semi energy efficiency installations would be -- the same way energy efficiency installations would be, perhaps businesses will ticket vantage of this immediately. i encourage environment staff to work on that. along those lines, it is crucial that the department of environmental affairs it starts in gauging closely with sfpuc, lafco, and advocates such as myself, and a company called local power that created community choice aggregation. they could integrate with clean power sf to use revenue bonds to help create the ability to pay for this stuff up threats of the business owner does not have to come up with the money -- to pay for the stock -- pay for this stuff up front so the business

owner does not have to come up with the money. chairperson maxwell: public comment is closed. supervisor chiu: i hear from the business industry some of the problems that might affect some of the small and medium- sized businesses. in the legislation itself is a specific exception for buildings that are financially distressed. if a building manager or owner is having financial difficulties, they do not need to comply with this until their financial issues are dealt with. in my mind, that has been a reasonable way of getting at some of the economic challenges that might be facing a building. we also know that the study that this was based on, the legislation was based on, was begun several years of ago. it has been at least two years since the beginning of this work. the discussion started in 2008. if we include the amendment i have, that would not require additional energy audits for another four years. we are talking about six years

from when we started this conversation that will hopefully result in final audits. the study refers to president obama is a goal of trying to reduce our carbon footprint by more than 80% in the coming years. that is a goal we need to strive for. all of that said, i would like to get a sense either from city staff or from boma -- how many buildings are under 5000 square feet, 25,000 square feet? how many buildings are talking about? is there data you could provide to us at this time expert -- at this time? >> we do have that data. i want to call larry cooper from my staff who could give us a better understanding of that. how many buildings fall into the different categories of 10,000 square feet and up and the different segments? >> i am very hooper, department

of the environment -- i am barry hooper. 620 are over 50,000 square feet that have no residential occupancy. approximately 2500 specific buildings have been identified between 10,000 square feet and 50,000 square feet that have no residential occupancy. supervisor chiu: what about at the 5000 level? is it exponentially larger? >> quite a bit larger. once to the -- it points to the difficulty of the data set available. because of the large volume of properties -- some have a building and no lot square footage recorded. i believe a portion of that is commercial condominium. there is continued data analysis. the bottom line is, in our projections for implementation,

we expect the total count of buildings to be about 15% larger in both cases. we need to sift through that data from the assessor report. we're doing a new task, so the city databases are not exactly attuned to what we need. chairperson maxwell: am i hearing you say that between five and 10 is quite a few buildings? >> yes. chairperson maxwell: it almost sounds like the majority of the buildings. >> if this error did not exist, there would be more than 10,000 buildings that would be in that small category. but in practice, probably at least half of them are really -- would need to be assembled together to line -- to add up to larger buildings. we could add the buildings in each of the size classes. if a condominium is considered a separate personal, it does not have -- if a condominium is

considered a separate parcel, it does not have -- supervisor chiu: this initial audit -- is it a representative sample of large, small, and medium in each year? where are we starting with large, moving to medium, and moving to medium -- and moving too small? >> we want there to be sufficient auditor capacity, so it will be mixed. to clarify that, we do have a time line drawn up. if the projector is available, it might. supervisor chiu: do you have extra copies of that? it is a little hard to read. >> sure. so, there would be a time of up to four months to sort out some of these database issues. that includes compiling data from building inspection, the

assessor reporter, and other resources the city has to identify the universe of affected buildings and a more reliable way. the most critical aspect of this is that the building owner needs to understand that they are affected and what is being asked of them. there would be the notification and preparation time, up to 12 months. that would be the building -- that would give the building owner time to budget. this is often a capital item, this evaluation. under the legislation discussed this morning, it would be one- third of the building stock would need to be audited each year to have that completed within three years. during the preparatory. -- during the preparatory time, we would be doing lottery assessment so the large buildings were distributed over time, and the smaller buildings. there are different use types were there would be specialized

