day. i would encourage commissioners to come if you are able, and certainly to encourage folks that you work with to come as well. you can certainly contact me directly for more information and we will be putting out e-mails far and wide. thank you. >> thank you. any other general public comment hearing none, any announcements? >> i just wanted to make note of the fact that, a kind of piggybacks on something you raised earlier, president, and was reflected in the insight column on the housing affordability for aging adults. i attended, at the invitation of mayor breed, a presentation on a 300 million-dollar housing affordability bond that is going to be on the ballot this november, and she announced in

concert also with the president of the board of supervisors, that she was able to procure another $200 million through the city administrator's office. there are four working groups for this ballot initiative. one of them is being headed up by annie chung from south hope -- self-help for the elderly, in one of the working groups, in particular, is seeking input for this housing affordability obligation bond for housing affordability for seniors. i think it would be a good idea if we looked into that a little more and perhaps were able to make some input as this comes to the floor. >> thank you, commissioner. any other announcements? hearing none, motion to adjourn. >> so move. >> seconded. >> thank you, thank you very

>> here we go, with another great announcement today. thank you all so much for being here. thank you all. and welcome to dorhouse. it is a place that serves as an example of how our mental health system is working right here in san francisco. this is a place that people who are in crisis can come and immediately get help and transition to possibly a two-week stay, and, if necessary, a 90-day stay, because we know that someone in crisis who needs help and assistance, it requires a lot of support and a lot of wrap-around services. and this is a great example of us doing it right in san francisco.

but while this is a great facility doing significant work, it is just only one tool. we have to address the challenges that we see playing out on our streets every single day. people who are suffering from mental illness, people who are suffering from addiction, we see the need and we wonder why isn't the city doing more? it is heartbreaking and it is frustrating, and we are investing in more solutions to try and address this issue. we've already opened 50 new mental health stabilization beds, and we plan to open another 100 beds this year. we recently announced a $3 million grant to expand the department of public health efforts to help those suffering from substance use disorder. and we're working to expand our conservatorship law so we can provide help to those who you,

unfortunately, sometimes can't help themselves. but each of these efforts, while important, is just one part of a whole behavioral health system. and that system needs greater coordination, focus, and accountability. because while there are great people doing great work, both in our public agencies and our non non-profit communities, like doorhouse, we know that not everything is working. and that's why in my state of the city address earlier this year, i announced that i will be hiring a director of mental health reform, and that i want one person who is looking at this system so that we can change it. to invest more in solutions that are working and to move away from strategies that aren't working. over the last few months, we have been searching for someone who had the experience and the expertise and the commitment to take on this

issue. and today i am really proud to announce that dr. anton negusa blade will be taking on this critical role. [applause] >> i hope i didn't butcher your name. [laughter] >> dr. negusa blade is currently the medical director for psychiatric emergency services at san francisco general hospital. wherever day he sees those who are most in need, and just as important, where he sees the flaws in our systems that leave those in crisis with nowhere to go, dr. negusa blaine is an addiction and emergency psychiatry, and i know he is ready to take on this challenge. and let's be clear, this is a major effort. he will be tasked with

improving our city's efforts around mental health and substance use disorder, including identifying and understanding the exact population that we're trying to help in creating a system to track services across our entire behavioral health system in the city. he'll be assisting with restructuring and expanding existing services and identifying gaps where improvement is needed. and creating a data system so that we can measure our progress, so that we can measure our success in what we're doing. this won't be easy, but i know that he is up for the task. and he has my full support to achieve this goal. he will report to our new director of the department of public health, dr. grant colfax, and i want to thank dr. colfax for helping to lead this effort and for his early

emphasis on prioritizing behavioral health in our city. i also want to thank ucsf for loaning dr. negusa blaine while he takes on this very important role. ucsf has always been a partner to us in providing health in our city, and we appreciate their leadership and their support in this very difficult task that we have to do. and we know that it won't be easy, but we are prepared to do what is necessary to make sure that we partner, that we make better investments, and that we do everything we can to improve behavioral health in our city and the challenging conditions on our streets. and with that, i'd like to welcome to the podium the new director of mental health reform for the city and county of san francisco, dr. anton negusa blaine. [applause]

>> thank you, madam mayor. i'm anton negusa blaine. as a psychiatrist, i think of my job and work mostly as establishing safety through listening. everyone has a story to tell, and a reason for the problems their experiencing. creating the right environments for people to seek care, to accept help, and also to work on their own behalf to get better, that is in some ways our most basic and our most pressing challenge. in my time at psychiatric emergency services, i have seen people in crisis who are disconnected from care and resources in the community. i often challenge our staff to ask, what are their barriers? what can we do as a system to begin to bend in their direction? i look forward to working with the health department leadership and community partners to figure that out. we have so many dedicated and talented providers and experts in our system.

