89% by 20 50 which is the internationally agreed upon goal necessary to provide, you know, time for our society to adapt a climate change, et cetera. what this means for you guys is that as the air district works on implementing that goal and that's not just a goal, but actually a him. so, there is rule making process he already underway. over the next couple years working out their clean air plan, rules are going to be issued which will bear on these two bodies. and, so, essentially as time goes on, the hammer is going to be coming down and we are all going to need to be kicking in and committing to reducing emissions where we can. so, we are coming here to you as kind of the vanguard of this, but eventually this will be a very mundane and tedious rule making process pushing you to have more clean power, have more local power and reduce emissions. we're trying to get this started sooner than later [inaudible]. >> thank you. next speaker, please.

good afternoon again, commissioners. eric brooks. so, i just wanted to encourage the lafco in any energy endeavors that it goes forward with to definitely -- since he spoke today, you probably know that one of the recommendationses we made to you folks is to use department of environment staff as well. we've seen that they have been ready to go on program like cleanpowersf and doing other renewable energy projects and efficiency projects and their involvement will be key. along the same lines, in a little bit of a critical vein, it would be good to know what's going on with the climate action plan that was recently put out because originally it mentioned cleanpowersf, among other things, and now it's not the same. it would be good to find out when we're going to have a hearing on that and maybe in lafco if necessary. and then finally, one of the thing that will make it possible to fund the clean energy is to develop a public

bank and we hadn't heard much about that. so, just wanted to get the status on that from chair avalos and perhaps staff. thanks. >> thank you very much. we will have a hearing on march 31st related to the climate protection plan, and that was also something that my pdf, the original pdf that went out on that, jeremy pollack in my office searched for the words cleanpowersf in that document and he found that it was actually embedded in there in meta data. you could cut and paste the section where it was in and put it in the word document and it revealed that cleanpowersf was part of the climate protection plan and it was within the plan, a goal -- actually two goals one residential and one for commercial. the residential goal was to have 100% renewable energy on a residential side by 2030 and it

was 80% for the commercial side. that information was redacted from the climate protection plan, i assume, while it was being, you know, [speaker not understood] before it what released. the data plan [speaker not understood] we didn't get it issued until 2014. and last i heard, 2014, its was not 2013. okay, any other member of the public who would like to comment? seeing none, we will close public comment. [gavel] >> and do we have any other items before us? >> actually, chair avalos, can i just make a comment -- >> commissioner mar. >> what mr. holtz man said about the role of 350 bay area. i'm one of the members of the bay area air quality management district and have been for several years ~. i would just caution you about speaking of yourself and your organization as a vanguard. there are many environmental justice groups that have been working on issues of climate change and climate justice for many, many years. i think 350 bay area is a

critical organization that's really been taking a lead on many levels and i would just caution you to speak in those terms of yourself. the young people that have been at the white house and were today protesting the key stone excel i think are really taking a lead. and my hope is that the whole environmental movement can really embrace younger people, environmental justice groups, native american nations and others as we all move forward together. but i really appreciate all the work of [speaker not understood] strong and really better commitments from the bay area air quality management district and the leadership that you guys show, but also in the interest of building a broader environmental movement for the future of all of our communities, but thank you. >> okay. do we have any other items before us? and did you the public utilities commission have to do their own close out for this hearing? so, if there are no other item before us, we are adjourned. [gavel]

good afternoon, everyone and welcome to our first full budget and finance committee meeting for 2014. on wednesday march 5th and i'm supervisor mark farrell and

i'm joined by mar, and supervisor john avalos and london breed and supervisor wiener. i want to thank the members of sfgtv covering this meeting, jennifer and the clerk of the committee, ms. linda wong. madam clerk do we have announcement. >> silence electronic devices and complete speaker cards and items will appear on the board of supervisor agenda unless otherwise stated. >> madam clerk, call items 1 and 2 together. >> item is a resolution approving a performance contract behavior health services and the department of health care services incorporating the mental health act in transition for homelessness and health services grants, program for the period of july 1, 2013 through scombrun 30, 2014 and

