jt that much of this interdepartmental team was established a year ago that brought our work together and collectively we established three objectives of this work, to create a clean energy city and -- water solutions, to strengthen the city's economic base, and to establish a clear path of sustainable growth. and lastly i'll introduce ecodistricts to help accomplish these goals. a program driver, environmental goals and regulations, on the power side, there's been some city goals that have been established, one of which is to create a greenhouse citywide -- by 2030. we have goals from the state to achieve 12,000 megawatts of local renewable distributed generation by 2020.

12,000 megawatts translates to powering about nine million homes. with these goals we see a shift toward local generated renewable power. the city and state will continue to grapple with water. are we have city goals to look to reducing water demands to capturing and treating rain fall and increasing water we use. there's been a number of guidelines and ordinances that have been developed to help us do that. waste, the city has a strong goal zero waste goal by 2020. we've done well on that with our recycling program, partnering recol ji. so we're looking at how we can get the remaining -- get to our remaining 20%, how are we going to do that, and what are the

larger systems to be addressed in order to meet that goal. so at more or less the same time that we were -- the city is crunching away on these goals we were accommodating growth for the city. our sustainable community strategies projections project that we will have 97,000 additional households by 2040, and 198,000 new jobs. so a lot of growth. but our work has not gone unrecognized. we currently have -- retain our -- the status, we're in the number one position for the greatest city in north america. you can see that competition is quite fierce. we want to retain our position as number one. vancouver is hot on our heels with about two points below. so recognizing this, a year ago, an interdepartmental team was

form comprised of planning, san francisco environment, department of public works, capital planning committee, redevelopment successor agency. what we did is we meet monthly and bring all our existing work together, recommending -- or looking to implement much of the work that requires participation  departments.[a so -- such as green building ordinance, stormwater design guidelines and non-potable ordinance, recommendations that were created in the electricity users plan. and also help to inform our future work such as the urban watershed system. but we know that we can't always just lead with the environment. we have to lead with the economy as well. and currently sustainability in our implementation programs is really falls under requirements or]xjp[tñ incentives. what we'd like to do is evaluate

some financing mechanisms that bring that back into implementing sustainable development projects that strengthen the city's economic base, and as well as create good partnerships on the private sector side. and recognizing that growth in and of itself -- urban growth is good for the environment. we know that. indeed our adopted plans focus on growth in areas well served by transit and create density that fosters community development but growth in and of itself is no longer good enough and development has to help us meet these goals. so our final objective is to create a clear path toward sustainable development. we will -- in return we will help identify what the private sector will take with this work thereby opening opportunities for stronger public-private partnerships. so how are we going to make this

work. we are looking at ecodistricts which is really a sustainable development strategy that looks on the neighborhood scale that improves self-reliance and reduces environmental impact. so much work has been done recently, with green buildings. indeed, a green building ordinance helps with that work. and what we were discovering is that there are greater economic and environmental efficiencies that can be captured when you look at the district scale. so ecodistricts really look at private buildings, public ground, and public infrastructure system, and look to connect those systems to capture those greater economic and environmental efficiencies. it's a strategy -- it's an old concept, there's a new -- it's a new term. the term was developed out of portland and it's a strategy

that is diffusing nationally and abroad. we like ecodistricts because it's at the confluence of experimentation and expanding understanding, infrastructure and community investments, environmental and urban innovation. and the planning department is taking the lead in this work because it is place based. planners are place-makers and historically urban planners have looked at building form and use in the public realm. for the first time through ecodistricts we add another dimension to planning and that's a fiscal qualities of the place. we saw this with toper delaney's presentation which she said she wants to celebrate the invisible. as diverse as our neighborhoods are, the physical qualities of our city is equally diverse.

