if follow up question, the question i had was not whether the work force was ready now. i think the work force could absorb a little bit more. i wanted to get a sense for you as to whether -- my sense is private-sector demand can step up if there is a real need and interest in the services that we would be asking for from your industry. >> move supply and demand will follow. supervisor chiu: absolutely. >> you bring up a great point. i know something like this was to pass, i would be looking to hire. i absolutely think we can meet the demand and the demand will follow. i am sure that after all the work that has gone into this is maybe a little bit disheartening to hear. we may need a little more time around this. but i would be in favor of either process in preferably a shorter time line. supervisor chiu: thank you. >> my name is jim cantrell.

i am a partner in a mid-sized management company, real-estate management. i was on the task force. i am on the faculty of the institute of real-estate management. i am a member of ptma. i want to address this from the standpoint of smaller building owners. one of the things you have to understand is that the economic times we are in right now, it is very tough to go to small owners and say you should do this for the good of your building, because you're going to save energy. it does cost them money. part of what we put together with this program is an educational component to tell them what is at there to help them do this. i do think the five-year timeline is realistic. i think the three-year timeline is extremely aggressive. i have smaller owners, and it is going to be difficult for them to comply. five years is a realistic time frame that this could be done. supervisor chiu: my understanding is the whole point of an energy audit is to

implement energy efficiencies that would save money, right? so in other words, if we get some of these folks to do the energy of it, they figure out where they can save on their pg&e bill and other energy costs the hope to reduce their costs. what we're trying to do it is in sent them to develop -- incent them to do that. >> the problem is that the low hanging fruit is easy to get. if there is no cost to energy efficiency, that is fine. but a lot of things that will have to be implemented will cost money to do and will need funding from various sources to get that done. the bigger things -- if i go to one of my owners and say, "you have to replace his compressor now, and the compressor is going to be $20,000 to replace, but is quick to say this over the next few years," where are they going to get the $20,000?

this gives them sources' where they can get funding. but a time frame of five years is more realistic to finance that. supervisor chiu: thank you. >> jim lazarus, san francisco chamber of commerce. we participated on behalf of our members in this process over a period of many months. i would urge you to vote the ordinance out as submitted to the committee today. the thing to the supervisors concerns, maybe some provision could be added to this ordinance or within the docket of this committee to have a hearing on implementation within the first couple of years of the legislation without changing the time line. this is the result of a lot of hours and participants from tenants as well as building owners and business associations. i would urge you not to open up that core part of this

legislation, which compromise -- a compromise may be too strong a word, but an understanding of what is effective from the department's point of view in city government and the building owners' point of view, impact on tenants. vacancy factors, when work can be done. i would urge you not to open that part of it up, but bring it back to the committee during the middle of that first five-year implementation. chairperson maxwell: eric brooks, matt mako. those are all the cards i have. if there is anyone else who would like to speak, please line up. >> hello again, supervisors. eric brooks. i and the chair of the sustainability working group of the san francisco green party. i would like to come in with strong support of what you all have said, which is that these timelines need to be far more aggressive.

when i started as an environmentalist 26 years ago, i started learning about global credit crisis way back then, before a lot of other people did. -- global climate crisis way back then, before a lot of people did. what is happening with the arctic and antarctic ice melting and the tops of mountains melting down, this stuff is happening much faster than was previously believed. and the point here is that the climate and the planet are not going to compromise and negotiate. if the atmosphere is going to go ahead and do what it is going to do, i have worked as the last three years as the core organizer for community choice aggregation, the clean power sf program. we are just in the first three years of its buildup in the next year or so. it will do a 107 megawatts of

efficiency capacity insulation. that is not -- that is not just identifying efficiency. that is doing it in the first three years. we can get much better than this. what we need to the department of the environment to do is look at community towards segregation, look at these audits, mary them together -- community choice aggregation, look at these audits, mary them together. we are identifying fruit we can go after right away. once the community choice mechanism is there, we start doing installations immediately. if businesses need five years to figure out financing, that is one thing. you can figure that out on a separate track by using things like revenue bonds. but we need to strip the audits now, not even three years from now. chairperson maxwell: any further public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. i am not necessarily saying it should be more aggressive. i think folks support on this

