i should say that we certainly agree with the concept of moving this forward. the issue that was raised in the meeting is that the private sector would not be able to assist in building. have not received any data to that effect. do you know of that as a phenomenon. we all want our buildings to become as energy efficient as quickly as possible. five years to strike a lot of folks as a long time. >> we don't have a detailed study that would provide a perfect or direct answer to that question. we did look at the level of energy efficiency, service

delivery as measured by the flow of public service funds. the expected outcome is approximately a doubling of that level of effort. i don't have something that reduces that to a statistic. supervisor chiu: i have not been providing -- provided any information that explains why it is five years instead of three years or four years. >> it was the recommendation of the program design staff as well as the building operators and managers. it was a reasonable balance between -- it was one of the ways that you could meet this set of requirements for a beat of energy audit.

typically, when you do what of these projects, it is likely the building will continue to operate and there is a judgment call. there is an expense to doing that. there is the judgment that five years is a reasonable balance. five years is actually pretty aggressive in terms of expecting technology to change. although we do have significant changes under way, and the development of numerous green tech firms. >> that doesn't sound and reasonable to me. my question is when the first audit needs to occur. given all the environmental issues we're facing an given how much energy our buildings give off, it is about half the energy output of our city.

supervisor maxwell: did you or anybody have some idea of the time that you felt? >> part of it was to see data to really understand this. it is a little hard to pick a number of air which what is why i was trying to understand. it seemed like mostly building industry folks. i just wanted to get a sense for what is appropriate. i would be happy moving forward, but i have a sense that we would have to have a few more conversations before we did that. >> the timeline came out of the task force that have looked at be an array of options and that it seems like a good compromise.

if we are going to accelerate this time line, we have agreed to do the five-year program. it would not be possible for us to do it with existing resources. supervisor chiu: there are many times that we set standards for the private sector and ask them to comply knowing that we can't necessarily audit every single example. we set a goal to ask people to move in that direction without having all of the resources to go building by building, during the quality assurance audit. i certainly hear the resource need, and but i wonder if it is possible to accelerate the time frame and understand that you may not be able to get to every building the that we push the industry to get us to a place faster.

>> 33% over three years? supervisor chiu: that seems reasonable to me. supervisor maxwell: dimension that was a compromise. that means somebody have 3 maybe -- had maybe 3, 10, and you came to this. who came with the shorter time frame? obviously, the compromise was 5, but you had come to a from somewhere. >> i think the new york law was a point. >> it was the goal of the task force to establish a policy and

a goal that would make san francisco a leader. we did choose a more aggressive timeline any more comparable policy. new york is our primary benchmark. that is kind of the bottom line. that was a combination of how frequently it made sense. how do you establish a system where there is a continuous and job availability? with a three-year implementation, the question is, what happens in years four and five. do the audit again, or do they have to wait until the fifth year.

it is balancing those issues. supervisor maxwell: that is not quite what i hear. supervisor mar: alleged to see a much more aggressive timeline. i would be curious of the data used to come up with the five- year compromise. i wish the giants had beaten the yankees, i think we can be more aggressive than york. -- than new york. i think it sounds better with our recent climate change goals as well. supervisor maxwell: why don't we open this up to public comment?

>> i have attended numerous meetings on energy conservation. we have to know right now, we consume 960 megawatts. if you pay attention to what happened recently, having said that, i am amazed that it hasn't been mentioned. the need to get them over here, which deals with southern california. an afghan -- i have been falling for the last five years. and did not know how n.y. comes into play, how we have a completely different scenario. the other thing is, whenever we talk about somehow regulating

private entities, we need to bring the managers, and the operation managers over here and ask them. and we shouldn't be making the decisions in dictating the terms to all of these large businesses. the other thing that is surprising, we used to meet and discuss the various sustainable practices in san francisco. this is the first time i have seen them. i have never seen them participate in the meetings.