ecodistrict allow for innovation opportunities big. this is a proposed recycled district facility within the central corridor area. the left is showing the high water table in the area. and small, recycling ceramic roof tiles to create -- to slow rain water. it's good for the economy. it offers opportunity to attract the type of growth we want for the tenants and our residents. there's operation maintenance savings and opens up opportunities for public-private partnerships. ecodistricts provide a new model for equitable development. starting early in the process the community works with the city to steer this work, to identify projects, and to select

projects that reflect the neighborhood's character and its environmental priorities. it puts the neighborhood in charge of the neighborhood, and it creates a more resilient neighborhood which strengthens social networks and projects that can adapt to climate change. here in san francisco, we've created four different types of ecodistricts. the first type, type one, we characterize as a blank slate. it's characterized by large tracts of land, owned by own developer. they're the most common type of ecodistrict. typically campuses, hospitals. we're looking at a type one pilot at mission rock. our type two ecodistrict we call the patchwork quilt comprised of land, an area that will accommodate growth and is

comprised of land that includes undeveloped, developed, and developed land. so different owners and different developmental time frames. essential corridor has been identified as a type two pilot. and our third ecodistrict, the living neighborhood, which is going into areas of the city that aren't necessarily accommodating growth, and through tactical urbanism, finding ways that will alter patterns of behavior to more sustainable ways. so if you live in a neighborhood and you typically drive your car to costco, what would make you reconsider, and cross the street and visit your local grocer. we haven't identified a neighborhood yet. we're in the process. we're working with the invest in it neighborhoods initiative, through the office of economic and workforce development, and

the neighborhood empowerment network, also through the mayor's office, and we have a grant to help us do outreach into neighborhoods, and work with neighborhoods and finding what that would mean to them. lastly, our fourth ecodistrict type four type is the industrial network. this is actually happening already outside of -- in industrial parks, which is recognizing, looking at industrial land uses, and identifying the snergistic uses of two industries. one industry produces a lot of heat in making its product. can another industry nearby capture that heat and help use it to make its product. so we're looking at all the work being done with our -- that's the production side of the pdr.

then there's the distribution side. there is a way to make the distribution of these goods, through the city, cleaner. is that an electric vehicle fleet for gamp that will help with air quality in the area. so the -- just to conclude, we have some next steps here. we will continue our interdepartmental work. you can see that there's a lot that we are building on, and joining together as being a great experience for all of us. we'd like to expand our sustainable development program lands to include metrics and adaptation. we have -- we host ahh monthly ecodistrict presentation series which is really to keep our teams sharp. there's so much of this work is new. and innovative and we want to be able to ensure that we are -- our team is on that edge, as well as it's a public

presentation series so the public is invited to bring the public into that as well. and to date, much of our work has been with the city family. and right now, we're about to embark and engage the community. so we've got a couple of outreach efforts. one is our type three ecodistrict through the living neighborhoods, and our central corridor, we're going to start a central corridor task force shortly to help inform the sustainability component to the central corridor plan. there's lots of information on the sustainable development web page. we did a summer internship program with swa group. there's an informational video on ecodistrict and a ecodistrict framework and the types and sustainable program in general. that concludes my presentation. thank you for listening and i'm available for questions you should have now or at any time. >> president fong: thank you. is there any public comment on this item?

seeing no public comment, public comment's closed. commissioner antonini. >> commissioner antonini: thank you for your report. i got a few questions on some things that, you know, you may have not looked at or maybe you have. the central steam plant idea, it's very popular in manhattan and we have some of it here. i think i went by one near mid-plaza and it services a small area. but what they do is they have central steamers and they supply heat and presumably maybe air conditioning, but certainly heat, through the steam system for huge parts of manhattan out of a central plant. seems to me that's a good way of doing it. >> they serve about 120 buildings, i believe downtown. it's -- it provides heating and cooling. and it's a nice system because

it takes boilers and chillers out of buildings, and buildings connect to a centralized system. and this helps in the efficiency, environmentally, and therefore also economically because it's a tighter system so it needs less power. but it also frees up space within the buildings that the building owners then could rent or do other things with. and one reason why i really like it is boilers and chillers in individual buildings aren't monitored through our bay area quality management districts requirements. because they're new small. so putting them into a centralized system requires that air quality that's associated with those companies that run those systems to be monitored. so ultimately it can result in cleaner air for all of us. >> commissioner antonini: that sounds great and hopefully we can persuade some of the existing buildings in parts of doubt to get involved with

