across the board, the members are -- say that there's been enormous progress made here today and we're pleased to see the sailing center lees move forward. we -- lease move forward. we're grateful for supervisor haney and his staff to move the lease forward and in reforming the marina proposal work that, quite frankly, should have been done by tida but was not. as you know the board set out five requirements for the marina project last year. the mayor's office proposal only met one of the five. today thanks to the work of supervisor haney, we have met two of the additional requirements, however, two requirements are still unmet. you still have not received the full fiscal analysis that you requested from tida. this is particularly disturbing because the state of california has found that this project represents a significant risk of

default. as a result there's a significant risk that the city of san francisco is going to end up with a half-built marina that will block access to the rest of clipper cove. the environmental analysis on the eel grass bed says continued to be punted, which is a seqa violation because the city cannot defer environmental analysis to another agency. there's a division about moving forward so i can only speak for myself personally at this moment. i think that both leases should move forward, but the board should work to ensure that fiscal analysis and environmental review is done before the body leaves the board entirely. >> president fewer: thank you very much. any other speakers to speak on item 7 or 8 i 8? seeing none, public comment is closed. yes, supervisor stefanie. >> supervisor stefani: thank you, chair, fewer.

i have a few questions. what happens if the tenant is not able to raise the funds -- i don't mean to be a pessimist or anything, but i want to find out what happens in that case. >> um... so the -- >> supervisor stefani: on item 7. >> on item 7. so the sailing center has performance milestones and if they fail to meet those milestones it could be considered a default but, of course, we'd sit down and assess their ability to move forward and try to work with them to meet those milestones. >> supervisor stefani: okay. is the approval required on item seven and 8? >> yes, both items need to go through becd for permitting. >> supervisor stefani: do you know when that happens? >> i believe that the sailing center is planning this summer -- yeah, as quickly as they can. and i believe that the treasure island enterprises is on that

same timeframe. >> supervisor stefani: okay. i have now sat through two meetings on the alternate supervisor peskin. what if they direct the city to do something other than we have agreed to or we have put forth in the resolutions? >> if -- if the -- the extent of either project is constrained, then we would review with the tenants, you know, the terms of the lease if it affected the economics of it -- if the marina was smaller and we'd review the lease and bring back an amendment to the board. >> supervisor stefani: thank you. i want to make sure if they take any actions that conflicts with what we have done as a board that we find out about it. >> yes. >> supervisor stefani: okay, thank you. >> president fewer: colleagues, any other questions or comments? miss macdonald, i have a

question for you. so we have heard -- it seems as though that a lot of this -- the opposition to item number 8 is about dredging. and i see that you have some amendments that actually address some of the dredging. so would you comment on that, please. >> sure. the -- so i think of the cove as having three distinct parts. there's the sailing center area. there's the marina where treasure island enterprises will be. and then there's sort of a broader clipper cove. the marina area responsibility for dredging lies with the developer with treasure island enterprises to maintain an access channel and access to the docks. for the sailing center, tida and the sailing center lease has agreed to maintain a minimum depth of four feet for the sailing center to be able to

operate. there was a question around responsibility for the rest of clipper cove which we have always known is tida's responsibility. but in the amendments to the resolution we worked with tida to clarify that through funding from the c.f.d. that exists on treasure island, that tida would be responsible for maintaining depths within six inches of what it currently is so we can continue to maintain public access to the space. >> president fewer: thank you. we heard about the need for an environmental review. so has there been an environmental review on this project? >> my understanding is -- and maybe other folks can speak better to this, is that there's been multiple e.i.r.s done on this project. and after the board resolution last summer, the planning develop found that no additional environmental review was needed under seqa for the project. >> president fewer: thank you very much, thank you, miss macdonald. so, colleague, i wanted to say

that i learned a lot about sailing today. and i'm going to have to go out and try that myself. and we learned i think a lot about some of the wonderful programs that are being offered through the treasure island sailing center and as a past public school san francisco unified school district board member, i just want to thank you for accommodating our public school students who, like myself, never had an opportunity to actually be on a sailboat or to learn about it. so thank you very much. so i would like to make a recommendation to accept the amendments on item number 8 and then also accept the recommendations from the budget analyst on items 7 and 8.

