal touch. >> i see san francisco. >> it's very hands on. >> what's the most popular items. >> this is quite surprising our fresh jotting this is the chronicle special a bowl of warm oats and coconut that's mites farther. >> and speaking of drinks tell me again the cocktail scenes is that one, the things your known for . >> the cocktails are fantastic. >> really. >> fresh ingredients we don't have a mixture it to order this is our marcus bloody mayor.

>> farmer's market bloody mary the bloody marys in the airport are great shikz it up. and then we're going to garnish it with olives. and some lime and a fresh stalk of selly. right on. >> we like