authorizing the behavioral service so sign at greement ed agreements. resolution authorizing adoption of the fy2014-2014 annual update to mental health services act program and expenditure plans. >> okay. thank you. we have sims ons to speak on these items and thank you for being here. >> hold a second. can we make sure we have our mic lit up. >> is that better. >> so the first item, the performance contract is a zero dollar contract that basically includes the conditions and requirements that the department needs to meet to get these different streams of funding, the federal funding, the past grant comes to serve services for homeless individuals, the mental health block grant is

broader, and that comes through the state as well and the mental health services act funding that comes from the state controllers's officer month so they have their own mechanism of funding authority and go through the regular budget process. the state recently let the department know that we needed to get a resolution from the board, adopting the performance contract. it's not a contract that has been required for four or five years. the state recently transferred from the department of mental health over to the department of health care services, all the over sight for mental health so in that transition, there was a feeling that the state that we needed to update this. so it's about data reports and do you want me to update -- the second item, the mental health service between 2005 and 2006 and we

have plans and the annual update is the requirement to provide an implementation update so be update all the plans at one time and just as a side note, very soon i'll be back to present a resolution for adoption of an integrated plan for the next three years which is all those pieces together. but this is just for the annual update. >> okay. thank you very much. colleagues any questions? okay. we have a report from our budget analyst, why don't we go to that now? >> good member dhar farrell, this is a zero dollar contract. it sets up the conditions by which the city accepts funding for the prop 63 and other federal grants for mental health services and it's fiscal

year 13-14 and it's retro active and the board has approved $30 million in the 13-14 budget. they'll have to be another approval for the 14-15 approval and the estimate budget for 14-15 is $34 million. >> thanks. i presume given that the 14-15, we'll have the resolution before us, so it's not retro active. >> that's the goal now that we know the state is going to ask for it. >> i can't wait to have these come to the board of supervisors. colleagues, any questions. president mar. >> i wanted to ask mrs. simmons, i know the budget items will come later for the department, but do you have projections for what the state's mental health funding will be coming up this year with the governor's budget, do you have any projections right now? >> overall budget, i don't. for these three fundings, the

information is in there and it's my area and that's what i can speak to. >> okay. and i know with discussions about laura's law and even within the mental health commission, lots of debates and discussions going on that it seems like an important -- your budget items but the state's funding of mental health services are reestablishing a lot that was cut over the years and that's critical so i'll be looking forward to the information that you and others provide later. >> we're launching a planning commission and i'm sure the board has looped in on that. but being around individual that's have been difficult to end gage into services so i think the laura's law sits into that discussion and it's a tool that we have to work with folks. >> okay. thank you. colleagues, any further questions or comments. okay. thank you. at this point we'll open up to public

comment. seeing no public comment. public comment is closed. colleagues we have two items in front of us. can i have a motion to move to the full board. >> so moved. >> we can take that without objection. >> all right. madam clerk, do we have any other business in front of us? >> no, mr. chair. >> all right. we are adjourned.

welcome to our rules committee meeting for thursday, february 20, 2014. i am supervisor norman yee and i will be chairing this meeting. i'm joined by supervisor campos and katie tang. the committee would like to acknowledge the staff of sfgtv jennifer low and ross. who record the meetings and make the transcripts available online. madam clerk, are there any announcements. >> please submit speaker cards to the clerk. items will be on the march agenda unless

otherwise stated. >> >>supervisor norman yee: madam clerk please call item no. 1. city clerk: item 1: 130401: health code - hazardous materials]1304011.ordinance amending the health code to require electronic applications for registration of hazardous materials and for underground storage tanks be filed through the california environmental reporting system, to eliminate the requirement that registration of hazardous materials plans include a program for reduction of hazardous materials, and to provide for fee adjustment; and making environmental findings. city clerk: sf 11234 >>supervisor norman yee: i believe cindy from the department of public health is here to present. >> good afternoon supervisors, my name is cindy, i manage planning and fiscal policy in the environmental health branch. i'm here with paula, our senior staff at our hazardous material and waste program. it's part of the environmental health branch of the san francisco department of public health. the program implements six state environmental mandates and two local mandates. there are three amendments being