so let's make a positive recommendation for item number 7 with the recommendations -- adopting the recommendations from our budget legislative analyst. and should we vote on that separately? okay. so a positive recommendation to move item 7 to the board with the recommendations of the budget legislative analyst. we can take that without objection? thank you very much, colleagues. and then i'd like to make a positive recommendation for item number 8, as amended, or must we -- oh, supervisor mandelman. >> supervisor mandelman: the amendments before us and then there were amendments that were -- further amendments that were verbally read in. >> president fewer: okay, thank you, supervisor. so as amended and with also including the new amendments that miss macdonald just brought forward to us, and also the recommendations from our budget legislative analyst, can

we take that without objection? thank you very much. and now madam clerk. are there any other items before us today? >> clerk: no other items. >> president fewer: this meeting is adjourned. . >> my name is dave, and i play defense. >> my name is mustafa, and i am

a midfielder, but right now, i am trying to play as a goalkeeper, because they need a goalkeeper. >> soccer u.s.a. is a nonprofessional organization. we use sports, soccer in particular to engage communities that can benefit from quality programs in order to lift people up, helping to regain a sense of control in one's life. >> the san francisco recreation and park department and street soccer u.s.a. have been partners now for nearly a decade. street soccer shares our mission in using sport as a vehicle for youth development and for reaching people of all ages. rec and park has a team. >> i'm been playing soccer all my life. soccer is my life. >> i played in the streets when i was a kid. and i loved soccer back home.

i joined street soccer here. it was the best club to join. it helps me out. >> the tenderloin soccer club started in the summer of 2016. we put one of our mini soccer pitches in one of our facilities there. the kids who kpriez the club team came out to utilize that space, and it was beautiful because they used it as an opportunity to express themselves in a place where they were free to do so, and it was a safe space, in a neighborhood that really isn't the most hospitalable to youth -- hospitable to youth playing in the streets. >> one day, i saw the coach and my friends because they went there to join the team before me. so i went up to the coach and asked, and they said oh, i've

got a soccer team, and i joined, and they said yeah, it was he for everybody, and i joined, and it was the best experience ever. >> a lot of our programs, the kids are in the process of achieving citizenship. it's a pretty lengthy process. >> here, i am the only one with my dad. we were in the housing program, and we are trying to find housing. my sister, she's in my country, so i realize that i have a lot of opportunities here for getting good education to help her, you know? yeah. that's the -- one of the most important things that challenge me. >> my dad was over here, making some money because there was not a lot of jobs back home. i came here, finish elementary in san francisco. after that, i used to go back

to my country, go to yemen, my country, and then back here. last time i went back was a couple years ago. >> i came here six months, i know nobody. now i have the team has a family, the coaches. amazing. >> i'm hoping for lifelong friendships, and i'm super inspired by what they've been able to achieve and want to continue to grow alongside them. >> i love my family, i love my team. they're just like a family. it's really nice. >> street soccer just received a five year grant from the department of children, youth and family, and this is an important inreflection point for street soccer u.s.a. because their work in our most important communities is now known beyond just san francisco recreation and park department, and together, we're going to continue to work with our

city's most vulnerable kids and teach them to love the beautiful game. >> i want to tell everybody back home, i hope you all make it over here and join teams like this like street soccer u.s.a., and live your life. get a better life. >> right away, just be patient, and then, everything will be okay. good afternoon, everyone. thank you so much for joining us today. mi'm the founder of persian women in tech, in partnership with our mayor, london breed, and the supervisor, asha

safai, we have been working on this event, this all-day event, for six months. thank you so much for being here. [applause] [cheering] >> maruse is a celebration of new year in many, many cultures. and it also has the meaning of new day, and also signifies the first day of spring. behind me you will see a table spread, which we create several days before persian new year. and on this table you see different symbols. and i will go a little bit over what they are and what the significance is. i apologize that i don't know all of it perfectly, so i'll give you an overview. and what we call it is a heff seen, so seven symbols. seep is apple, somal, seki

