get 15.3% below 1990 levels with the minimal implementation of clean power sf. with a hypothetical full roleout of the program we could get up to 23.4% so close to the 2017 goals. also on renewable side the minimal rollout could get up to 50% renew at 11:00. now at 41% up to 80%, which would be hypothetical rollout. as you can see clean power sf is a critical program when it comes to the environment and us meeting our greenhouse gas and emotion reduction goals. i wanted to put this in context that soon there will be a strategy the department of environment will be addressing regarding the green house emissions from the built environment, which is what this is, as well as from

transportation sector, quite sitting. i wanted to echo one thing that general manager harrington said. without this program the city has few actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. in analyzing the many programs and policies available to the city and agencies for reducing the greenhouse emissions, cca does have the most significant impact. we have looked at many options and programs, this program stands to have a significant impact. hope that answers your question. >> thank you. >> thank you, ms. nuter. i don't have anymore questions, i want to thank you and your staff. i know if this goes forward your staff will be working closely with the puc in the implementation of this. i want to thank you in advance for that. >> thank you for the presentation. colleagues, we have the items before us. i think there are couple items to discuss ahead of

time. there were budget analyst recommendations and also amendments proposed by supervisor campos. supervisor campos has articulated what those would be. i do not believe they were substantive in nature. colleagues, do we have a motion to accept those recommendations. actually accept those amendments? we have that motion. we will do that without objection. then the budget analyst had made a few recommendations to change language to reflect up to five years and also place a budget committee reserve on the pending program details. this is for the $2 million for go solar, 2 million for energy efficiency and 2 million for additional studies. colleagues, we have that motion. just a question for the city attorney whether or not that would be substantive. >> city attorney, would not be substantive. >> okay. do we have a motion to

accept those recommendations? we will do that without objection. now we have document amended with some changes or accepted recommendations. colleagues, any motion on the floor for underlying item? or comments. supervisor avalos? >> well, i actually would like to -- we could move forward with recommendation. i want to thank all the parts of our city. i want to go back to 1999, when then supervisor tom ammiano initiated the whole work on developing the clean power sf program. that long-term commitment finally paid off to get to where we are today. it's not been an easy road. have have been, even in recent years, a lot of stop-and-go activity on the process.

we went through multiple rfps but i feel we have something we can really look toward being a major step towards having electricity portfolio yes for san francisco that is totally clean. i agree, we cannot get there if we do not take this great step moving forward. i want to thank the supervisor david campos for his work. shepherding this through lafco and through the board of supervisors. we have huge changes that are happening. we are in the midst of climate change globally and have a commitment as a city to take action on that. i don't see that the clean power sf program as it starts immediately is something that is going to be for every san franciscan. i really believe what we heard from residents who have concerns about ability to pay is very, very real.

i think at the same time we are are making an initial step to kick start this program. it means that folks who really want to take an action towards doing our part to prevent climate change can make that investment. we are making investment on the future and comes at a premium cost. i want to make sure we have the ability -- we actually are very strong in making sure we do the outreach that people understand the program. how to opt out if they want to choose to opt out. i see that as an important part of making sure this can go forward and people who are going to be consumers of electricity will know what program they want to be in. there's been a lot of talk about shell. i think it is not necessarily an issue. i was concerned that shell would be who is doing our

program. i actually have a car. i fill up my car with gas. i'm part of the global demand on electrical energy. i think we have a demand on clean energy. the fact shell is providing that to that demand is a fact of life and same demand we have putting gas in our car is very similar to a demand we have for clean energy. just a different demand. i think the demand for clean energy is greater for gas that fuels our cars, but i don't think that is necessarily a reason not to accept a contract because it is part of shell because clean energy will be brought to us by shell. so i want to move, make sure we can support this moving forward. again, i want to thank all of our city departments for their work on this effort. nancy miller, jason freedom

for their work through lafco as well, thank you. >> thank you, supervisor. supervisor kim. >> thank you. i think maybe we maybe need to make a clarification. we made two motions to amend. the first was on what supervisor campos asked, specifically on page eight. the line 15 and two including in that proposalal discount for low income customers. when the rate fairness board provides proposal onto the sfpuc and board of supervisors and second amendment on page 16. the further be it resolved the board of supervisors supports an appropriate discount for sfpc customers and resolve the sfpc take an outreach campaign in multiple languages with a