supervisor maxwell: i have some cards. cathy, would you come on out? -- up? [reads names] >> i am happy to be here to speak to you, supervisors. i and the energy star program manager. my role in association with the task force has been to be an adviser rather than take a position. i would like to talk to you about the attributes of the portfolio manager database. and how it has been incorporated into other cities energy

policies. it is a free, online, interactive database. another attribute of this database is that it can also generate a carbon footprint for commercial buildings. the benchmarking aspect of the portfolio manager generates an energy used index, and no commercial buildings can be done. there is no restriction. the benchmark team can identify underperforming teams and tell -- help whether or not they are effective. the aspect of the database can be applied to 14 different building types, including offices, courthouses, and waste water treatment plants. you get a score from 1-100 by

comparing your energy performance to your building piers. you can also earn recognition from the energy star program. 2009, 112 buildings were labeled by energy star. [chime] supervisor maxwell: what the to finish that? >> they came in second in 2009 as far as the cities across the country to earn the energy star level. supervisor chiu: so when you come up with buildings or building owners that are poor performers or energy wasters, how does the city hold them accountable?

>> we do not hold them accountable. supervisor chiu: what do other cities do with that information? >> there are several different cities that have inc. portfolio manager into their energy policies to include seattle, the district of columbia and new york. basically, it is kind of a scrutiny that by making this information: to the public, into perspective building owners, we are allowed to decide based on energy use of the building. supervisor maxwell: think you very much.

>> happy holidays. i am representing the building owners and managers association of san francisco. roughly 250 office buildings, the largest in san francisco. its members have long been involved in sustainable practices including energy efficiency. we have been recognized the last several years by the epa as their partner of the year. because of our practices. we also have a program that is sort of a recognition program that recognizes properties for sustainable practices. we have not been lake coming to the sustainability party. we have been leaders all along. we have worked at the very beginning of this process with

the mayor's office and the department of the environment to make sure that it was something that was achievable, affordable, and was using industry standards so that there was no guesswork. i think we have done that with this legislation. our organization is supporting this legislation as it is currently constituted. several of the things we had concerns about initially, if a building is already benchmarking itself, it is already going through a lead certification process. would they be given credit? yes, they would be. would it allow for extensions? and would it be a rolling implementation deadline? it has also been included. can we do this in a shorter time?

i don't think there is a [. -- there is. supervisor chiu: that is exactly the question i have been asking over the last few days. i have been told the opposite. if we provide them with more business over the next few years, it is an industry that will flourish. >> we have to crawl before we can walk. five years is already an aggressive timeline. we are setting the pace nationally to mandate that buildings benchmark -- they must benchmark and do an energy audit. if we go into this thing with five years, we will look at it. if it is more practical for a shorter time frame, consider it then. is there some level 1 or level 2

audit? fine. right now, we need to crawl before we can walk into this mandate. we are supportive as it is currently written. supervisor maxwell: walter paulson. this is after the other names i've caleld. -- called. >> i am asking for your support of this ordinance. i am regional director representing 30 million square feet in the bay area. i also was the chair of the mayor's taskforce. i like to address some of supervisor chiu's questions.

i am proud of it because we represented a lot of factors from this community, and not just be a big buildings that we have managed. most of my buildings in my portfolio, we have done energy star. it will be smaller building. the issue the you were talking about, where our concern is that it is a lot of real estate that has to go through this pipeline. they wanted some of staff and funding to do that, but the big concern is that we did have people in the taskforce that were energy auditors. they say that we do not have enough to meet the real estate that will go through this pipeline. we didn't want a auditors flying in from texas or oklahoma because we want to bring jobs here in france and -- here here in san francisco. as i said, it is a lot of small

buildings that will be affected, and i think there will be education that needs to be done. represent some of the biggest in san francisco. i started for a very small management firm in san francisco. i represented the building of where they might be. i know where they are coming from and i know what we are going to be faced with. i really look forward to your support. >> i am a building manager, i am also a lead accredited professional and wanted to come on record as saying that we support the ordinance, although we support it with a couple of caveat. i don't have a dog in this fight.

we have an energy stars or for the requisite number of years. we have been successful at managing energy usage. from the standpoint of the smaller building owner, [unintelligible] i just wanted to kind of hookups some of these folks to see what their availability is. i found zero cpmp's, item b on page 8 of energy efficiency of their qualifications. i spoke with the president of the san francisco bay area chapter. he doesn't know how many there are in the bay area. there is no list. he assumes there is probably 40

or 50, but he doesn't have that number. further on down the page, they haven't caught backlash for about eight years. i have an engineer that would attend some of those glasses. there are maybe 50 or 60 engineers. only they can't moon like to perform the audits or smaller buildings as being part of the local 39 chapter. i dunno where the smaller buildings are going to get their audit. one of the ways that we benchmarking is by using the experience change report. that is what the market uses. [chime] what are your costs? that is a very good benchmark.