is coins, gold coins. sumbold, which is a flower. samanu is a persian sweet. let's see. sanja is a persian fruit. seer is garlic. and sabsa, which is wheat grass. and everything that you see on this table is basically symbolizing health, wealth, and happiness. so what we are looking forward to when we look at this table is looking forward to what we can have in the new year. and with that said, i would like to ask our supervisor safai to come up on the podium. [applause] >> i threw steffi in there at the last minute so she could say what the seven symbols are of our culture. and it's such an honor to

be here. 2004 i was working for mayor gavin newsom, and the community came together and we talked about all of the different things that were important to our community in terms of our culture and how to reflect it and so on. it was during that time the community said, we would love to be able to host a persian new year in maruse in city hall. in 2005 was the first time we put that together, and it was a wonderful event. and here we are, 14 years later, and we're celebrating this in city hall. we never had it spread early so people can come and enjoy it and partake and understand what it means. in general, i explained to everybody we celebrate from the first moment of spring. it is the spring equinox

when the day and the night are equal the same all over the world. and this celebration has been celebrated in the greater persian and particularly in iranian culture and community, for thousands of years. it pre-dates the islamic influence in iran, and it is something that iranians all over the world and persians all over the world joyous the celebrate. we celebrate it for 13 days. and each day we start off with going to the most senior, the most elder people in the family, and work our way down. and then finally, on the last day, the 13th day, so that the year doesn't begin with bad luck, we go and have a national day of picnic. and everyone goes out and enjoys a barbecue and picnic with their family, with watermelon and cantaloupe and all types of barbecue and wonderful food. as you all know, that are iranian and persian, i'm explaining mainly for those who are not. this also symbolizes, in

many ways, a coming together. i started my career in this city in the year 2000, and that's when i met my friend, who is now the mayor, london breed. when i asked her if we could host this event and do something special in city hall, without hesitation, she said, absolutely. we want to continue this wonderful tradition and to celebrate naruse. this is our way of saying, happy naruse, and welcoming in the new year for all of iranians and persians all over the bay area, and all over the united states. and it's with great honor that i introduce my friend and our great mayor, ms. london breed. [applause] [cheering] >> mayor: good afternoon, everyone. we no that naruse has been celebrated in the iranian and persian communities for more than 3,000 years. and while we know that

there is a rich community with a rich history here in the bay area, in san francisco, we celebrate our diversitiy. we come together to learn about various cultures, and this is no exception. we will be celebrating all day and all night in city hall. with friends, with family, with community. it's a time for renewed spirit. it's a time for new beginnings. i was reading about the celebration of naruse, and one of the things i thought was so interesting is basically this concept of moving, you know, old things out of your home to make way for new things. and what a great concept to basically think about how you cleanse, how you open up yourself, even, for new opportunities and new beginnings. today, although we celebrated naruse here in

city hall over the years, supervisor safai wanted to do something special. and that's why we're going to be hosting events this evening, in an amazing gala with so many people in our persian communities throughout the bay area. and i want to take this opportunity to thank persian women in tech, and stefi, and the women behind me. they are the ones who really put in the work to make this event an amazing event, a successful event for each and every one of you. so, stefi, i wanted to ask you to come up and thank you because i don't think people realize how much work goes into really bringing together such an amazing celebration. and so we appreciate the time, the commitment, the work, the fundraising, and all that you and your team have done to make this day special for our

communities here in san francisco. so thank you so much. [applause] [cheering] >> so thank you, everyone, for being here. and we will see you tonight. [applause] [applause] >> for the first time in nearly two decades fishers have been granted the legal right to sell fish directly to the package right off their boat -- to the public right off their boats in san francisco. it's not only helping local fishers to stay afloat but it's

evoking the spirit of the wharf by resurfacing the traditional methods of selling fish. but how is it regulated? and what does it take for a boat to be transported into a floating fish market? find out as we hop on board on this episode of "what's next sf." (♪) we're here with the owner and the captain of the vessel pioneer. it's no coincidence that your boat is called the pioneer because it's doing just that. it's the first boat in san francisco to sell fish directly from the boat. how did you establish your boat into such a floating fish market? >> well, you know, i always thought that it would be nice to be able to provide fresh fish to the locals because most of the fish markets, you would have to do a large amount of volume in order to bring in enough fish to cover the overhead. when you start selling to the public that volume is much less so it makes it hard to make enough money.