particular folks us on multilingual communities and then the recommendations made by our budget and legislative analysts. i think this was a really tough issue and complex issue for many of us. we all support clean power, clean energy. of course we weren't able to meet all of the goals we had set several years ago, but i think the p.u.c. did an incredible amount of work to get us as close to the goals as possible. i personally have a clear understanding of why we weren't able to meet all of the goals we had set out. i think my top concern when reviewing this policy was of course for the most vulnerable rate payers, whether they are low income, mono lingual in a language other than english or seniors. i feel a little better now that we are ready to engage in a plan to educate. i think we should work a lot with our ethnic media,

whether it is radio, television or newspapers and of course i think we can spend a great deal of time doing outreach in neighborhoods and communities. i would love to work with supervisor campos's office, the puc and department of the environment to make sure that happens. this was an issue of course when we talked about charging a fee for our paper bags and our small businesses as well. hopefully we can kind of piggy back a lot of that together in our low-income and immigrant communities as well. i'm excited about this program. i understand why there is aned a digal cost to pay for green energy. it is the same as when i make that decision as mr. harrington said to go to the farmer's market to get locally grown and locally produced items or when i go to whole foods. it makes sense, you are paying a higher premium because it isn't mass

marketed same way. as we move forward and able to get more residents on board and find a way to reduce cost of clean energy over time that i do want to recognize the immense amount of work over the last eight years p.u.c. took to bring this. i feel comfortable at this time bringing this to the full board. i think the big thing is my concern for our most vulnerable rate payers. i think for myself i could imagine as a busy person missing the opt-out notices. i'm less concerned for someone like me that can afford to pay that at decisional amount for a month or two before i realize and opt out later. my concern is for individuals that can't afford to do that. i do appreciate the programs who have a 20% discount for participating low income customers. the other issue is how can low income residents afford to be green. if they can't go to the

farmer's market, how can we help our low income residents to be green as well? i appreciate the effort in that route. so i'm happy to support this with recommendation out of committee as well. >> thank you for your comments. i a bit of housekeeping. i believe when supervisor campos articulated the amendments from the city attorney that was on one version. there is a second version supervisor kim articulated. there are two versions. we have taken a vote on the motion to accept the amendments articulated by supervisor campos. however the amendments that supervisor kim just read has not yet been taken. supervisor kim, would you make a motion to accept those recommendations? >> i didn't realize there was another set. i would like to make a motion to amend, as i had articulated prior. >> there is a motion to amend legislation on page eight and page 16 as

supervisor kim read. that is on the floor. we can do that without objection. okay. so supervisor avalos, did you make the motion to send forward with recommendation? >> if it wasn't clear enough, yes. i would like to mention the work done. i didn't enunciate that succinctly as i wanted to. you have done a great job as control and manager and i think this is a worthy place for you to do it before the next phase of your career. so thank you for this and your great work. >> thank you, supervisor. [ applause ] >> supervisor campos? >> thank you, madam chair. i don't want to belabor the votes but make a couple quick points. i want to recognize others who have played an important role in making this happen. we heard about the amazing

staff at p.u.c. and lafco. i want to acknowledge the city attorney's office, which has been an important part of this process throughout all these years for their advice and guidance. but perhaps, you know, for me as important and perhaps one of the most important players, if not the most, are advocates who have been working to make cca happen for so many years. the fact we wouldn't be here without their advocacy and their support. to folks who expressed concerns about this program, i want to say that i respect what they are saying and that we are very mindful of the issues that have been raised. if this moves forward i look forward to the opportunity to work with each and every one of you to make sure that we take all necessary steps to address those concerns. so i see this as an opportunity to work together. i especially was moved by the presence of so many low

income seniors. i do think that is an opportunity for all of us because i do believe there is some misinformation or misunderstanding and how this works. we have an obligation to make sure people understand how this works and we take every step we possibly can to protect low income individuals and do so in a culturally competent way. i know the puc and department of environment are committed to making that happen. you know, devin dufty once said if there is a gold standard in terms of someone running a department, that is ed harrington. i think if there is a question it is demonstrated today why that is the case. the fact is this is very complicated stuff. i do believe we have the best program we can possibly have because of