for a while and have come to some conclusions. i am not just going to throw that out with the bathwater. but you can ask how did you arrive -- supervisor chuiu asked for supporting documents. i think that is important. at the end of the day, we might still agree with them. i do not want to give any impression that i am not thinking that. i would ask the same questions that i think supervisor chuiu has raised, and my concerns would be some of the same. supervisor chiu: i want to thank everyone from the testimony. what i would like to suggest is to continue this for a little bit. i know i was just briefed on this a few days ago. a lot of these buildings are in my district. this is an issue i have been thinking a bit about. i would like to sit down with some of the representatives from both the building industry as well as the auditing world, because i've been hearing different things and i want to understand where this comes

from. i do appreciate there might be able to a bit of flexibility to think about what these timelines are. there also are a couple of questions about the drafting of this that i think we need to clarify. all that being said, it probably would require a couple of meetings. i am not sure if we can do that this week. i will try. if possible, i would like to continue this. i wish we had a meeting in the later part of december, because i know this week is going to get very busy. but if we could continue it to not this meeting that is coming up for monday, but whatever the next meeting is going to be, i would appreciate that. chairperson maxwell: well, on the calendar i believe that is it for this year. >> the next meeting is december 13. after that, it will be january 3. chairperson maxwell: when is new year's?

>> it is a saturday. january 01 falls on a saturday. chairperson maxwell: we could have a meeting on monday. supervisor chiu: i hate to do that to folks. why don't we continue it to next week? that being said, it will require a number of meetings over the next few days. i hope we can carve up some time to do that with the building representatives in our very light schedules these days, that would be helpful. chairperson maxwell: i think that would be good. if we are thinking this is important and we want to move on it, that is what we should do. we should move on this and have our meeting with the next couple of weeks of the monday we will be able to hopefully move on this so that it starts the new year. >> can i make a request? would that be a committee report that would come back to the

committee next week so it could be heard by the full board, provided these issues get worked out the following day? is it possible to do it that way? chairperson maxwell: and if we do that, and then if we are not there -- supervisor chiu: we could do that. we will need a couple of meetings to figure out -- i do not know what my colleagues think about it. but i think there will be a number of meetings we will have to do to figure out where we want to go. but if you want to leave that as an option that is fine. chairperson maxwell: i would like to make that. city attorney? >> city attorney's office. if you were to shorten the compliance. -- if you were to shorten the compliance period, since there is a penalty for not complying with a certain amount of time,

the would be a substantive change and you would need a substantive committee hearing to do that. you could not go through a committee report. chairperson maxwell: all right. ok. while we continue this item until december 13? -- why don't we continue this item until december 13? madam clerk, next item, please. >> item 6, ordinance amending the planning code to require a conditional use authorization for other entertainment uses in the van ness special use district and rc district. chairperson maxwell: next item,

item six, supervisor alioto- pier, thank you for joining us. this is your item, please. supervisor alioto-pier: thank you. chairperson maxwell: i am sorry. please. supervisor alioto-pier: there is a lot going on. there were a lot of people living room. colleagues, thank you for having me here today. the legislation in front of you started simply. [laughter] i am getting that look.

as we know can happen sometimes, it started as an effort to better control land use in the van ness district. of what the public to know i will be asking the committee to devise this file into tw are -- into two parts. one has the entertainment component, and the other has the rc/nc zoning changes. van ness is one of the major boulevards in san francisco. it is important to ensure safety in this area. while we cannot allow one bad apple to spoil the bunch, we have had a number of problems with a nightclub called the heights at 2080 van ness. there have been 42 calls for service in the last six months, including a gun incident. no notice was given. no approval was given for this particular club in this particular case. the planning commission

recommended that we look at a different procedure other than the conditional use, so i would like to ask the committee to amend this from a conditional use to a process where there would be neighborhood noticed similar to section 311 and 312. with that, i would ask that the committee porgy van ness -- forward the van ness entertainment portion and other portions to the full board. we will get the advice of the planning commission next week. chairperson maxwell: i think we would be willing to do this. supervisor chiu: you want to bond the file, send them both out, and await planning commission the back for the second part? supervisor alioto-pier: my understanding is that the entertainment component came out of the planning commission with an understanding that there had been and that there are some serious issues on van ness and the van ness corridor.

