to move off the street and move into a navigation center, a shelter, or a housing unit eventually. so how does it work -- sorry, we already did how it works. one of the other big things that is a big out reach of h-soc, is reducing the time to 3-1-1 system, improving our ability to respond. as you'll see, a fairly significant reduction, not just in the time it takes to respond to 3-1-1 calls -- and these are specifically homelessness, encampment-related 3-1-1 calls, but also that bar graph part of it is the standard deviation of time. and one of the things we have to be proud of is the shrinking of that variance. we're getting better and much more consis consistent in how we can respond to 3-1-1 calls. and you can see a pretty

dramatic reduction in calls for service. average response time is down 27% to those calls. as i mentioned before, the 40% reduction intents over all. and the importance of the expansion of the services to provide that resource to the officers and the outreach teams who are going out and doing the work. during the same -- well, a little earlier, and the same time of h-soc, adding nearly 700 shelter beds, nearly 400 housing units, and 99 behavioral health beds, which has been really critical to the success of this work. and a few additional outcomes to share with folks. d.p.h. contacts -- almost 8,000 people have been reached through that approach. 90,000 needles have been collected. and the encampment resolutions we've referenced, 25 of those resolutions alone in 2018. so i'm happy to answer any

questions related to h-soc, and i want to send out my appreciation to each of the departments that have worked so hard at really changing the way we do work in the city, to be deeply, deeply collaborative when it comes to homelessness and our response to folks living outside. thank you. >> chairwoman: thank you, emily. any questions for emily? is there any public comment on this item? go ahead. >you can go up -- that's fine. you can just use that one, that's fine. sure. >> i nancy woreful. with comments on item six for response on emergency responses. i fully expect this council would have had at least a preliminary report on the responses of the fire department, the police and pg&e to the explosion on geary street.

this was an important emergency affecting major traffic arteries. i understand from the fire department they were running out of water because of the length of time needed for pg&e to shut off the gas. and there does not exist a current mapping of the gas lines under this part of geary stree.d. street. these are the issues that the departments should be hearing about, and then following up on recommendations for improvement. the disaster council is charged in the administrative code with, quote, "developing a plan for meeting any emergency." i wish to remind you that both the number four firefighting annex, and the number 12 water utilities annex have not been updated since they were originally issued in 2008. there have been dramatic changes in the relationship of these two departments over the past 10 years, but no one can

appreciate the impacts of these changes without an update. you cannot adequately plan for suppressing large fires happening after an earthquake when the details of how the p.u.c. plans to deliver unlimited water to the fire department are not dent fight. if the p.u.c. plans on using only locally stored water for firefighting, how can they judge how much of portable water should be used for human purpose. what is the plan "b," and if the expected water supply is interrupted by one of the four earthquake falts over the 167 miles o get here. there is talk, but no guarantee that the p.u.c. will build a pum station at the ocean. and even if the lake is used, it is not an unlimited supply of water. we need as much water as fires demand. if you had an item about the emergency responses to

geary street explosion on this agenda today, you could have begun to examine the adequacy of your emergency response plans to deal with gas-fueled fires. instead, your only interest is to hear about the recovery initiatives in the next agenda item. i believe your priorities are seriously misplaced. thank you. >> thomas didia, assistant department chief, san francisco fire department, retired. we were given a glimpse into the intensity of the fires that would result from dozens of gas land ruptures and leaks in building gas lines that will produce, at the intersection of parker and geary streets. the lesson that we must learn is that while a single such incident can

be managed using conventional water supplies from low pressure hydrants, the time required by pg&e, which was about two and a half hours, resulted in huge need for quantities of water. the building had to be protected from the radiated heat of the fireball. post-earthquake, the s. f.f.d. will be unable to do. following a magnitude 7.8 earthquake, which is 30 times more powerful than what we experienced in 1989, not only will there be dozens of gas main ruptures, but the neighborhoods buildings will cause neighborhoods to fill bigas with gas. individual fires that are not immediately fought will cause fire storms there rage through our 15

