owners. the next with a five-year period during which the first energy audit would occur, 25% of each building every year. the third time frame would be a rolling five-year requirement on audits. the amendment last year stretch the time from 12 months to 18 months and kept the five years. what i am proposing today is that we slightly amend to shortened time. the preparation in the initial -- but i am proposing today is that we slightly amend the shortened timeperiod in the preparation in the initial audit. and instead of having a five- year time in which the buildings would be audited, we could have a three-year time. i am comfortable with having the third time from around subsequent ruling audits -- to keep that at the rolling five

years. i think the reason we need to do that is because we all know the inconvenient truth of the environment. we also know that what we are trying to do is we are trying to save money as well as save the environment. i understand this is a more aggressive timetable, but i think it is very doable. i think what this will entail is when this legislation passes, rather than having to wait potentially 6.5 years for every building to be audited once, we are really talking about ensuring an initial audit at the end of four years. i want to thank the various stakeholders. i have had conversations over the last few days with folks. i appreciate the flexibility. i understand there will be public comment about this and potentially other ideas, but this is what i would like to propose as the direction for us to go. chairperson maxwell: thank you. any further comments? then why don't we open this up?

supervisor, from the mayor's office -- any comments from the mayor's office, the department of the environment on the amendment? >> thank you very much, supervisors, and thank you broadly for your general support of this ordinance. we agree this will be a huge catalyst for helping the city meet our carbon goals and our energy efficiency goals. we are very appreciative of all your support. generally, we are much more supportive of doing things faster rather than slower because of the urgency around our energy efficiency needs and our climate needs. however, based on several discussions we had with stakeholders' including large building owners, medium-sized business owners, the small business commission, and will double stakeholders -- based on the recommendations of the task force and looking at what other cities have done, including seattle, new york, and other cities that have done this, we felt that a more realistic time frame to be able to both educate

the building owners in the city about the new requirements, allow them the time to educate themselves about the new tools there will be required to use, and to allow them time to budget and planned for this, we felt that five years was a more realistic time frame. based on the discussion last week -- supervisor chiu: if we can be clear, you are really talking about 6.5 years, correct? 18 months for education and then another five years to wait for the first audit. >> that is correct. last week, we did reach out to the various stakeholders. the strong feeling was still that the five-year rolling. was still strongly preferred. i just want to convey that. i do not know if melanie from the department of the internment has any additional comments. -- from the department of the environment has any additional comments. >> from the department perspective, i want to thank the

mayor's office, the supervisor, and the stockholders. we want to do this right, but we want to do is aggressively. we are trying to strike a balance. whatever is decided here today, the department is prepared to support the ordinance, but i will be available for question perio. chairperson maxwell: why do we open this up to public comment? francisco dacosta, steven pollick. >> as i stated the last time, i have been involved with this process for a long time. but it seems like for some apparent reason we do not want to give credit to southern addison, which is here in california. we keep talking about new york and other states, but that is where it is really being done. it was done by this company

which is like pg&e was, because they saw that by doing their energy auditing and by training the people to do the audit 10, they could save energy -- to do the audit, they could save energy. with all the deliberation of how we're going to speed it up because we have some changes in our local hiring, and because we have heard the last time and will hear again that we do not have sufficient people to do sound energy auditing, we need to address how many san franciscans will be trained. we do not need to do that through only city build. there are a number of other entities that do this type of training.

i have the names. i do not want to announce the names of the people who can train, but we need to get san franciscans to be well versed in energy audits so they can train others. i want to know how that figures in the excess energy. thank you very much. >> clan cleveland, -- can cleveland, representing the building owners and managers

association. we have been here from the beginning, when the mayor's office came to us and said, "let us quit something of the existing buildings task force that will measure the energy performance of existing buildings." we have laws now that deal with new construction. they are being built in a much more energy existing manner than the existing stock, which is probably 90% of buildings out there. we said fine. we will work with the department of the internment and the mayor's office. what you have before the amendments is a compromise of many hours of discussion and many deliberations with many stakeholders. i share supervisor chiu's interest in moving the bar forward here. we're already going to start putting a standing out there -- a standard out there that will probably be the most rigorous and aggressive for determining your energy consumption in commercial offices.