the recommendations that it come out was not necessarily the format of the conditional use process, but to change that to something similar to section 311 and 312 notices so that people in the surrounding community will have a chance to voice their either opposition or support to a new nightclub coming in on me van ness -- the van ness corridor, the maine implementation being that neighbors would be notified before a large entertainment facility would be placed in. that was a recommendation coming out of planning. this would give us the opportunity to hear what planning has to say about the rc changes. chairperson maxwell: ok. supervisor chiu: thank you. chairperson maxwell: supervisor, why don't we hear from planning? >> good afternoon, supervisors.

planning department's staff. i am here to confirm that the planning commission heard this ordinance last week, at which time they were unanimous in their support of the ordinance. this supported either the cu or alternative means that would provide discretion, such as the notification that is provided to the 311/312. we have another piece in there that the supervisor discussed that would have amended another section as far as the underlying controls. when you are looking at the van ness area special use district, the entertainment required there, they prefer to the nearest neighborhood commercial district. that is a recent change that has been problematic. the staff at the point of hearing the ordinance recommended we modify that to go back to the way it had previously been. as we have presented that information to the commission, the wanted more time to think about the opprobrium underlying controls.

there were unanimous in their support of the supervisor's effort to have discretionary review on the entertainment uses, but they wanted us to look at the larger question in more detail. this coming thursday, the planning commission is going to discuss that issue in more detail. when we are looking at these areas in rc district, we are going to ask what the a proper reference is. is it the c2? that is a little out of date, one of our older zoning districts. perhaps there might come up with something different. they will take that up on thursday. thank you, supervisor, for defining the ordinance. -- dividing the ordinance. supervisor alioto-pier: i would like to open it up to public comment. chairperson maxwell: when we open this up for public comment? if this came up right now -- we

have a card. mark renny? >> madame chair, supervisors, my name is mark renny. i represent cmac, california music and culture association. we think the supervisor for her amendment. we are basically in favor of increasingly neighborhood notification and transparency, but feel that taking it as far as a conditional use would create some unintended negative consequences. specifically, time barriers and cost barriers which would keep people out of that marketplace. our group is extremely sensitive to any additional cost barriers and expenses to running a responsible business in san francisco, and a compliant business. it is tough. in this current economy, it is

damn near difficult -- or their near impossible. as an alternative to this conditional use, we think 312/a -- we think a 312-type notification is appropriate and responsible. >> tom redoulovich, chief executive of livable city. there are two pieces to this. the first one in section 2 of the ordinance, the amendment to van ness. it was a great conversation and it was great watching supervisor alioto-pier working to do with the different approaches. thank you for fixing that. the concern we have was with something that was not proposed in the supervisor the ordinance, but added at the behest of the planning department. we feel it has gotten very far reaching implications for all rc district -- the tenderloin, the

bush street corridor, lower north hill, golden gateway. mason and pacific, portions of mr. and pacific avenue -- mason and pacific avenue mcd. taking it all back to c2 is a problem. it is a crusty and old section of the code. you ought to have a look at it. it for the most part was written in the '60s and has mostly been superseded by mc controls in most of the city. we feel it takes you back three decades or more. the planning department have said they will take a look at that. there was an ordinance by supervisor mirkarimi that changes it to an nct3 district. that allows a lot more uses than most nc districts but has

things like formula retail control and size limits. there is some question as to what applies. we are hopefully getting that started. would ask that you not forward the second half of the amendment read it here in committee. you get a staff report. we do not think it is ready to go. one little tweak does not do it and will not deal with the use. thank you. chairperson maxwell: all right. any further public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. supervisor, john malmot is here and can go over the dividing of the files if you wish. supervisor alioto-pier: that would be wonderful. chairperson maxwell: all right. >> i am from the city attorney's