currently unprotected neighborhoods, where there are no high pressure hydrants. if you haven't made the mental link between what happened in the burned out santa rosa neighborhoods or the town of paradise, then i suggest as members of the disaster council, it might be beneficial to make a special effort to become educated in the subjects of one, the geology of northern california, and, two, the histories of the 1906 and the 1986 earthquakes. i provided a list of relevant books and d.v.d.s to help you get started, which i did not have enough of those, but i apologize for that. maybe you can share. and although some of the books are out of print, everything on the list that i have provided is available through online vendors. thank you. >> chairwoman: thank you. our next item, item number six, i would like to call for a motion to postal

pone this item and the interest of time. we're now over our meeting time. do i have a motion to postal pone? postpone -- sorry, it is item seven. thanks, brian. >> it was going to be really good. you're going to have to come to the next meeting. >> chairwoman: all in favor? any opposed? okay, thank you. okay. all right. next is disaster council roundtable. so this is an opportunity where any -- oh, i'm sorry. i'm sorry. are we -- we continued this item until next time. no? just -- okay.

okay. did everyone understand that? okay. so...we're going to do this item then, it sounds like. sorry, jorge. thank you. >> so i'm -- good morning, i'm with the office of economic and workforce development. i'm here to speak about our small business recovery efforts regarding the geary parker fire that occurred earlier this year. just really quickly, after the fire, our team went out there just to assess and connect with the small business owners and connect with their employees, to make sure they felt supported on behalf of the city. soon after that, we learned that directly there was one business that was impacted, hong kong lounge, and two non-profits, huckleberry use programs, and human services network, which is actually a sub tenant of huckleberry, which we learned after. and soon after that, we had a -- also we learned

there were other businesses indirectly impacted, like h & r block across the street and others. we reached out to them to see how they were doing, and most of them were fine. those are the three we focused our services and attention to. soon after that, our rapid response team went out, which is on the workforce side, to connect with the small business owners' employees and ensure they felt supported. we hosted an event a week later, where 14 of the 25 employees of huckleberry and hong kong launch attended. some of the employees of the hong kong launch needed support and services. some of them had already found other ployment at employmt that time. soon after that, we also deployed the applications for our disaster relief fund, which is up to $10,000 grant available to small business owners or

the non-profits for their recovery efforts after that. to date, hong kong launch has applied and received the resources. huckleberry has supplied, and we're still waiting on the application from the human services network, which have expressed interest in applying. they do have 12 months after the incident occurs to apply for the resources. most of the resources are utilized for either unforeseen expenses because of the fire, or where employee watches and relocation fees. if there are any questions, i'm happy to answer them. >> chairwoman: are there any questions? it was really great -- i was out there at the night of the fire, and to have your staff there in the field immediately responding, i think, was very helpful. so thank you so much. i look forward to a continued partnership. any public comment on this item? okay. seeing none, we're going to move on to our disaster council member roundtable.

this is an opportunity for any disaster council member to make an announcement and share information. do we have anyone? yes. >> good morning, everyone. kate howard from d.h. r. i just wanted to remind city departments that d.h. r. will be conducting a disaster service workers test of the alert system on april 18th. the request i have of you is to encourage your employees to update their contact information, in particular their cell phone information or an e-mail address, so that we're able to both reach them during the test, and once they get that notification on their e-mail or cell phone, that they then respond, as the alert directs them to. not only do we know they got it, but also that they are responding to us inbound. i'm happy to report on the

success of that at our next meeting. >> chairwoman: okay. chief? >> good afternoon, everyone. joanne hayes white, san francisco fire chief for 30 more days. that's the reason for my comment. i want to acknowledge this is my last disaster council meeting. it has been an honour and privilege to serve. this disaster council is essential, as the chief-of-staff said. and what i've seen over my career is a much greater collaboration between agencies under the embrul oumbrella of the department of emergency management. i know that will continue. i've been privileged to serve under all of the mayors, mayor newsom, now our governor, mayor lee, and now w with mayor breed. and all have been very supportive and infatic that public safety and disaster preparedness be part of our daily discussions.