so being able to do this is really -- it's a big positive thing i think for the entire community. >> a very positive thing. as a third-generation fisherman joe as his friends call him has been trawling the california waters for sustainably caught seafood since an early age. since obtaining a permit to sell fish directly to the public he is able to serve fish at an affordable price. >> right now we're just selling what a lot of the markets like, flat fish and rock fish and what the public likes. so we have been working for many, many years and putting cameras in them. there's the ability to short fish and we have panels that we open and close so we target the different species of fish by adjusting the net. and then not only that but then the net sort out the sizes which is really important. >> joe brings in a lot of fish, around 20,000 pounds per fishing trip to be exact. >> we had one day one time that we sold almost 18,000 pounds. >> it's incredible. >> i know, it's hard to imagine.

>> but this wasn't always the case for joe. >> the markets that we have left in california, they're few and far between, and they really are restrictive. they'll let you fish for a couple months and shut you down. a lot of times it's rough weather and if you can't make your delivery you will lose your rotation. that's why there's hardly any boats left in california because of the market challenges. my boat was often sitting over here at the dock for years and i couldn't do anything with it because we had no market. the ability to go catch fish is fine, i had the permits, but you couldn't take them off your boat. >> that was until the port commission of san francisco rallied behind them and voted unanimously to approve a pilot program to allow the fish to be sold directly to consumers right off their boats. >> the purpose of the program is to allow commercial fishers to sell their fish directly from their boats to the end consumer in a safe and orderly manner for the benefit of the overall

fishing community at the port of san francisco. we have limited the program to certain types of fish such as salmon, halibut, tuna and rock fish. crab is restricted from this program because we did not want to interfere with the existing crab sales on taylor street and jefferson street. so this is not meant to favor one aspect of the fishing industry more than another. it's to basically to lift up the whole industry together. >> and if joe the program has been doing just that. >> it was almost breathtaking whenever i woke up one morning and i got my federal receiver, my first receivers license in the mail. and that gave me permission to actually take fish off my boat. once we started to be able to sell, it opened things up a bit. because now that we have that federal permit and i was able to ppetition the city council and getting permission from san francisco to actually use the dock and to sell fish here, it was a big turning point.

because we really didn't think or know that we'd get such a positive response from the public. and so we're getting thousands of people coming down here buying fish every week and so that's pretty cool. they like the fish so much that they take pictures of it when they cook it and they send us all of these pictures and then they ask us, you know, constantly for certain types of fish now. and when they come down here the one thing that they say is that they're so amazed that the fish is so fresh they could eat a little bit during the week and it's still fresh all week in the refrigerator. so that's really cool. >> the fish is very fresh and the price is super. i don't think that you can get it anywhere in the bay area. i can see it, and i can stir fry it, wow, you can do anything you want. i just can say this is a good place to shop and you have a good experience. >> this program supports the

strategic plan in terms of engagement, people being connected to the waterfront, and also economic vitality. because it's helping the fishermen to make ends meet. they have no guarantees in their businesses, not like some people, and we want to do everything that we can to help them to have a good and thriving business. >> how does it feel to be able to sell your fish locally kind of in the traditional way, like your grandfather probably did? >> when i was a kid and i used to work in my dad's fish market, a lot of the markets that we sell to now are second and third and fourth generation markets. so i remember as a kid putting their tags on the boxes of fish that we shipped out of monterey and ship down to l.a. so it's kind of cool that we're still dealing with the same families. and this is probably about the only way that anyone can really survive in california is to sell your own fish. >> one of the advantages of this

program is the department people that pull in the fish, they can find out where they caught it and find out more about the fisherman and that adds to their experience. the feedback from the fishers has been very good and the feedback from the customers have very good. and there's a lot of people coming to the wharf now that might not have done so. in fact, there's people that go through the neighboring restaurants that are going to eat fish inside but before they go in they see the action on the dock and they want to kind of look at what's happening on the boat before they go in and they have a meal. so it's generated some conversation down at the wharf and that's a good thing. >> as you can see by the line forming behind me getting ready to buy fish, the pilot program has been a huge success. for more information visit sfsport.com. (♪)

(♪)