engineering expertise. those would be evenly distributed to make it as easy as possible for this to be meaningful information to motivate change on the part of the building owner. supervisor chiu: can you talk about the reason you decided to use a lottery results instead of having large buildings go first? >> the building of 50,000 square feet or larger -- this is roughly speaking. there needed to be a threshold. there tends to be a much more complicated system in the building from electronic systems to manage the facility, the complexity of the heating and ventilation, and other components. those require specialized engineering knowledge to provide a reliable evaluation. they involve fluid dynamics and more detail than your typical building service contractor might be able to provide. that is the area where there is the most acute shortage

currently in california of expertise to provide those types of evaluation. i would be glad to provide the committee with a recent berkeley lab report on that topic. things are simpler on a technical basis for the smaller buildings. but there are many more of them and we need to return to them, and they are less familiar with the issues involved. there is more assistance they will need from the department of the environment and other partners in the community. so it is just about we know that we have a certain amount of resources and we are going to try to figure out how to execute this ordinance if it were passed in the most effective way possible. that involves distributing the effort over time. it is not a glut of anyone action going on at the same time. -- any one action going on at the same time. chairperson maxwell: thank you. >> i had to additional comments

to ed -- two additional comments to add. we are in discussion with the office of economic and work- force development on the training component. if we want this ordinance to pass, we want to look at the world of people who are trained to do these audits and what the resources are up there to expand those training programs. we have already started as initial discussions. secondly, in terms of helping small businesses and small building owners, we have identified a couple of nonprofit partners that do loans for specialty programs. we are in discussions with them about this ordinance and possibly setting up the loan opportunity through those nonprofit partners to help small business owners with the cost of the audit. i want to let you know the discussions are happening. chairperson maxwell: you mentioned training. are these auditors certified? >> that are certified. chairperson maxwell: they are certified to the city? >> barre.

there is a relatively new training process -- barry. there is a relatively new training process. >> new york passed a similar ordinance a few years ago. the recognize that if an audit was a legal requirement there needed to be a credible delivery of that service. that included qualifications for the auditor. the list is in the ordinance of different ways of qualifying to be able to provide this audit service. it is a significant fraction of the different types of certifications that exist. they involve -- do you want me to enumerate them? chairperson maxwell: could city college to a certified program? could we talk with people, if the certified program is 18 months? could we try to get that program done in nine months? people do those kind of things if there is a big enough pool. that is kind of where i am having.

>> well, the biggest area where city college would be an excellent partner would be on the implementation side, which is the actual installing of measures that are recommended. we expect there to be significant action taken by building owners when they have this information about what is cost effective for them. that is the type of mechanism that could definitely be supported by the community college. auditing, yes, but there are a number of other avenues as well. the local 39 stationary engineers -- their members are able to provide some of the services in this. we want to reach out to them and talk about their training development. community colleges one element of it, but they could not -- chairperson maxwell: i whole idea is that there is a process in which we could certify people through an accelerated program. it could happen in any shape or fashion. whether it is city college, or a union program, this is my

question. and you keep saying yes. >> yes. i was just going to say the green jobs component of this ordinance is one of the items we would be working on first, taking an inventory of all of the green job training programs that are out there were some of the training could be offered. my understanding is some of this training is very specialized. nevertheless, we want to actively harness those resources and the programs already out there to insure we can get people trained in an accelerated fashion and offer the resources. i think that is to be determined about who -- chairperson maxwell: and where. if we look at what is expected of those folks, they find ways to be able to streamline what is really important in what they really need to do. i think it would be important for us to look at that. the city is going to be big. a lot of other cities will probably fall into that and it would be enough people to help change that program. >> agreed.

chairperson maxwell: another question i have for you -- looking at the energy efficient audit, we are talking about six years. if we were to use the amendments that supervisor chiu put forth, it would be four years. is that correct? so we are looking at a difference of two years. >> that is right. exactly. chairperson maxwell: thank you. supervisor mar, any questions or comment? supervisor chiu? supervisor chiu: i want to thank everyone for your feedback here. i think we all understand we'll share the same goals. what we're trying to figure out is how to move this energy performance ordinance in a way that is aggressive and doable.

