practice of preserving our environment, this policy states using sustainable means of improving resources to ensure the long lived interventions. we believe this practice should in theory result in fewer interventions over time and better preservation of the resource and we believe that sustainable methods should be used in the approach for individual and historical resources and for district resources where materials, systems and infrastructure are more easily shared among sites and this brings issue of eco districts and possible combination of their use of historic district over lays and eco district over lays working in combiks -- combination to create incentive programs for these areas and might relate to the practice in los angeles which i would like to hear more about later. and i believe that ends my

presentation for objective 8. i will stop now for comment and questions. >> commissioner john's? i think your suggestions are really very good. i would just on your second suggested, i'm sorry your first suggested new policy to encourage the study of nrm -- energy use and so forth, i think studying it should been encouraged but also should say we should encourage the implementation. when we work with trying to revitalize the old minute, -- mint, by paying more attention to the building as was originally designed to work, we could save a vast fortune.

i would say encourage the study of energy use for the projects throughout the city as a means of better understanding and implementing the environmental or and achieving. >> commissioner pearlman? >> i'm not quite clear on this one. because what commissioner john's talked about was a specific project. are you suggesting, i'm not sure -- encourage the study of use throughout the city, is that promise on going, historic projects on going, is that all projects. can you give me some background where this came from? >> yeah, our thought was to encourage the study of energy use for all projects, not just historic preservation related projects because you need a comparison. so both for new construction

projects, adaptive reuse projects and for rehabilitation projects that meet the standards. it would be a broad approach. the idea for collection of a broader study. we weren't actually thinking of it in terms of individual project use but, energy audits are an important part of sustainable design and part of that methodology. so i will have to think more about the difference between that broader application and a more individual project application and if the policy should can address both. >> i had one other thing because in the next one encourage the use of sustainable materials etc. i think it would be important to look at the california building code because anything we are doing, the california building code in title 24

that just went into effect in july that is the most advanced and restrictive in the world. there already is that requirement even if you are dealing with the historic building. anything you are touching replacing windows or insulating the walls and things that may not affect the building are required any way. i don't know if the wording is correct. do we want to go beyond if building codes or do we want to encourage people when they are coming in for a project to also then do more. for instance they have come to do an addition on the back, do we want to encourage them to insulate their walls

and double pane windows and their attics because we want to help them maintain their buildings and be more efficient and more green. i'm not sure the wording of that but some how to encourage beyond what might be proposed. >> commissioner hyland? >> yeah. i was on that same thought path. you are mentioning the energy audit and somehow in these last two additions, it's getting further away from preserve is the character defining features and needs to get wrapped into that being the priority. energy motion del lg and testing of windows ought to be highlien encouraged. we are working in the capital

in salem and doing work on the energy and 50 percent is saved from the energy loss simply by kauking the windows. this notion of replacing a single pane glass with dual pane glass >> may not be the answer. >> it may not. we are taking the information and inputting it in the model. somehow we need to get to this performance base analysis as opposed to a probation -- predescriptive base. >> it does have that performance base. >> we need to encourage that performance base modeling because that's how it is done in

order to get those accepted. second, the eco is about to launch the san francisco 46th district they need sponsors or stakeholders, they currently have 4 with three in the wings. once they get their fifth they will get their district, 46 in the country. this will happening here. the city, i know the, i forget what department. there is city sponsorship in one of the city owned buildings is one of the four current stakeholders. that's an aside from the objective. >> commissioner johnck? >> i have a question what you said in relationship to the sustainability plan. so 2030, the year 2030 or

does it relate? >> it's a specific movement across the country and they have named themselves this movement the 2030 th district. so currently seattle, los angeles, there is five of them, denver, they have chartered 2030 districts. it's a way for building owners to come together in a collective district to monitor their energy use so they can do better than, they can help each other out in improving the energy efficiency as a district and therefore is surpassing the goals of what would be implemented on an individual building. one building maybe able to be very efficient in water but not so in

electricity and they can help each other out. >> okay. thank you. i want to read the sustainability plans and based on the objectives that it's focused on energy efficiency and energy and structure systems. what i'm wondering about is does it talk about sustainability of cultural resources? i don't think it does, but in light of our discussion today, i'm wondering how if there is a way to bring in our sustainability of cultural resources that relate to the built environment but more expanded than just a physical building but they do relate to the built environment. i guess that would be my thought about this objective.