office. i have to apologize. i was out of the room when you presented your proposal, but in terms of dividing the file, the land use committee can break up the existing ordinance into multiple separate ordinances, and as you see fit, you could amend the separate pieces without affecting one or the other pieces. if you want to talk about particular -- supervisor alioto-pier: the only thing we want to do here is split the file in half, separating out the entertainment components from the rc/nc zoning changes. it seems to me from conversations the committee is having that they would like to keep the rc/nc zoning part here in committee and sent up the entertainment component to the full board. >> that is fine. chairperson maxwell: that is

what we would like to do. supervisor chiu: i would like to think this -- i would like to think our colleague for this legislation. using this to think about some of the planning problems we have had is a good one. it is something i've been thinking about as well. i would like to be added as a" sponsor to her legislation. and i think it behooves us to keep the divided portion in committee to wait for planning commission feedback on that. that is something i think makes sense. chairperson maxwell: then that is what we will do. we will divide the file and we will divide the entertainment part from the zoning. and we will keep the zoning here until the call of the chair? call of the chair. the entertainment -- we will vote on that. all right. did you have amendments? that was it. just providing the file. colleagues, without objection?

supervisor alioto-pier: you know what? i am sorry. hold on for two seconds. supervisor chiu: did we adopt the amendment to do the 311/312? chairperson maxwell: then let us rescind the vote without objection, and then the legislation as amended without objection. right. item number seven? >> item 7, ordinance amending the administrative code regarding the appeals process under the california environmental quality act to clarify procedures and public notice.

chairperson maxwell: supervisor pier? supervisor alioto-pier: thank you very much, supervisor maxwell. i am here to present an ordinance that has been in progress since april of this year to establish permanent procedures for appeals of environmental decisions under the california environmental quality act, also known as ceqa. at the outset, i would like to thank the city attorney, planning staff, the planning and historic preservation commissions, and the public for their comments and direct involvement in making this legislation better. in 2002, the california legislature passed a new section of the public resources code to authorize the appeal of an environmental document to the elected decision makers. since then, we have operated with temporary guidelines.

putting procedures in the administrative code is an inappropriate thing to do. i generally favor of property developments. this ordinance is not about whether somebody is an appellant our project sponsor. it is about having a fair, consistent, and level playing field for all parties. it is designed with the goal of establishing meaningful timelines for appeals. much like a conditional use, having a deadline for action. first, there are some cleanup amendments. i would like to ask our city attorney, kate stacey, to talk about those. i also have been pleased to work with advocates including holley, who have had some additional amendments we will be considering. i would like to thank her for all of her help as all -- as well. i know that i have a list of amendments. i am not sure i have additions to yours, correct?

these are simple procedural amendments, if you would like to begin with the procedural. >> kate stacey from the city attorney's office. madame chair, there were three cleanup amendments that i recommended, all having to do with section 31.16. the first one is to subsection 31.16b8 on page 21, starting at line 21. the legislation is silent as to what happens if the board of firms -- affirms the determination on appeal. i suggested adding a sentence in online 21 after the first sentence, so it reads the board may affirm or reversed and the ceqa decision or determination but a vote a majority of all members of the board. the new sentence would read that if the board of firms the secret decision our determination, it shall be final and shall not be of -- it would read that if the

board affirms the ceqa decision, it shall be final and shall not be appealed again. there is a question of how many approvals might be avoided, and if there were approvals' taken on a different ceqa determination that it would not be voided. only the approval taken in reliance on the overturned determination would be voided. subsection b12 on page 43 would read that if the board or versus the secret decision or determination -- if the board reverses the ceqa decision, it shall be deemed void. the third cleanup item is to subsection -- i am sorry.

those cleanup items will be addressed with another proposed change that we do not need to consider those right now. there is one very small cleanup of some extra words that were left in the document on page -- again, that is part of e1, and i think the supervisors will consider further amendments to e1. those are the amendments our office has suggested. supervisor alioto-pier: thank you very much. in addition to those procedural cleanups, i have just passed out a piece of paper. would you like me to read these into the -- i can do it quickly, if you would like. chairperson maxwell: i think we have them. supervisor alioto-pier: great. it is my understanding that supervisor chiu