>> walter paulson. land use. ♪ no more of your building darkness all my pictures seemed to fade in black and white it's not too late to stop energy from falling take a chance and make it right don't let the building sun go down on me don't let it go ♪ ♪ and though i search everywhere we are just a fragment in your mind. it is like losing everything like the sun going down on me ♪

♪ don't let the building sun go down on us when we need it so power all the way it's just like a fragment of energy and we need more it's like losing everything ♪ ♪ don't let the energy building sun go down on me ♪ supervisor maxwell: next speaker. you don't have to sing. come on up. concerned citizen. you. dan and matt max. come on. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i thought that as a concerned

citizen, the i wouldwi share akileaks -- a wikileaks secret with you. by disconnecting all my appliances, i reduced my bill from $1 to 69 cents. we can reduce ourthere are peopy that do not even have enough money for heat. thinking of them, for those that do not have, i would reduce my own consumption. it is enough energy for me to have a happy life in san francisco. thank you. do you have any questions? chairperson maxwell: thank you very much for that. each one teach one. thank you. i named some names. dan and then matt mako and jim

cantrell. >> good afternoon, supervisors. thank you for the opportunity to be here. i am damn geiger, -- damn geiger, ahead of the green building council. this is an important topic, arguably the most compelling issue of our time for reasons that have already been stated. the existing building stock generates a very large percentage of our carbon emissions and consumed energy. it is extremely important that the benchmarking and disclosure are extremely important. as you have seen with the leed system, when there is disclosure about a building, it transforms the market. this is a tool for market transformation. we saw that when the new construction ordinance, the

green building ordinance, was passed. the rate of adoption of the leed systems market dramatically. we are the leader in our area in northern california, 70% of leed buildings in the united states, largely because of the leadership of san francisco and the understanding among the owners and operators of buildings of the financial value of energy efficiency and other green measures. there are many studies now that confirm you can save operating costs up to 14% or 15% by green energy and many other things. this ordinance i believe is an extremely powerful catalyst to transform the market and will help building performance as the issue of the day. it is the issue of the day for the u.s. rebuilding council and the entire building industry. a measure like this puts san

francisco in the lead of the united states. it is maybe one of the most important things you could be doing. chairperson maxwell: you think there is an incentive? >> yes. chairperson maxwell: and the incentive is definitely financial? >> there is financial and there is a recognized brand and value. there is a lot of data that shows higher return on investment, higher occupancy rates, higher valuation on properties that are either energy star or leed. there are a number of studies. now the area that is most important is in existing buildings. there is a combination of policy and market catalysts. branding and tenants want it. the point made earlier about 10 and behavior is extremely important. the gentleman who spoke previously about what happens with the leed building is tenants become engaged and start changing their behavior. their conscience changes and they take that home.

there are multiple ripple effects from this kind of effort. i think when san francisco passed the green building ordinance a couple of years ago, the industry got it. the industry got it and realized this is where it is going. we need to do this. i think there will be a similar effect with this measure. chairperson maxwell: thank you. >> thank you. chairperson maxwell: all right. >> how are you doing, supervisors? i am here on behalf of a small building and engineering services company and want to address a couple of things that have been mentioned so far regarding the qualifications that are necessary and the implications to small-business that might have, but also the opportunity that is available and the necessity for something of this nature. a gentleman stood up before and mentioned the qualifications. one of them was a cpmp. also a cem.

i think some of the fact for a little wrong. cpmp is a new certification that is growing and is part of the continuous improvement to the education system. while the cem is a much older certification, we have a cpmp in house and we also have a cem in house. both of those individuals are ready and willing to commit more time and resources toward something of this nature. i wanted to ensure that the work force, like you mentioned, supervisor chhiu, that the work force is there under the current time line. the small business community, even with the certification requirements this covers, is and will be ready to ensure that the financial benefits behind this will get reflected. supervishi