i do think the numbers that i proposed do that. i have spoken to a number of folks in a variety of different sectors the believe there is both the capacity on the auditing side as well as the capacity on the building side. the fact of the matter is under the original proposal and what i am amending, we are talking about a random sampling. at some point, large and small businesses will be affected in each year. the only question is whether we allow that lottery to stretch out so that a couple of lucky buildings do not have to do anything until years four and five. from my perspective, these initial audits are going to occur by the end of year for. that makes sense. but i am obviously open to feedback. chairperson maxwell: i think it has been mentioned how important what we do and how we do it -- the longer we delay, i think the

more problems are we -- we're going to have. i think within this legislation, supervisor chiu outlined that if people are in distress we can deal with that. we are looking in some cases from 12 months to 18 months, from six years to four years. a lot happens within that time. two years makes a difference, looking at energy. we are looking at our carbon footprint. colleagues, with that, i am concerned and i certainly feel for those businesses. but i think they have had a while. we have been working on this for a number of years, so they have had a while to know that something was coming down the pike. with that, why don't we accept the amendments? without objection. and the legislation as amended without objection. and colleagues, we need to go back to item -- supervisor mar: i am happy to

add my name as a" sponsored to this legislation, making those changes. -- as a co-sponsor to this legislation, making those changes. >> this will be a substantive amendment requiring an additional week. chairperson maxwell: then we will rescind that vote. not on the amendments, just the vote. the item will have to sit until our next meeting. madame clerk, that would be -- >> january 3? chairperson maxwell: to the call of the chair. without objection, item is amended, and as amended it will sit until the call of the chair. we need to go back to item one. i would like to rescind item one.

with that, we need to divide the file. the amendments to the first/aisle -- first divided file -- we will refer that without recommendation as amended as a committee report. and then the second item, we will amend them. there were amendments to the second/aisle. we will pass as amended and continue that to the call of the chair. -- there were amendments to the second divided file. we will pass as amended and continue that to the call of the chair. >> item 3, ordinance amending the public works code and administrative code to create new requirements for personal wireless service facility site permits and associated fees. chairperson maxwell: we heard

this last week. this will go as a committee report. we have staff from supervisor avalos's office. >> francis shea here on behalf of supervisor avalos. he apologizes for not being here to address you today. we are asking for your recommendation on the supervisor's ordinance requiring certain fees. standards exist on private property to the wireless television -- to the commission -- telecommunications services guidelines, but no such things exist on public property. that is what we are trying to do with this legislation. you held public testimony last week. we have received e-mails and letters of support. we have also had an opportunity to review comments submitted by industry representatives and members of the public.

we do not plan to make any further amendments today and ask for your support and for doing this to tomorrow's board meeting. city staff and here -- and i are here to answer questions you need them. chairperson maxwell: why don't we go directly to public comment? alissa adamo, steven koellick, gray okey, and paul abritton. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i am the executive director appeared -- of san francisco community agencies responding to disaster. i have a letter to of submission for this ordinance and appreciate being here today. if we were to have a moderate or severe earthquake even right now, but we would all pick up

our cell phones. we would call our loved ones, trying to let them know we were ok. frankly, not all of us would get through. there is not enough capacity in the city even in normal times to meet the demands of their with many carriers. the united states geological survey says a major earthquake will occur in the bay area within the next 30 years. that could be today or it could be tomorrow. it could be a year from now or within 30 years. i bought a map that represents the vulnerable populations in the city -- chinatown, tenderloin, bayview hunters point just to name a few. those are highly vulnerable areas of the city. you can see those highlighted in red. in orange, we have major displacement occurring. one of the most important means of communicating after a

disaster will be wireless communications. we will need towers to carry the load and battery backup to power them. the non-profit sector will depend on these communications systems to convey critical communications between nonprofits and faith based organizations who do not have radios that police, fire, and medical personnel have. these organizations are first responders in their own right, reaching out to deliver critical missions to the people who depend on it every day in normal times. these are the most significantly impacted after a major earthquake. putting barriers in place through this proposal will only serve to weaken the overall communication capacity. thank you for considering a proposal. chairperson maxwell: thank you. >> excuse me.