proposed to article 21 of the health code. the first so conform to state law 25404 of the health and safety code. they require all facilities to present certification through the california environmental reporting system also known as sers. the regulated committee will be able to enter data. state legislation was at ab 2236. environmental health staff has provided technical support on our reporting system and now it's easy to update their existing information and provide a

paperless one stop shop for multi-businesses. the 2nd amendment eliminates the hazardous material plan for the use of hazardous materials and generation of hazardous waste. this is again conforming to local legislation state law. this was enacted in the early 1980s when hazardous materials were more abundant. most facilities are reduced their hazardous storage to low levels. we have a health prevention and green business program and we now accomplish reduction through working with our businesses and consultation instead of regulatory action. businesses are still required to provide health waste reduction plan. a 3rd amendment is a fee adjustment. if the fees in the facilities invoiced from the department don't accurately reflect the facilities

current activities, the facility may now address a fee adjustment for them with correct information with the fee payment. the businesses may have reduced or inventory since their last renewal and inspection may not be conducted in this time period. the fee adjustment form allows for a mechanism to adjust their fees accordingly. i'm happy to answer any additional questions to the amendment and legislation. >>supervisor norman yee: thank you very much. colleagues, any questions? no questions. thank you. any public comments on this matter? seeing none public comment is now closed. can we have a motion to move this to the full board. no objection. item passes. item no. 2. city clerk: item 2: 130710: [terms of and expansion of scope - existing local agency formation commission positions]1307102.sponsors:

avalos; campos and marresolution amending the terms of the existing local agency formation commission lafcoo positions by expanding the scope of services for the senior program officer; extending the term of employment additional three years through june 30, 2016; and utilizing the existing lafco budget to continue funding this position. city clerk: item 2: 130710: [terms of and expansion of scope - existing local agency formation commission positions]1307102.sponsors: avalos; campos and marresolution amending the terms of the existing local agency formation commission lafcoo positions by expanding the scope of services for the senior program officer; extending the term of employment additional three years through june 30, 2016; and utilizing the existing lafco budget to continue funding city clerk: item 2: 130710: [terms of and expansion of scope - existing local agency formation commission positions]1307102.sponsors: avalos; campos and marresolution amending the terms of the existing local agency formation commission lafcoo positions by expanding the scope of services for the senior program officer; extending the term of employment additional three years through june 30, 2016; and utilizing the existing lafco budget to continue funding this position. >>supervisor norman yee: 1234 >> okay, i see supervisor avalos office is present. please come to the microphone if you have comments to make. >> thank you, good afternoon supervisors, frances shea with avalos office. thank you very much chair yee for scheduling this on the agenda today. since the membership of the rules committee has changed a little bit since we last heard this item i hope you will indulge me if i go over it again. supervisors, as you are aware lafco advisory board of the community choice aggregation program has diminished. supervisor avalos response to these changes is start to examine lafco's

future scope of work. the item before you doesn't focus on that element of the discussion but this item. specifically given that less time is required to assist with the development, implementation and operation and management of the c ca program it would be better to develop the cost duties to include executive officer duties. currently lafco contracts with miller and ian for it's general council service. ms. miller was also the council and filled the director position on an interim basis. direct deuces include preparing contracts and rfp's and commission items and staff

reports and sfpuc staff and monitoring contracts and preparing budgets and reports for the commission and general services related to what comes up on the agenda for lafco. in the last fiscal year the amount that has charged for general council services was a little over $2,000 for 8 hours of work. during that same period of time, the amount for executive services is -- in the current year lafco has paid a little over $5,000 and nearly 28,000 for the executive director work. regardless of the duties she fulfills whether they are the general council, the bill is the same. the resolution before you today is a result

of conversation that lafco has had in a few years and an attempt to address this inefficient use of budget. this resolution does two things by consolidating the executive director duties into 1975 senior development specialist position and that rate those services could be built at the lower rate of $52.86 an hour. in the last fiscal year this would have saved $54,000. this allows for the funding source of the director duties. this allows for the continuation of that. and i know there is a question about how much was in there. currently there is a little