your leadership. i also see our soon-to-be new general manager so i want to acknowledge harlan kelly, thank you for being here. we look forward to working with you. we look forward to being helpful. one of the things you will inherit is an amazing staff. you are very lucky in that sense. colleagues, i look forward to a yes vote. i think this is a historic moment. again, i want to thank also my colleagues on the lafco, including john avalos, hope spencer, leah pementel, christine olagi and mark. >> thank you. i know there is a motion to send the item forward with recommendation at this point. i will be calling for a roller coaster on it. i wanted to explain why and also want to thank the puc for leadership on pulling this together. i don't think it was an easy thing to do.

i think under circumstances and limitations of state law you did pull together as best as the market would allow you. i want to say thank you in particular to your staff for pulling this together. it's been a long time coming. i want to thank you for your patience and having this coming through budget and finance and for director harrington who actually stayed beyond the time he thought in order to be here. i do want to appreciate him and thank you. for me i do think in terms of a cca, i don't think there is anything wrong inherently in the concept of a cca. the ability to purchase power or aggregate purchasing power to get a different product or different deal for your consumers. i also don't think there is anything wrong about having additional consumer choice. i don't think that is a bad thing. inherently what troubles me, the reason why i won't be supporting this is it don't think it goes far

enough to, one, to build the reserve that is funded really by individuals using the program. if we were to have shaped a program where we were phasing in or we are asking people participating in cca to actually pay for the reserves that we are as a city at risk for, that would be something i would be more comfortable with and i think is much more appropriate. i think that would free up funding from the city to pay and invest in other programs like go solar if the city had chose to do that or go pay for other energy federal court si programs to help reduce energy usage, *ets. that is one area that i think i would have liked to see a different approach on that i don't see in this program and this contract. i think the second area that troubles me, there is nothing that the puc could do about this is really on the opting out structure. i really do think that as we talk about choice we really are not doing that with an opt out system. inevitably the best attempt

also be people trapped in this because of language issues or so busy with their lives, raising a family, that they will miss it that. is something i don't prefer. i much prefer an opt-in, where people fully and willingly know they are entering into a program and willing to pay a premium for a product. those are two area and two aspects that troubles me, why i will be voting against it. do you think we would be able to shape a program, a stronger program where perhaps like marin did initially. there's the same rate structure, then people can affirmatively opt in? i'm not sure. i would imagine the p.u.c. did work diligently to figure out an approach to this opt-out situation. at the moment i don't think we are there in terms of being able to really after official that people are not being captured. i know the puc has argued tk -- argued -- argued

tech lated that is not in the best interest. and with the program that would allow us to free up money on energy efficiency, even with our own buildings but number two on the opt-out component, that is something that again is structurely and inherently wrong about the state law set up. those are my comments. i will go to supervisor kim before the role. >> thank you, supervisor chu. i want to chime in, express my appreciation for ed's service. we will have a full opportunity and everyone will want to speak. part of my reason for i'm supporting this, despite some of the questions was because of your leadership and because of my faith and trust in your. so i just wanted you to know that i think very highly of you. i think highly of the work

you do. i know your support was helpful in getting me over the line, over some of the concerns brought up. i do want to, you know, chime in with how are as well. the concerns are valid, they were concerns i had too. i know that will be a difficult decision for many members of this board, that it really speaks in testament to your leadership and high regard that many of us have of your independent analysis. you work at ensuring our general fund, your budget as well. i know that's always been a top priority for you. thank you for your work. i really look forward to working with harlan kelly, who has been a long-time leader in the puc. i think your department is amazing in terms of the work in our communities, particularly low income communities in bridging partnerships, creating jobs, et cetera, et cetera, so thank you again. >> thank you.