i wish everyone the best. thank you. [applause] >> chairwoman: thanks, chief. we're going to miss you. so do we have any public comments? we can offer public comment on any items not on the agenda at this time? >> nancy worefold, again, speaking on items not on the agenda. after over 100 years of successfully serving to protect san francisco from catastrophic fires, our city's unique tradition of having two independent pipeline and hydrant systems is about to be abandoned on the west side of the city. they are not planning on expanding the original

auxiliary supply system as we were always promised. instead, their promoting a single pipeline and hydrant water system that can be used to provide treatable, portable water for human uses, and non-portable water for firefighting through the same pipeline. after the 1906 earthquake and fire, it was clear that the city must have two separate water delivery systems, with one just to fight large fires with sal saltwater. access to unlimited saltwater, which is immediately available, is the key to suppressing fires. the plan is seriously flawed for the following reasons: it eliminates the dual pipeline system to fight fires. it does not have access to unlimited supplies of water immediately available to suppress multiple or simultaneous fires. it does not extend to all of the unprotected neighborhoods in the western and southern portions of the city. it creates contamination

of our drinking water pipes. if the water from lake mersed is pumped into the two lines to help fight fires. miles of these polluted pipes must then be flushed out with unknown volumes of clean drinking water before returning it to domestic uses. police remember that this p.u.c. plan is for a dual-purpose, single pipeline, which is the only way firefighters will access continuously available water on the west side. after an earthquake, the city will need to conserve portable water for human use, not required to flushpoint. even when the $4.8 billion upgrade to deliver the water to the city, with that no one can guarantee that these pipelines will be intact after a seismic event. i remind you that the mock moc mockisan pipeline is still being repaired, so breaks

do happen. you have not developed a plan to address all of the problems that the p.u.c. brings to fighting fires. please put this item on your next meeting's agenda. thank you. >> chairwoman: thank you, everyone. our next scheduled meeting -- oh, i'm sorry. go ahead. >> my name is dick morten. this week the chronicle reported that usgs issued a report saying that california is in an earthquake drought. 1800 to 1918, ground ruptures -- there was a plethora of ground ruptures. we haven't had anything similar to that subsequent to 1918. they don't count it as being a major ground rupture. so we're in this hiatus

between significant quakes. are we being complacent in only planning for mild earthquakes that we experienced like loma parada? there are 15 non-auxiliary water supply neighborhoods in this city, involving 370,000 people. there is also a lack of 140,000 housing units, plus public facilities, community facilities, businesses. businesses have no protection. they have not had any protection since loma parada, 30 years ago. we also have to take into account how many lives will be lost and how many

injuries will be sustained by residents and visitors in those neighborhoods. don't these non-awss neighborhoods deserve attention and support? supervisor marr sent an e-mail to me recently about the bond capacity has been increased by 2. -- from 2.5 billion to 2.7 billion, around $200 million. the proposed capital plan does not have expansion of awss into these vulnerable neighborhoods. disaster can be avoided for you, you, you. >> chairwoman: thank you. do we have any further

public comment on this item? seeing none, i thank you all for being here. and i will see you on june 21st, which our next scheduled meeting. >> thank you.

- working for the city and county of san francisco will immerse you in a vibrant and dynamic city that's on the forefront of economic growth, the arts, and social change.

our city has always been on the edge of progress and innovation. after all, we're at the meeting of land and sea. - our city is famous for its iconic scenery, historic designs, and world- class style. it's the birthplace of blue jeans, and where "the rock" holds court over the largest natural harbor on the west coast. - the city's information technology professionals work on revolutionary projects, like providing free wifi to residents and visitors, developing new programs to keep sfo humming, and ensuring patient safety at san francisco general. our it professionals make government accessible through award-winning mobile apps, and support vital infrastructure projects like the hetch hetchy regional water system. - our employees enjoy competitive salaries, as well as generous benefits programs. but most importantly, working for the city and county of san francisco gives employees an opportunity to contribute their ideas, energy, and commitment

to shape the city's future. - thank you for considering a career with the city and county of san francisco. san francisco, 911, what's the emergency? >> san francisco 911, police, fire and medical. >> the tenderloin. suspect with a six inch knife. >> he was trying to get into his car and was hit by a car. >> san francisco 911 what's the exact location of your emergency? >> welcome to the san francisco department of emergency management. my name is shannon bond and i'm the lead instructor for our dispatch add -- academy. i want to tell you about what we do here. >> this is san francisco 911. do you need police, fire or medical? >> san francisco police, dispatcher 82, how can i help

you? >> you're helping people in their -- what may be their most vulnerable moment ever in life. so be able to provide them immediate help right then and there, it's really rewarding. >> our agency is a very combined agency. we answer emergency and non-emergency calls and we also do dispatching for fire, for medical and we also do dispatching for police. >> we staff multiple call taking positions. as well as positions for police and fire dispatch. >> we have a priority 221. >> i wanted to become a dispatcher so i could help people. i really like people. i enjoy talking to people. this is a way that i thought that i could be involved with people every day. >> as a 911 dispatcher i am the first first responder. even though i never go on seen -- scene i'm the first one answering the phone call to calm the victim down and give them instruction.