but there are a couple of things i would propose. there is a difference between an energy audit and doing your benchmarking. benchmarking is very easy, very inexpensive. anyone can do it. it is your bills from pg&e. load up the information to energy star on the internet and you can get your energy star rating. you can understand simply and easily how inefficient or efficient you are. you can do that quickly. to energy audit is more complex and could be potentially more expensive. i would suggest we keep the five-year time line for smaller property owners and determine that by some measure where you take the 50,000 and smaller and give them five years, over 50,000, go with a more aggressive time line. but also think about separating the audit from the benchmarking. thank you.

>> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is steven krolleck. i am a concerned citizen. i have lived here for 50 years. i shared a reduction in my personal consumption of energy. i reduced my energy bill from $1 a day to 60 cents a day. i am doing this to not only myself, but for the poor people who live in san francisco. it is pathetic. there is an absence of common sense. when i walk down sacramento street or california st., i see a 24-7 energy output. i am not seeing any compromising. i am not seeing any reduction of the lights. unfortunately, i think we have gone into a 24-7 culture. years and years ago, from my

observations of living here for 50 years, we had more respect for sunday's, where there was less energy consumption. now we have it 24-7. this is the culture we are creating for ourselves. we are reducing very little. i do not see any evidence of that. people are shopping at 12:00 that night, 1:00 in the morning, 2:00 in the morning. we are seeing 24-7 with many of these new establishments coming into our neighborhoods. the lights are on, not off. and it takes a lot of energy to support this kind of system. i think this is an absence of common sense here. i think it is wasteful. i think it is inconsiderate. i think it is disrespectful to mother earth to continue to take this energy without giving anything back. that is my statement as a concerned citizen. i live here. i have lived here for 50 years. let us be progressive. let us move forward. let us turn the lights out.

they are not necessary. thank you. >> rob black from the san francisco chamber of commerce. one of the things i think is amazing about california is over the last 30 years from the mid- 1970's, we have seen per-capita energy use stay flat. the rest of the country has 60% increase. we really have been the leaders in energy conservation in california. we think this is another important step. where you see your largest possible gain in carbon reduction is in existing buildings and structures. we have been working with the mayor's office and apartment of the environment for several months to try to craft this legislation. our goal is to create something that works with the business community to help them become part of the solution. our biggest concern is around the expense for small and medium-sized buildings.

frankly, the folks who are big have engineering staff which can do this stuff internally. they have to be repurchased. some of them have many properties. but they have that capacity internally. but the smaller buildings do not have that sort of capacity. frankly, they do not have that sort of information and knowledge. it will take time to educate. we want to make sure they are able to partner with the city in getting this done in a meaningful way so they see that doing right by the environment can also be doing right by your business. the more we collaborate on that, we think, the better. this was a product of many months of conversations. we felt we got to a place where people agree to the timelines were good. we would like to see that continue forward. thank you.

>> good afternoon again, supervisors. sorry to be a serial public, enter, but you put all kinds of great stuff -- sorry to be a serial public commenter, but you put all kinds of great stuff on your agenda. i am on the green party. thank you for getting these amendments to move this faster. but i would say that with the tipping point we are seeing now, the scientists are seen with i smelting and global warming, even four years is -- with ice melting and global warming, even for years as a long time. we have to get ahead of this climate tipping point. i would recommend not only the amendment, but that you explore ways to incentivize small and large businesses to go ahead and do these audits right away in the first year of the program and not wait for the three years. for example, if you find a way

to amortize the cost of the audit over a long time so the cost is not paid up front and is payable on the time line the 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?