my name is brian -- brad cahoon. i represent t mobile. we have submitted several letters of the past year. the request that all of the cummins recorded in the record of the proposed -- all of the comments be recorded in the record of the proposed ordinance. the city is missing an opportunity to streamline the opportunity to attach equipment to utility poles in the right of way and provide significant service to residents and visitors to the city. the ordinance will likely be pre-empted. the city will lose valuable time that could have been used for approving wireless communications that are presently being disparaged in the press and by frustrated customers. the proposed ordinance targets licensed characters, subjects

them to cumbersome discretionary process. only unlicensed carriers can meet the tier 1 and tier 2 standards and enjoy a streamlined approval process. one not make the minor modifications t mobile has requested? that would improve communications and the city rather than wait for a resolution of what could be a protracted dispute over the current ordinance. we have submitted comments already relating to the two-year permit limit. this asks why should an attachment permit be limited to two years when state law names anything less than 10 years unreasonable and federal law would render two years a barrier to entry. after the city has permitted an untenable attachment, why should

the site be open for repeal to discretionary process by people who decide they like the new technology better? why should existing sites have to be removed and retrofitted? these sites have vested rights. removing them will make the administration's worse. we urge that the city not move forward with a road -- with a vote, that the ordinance be rethought and revamped. thank you. >> excuse me. before i begin, may i have the time ceeded by another speaker

in case i go over the two minutes? can we start at two minutes? thank you. my name is steven kroelligh. i am member of the presidio heights residents for safety. we support the legislation by mar, avalos, and campos. but we would like to go a little bit further. we are very concerned about the antenna's proliferating above the ground. we would prefer them to be below the ground in commercial and residential neighborhoods. i think this is going against our policy by overloading the utility poles with possibly dangerous or hazardous lead batteries and other issues on

those polls -- poles. we live in a city which has earthquakes, which has high winds. those environmental situations can cause a hazard. let me once again go to the projection here. let me put this on. this is from southern california in malibu. the telecommunication company said these polls would go up to -- poles would go up to 92 miles per hour. the wind was 50 miles per hour. homes were burned down. lost homes, not lost lives, but lost memories. this is "the wall street journal" about wifi, which is a threat to the trees. this was in last weekend's edition. they have been some -- they have been doing studies on the damage

to leaves on the trees. they are very sensitive to the impact of electronic smog. supervisor maxwell, last time we were here, you mentioned the tourist dollars coming into the city. people are becoming very sensitive to electronics amok. the man not come to our city. put them underground. chairperson maxwell: teddy veerhez, diana scott, leslie valiander.

>> i strongly support this legislation as a first step in addressing the issue of wireless telephone equipment being installed over public rights of way in commercial and residential areas of the city. commenting on all of this wireless equipment on utility poles undermines this policy since wireless transmission cannot operate underground. the number, size, and wait along with upsized pg&e power cans are being added to polls that were not -- poles that were not built to hold them. several of the old wooden poles are not sufficient for them.

at a specific address in our block, they could not get all of the equipment on their pole and decided unilaterally to run a cable across the street to install more equipment there. dpw has been contacted to investigate and demand to remove that equipment. this example shows a disregard for the existing committee process. finally, it seems the telecom community is putting all their resources into miniaturizing the loans but do not put the same focus on minimizing the size of support equipment needed for these phones, even know they're bulky equipment terrorizes the bulky equipment terrorizes the public.