the -- downtown to get involved with a system like that and certainly new construction we've proposed a lot of new commercial buildings that will be constructed in the transbay area and that may be a wonderful site to have something like that and it also makes for a more pleasant heat. steamed heat is quiet and general and not forced air. they've gotten better with the forced air but it's sort of an on and off system and you either get real cool or too hot. it's not as balanced as steam heat in my opinion. i have a couple other suggestions. i assume your green buildings are encouraging having enough stairways. some of the buildings built in the 60's, particularly french hospital, many of the buildings don't have stairways and you have to either take the elevator or walk two or three buildings away to take the stairway and they felt no need for stairways

in those days because nobody was going to walk up and down them. the other thing i wanted to ask you a question about is historic design and new buildings, we see all these buildings with nothing but glazing. and the windows have improved to where they can monitor the amount of sunlight, heat, that comes in, and keep it from getting really hot and needing so much air conditioning on the inside, but it would seem to me a more traditional buildings designed particularly in lower buildings, where you have thicker walls, you have awnings or eves that cover shade part of the area outside to keep the sun from coming directly on#> the existing building retrofits are the low hanging fruit in all this work because

that's where you can -- that's where you should is start. >> commissioner antonini: yeah, that's for sure because they've already got the structure there and all they have to do is keep it there, and -- to try to get a new building built that way it's probably more costly to do it with that much less glazing and more walls, and so, you know, that may be one reason why we don't see it. i don't know. but that's my opinion anyway. maybe somebody knows more about it who's an architect and can comment. they claim the glass frameworks are expensive but it seems like they go up pretty fast and seems to me that's lot less expensive to build. >> our green building ordinance is pretty strict and does a good job -- oongeddle but they have to use artificial heating and cooling systems to keep the temperatures even whereas buildings that are thicker keep

the temperature in because of the thickness of the walls and temperatures from outside can't make it too warm or too cold. and finally, the last thing i was going to ask about is whether you have any cooperation with mta on their planning of community roots, and how things are being done. because they seem to be very inefficient, as far as the -- we still see quite a few diesel buses around, although we've converted a lot of them to electric. it seems like some of the routes duplicate each other. is there a way that you can work with sustainable transit ideas? >> we're looking -- well there's a -- if we lookedalty the central corridor for example there's a significant public realm component to that plan, that looksm$( +q to transit rou, and encouraging walking. our work is more focused really

with almost at this point with what happens below ground. we put in an application with the state for a grant that looks at innovative technologies like capturing the heat that would come from the central subway's brake pads and using that to help provide heat in the district. so that's where we engage with mta in this work in particular. >> commissioner antonini: it sounds like you're working more with what is already there and using it more efficiently and using the energy that's already generated. >> yeah, and connecting those infrastructure systems. you know, if the roads are going to be opened up for improvements, a new central subway, is that an opportunity for us to put infrastructure sustainable infrastructures in that are connected with the buildings, or the public realm improvements for the central

corridor are significant. you know, there's some alleyways over to create more open space in the area. is there a way that we can help capture some of the water that's coming from the ground, to help irrigate that land. so really trying to look at the fiscal qualities of the area, look at what capital improvements are proposed for the area, look at growth that's planned for the area, and see if there's a place where all those efforts can connect to create a more environmentally and economically efficient system that benefits both the city as well as the private sector, the community. >> commissioner antonini: thank you. >> is you're welcome. >> president fong: okay. appears to be no other questions. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> commissioners, that will place you item 13, case

no. 2011 .0683l duboce landmark district bounded by waller street, scott street and northern boundary of duboce pa park. >> good afternoon, commissioners, mary brown, department preservation staff. i have prepared a slide show to show images of buildings and character defining features in the district and this will play continuously throughout my presentation. the item before you is to provide recommendation to the board of supervisors on the proposed duboce park landmark district. pursuant to article 10 of the planning code the planning commission has requested to provide review and comment on three items specifically. first, to address the consistency of the proposed designation with the policies