>> good afternoon. welcome to the the land use and transportation committee of the san francisco board of supervisors for today, april fools' day, april 1st, 2019. i'm the chair of the committee, joined by the vice chair, and momentarily by committee member matt haney. our clerk is erica major. you would do you any announcements? >> make sure to silence also phones and electronic devices.

completed speaker cars and copies of any documents to be included as part of the file should be cooked submitted to the clerk. items acted upon today will appear on the board of supervisors agenda on april 16 th. >> thank you. could you please call the first item. >> item one is an ordinance to streamline small business permitting, and amending the health code, planning code and police code and affirming appropriate findings. >> thank you. this is a piece of legislation sponsored by the mayor and cosponsored by supervisor brown. i believe that ben van helton on behalf of the mayor from the department of economic and workforce development is here to present. >> yes, thank you. good afternoon. i'm here on behalf of the office of economic and workforce development. we are requesting a one-week continuance on this item so we can continue to fine-tune

amendments with your office. >> okay. is there any public comment on this item? seeing no public comment, public comment is closed. what i would suggest, colleagues that insofar as the week is short and we haven't seen amendments there have been a number of e-mails from meta- and haight-ashbury and others over the last couple of days that why not we continue this to the call of the chair? if we have amendments and we are all good to go, we can schedule it, and if not, we will schedule it appropriately. i move we continued this to the call of the chair. if there is no objection, that will be the order. next item, please. >> item two is an ordinance amending the environment code to require owners of certain buildings to annually measure and disclose energy performance and to require the department of the environment to make public

his but -- statistics and affirming appropriate findings. >> thank you. this ordinance is sponsored by supervisor brown and cosponsored by myself and supervisor mar, and is obviously a change to the environment code. here on behalf of the department of the environment is director raphael. >> thank you, chair peskin. thank you committee members for hearing this today. i want to thank supervisor brown and her leadership as a sponsor and cosponsor, supervisor peskin and mar. before you today is a very straightforward adjustment to current law, and what i want to do is give a little bit of context as to why we need to do it now, and what the benefit of this law has been, and end with where we have to go from here. >> i'm going to nitpick a few definitions which i can do as a

cosponsor because the way building is defined in residential and nonresidential is defined and has -- and is a little confusing, and specifically, and i was reading this last night, there is -- why don't you make the presentation and i will tell you where. i can see our city attorney just left, but he will be back. okay. >> wonderful. any improvements for clarity purposes, as well as policy are always welcome. i have with me today mr. reagan who is involved with ample mentation and crafting of this ordinance. if there any reasons for that, this definition is that he can shed light on, we can talk about that as well. so yes, existing buildings energy performance ordinance, catchy that it is, appoints a really challenging place in the greenhouse gas reduction for us and other cities.

today, 44% of the city's emissions come from existing buildings. we have wonderful ways of looking at new construction, upping the energy code, the requirements under construction, the challenge has always been for us and other cities, how do we tackle the existing building stock? how do we bring down the energy use and the omissions that are coming down from those buildings so as people say, what gets measured gets managed, and the challenge they have in the past as we didn't have a way of enforcing or requiring building owners to take a look at their energy use, and then giving that energy information to us. so in 2011, the city and san francisco became the first city in san francisco and one of the first and the nations to require commercial buildings over 50,000 square feet, actually over 10,000 square feet, we went to very small buildings, to measure their energy consumption, and

then report it to the department of the environments. this became important for two reasons. number 1, you gave a signal to the building owner whether energy use was other buildings, equally as important, he gave the department of environment that information, we could focus our limited resources and energy efficiency on buildings that really needed it. this was a very forward looking idea back in 2011, and we are focusing just on commercial buildings at that point in time. so how does it matter it turns out, this is a graph that is rough in terms of the nuance of it, but what's important here is the trends, what you can see looking at the blue line is employment in san francisco, and the ratline is the energy use, at a buildings effect very closely and benchmarking. the trend is exactly how you want it. as employment goes up, the energy of buildings is going down.