it is a great basis of strength to begin this work. together we can develop a strategic approach to mental health and substance abuse services for people experiencing homelessness in san francisco. while the system works very well most of the time for most people, we need to focus in on the gaps that leave some of our most vulnerable residents at risk. san francisco has an outstanding track record of problem solving. i'm honored to be asked to serve at this critical time to address the problems of our homeless residents who need mental health and substance abuse care but are not able to access it through our current needs. we're going to examine the data, and we're going to assess the programs that are in place. we will build upon what is working and develop new approaches as well. as a city, we can continue to do better to ensure that all san franciscans have a real opportunity for wellness and recovery. thank you. [applause]

>> thank you. and with that, i'd like to introduce our new department of public health director, dr. grant colfax. >> thank you, madam mayor. this is really an exciting and inspiring day. and it is really great to see some of the key people who make our system work here with us today. and as i reflect on my first month as director of health, i'm struck by how extensive our mental health and substance abuse treatment is throughout the city. just for some numbers, the system already provides care to some 30,000 san franciscans in about 300 programs. we have approximately 2,000 beds in the behavioral health system across the continuum of care, from crisis to acute in-patient care, to

residential treatment and beds and boarding care. we know that recovery is responsible with treatment. today at doorhouse, which is a great example of a part of our system that is working well, to help people recover. we know there are many effective programs in our system to meet individual needs. that's so important because there are individual situations that play out differently for everyone. but we must, and we can do better. we need to lower barriers and make it easier for people to experience recovery and wellness. for many of our most vulnerable residents and their families, the system can be confusing and hard to access. we must collaborate better with community providers, patients, families, and other stakeholders to present a more client-centered model of care. we must have a system that responds better to the mental health and substance abuse treatment needs, people experiencing homelessness, or those at risk for ending up on the

street. we need to implement the most evidence space, tools, op optimizing every dollar for care, delivering culturally efficient care, and demonstrating results. we need to scale what is working and end what is not. i'm grateful that mayor breed has decided to face this issue head-on. with her leadership, i'm positive about moving forward in the right direction. dr. anton negusa blaine comes to us with experience in addiction psychiatry. he has been medical director of the psychiatric services, the emergency services at san francisco general hospital, thereby being on the front lines of mental health and substance abuse crisis. he sees the issues we are facing and trying to solve every day. we're grateful to him and ucsf for making this

integrative new position. he will work with me with mental health and substance abuse services for those in san francisco and those at risk for being on the street. he will help us to assess the system from the patient's perspective and by looking at the data. he will identify successful models of care and opportunities for additional resources or service expansion where things are working. he will ensure that our investments are informed both by science and the people we serve. we are fortunate to be taking this step forward today, and i look forward to working with everyone for more improvements in the futurement thank you. thanfuture.thank you. [applause] >> thank you. and dr. negusa blaine is on loan to the city from our great partner, ucsf. and i want to welcome to the podium dr. matthew state, who is the chair of the department of psychiatry for ucsf.

>> it is wonderful, truly exciting to be here today for this incredibly important announcement. i want to thank mayor breed, director colfax, of course dr. bland, as well as all of our community partners and advocates who are here with us day. i'm matt state, the chair of the department of psychiatry at ucsf. as i said, this is an extraordinairely exciting day for our city. it is incredibly rewarding to have ucsf faculty, like dr. anton bland, to be able to play such an important role in this effort. the city and ucsf have a very long history of highly productive partnership, and as the representative of the ucsf here today, i can't stress

our eagerness to continue working with you, director colfax, and dr. bland. it is particularly rewarding for me personal to be able to help support the remarkable work that is being done as a partnership between the city and ucsf at the general hospital and in our community based programs. our department of psychiatry is the second largest service department, serving more than 13,000 individuals and families annually. the faculty and staff at ucsf are talented and are really on the front lines of national crisis. our doctors, whether thairthey're in psychiatric services, or division of substance abuse, our trauma programs, our community based wrap-around programs, jail-based psychiatry, are

all helping people who are struggling with their issues, and very often are facing homelessness, exposure to violence, marginalization, and stigma. in this department, dr. bland is a resilient and talented leader. he has been a highly affective leader who has a deep, deep understanding of the mental health challenges that the city faces. he brings a remarkable mix of clinical excellence, administrative skill, and very importantly a deep compassion for every patient and family that he interacts with. in taking this position, he will join an already outstanding team, in working throughout the city who are addressing this challenge day and night. and with the active support of the mayor, director colfax, our community partners, and i guarantee every person at ucsf, i'm confident he will help achieve lasting and sub substantive change

that will affect the lives of the most vulnerable in san francisco. thank you again, mayor, thank you, mr. colfax, and congratulations and best wishes to you, dr. bland, as you begin your tenure as the doctor of health reform in san francisco. congratulations. [applause] >> mayor: again, thank you to ucsf for their partnership in this effort. we are truly grateful for their support. and i think that this is going to be absolutely amazing for our city, and it is no -- it is primarily do to our working relationship with ucsf and the resources they continue to provide to support our programs here in san francisco. i would also like to acknowledge and thank the progress foundation and doorhouse for their support and the work that they continue to do in san francisco, as well as