the information allows us to coordinate a response. police officers, firefighters, ambulances or any other agency. it is a great feeling when everyone gets to go home safely at the end of the day knowing that you've also saved a citizen's life. >> our department operates 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. >> this is shift work. that means we work nights, weekends and holidays and can involve over time and sometimes that's mandatory. >> this is a high stress career so it's important to have a good balance between work and life. >> we have resources available like wellness and peer support groups. our dispatchers of the month are recognized for their outstanding performance and unique and ever changing circumstances. >> i received an accommodation and then i received dispatcher of the month, which was really nice because i was just released from the phones. so for them to, you know, recognize me for that i

appreciated it. i was surprised to even get it. at the end of the day i was just doing my job. >> a typical dispatch shift includes call taking and dispatching. it takes a large dedicated group of fifrst responders to make ths department run and in turn keep the city safe. >> when you work here you don't work alone, you work as part of a team. you may start off as initial phone call or contact but everyone around you participating in the whole process. >> i was born and raised in san francisco so it's really rewarding to me to be able to help the community and know that i have a part in -- you know, even if it's behind the scenes kind of helping the city flow and helping people out that live here. >> the training program begins with our seven-week academy followed by on the job training. this means you're actually taking calls or dispatching responders. >> you can walk in with a high school diploma, you don't need to have a college degree.

we will train you and we will teach you how to do this job. >> we just need you to come with an open mind that we can train you and make you a good dispatcher. >> if it's too dangerous to see and you think that you can get away and call us from somewhere safe. >> good. that's right. >> from the start of the academy to being released as a solo dispatcher can take nine months to a year. >> training is a little over a year and may change in time. the training is intense. very intense. >> what's the number one thing that kills people in this country? so we're going to assume that it's a heart attack, right? don't forget that. >> as a new hire we require you to be flexible. you will be required to work all shifts that include midnights, some call graveyard, days and swings. >> you have to be willing to work at different times, work

during the holidays, you have to work during the weekends, midnight, 6:00 in the morning, 3:00 in the afternoon. that's like the toughest part of this job. >> we need every person that's in here and when it comes down to it, we can come together and we make a really great team and do our best to keep the city flowing and safe. >> this is a big job and an honorable career. we appreciate your interest in joining our team. >> we hope you decide to join us here as the first first responders to the city and county of san francisco. for more information on the job and how to apply follow the links below. in this san francisco office,

there are about 1400 employees. and they're working in roughly 400,000 square feet. we were especially pleased that cleanpowersf offers the super green 100% clean energy, not only for commercial entities like ours, but also for residents of the city of san francisco. we were pleased with the package of services they offered and we're now encouraging our employees who have residence in san francisco to sign on as well. we didn't have any interruption of service or any problems with the switch over to cleanpowersf. this clean power opportunity reflects that. i would encourage any large business in san francisco to seriously consider converting and upgrading to the cleanpowersf service. it's good for the environment, it's good for business and it's good for the community.

>> 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 has testified in support of the designation amendment and is also present today. there is no known public or

neighborhood opposition to the amendment. the department believes the building's interior meets the established eligibility requirements and that amendment for the landmark designation is warranted. this concludes my presentation and i'm happy to answer any questions. >> thank you miss smith and thank you to staff of the planning department and historic preservation commission. is there any public comment on this item? seeing then, public comment is closed. madame clerk, i would like to add my name is a sponsor, and if there is no objection, we will forward this to the full board with recommendation. that will be the order, and we are adjourned.

>> we will today -- to start today to chat that meeting. >> it afternoon and welcome to the san francisco historic preservation commission regular hearing for wednesday, april 3 rd, 2019. i would like to remind members of the public to pleas a silent -- silence mobile devices that may sound off during the proceedings, and if speaking before the commission, please state your name for the record. i would like to take roll call at this time. [roll call] >> we expect commissioner hyland to be absent today. first on your agenda his general public comment. members of the public may

dr