this is attributed to many factors, that we would have no idea that this was the case. we did not have the energy benchmarking ordinance in place. so what starts in san francisco shouldn't stay in san francisco, and it certainly didn't, so now this model is going throughout the country. you are seeing cities across the country take this on. the reason california is solid is because the entire state of california decided if it's good for san francisco, we should be doing this beyond our borders. and so in 2015, the state of california passed a law, it benchmarking law. it is some very important things from our perspective. the first one was in 2017, it required utilities to actually give us this information. before this law was put in place , between 2011 and 2017, it was an incredible pain for the department of the environment to get this information from building owners because we had to go tenant by tenant and ask

for permission. now that pg and e. is required to give whole building data to us, we can give -- get this information so much more easily and it is more reliable. in 2017, state law required utilities share the information. in 2018, they rolled out to the commercial sector, 50,000 square feet or greater, and this year they're rolling out to the residential sector, 50,000 square feet or greater. that is about 40 unit buildings for san francisco. so now we have a disconnect between our ordinance i was only for commercial, and a statewide ordinance that is for commercial and residential. and the challenge of that has to do with confusion and reporting. if we don't update our ordinance the way it will work right now, is that commercial buildings will report to the department of the environment and we will report to the state, residential buildings have to report to the state, and that's just -- there's so many bad policy reasons for that so that is why

we are coming today to amend ordinance. so what will happen is that we will take this current situation , which is commercial coming to us, residential coming to the state, and we will amend the ordinance so that the residential look him to the department of the environment as well and we have authority to hand it off. the benefit to the sector are multiple. number 1, they've got us. we have been doing advanced notification to building owners to help them streamline the process. we have free technical assistance. we are already working with them on the apartment association and the chamber to let people know that this is coming down the pipe so that starting july 1st , we will get this data out rather than june 1st, then having to bring it to the state, and then we will take that information, inform our own work , and also give the state its information as well. in summary, what we need, this

being april 1st, we know climate change is no joke. we know that the city has a real opportunity to lead by example. we also know our existing building stock is toughest. it is important alignment to do today to pass this, and then it gives us an opportunity with that data to figure out what is next. so thank you. >> thank you. let me make sure that i understand what the scope of owners who need to report is. so i think what you intend is that residential buildings of 50,000 square feet or greater report. >> correct. >> and nonresidential buildings of 10,000 square feet or more report. >> correct. >> okay. so i think where we are having the problem is in the beginning of the ordinance under

definitions, section 2001, building, b. b., means a facility composed of any occupancy types and it sets them forth a be, m., which is industrial, are one, are two, are three, are four, which i residential, and then later on you define on page 5 in a nonresidential building with 10,000 square feet or more, at a residential building a 50,000 square feet or more, but then in section 203, subsection a, you say the owner of every building in the city shall annually file, and i don't thank you mean building, i thank you mean nonresidential as defined and residential as defined because

the term building would encompass every single structure under 10,000 and under 50,000, so i thank you want to change building in section 2003, on line seven to nine, two nonresidential, residential, and noncapital. i think that's what you intend to. >> you've got it. >> the way it's written, we don't want every building to have that requirement. i could see where we thought where we were clear, and a can see where we weren't. >> deputy city attorney, do you agree? >> i agree with what you said. i also have the experience of finding what we think are errors on the floor, amending, and getting to the full board and realizing that it is actually more complicated. what i would recommend to the committee is if you intend to send it out today, send it out today, and we can make the

amendment to the definition of section 203 on tuesday. >> happy to have you guys fix it , however you see fit, as long as it actually does what we are all in agreement that we are attempting to do. is there any public comment on item number 2? don't all rush up. seen none, public comment is closed. supervisor safai? >> i have some questions through the chair. >> go for it. >> first, i just want to go to supervisor peskin's point. on page 4 you define what a building is. and isn't that what they referencing going point -- going forward? so they defined building, so once they defined it, once they rereference at, that is what they're referencing. >> yes, because it is a b., it is a defined term.