another community partner, positive resource center and brent andrews. thank you so much for all of the work you all do to work with communities and to continue to make sure that san francisco is at the forefront of addressing what we know is a serious crisis. not just with so many people sadly that are suffering on our streets, but people who need help, they need support, and need resources, and it is time that this city has taken a really hard stance around trying to reform mental health in a way that removes the stigma so that we can get people to help and the support that they need. so i'm very honored and grateful to dr. negusa bland, who has stepped up to the plate to take on this incredible responsibility. so thank you all so much for being here today. [applause]

bayview. >> a lot discussion how residents in san francisco are displaced how businesses are displaced and there's not as much discussion how many nonprofits are displaced i think a general concern in the arts community is the testimony loss of performance spaces and venues no renderings for establishes when our lease is up you have to deal with what the market bears in terms of of rent. >> nonprofits can't afford to operate here. >> my name is bill henry the executive director of aids passage l lp provides services for people with hispanics and aids and 9 advertising that fight for the clients in housing insurance and migration in the

last two years we negotiated a lease that saw 0 rent more than doubled. >> my name is ross the executive directors of current pulls for the last 10 years at 9 and mission we were known for the projection of sfwrath with taking art and moving both a experiment art our lease expired our rent went from 5 thousand dollars to $10,000 a most. >> and chad of the arts project pursue. >> the evolution of the orientation the focus on art education between children and patrol officer artist we offer a full range of rhythms and dance and theatre music theatre about in the last few years it is more and more difficult to find space for the program that we run.

>> i'm the nonprofit manager for the mayor's office of economic workforce development one of the reasons why the mayor has invested in nonprofit displacement is because of the challenge and because nonprofits often commute technical assistance to understand the negotiate for a commercial lease. >> snooechlz is rob the executive director and co-founder of at the crossroads we want to reach the disconnected young people not streets of san francisco for young adults are kicked out of the services our building was sold no 2015 they let us know they'll not renew our lease the last year's the city with the nonprofit displacement litigation program held over 75 nonprofits financial sanction and technical assistance.

>> fortunate the city hesitate set aside funds for businesses facing increased rent we believable to get some relief in the form of a grant that helped us to cover the increase in rent our rent had been around $40,000 a year now $87,000 taylor's dollars a year we got a grant that covered 22 thousands of that but and came to the minnesota street project in two people that development in the better streets plan project they saved us space for a nonprofit organization national anthem and turned out the northern california fund they accepted us into the real estate program to see if we could withstand the stress and after the program was in full swinging skinning they

brought up the litigation fund and the grants were made we applied for that we received a one thousand dollars granted and that grant allowed us to move in to the space to finish the space as we needed it to furniture is for classes the building opened on schedule on march 18, 2016 and by july we were teaching classed here. >> which we found out we were going to have to leave it was overwhelm didn't know anything about commercial real estate we suggested to a bunch of people to look at the nonprofits displacement mitigation program you have access to commercial real estate either city owned or city leased and a city lease space become available there is a $946,000 grant that is

provided through the mayor's office of economic workforce development and that's going to go towards boulder the space covers a little bit less than half the cost it is critical. >> the purpose of the organization trust to stabilize the arts in san francisco working with local agency i go like the northern california platoon fund that helped to establish documents of our long track record of stvent and working to find the right partner with the organization of our size and budget the opportunity with the purchase of property we're sitting in the former disposal house theatre that expired 5 to 10 years ago we get to operate under the old lease and not receive a rent increase for the next 5 to 7 years we'll renting $10,000 square feet for the next 5 to

seven years we pay off the balance of the purpose of this and the cost of the renovation. >> the loophole will that is unfortunate fortunate we have buy out a reserve our organization not reduce the services found a way to send some of the reserves to be able to continue the serves we know our clients need them we were able to get relief when was needed the most as we were fortunate to arrive that he location at the time, we did in that regard the city has been - we've had tremendous support from the mayor's office of economic workforce development and apg and helped to roommate the facade of the building and complete the renovation inside of the building without the sport support. >> our lease is for 5 years

with a 5 year onyx by the city has an 86 year lease that made that clear as long as we're doing the work we've been we should be able to stay there for decades and decades. >> the single most important thing we know that is that meaningful. >> it has been here 5 months and even better than that we could image. >> with the economic development have announced an initiative if ours is a nonprofit or know of a nonprofit looking for more resources they can go to the office of economic workforce development oewd.com slashing nonprofit and found out about the mayors nonprofit mitigation program and the sustainability initiative and find their information through

technical assistance as much as how to get started with more fundraising or the real estate assistance and they can find my contact and reach out to me through the circles of the city through the

>> 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.

[gavel] >> meet willing come to order. good morning everyone. welcome to the april 1, 2019 meeting of the rules committee. i'm supervisor hillary ronen chair of the committee. seated to my right is vice chair supervisor shamann walton and to my left is supervisor gordon mar. our clerk is victor young. like to thank jim smith from s.f. gov to looking