DATE:

February 13, 2004 (Friday)

TIME:

9:00 a.m. to 10:30 a.m.

LOCATION:

1660 Mission Street, Suite 2001

Note:

Public comment is welcome and will be heard during each agenda item.   Reference documents relating to agenda are available for review at the 1650 Mission Street, Suite 302.  For information, please call Code Analyst Alan Tokugawa at (415) 558-6004.

Present:
Charles Breidinger, P.E.
James Guthrie, S.E.
 

Others Present:

Excused:
Carolyn Abst
Zachary Nathan, AIA
Arnie Lerner, AIA

Absent:
Nicholas Palter

Alan Tokugawa, TSD, DBI
Laurence Kornfield, TSD, DBI
Dennis King, PID, DBI
David Leung, TSD, DBI
Tom McDonagh, Solar Power
 

Rafael Sperry, 450 Architects
Richard Parker, 450 Architects & AIA Board
Adam Bowers, Sun Power & Geothermal
Mark Palmer, SF Dept. of Environment
Rich Chien, SF Dept. of Environment

1.0

Call to Order and Roll Call
Members: Carolynn Abst, AIA; Charles Breidinger, P.E.; James Guthrie, S.E.; Arnold Lerner, AIA; Zachary Nathan, AIA; Nicholas Palter

The meeting was called to order at 9:00 a.m.  A quorum was not achieved with only three members present.

2.0

Discussion and possible action regarding California Public Utilities Code Section 780.5, which requires in general that every unit in a multi-unit residential structure to be individually metered for electrical and gas service.  The discussion will focus on how this requirement affects the possible installation of photovoltaic systems in multi-family dwellings.

Charles Breidinger stated that the mechanical design for a high-density multi-family project called for a rooftop photovoltaic (PV) system to supplement the electrical power to the building.  For reasons of energy conservation, electric resistance heaters were chosen, along with the supplemental PV power.  There is, however, a Public Utilities Code section that prevents the installation of a single electric meter in a multi-family building, and each dwelling unit must have its own independent electric meter.  This would then require that each unit served by the PV power would have to have a separate riser and inverter to it.  The added cost and complexity would thus make the PV system difficult or unfeasible for multi-family projects.  He wondered if there were any code reasons why this section would be in the Public Utilities Code, and why would a single meter be prohibited from being installed in a building.

It was noted that an electric resistance heater along with a PV system is an inefficient system and that the Department of the Environment has been pointing out that electric resistance heating is part of San Francisco’s highest annual peak load on a winter afternoon.  A solar thermal system for direct heating is more efficient.  Also, a proposed revision to the California Energy Code will disallow electric resistance heating.

It was also stated that landlords are not allowed to sell utility services to their tenants unless they want to be regulated as a public utility themselves, which is probably why the code is structured in this manner.  If the landlord wanted to credit PV power to the tenants, it would have to be connected to each of the meters in order to achieve the appropriate deduction.  Or, on the other hand, if the landlord wanted to save power, then something like a central hydronic boiler and distribute hot water to each unit for heating, and this would be very efficient.

For residential buildings, time-of-use metering is also a possibility.  Charles Breidinger felt that the Code should be restructured to allow for sub-metering but disallow any markup or profit making.  Current technology provides inexpensive electronic sub-metering.  From an energy conservation point of view, sub-metering would tend to provide an incentive to save energy as opposed to a energy usage system.  It may be productive for the Subcommittee to work on ways that sub-metering can be made more flexible so that people can choose ways to meter their buildings that are appropriate for the ownership and potential use.

It was stated that any metering concept that encourages conservation should be explored, working with San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (PUC), and if necessary, go on to the State level.  This may be a topic for further discussion along with PUC involvement.

3.0

Discussion and possible action regarding proposals for revisions to the Building, Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing, or Energy Codes that may affect the installation, alteration, repair, maintenance, or utilization of mechanical or energy systems.

Laurence Kornfield reported that two workshops were held for people to bring forward possible code changes and revisions.  He described briefly various proposals including:

·

Recommendation to add a certification (commissioning) for portions of HVAC and other energy systems where there is a remodel or a new building

·

Possible change to energy code or electrical code regarding upgrading fluorescent lighting in existing buildings retroactively from low-efficiency (T-12) to higher efficiency lighting with higher lumen per watt standard

·

Revision to the mechanical code to require that mechanical equipment where altered, added, or repaired in commercial buildings meet a higher energy efficiency standard that the existing equipment (may already be a part of the California Energy Code)

·

Require a tune-up or other certification of existing HVAC systems in commercial buildings on some regular basis, e.g. every 5 years, to ensure that the equipment is still operating within an acceptable range of the design parameters