>> they listed out what they want here. see worse and what they have listed out is not... i think it might be helpful to clarify. >> what they're trying to capture relative to compliance and reporting is the universe of nonresidential about 10,000 square feet, and residential about 50,000 square feet, but building as defined in the ordinance is every single building, including single-family homes and two unit buildings that are under 50,000 square feet, and pfeffer unit buildings under 50,000 square feet, and i don't think they intend for those two reports. the way it is written,. >> you might just want to clarify. >> okay. >> my other question is, so you separate out to nonresidential buildings on square footage, director raphael, and i see that there's different types of audits for each one. can you talk a little bit about that, one gets a walk-through auditing get one gets a copy hands of audit, and i want to

understand why you are differentiating and what the necessity for that is. >> in terms of the audits, you bring up an interesting point here. the requirement for an audit is only -- was existing, pre-existing, and it has on the commercial. when we added added line, we did not require residential do an audit, and so that audit language that was in there in 2011 is understanding that buildings of different sizes -- because the ordinance goes down to 10,000 square feet, which is a very small commercial building as opposed to the state looking at 50,000 square feet and above, we thought that the kind of audit can get a very expensive if you've got certain levels of audits -- they surgeon levels of audits cost more. we wanted to acknowledge that smaller buildings do not have the same burden of an audit is larger buildings. that will not apply to the residential sector because we not requiring an audit on the residential sector. >> i did not see any audits for the residential. so it is about the size and the

scale and the impact that it has >> correct. >> but the information will be similar. that goes to my second question because i did not see it spelled out, but the actual building owner pays for the audit themselves? >> that is correct. >> does it talk and here -- it says what the qualification of the auditor is. you have a list of qualified energy efficiency auditors? that you will work with and provide to the building owners if they don't have them. >> yes. all of our auditor qualifications and list of auditors are on our website and listed. >> do you ask them as part of the process to ensure -- i see the qualifications, but do you then look and see that the person -- do you ask them who performs their audit? >> yes, through our audit template were recollect all of our information. they list their credentials and i.d. and we verify that online. >> okay. what is the difference between a

comprehensive audit, the cost, versus a walk-through audit? >> the cost varies, it also depends on the size of the building. for smaller buildings, or a level one audit, it is usually and arrange -- it also ranges per company, but it is in the low thousands, and stan 1,000 to about 5,000, and a more comprehensive audit, level two can be more than that. >> i will say that when this first past, the building that my personal office in north beach is in, the landlord went through an audit and was proudly reported to me a couple years later that he is saving a lot of money every year because it was a great investment, and he was actually quite pleased. >> that is a great story. >> because of the audit? >> yes.

a building that was built by his grandfather, it is ground floor commercial and office on the second story. >> so that -- >> he ended up changing the way the building is heated and he has saved money every year since >> it every year he keeps saving >> right. >> how often is the audit required? >> every five years. >> so where is that spelled out? >> do you want to find the page? he is looking for the page. >> okay. , that is five years, and that was the last point. good point, supervisor peskin. once the audit is performed, you make the adjustments, and you have ongoing savings. i guess while you are looking that up, can we ask them when they are doing the audit, can we ask them to report or disclose the type of energy? i mean we have the information now for who is using clean power s.f., who is not, was opting out

, who is opting in, can capture that information too when the audits are performed? that will also inform us on the type of energy that is being used for the building, not just the performance of the building but the source of the energy. >> we are not asking at this point. >> can be immense that into the legislation, potentially, since we are gathering information in audit form. >> i don't know if there is a law around that but i think it is an interesting idea. >> presumably, the public utilities commission has that data. >> correct. >> it would be an interesting thing for you all to know, but the data might actually be accessible between department -- departments subject to the confidentiality provisions that are set forth. so my point is, if you are having this and you're are collecting this data, either the auditor or you all should be able to determine so we can determine who's not just being

efficient, but who is also being conscious of the source of energy in terms of the environment. >> yeah,. i think to supervisor peskin's point, i know that data does exist because clean power s.f. does know who is their customer and two is not and the size of the buildings that those accounts are, so it is a question of how do we weave that together and for what ends. is it because we want to require something different, or to give them accolades? >> i think we are doing -- i guess part of what i understand this amendment to be is you want people to disclose their energy performance. >> correct. >> but as part of the energy performance, you want them to be more efficient. >> yes. to use less energy. >> so then the next step would be not only just being less energy, but what type of energy are they using, because that then becomes, i guess i go back

to the hall that a lot of the buildings put platinum and energy efficient, and as a -- all this other stuff, but it is all still coal-based and all still environmentally -- >> the department of the environment and p.u.c. have been in a lot of conversations in the last three or four weeks about how to step up super green enrolment, and how we can, as a department of the environment with our great communications team help them get the word out for increasing that enrolment, and these data sets will help us targets the recipients of that information as well, and they also, as i said, help us target where we are doing our energy efficiency work, especially in the residential sector where that savings can go right to the tenants in terms of decreased utility cost. this kind of information will be super helpful for us in our energy efficiency work. >> it seems like something we could add into as part of the data collection that would be simple. >> the word simple, i don't know

