Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Green Building topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Building Inspection Commission declines to recommend green-building ordinance as written, citing implementation concerns
Summary
After a detailed presentation and public comment, the Building Inspection Commission voted 4–1 that it has 'considered the item and do not recommend approval as written' for a proposed ordinance that would impose a 10% additional efficiency requirement for mixed-fuel new construction and restrict natural gas in some municipal projects.
The San Francisco Building Inspection Commission on Oct. 16 voted 4–1 to consider but not recommend the proposed green-building ordinance (Board file 190,974) in its current form, citing outreach, feasibility, shading/solar and construction-implementation concerns.
Barry Hooper of the San Francisco Department of the Environment presented the technical basis for the ordinance, which was introduced by Supervisor Mandelmann with support from Supervisor Brown. Hooper summarized state and local studies, noting the city’s long-term goals for deep greenhouse-gas cuts and that Focus 2030 and other analyses find it technically feasible to reach those goals with existing policies and additional measures. Hooper said the proposal before the commission would require mixed-fuel new buildings to demonstrate about a 10% additional efficiency margin over code and would not impose additional requirements for projects built all-electric.
Public comment included Sarah Greenwald of 350 San Francisco, who urged stronger action, saying, "Natural gas is methane, a powerful greenhouse gas." Commissioners asked detailed operational questions about the studies' assumptions, outreach to builders and industry groups, how the measure would interact with state energy standards (Title 24), and practical issues for infill projects where roof area and shading can limit solar deployment.
Deputy City Attorney Rob Kaplan clarified on the record that the draft ordinance as written imposes an additional 10% performance requirement for mixed-fuel projects and does not itself mandate an all-electric standard or specific solar requirement; where the state imposes solar requirements DBI would carry forward the state rule. After discussion, a motion that the commission "has considered the item and do not recommend approval as written" was moved and seconded. Roll call produced a 4–1 result in favor of not recommending approval as drafted.
Commissioners supporting the 'do not recommend' motion said they broadly support the city’s direction on emissions reductions but wanted more outreach and sharper language to address implementation and housing/infill impacts before forwarding a positive recommendation. The commission recorded the action as its formal consideration of the ordinance and indicated willingness to consider amendments.
