|
Present:
Charles Breidinger, P.E.
Nicholas Palter
Carolyn Abst
Others Present:
|
Excused:
Zachary Nathan, AIA
Arnie Lerner, AIA
|
Absent:
James Guthrie, S.E.
|
|
Alan Tokugawa, TSD, DBI
Cal Broomhead, SF Dept. of Environment
Peter O’Donnell, SF Dept. of Environment
|
Mark Palmer, SF Dept. of Environment
Rich Chien, SF Dept. of Environment
Mark Bramfitt, PG&E
Adam Bowers, Sun Power & Geothermal
|
|
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 9:10 a.m. A quorum was not achieved with only three members present.
|
|
2.0
|
Approval of minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 13, 2004.
With no quorum present, the minutes were not discussed.
|
|
3.0
|
Report regarding status of joint DBI and City Planning memo dealing with permits and installation of solar photovoltaic systems.
There was a concern that City Planning had not fully signed off on this document and that the “Zoning Verification For Solar Panels” form was not clear regarding the addition of further requirements. There was also no mention of the Planning fees or electrical fees.
Alan Tokugawa will research and make corrections as necessary, and bring back updated version next meeting. Peter O’Donnell would like to have an electronic version of the revised document.
|
|
4.0
|
Report, discussion, and possible action regarding a sustainability plan that could be adopted by the Department of Building Inspection.
Vernon Takasuka, has been assigned to develop a sustainability policy for the Department of Building Inspection. A status report will be forthcoming.
It was explained that the scope of the sustainability plan would probably include a departmental plan for recycling, energy conservation, and material conservation.
Cal Broomhead explained that for City departments there was already a large body of requirements for the departments, though not well enforced nor actively participated in. The Department of the Environment is charged with assisting the departments in meeting the existing requirements of current resolutions and ordinances.
The DBI sustainability plan will probably become a reaffirmation of existing city requirements and will be most likely be placed on the departments website. This plan could be set up to meet minimum standards but it would be better if it were extended beyond minimum requirements to create a zero energy usage building.
The San Francisco sustainability plan, which is on the Dept. of Environment website, should be referenced in the DBI plan to acknowledge the existence of this document.
|
|
5.0
|
Discussion and possible action regarding proposed revisions to building and energy codes enforced by DBI, including:
It was suggested that it might be useful if DBI put these in order of priority and ask the Department of Environment for any additional information. It was reiterated that no change can be made that is less restrictive than the requirements of State Codes, and when a change is more restrictive, then it must be justified on the basis of climate, geology or topography, as well as meet the California Energy Commission’s Life Cycle Costing requirements.
In order to work on these changes, two things must be asked.
1) Technically, what is the impact of the change in terms of money, energy, or negative reactions of other building systems? (PG&E can help here)
2) Administratively, can these changes be enforced? How is an inspection done?
It would be best if TSD works out the administrative procedures while the Green Building Subcommittee can come up with the technical requirements.
In overview, the consensus is to divide the proposed code changes into either commercial or residential issues, prioritize these changes, and then try to head for a zero-energy home (at peak).
|
|
|
a.
|
San Francisco Building Code Appendix Chapter 15 – Add Section 1521 requiring that insulation be added as part of a reproofing system for commercial buildings up to 3 stories.
Unlike a reroofing project, installation of insulation will require inspection. The installation may be expensive due to the many pieces of equipment that must be worked around on the roof, re-flashed, etc.
Consider incentive plans such as loans, rebates, etc. It would be onerous to require it. Consider the requirements as applied to warehouses having no air conditioning in the building. Again California Energy Commission Life Cycle Cost Analysis requirements must be met.
|
|
|
b.
|
San Francisco Mechanical Code, Sec. 302.3, or California Energy Code, Sec. 111, to add requirement that “Energy Star” compliant appliances be installed as replacements of existing appliances as well as new installations.
The issue here is not whether the State will accept this change, but rather how will the Building Department make it effective, e.g., how can a 6-unit apartment be required to change over to Energy Star appliances upon transfer of title.
This could be built into the Residential Energy Conservation Ordinance (RECO) as compliance with requirements at transfer of title, allowing for the retirement of some older appliances. There is also a need to decommission the older refrigerator to keep it from being reused, and to consider the cost of discarding the old refrigerator. The appliances would also include dishwashers, clothes washers and dryers, etc.
This revision would be hard to enforce in apartments because the owner has no incentive to comply, such as rebates. The tenant ends up footing the bill. The refrigerator rebates work well with homes but not with apartments.
Some non-legislative solutions might involve pumping money through the water bill (water meter) or some other means that the City could have control over. There is also the Rental Capital Pass-Through Ordinance with a special energy provision that was passed by the Board of Supervisors about a year ago that would allow landlords to pass the cost of improvements onto the tenants through their rents.
|
|
|
c.
|
San Francisco Building Code, former Chapter 53A, to readopt the Commercial Energy Conservation Ordinance (CECO).
Cal Broomhead circulated a consultant’s report regarding the efficacy of CECO.
|
|
|
d.
|
California Energy Code, add a new section 100(d)5 to prohibit electric resistance heating in new and alterations of residential construction.
The new Title 24 Energy Code does not appear to outright prohibit the use of electrical resistance heaters in the event energy conservation trade-offs are used. If photovoltaic panels are used, then resistance heating should be acceptable.
Peter O’Donnell will look into getting more information on the Zero Energy Home because some of this is addressed there.
Electricity is a premium form of energy that should be used for lighting and motors, and it would be inefficient to use it for heating. Also using the sun’s energy to create electricity and then to turn that electricity back into heat is very inefficient. There are ways to turn the sun’s heat directly into stored heat.
Conservation methods such as insulating must be coupled with methods for reducing electric resistance heating in order to reduce the peak evening electricity usage (estimated at 90 megawatts of electric resistance heating).
|
|
|
e.
|
California Energy Code, Section 119, to place limits on public area and outdoor lighting lumens per watt, including porch and garage lighting.
There is currently an outdoor lighting ordinance in progress. DBI and SPUR are both working on it. Verify if porch and garage lighting are included in this proposal. This appears to be tied to the revision described below in Item (f).
|
|
|
f.
|
California Energy Code: early adoption of the revised California Energy Code, especially provisions for outdoor lighting.
This ordinance will probably be adopted to be effective in late 2005. The time left to work on this during the current code change cycle is so small that this item can be deleted. This may include parts of Item (e) above.
|
|
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.
Peter O’Donnell indicated that commercial photovoltaic panels now need to be addressed, but he will first conduct a survey of about 20 commercial sites and return with some data, e.g., building height, layers of roofing systems existing, square footage, etc.
Review proposed plumbing code revisions that were collected at the plumbing code workshop.
|
|
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 was no public comment.
|
|
8.0
|
Adjournment.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 a.m.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