, but we can look into it. >> i would ask the city attorney if we can potentially make that amendment, if it is a friendly amendment, and i would like to be added as a cosponsor. >> great. >> it will be part of my amendment to the legislation. i don't have any other questions , but great work. >> anything else? >> if you and the p.u.c. can get with council and see if we can craft anything in the next 24 hours, if it turns out to be too complicated, or should be another vehicle, we will look at that tomorrow, next week -- not tomorrow, next week. >> thank you so much. >> we asked for public comment and there was no public comment so we will send this to the full board with a recommendation to be amended next week. without objection. magic clerk, next item, please. >> item three is an ordinance amending the landmark designation for landmark number

2049 '06 broadway under article ten of the planning code. confirmed exterior of -- exterior features should be preserved or replaced and affirming appropriate findings. >> thank you. colleagues, by way of background , 906 broadway is our lady of guadalupe church in the hearts of the northeast corner of san francisco, district three , which i represent. it has an interesting -- many interesting stories. one of which is that it was landmarked in 1993 before, and a former mayor brown is lessening, before then speaker brown passed assembly bill i think it was 133 at the behest of the archdiocese of the state of california, which prevented local

governments from lands marking religious structures, and interestingly enough, the city and county of san francisco, on the theory that it was a violation of church and state, took that case all the way up to the united states supreme court and ultimately did not prevail, but this was landmarked prior to the passage of that preentry piece of legislation. it hails from a date in time when there was a large latino community in the northeast corner of san francisco. for those that do not know, there is a plaque on columbus avenue regaling the history of little chile, believe it or not, and every year on december 12th , for many, many years, the latino community from the mission would come on the day of

our lady of guadalupe a and marriott she bands would wind through chinatown and north beach. it was a sight to behold. in 1996, i believe it was, or maybe it was 94, i think it was 94, the san francisco archdiocese closed number of parish churches, including our lady of guadalupe a, and for a number of years, would reopen it one day a year on december 12th , to allow that community to come and celebrate. subsequently, it was sold off, interestingly enough, when i was reelected in 2015, for a brief moment, it was the potential site for a navigation centre, but subsequently was sold to the current owners, who have agreed to lands marking.

the case reported believe was prepared by paige turnbull, and they received a certificate of appropriateness for some internal changes, and i want to thank the project sponsor for accommodating the communicating staircase in an appropriate location, and think staff for bringing the interior lands marking of some character defining features pursuant to article ten of the planning code , and with that, miss smith, the floor is yours. >> thank you. >> i will say one thing, i was first elected in a runoff on december 12th, of the year 2,000, and i started that morning in a rainy morning on a runoff election in the senate kristi of that church. i am a jewish guy, but when this little shaft of light lit up

that incredible stained-glass window and some old latina woman said to me, you are going to win , i knew i was going to have a good day that day, so i have very special association with that church. >> thank you. good afternoon, supervisors. i'm from the planning department staff and i'm here today to present the proposed amendment to the landmark designation for 906 broadway, historically known as our lady of guadalupe eight located in north beach. 906 broadway was designated as landmark number 204 in 1993. at the time a designation, only the exterior features of the building were designated. following the sale of the property with the archdiocese in 2016, they added to their landmark designation work program. on december 19th, 2019, the historic preservation commission recommended the land might designation be amended to

include the building's interior, including the sanctuary, murals, another significant interior features. to briefly summarize, the property a significant force association with the development of the san francisco latino and spanish-speaking communities from the late 19th to the mid- 20th century, as well as the geographical and spiritual heart of the latino and spanish-speaking enclave that existed in north beach until the 1950s. it is also architecturally significant of the work of master architects at chez and locke west and an exceptional example of an early 20th century mission revival church with a highly ornate interior displaying renaissance and baroque ornamentation, including its interior murals painted by a master artist. the department has received two letters in support of the designation amendment and has shared a draft of the designation report with the property owner who