>> then finally thank you to ted egan. it took a lot of work and time for him to pull the report on economic analysis together. so if you would please relay that, thank you. we can call the roll. >> on the motion to -- on the motion prior to 6 and 7 as amended, supervisor avalos. >> aye. >> avalos aye. supervisor kim. >> aye. >> supervisor kim aye. supervisor chu. >> no. >> supervisor which you, no. motion passes. >> thank you very much. the item passes. [ applause ] >> thank you. would you call item 8, please. >> item 8, ordinance ap mending san francisco

business and tax regulation code by adding 609 to establish parking tax for residential properties to relieve residential property owners and managers renting five or fewer parking spaces and stations physically attached or otherwise associated with building from the requirement. amend business tax workers code section 2219.7 to exempt property owners and managers pursuant to section nine from department to pay the compliance fee. amend planning code, 204.5 to allow accessory use up to five dwelling unit parking spaces to be leased to persons living off-site anywhere in city, making for changes to planning code section 150d. amending police code section 1215 to eliminate requirements for parking permit for property owners and managers registered pursuant to 609, the tax code and make environmental

finding consistent with the general plan. >> thank you. for folks who are on this issue or previous can i ask you to carry your conversations outside so we can continue with the agenda. this item, eight, is brought to us by supervisor wiener. welcome to budget and finance committee. or back to it, i should say. would you like to make opening comments. >> perhaps once the chamber clears i will be in a position to do so. thank you. before you is legislation i have sponsored to make it

easier for property owners and those renting a handful of parking spaces to pay the property tax and provide a path for those largely unbeknownst paying by obligation to come forward, become legal and begin paying the tax. parking tax applies to all rentals to parking spots, whether mega parking lot operator or renting out your garage to someone who doesn't live in the building. tenant doesn't implicate parking tax but other types of rental does. it is -- i have heard whether the intent in 70s was to imply the tax to

property owners but nevertheless that is how the tax is worded. for years and years people have been renting out spots connected to residential dwelling, whether single family home or apartment whether there are extra spots after tenants have taken a few spots. it's done so many years without paying parking tax and without knowing it. in addition if you didn't know you were to pay the tax and decided you were going to be a good citizen and comply the city has made it unbelievably difficult to actually pay that tax because the city treats someone renting their garage in a single family home as if they were the fifth and mission garage. you have to have parking

equipment to gather data on the garage. you have to pay a bond. you have to pay approximately $1,000 fee, which might be significant higher than annual revenue or parking tax you are paying. you have to be fingerprinted at hall of justice, fill out a significant amount of paper work and pay monthly, just like a large garage. this legislation would do a couple things. first it would dramatically simplify the payment of parking tax for people who are renting out up to five parking spots connected to a residential property. renting out up to five to non-residents. those would no longer have to have equipment, no longer have to post bond, not have to pay fee or fingerprinted. would simply have to fill

out a very simple paper work, then pipe less frequently than monthly. right now we have three months in the legislation. i will be offering an amendment today to make it an annual payment. so it will be a dramatically easier process to be able to pay the parking tax. in addition because there are so many people who do not know they were supposed to pay and have been renting out a sitting amount of time we want to give people an incentive to come forward and pay the tax. this provides partial amnesty where people can come forward and sign up. they will have to pay no more than two years worth of back parking tax and no interest for penalties. there will be an amnesty period and pay two years back taxes, become legal and start paying by going forward. this will generate revenue for the city. particularly the mta, which

does get the bulk of the parking tax. in addition, there's also planning code amendment associated with this legislation, which would address the situation where right now if you are renting out a parking spot for long-term occupancy, not for like an hourly rate. for example, renting out spot in your home, you are -- it is illegal to rent to someone who lives more than 1,250 feet away, approximately two and a half blocks. this legislation would change that requiring you to rent to someone in the city. it would be illegal to rent to outside the city that. would apply only if you are renting up to five spots connected to a residence. the 1,250 feet limit would still apply to renting out

six or month. that is broader. this is limited to a small property owner, single family home or single apartment where you are renting out a few spots. i know a member of the public has raised concern that would lead to commuter parking, people driving instead of taking muni. i respectfully disagree. i note planning department staff has recommended this planning code change. planning commission voted 6-1 to recommend the change. there are several reasons why i think this planning code amendment is very appropriate. first it is, as far as anyone can tell, completely unenforced right now. in fact, it