·

Add special inspection requirements for certain types of sound transmission assemblies

·

Request from the Department of the Environment to readopt the Commercial Energy Conservation Ordinance (CECO)

·

Raise the standards of illumination required in buildings serving seniors or persons with visual impairments

·

Request by Department of the Environment to look at an early adoption of the Energy Code, with a list of prioritized requirements

·

Revisions to the Residential Energy Conservation Ordinance (RECO) to renew the requirements and to use the same threshold of compliance at the time of each sale rather than only for one sale of the building

·

Suggestion to require retroactively to convert from incandescent lighting to fluorescent lighting in kitchens and baths; or, alternatively, use motion sensors in these locations

·

Suggestion that small commercial buildings provide insulation in the roofing system when re-roofing is performed

·

Suggestion to upgrade the attic insulation requirements in RECO from R-19 to R-30

·

Need to increase enforcement and reporting on the RECO requirements and to require an audit of the enforcement

·

Review methods by which energy efficiency of buildings without affecting the historical or cultural values of buildings

·

Adding a requirement to for Energy Star certified refrigerators, water heaters, or other equipment id appliances are more than a certain number of years old, or upon sale

·

Adding an Energy Rating for each home (A, B, C etc), including a minimum below which upgrades may have to be made (use of existing Home Energy Rating Systems from other states)

·

Inflation adjustment to the cost of work to be done under RECO, and also a review of the maximum amount required to be spent

·

Review of requirements of pressure treated lumber and new pressure treatment alternatives that are extremely corrosive to certain types of fasteners, including hot-dipped galvanized fasteners

·

Adjustment of public area and outdoor lighting to reduce glare, especially porch lighting and garage lighting (PG&E staff to write up a proposal for a standard)

·

Review of the amount of electric resistance heating currently used in housing (have Housing Inspection Services conduct a survey during routine inspection)

·

Items in a condo conversion that trigger energy conservation upgrades

4.0

Discussion and possible action regarding a sustainability plan that could be adopted by the Department of Building Inspection.

Laurence Kornfield felt that it would be appropriate for the Green Building Subcommittee and the Code Advisory Committee to request that the Department of Building Inspection develop and adopt a sustainability plan for the Department.  This plan would be used to define how DBI could be more sustainable in its day-to-day operations and present a model for other City agencies. 

The Department of the Environment stated that they have a broad range sustainability plan on their website and is available for use by DBI, and tailored to their particular needs.   Through recycling, the Department of the Environment currently diverts 90% of its waste from the landfill.

The Subcommittee will make a recommendation to the full CAC to request that DBI develop such a plan

5.0

Report by David Leung regarding his recent LEED Program training.

David Leung was sent by DBI to LEED training.  David gave a report on his experiences with this training leading to his LEED certification.  He recommends that everyone get this valuable training.

Mark Parker reported that a Department of the Environment ordinance was just introduced at the Board of Supervisors.  This ordinance will set LEEDs Silver Certification as the standard for all future City building projects.  Currently, the City’s design professionals are undergoing training to learn what it takes to obtain a LEED Silver certificate, and to become a LEED accredited professional.

One reason this Green Building Subcommittee was initiated was to examine those code issues that are preventing buildings from becoming LEED certified, such as plumbing and natural ventilation issues.  Plumbing issues include items such as waterless urinals, storm water and gray water use.  Natural ventilation includes items such as high-rise2 smoke control. 

Dennis King, Chief Plumbing Inspector, requested that a specific list of plumbing issues be developed for his division to respond to.  Regarding the prohibition of waterless urinals, Mr. King cited sections of the plumbing code that requires each urinal to have a surface wash down capability, each urinal must have a water supply, maintenance issues and health issues.  Other reasons in favor of waterless urinals were cited, including a need for water conservation, and the low hazard data related to urine.  This topic will be examined in depth at a later time.

6.0

Subcommittee Members’ and Staff’s identification of new agenda items, as well as current agenda items to be continued to another subcommittee regular meeting or special meeting. Subcommittee discussion and possible action regarding administrative issues related to building codes.

Charles Breidinger would like to discuss with Dennis King the San Francisco requirement for double wall separation on heat exchangers, which lowers the efficiency of the exchanger.  This also complicates a solar cell system by necessitating more equipment and pumps.

7.0

Public Comment: Public comment will be heard on items not on this agenda but within the jurisdiction of the Code Advisory Committee.  Comment time is limited to 3 minutes per person or at the call of the Chair.

There will be a solar panel workshop on February 20^th, from 1:30 to 3:00 p.m., in Room 2001.

8.0

Adjournment.

The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 a.m.