>> mr. frye? >> commissioners, tim fry, i hear your concerns about sustainability policies. just to give you a little bit more background, this was really meant to align with a lot of discussions as shelley mentioned with the studies prepared by preservation green lab and other organizations to show that alignment between preservation and sustainability. so we do have some existing policies in other elements that we were trying to also connect to. i think i hear where you are going with this and we'll rephrase these and rework them and may reach out to you on some of those but we'll definitely work on these at the next hearing to show you. >> thank you. we'll open up public comment. any member of the public wish to comment on this objective, seeing

none, we'll close that. we'll move on to objective 9. >> one about the energy use to be more specific about what we mean there because i think somebody in the public might think that's your pg & e bill. it's a much more extensive kind of analysis in all of our systems that are using energy. >> thank you for your comments. i have to admit that i'm having to educate myself quite a bit and this is something that we'll get to in the addition. that brings me to objective nine. prepare historic resources for disasters and prepare emergency response for these residue resources.

i want to bring to your attention that we have a safety committee element and there are two policies that deal specifically with historic resources. 1.16 which states preserve consistent with life safety considerations, the architectural character of buildings and structures important to the unique visual image in san francisco and increase the likelihood that architecturally and historically valued structures will historically is survive future earthquakes and same elements that states ensure prehistoric characteristics are proetd protect ed in the event of a disaster. there doesn't seem to be any conflict and we would not need to necessarily change or revise the community safety element but would be good to

clarify policies where there is overlap that the preservation element takes precedent and the historic treatment of disaster safety. so that brings us to policy 9.1. it reads a little bit differently than many of the other policy. it reads in preparing for disasters preventative measured are encouraged to protect significant measures and improve safety for the citizens. this increases likelihood that important structures will is survive future disasters. the suggested rewording that we have in the report simplifies the policy statement quite a bit. we are suggesting it would read encourage preventative measures to

improve life safety and ensure the character of the city and cultural resources will is survive future disasters. i think that is the second option here once i went back and reread the community safety element policies i realized that the one i just read, policy 1.16 is almost exactly parallel to the draft policy 9.1. if we wanted to have very clear particle -- parallel elements, that is the case for the policy 9.2 which states ensure that historic resources are protected in the aftermath of a disaster. he is the verdict abate --

verb am as we can change the elements as needed to clarify it. we are suggesting some additional policies under object nine for you to consider. the first would be to integrate policies into recovery plans resulting from future disasters. the current focuses on the immediate of the disaster but we would like to ensure that historic preservation is taken into consideration in the long-term planning that occurs after a disaster and such planning could include salvage programs for historic resources that have been damaged beyond repair or interpretive program for neighborhoods or districts that in add versably changed in an

event. the ex-next is for sudden disasters like earthquakes considering where we live. we are suggesting that it also important to address threats that have a more gradual onset associated with climate change and sea level rise is the primary risk. the port authority just released some new policy statements related to sea level rise and what they present at the historic resources at the water's edge. sea level rise is on the top of our minds but there are also risks associated with air pollution and probably others i didn't think of. to 50 of the creeping

emergencies. that ends my presentation on the objectives. i would like to get your feedback on the structural changes and conceptual changes that we are proposing here but i would also like to get some recommendations for future staff presentations. we don't have anything scheduled now but we have discussed possible he coming back and looking specifically at the implementation measure plan either been bvr -- before or after we start looking at the policy. we can bring back for to you look at more specifically the brount of the specific document which is quite hefty and take a look at how that is organized if case there are a change that needsb to be there. if you have any input now,

fg we are discuss this. we do have an open house plan on september 10th. we hope that you can all attend. i know some people have some conflicts and won't be able to attend. we hope to have a good attendance and to make this our jumping off point for the public outreach program to happen this fall an totd -- to the winter. thanks. let me know if you have questions. >> just to remind you, we have a hard stop. if you have items you want to discuss with staff afterwards if you want to contact them directly. commissioner wolfram? >> about objective nine. i'm not sure this is the right area for this idea. a lot of the

cities have ordinances that requires a periodic inspection of facade, san francisco doesn't have one but we probably will have one. it's kind of a related topic because if there is going to be an earthquake, if there are maintenance issues with major building faudz facades it's when it's going to be very parent. maybe enacting policies that ensure the building preservation that requires building inspection facade. i'm not sure if this is a right place but it is a related topic. >> commissioner hyland? >> two things. i know mr. bueller from heritage made several specific comments in epa each of the three presentations. i would request his comments be incorporated. i know they are under public

comment. and objective 9, this is just a nuance, but in the last sentence of 9.1, it talks about important historic structures that will is survive future disasters. this is a delicate approach to restoring and seismically improving buildings so that they is survive, however, because they are historic structures they are allowed a lot of latitude to provide the safety of the occupants, the building would sustain more damage that any upgrade at this time would cause more daniel -- damage that what would be able to be repaired. somehow we need to make sure that this doesn't ge miss construed that we are asking the building to get

retro fitted to a higher stad standard that in the event it doesn't is survive. that in that thought ensure that historic resources are protected and restored in the aftermath of a disaster. our approach is to allow some daniel so we don't to have disturb historic materials in a retrofit. >> commissioners , niguel. anything -- else. no public comments. commissioners, back to you. no comments. we are adjourned. [ meeting is adjourned ] >> >>

>> welcome to the wednesday, august 27, 2014, meeting of the san francisco board of appeals the proceeding offense is commissioner president lazarus and joined by commissioner hurtado and commissioner fung and commissioner honda. to my left is the deputy director rooirn brighten and the legal assistant mr. pacheco i'm