embodied in the general plan and priority policies of section 101.1. in particular, the provision of housing to meet the city's regional housing needs allocation and the provision of housing near transit corridors. second, to identify any amendments to the general plan necessary to facilitate adoption of the proposed designation. and third, to evaluate whether the district would conflict with the sustainable community strategy for the bay area. the proposed district is bounded by waller street, steiner street and the northern and eastern boundary of duboce park. the boundary jogs slightly south of the park's entrance at karm lita, pierce, to accommodate the historic steps and rock retaining walls. the district is residential, comprised of 79 contributing buildings, eight non-contributing buildings, and three contributing interior block park entrances. properties in the district are

zoned rh-2 and r2o. the district is significant for the unusual development history of the contested track of land upon which it is built and the way in which the contested nature of the tract impacted the district's physical appearance in the adjacent park. the the district is built on one half of what was historically a tractd of land known as the public reservation, hospital lot and marian track. the other half is publicly owned and is the site of duboce park. the the site is significant for high level architectural -- it is remarkable intact grouping of victorin and edwardian. the queen ann style is represented as well as effusion, edwardian and victorin detailing.

architect who elaborately applied millwork. the designation process began june 2011 when hpc added the proposed district to the landmark designation work program. as part of this process the department engaged in robust community outreach funded by a federal preserve america grant. the department hosted eight community events focused on the proposed districts and on tailored levels of review for future alterations to build in the district. outreach events included a neighborhood history walking tour, two ask a planner nights and five community meetings and workshops. in addition the department provided updates at the duboce triangle neighborhood meetings and in the association's newsletters. details on specific outreach are included in your report. as a result of the community meetings and community feedback the department developed a

highly tailored review process within the proposed district. the identified review as outlined in the designation ordinance in your packet is specific to this neighborhood. it identifies scopes of work that qualify for particular levels of review, ranging from a certificate of proposesness, an administrative of appropriateness. work qualify for no additional review or administrative staff level review if conditions are met. at the urging of the community supervisor scott wiener led an effort to amend the mills act program to increase access to financial incentives. these amendments which go into effect in october make the process quicker, cheaper, and more predictable. also the request of property owners and supervisor scott wiener the department created an on-line questionnaire to so solt

feedback. the questionnaire was available if three weeks in november and produced a total of 38 valid household responses. the vast majority of responses were provided by property owners. property owners submitted the proposed designation by more than 2-1 ratio. 65% of property owners support the designation and 29% opposed. recent amendments has support. over 30% of property owners within the district participated and break down of responses is provided in your case report. on december 5, 2012 the historic preservation commission initiatived designation and on december 19, that commission voted to recommend designation to the board of supervisors. the department has determined that the proposed landmark

district designation appears to be consistent with the general plan and will not necessitate general plan amendments. urban design elements of objective two policy are relevant as they call for preservation of notable landmarks and areas of historic and architectural value. the proposed designation appears to be consistent with the eight priority policies of section 101.1 as documented in the case report. the designation would preserve historic buildings, encourage protection of existing housing and neighborhood character and would provide new financial incentive for preservation by qualifying property owners to qualify for the mills act program. designation appears to be consistent with range of policy and objectives included in the market and octavia program. it will promote preservation of historic buildings abilityd review future alterations for

compatibility to the secretary of interior standards. in addition to preservation of buildings proposed designation maintains connection between residential buildings in the park through park entrances which provide a tangible connection to the district's historical development. the proposed designation does not conflict with regional housing or environmental politics as broadly outlined in the sustainable strategy for the since publication of the agenda in packets the department has received public comments in opposition and in support of the proposed district. the department was cc'd on letters opposing the designation. in addition the the department received e-mailings of support from three property owners in which the commissioners were not cc'd. these property owners were lynn baker, dan proffero and peter strauss. the department is aware of a

flier containing information inconsistent with information presented at public events and hearings and the department is available to answer or address any questions you may have about this. finally, based on staff analysis, the resolutions adopted by the hpc and the community input, the department recommends that the planning commission recommend designation as proposed -- to the board of supervisors. the draft resolution is included in your case report. following your review and comment, the department will forward the designation to the board of supervisors, with resolutions from both commissions. that concludes my presentation. and myself and my colleague, tim frye, preservation coordinator are available for questions. >> president fong: thank you. public comment on this item, i have a few speaker cards, jonathan goldberg, jason lonberg, john