over $375,000 still in the fund and we have an agreement with sfpuc with cca and there is $665,000 left. this also does is it extends the possible term for the 975 position for the 3-year period. to be clear this resolution doesn't guarantee that this position will remain for 3 years. it allows the position to stay open, to extend for another 3 years. as i referenced earlier lafco and it's commissioners are planning to review the work scope and future work plans and as a result of that discussion, that will ultimately determine what the future work scope and length of contract for the 9975 position is. this resolution allows it to go up to 3 years. so i hope that's enough background and information for you to support this item today. i can try answer any questions you might have. the

clerk of the board isn't here and available, so we may have to call on lafco staff if you have any operations questions. in the meantime if you have anything, any questions for me. >>supervisor norman yee: thank you, frances. supervisor campos? >> thank you very much for the excellent presentation. i'm actually somewhat surprised that this item has taken so long to get out of committee. i would strongly urge my colleagues to move it's item forward. i have been a member of lafco since i got elected to the board of supervisors and for a number of years was the chair of lafco. what you have to understand is that the history of the lafco in san francisco is a unique one and lafco in san francisco has not played a role as other jurisdictions. i think that has been a mistake in the sense that there is a lot of potential for lafco playing

the role of ensuring good government, best practices within city agencies. in fact that's what other lafco's do. they provide oversight and provide ideas on how to more efficiently effectively manage and provide government services. and it allows for agencies like the board of supervisors to use resources other than the general fund to conduct issues and reviews. the perfect example is what would with the issue of garbage and waste management where lafco was instrumental in helping with that. what this does is it simply allows us to be able to proceed with expanding the scope of that work. in that sense it brings the san francisco lafco in line with every other lafco in the state of california. i also think that to the extent that there are specific concerns about how the

individual position has been filled will be filled and how that will be managed. i can tell you as chair of lafco and i know the commissioner supervisor avalos does the same thing that there is a lot of time and care that goes into managing lafco staff. when i was chair of lafco as is the case with supervisor avalos, it's very careful monitoring of staff, scheduling and all of that. i think that it's really imperative to move this item forward. i don't know what the hesitation has been but i know that we are sort of tying lafco's hands by not moving forward and i ask that that happen expeditiously. >>supervisor norman yee: supervisor tang? >>supervisor katy tang: thank you supervisor campos. i do

agree with the change of the scope of the position for the senior program officer and i believe the cost and savings is very justified. the question that i do have, again i do understand that we as a board of supervisors we are not here to -- i mean lafco is here to serve and there are members of our board who serve directly on lafco, but die want to know given the current state of affairs what are some of the things that we are directing lafco to work on and i think that the component that i'm a little bit concerned about which i know that frances did address was extending the term of employment for an additional 3 years given this. i was wondering why we could not consider doing this on a year to year basis. again, i know that discussion are supposed to happen to determine the exact duties and what will be coming out of lafco and then

at that point you will be determining the length of time for the employment, but i want to know here at this point why we could not take that on a year to year basis. >>supervisor david campos: i don't know what ms. shea's response would be. from my point it would be very impractical. the scope of the duties determines how much work the person will be able to do. if you have a situation where the process requires lafco to come back every year and we have seen this happen. there are delays and maybe when committees meet, when something gets scheduled. i think what this does in the best way to do it is that to not do a five or 10-year term but actually for a 3-year period so lafco doesn't have to come back every year to make sure that the definition of the responsibilities of

the individual are broad enough that the person is busy. so i think that 1 year in my experience having been chair of lafco, doesn't make sense. it doesn't mean that lafco will indeed use the 3 years, but having that possibility is important and to the extent that lafco needs to shorten the period, i think it's more appropriate for lafco to make that decision given that we have members of the board of supervisors that are on lafco. if someone feels very strongly, i think there might be a vacancy on lafco. if a member feels so strongly about that and they are able to serve through lafco to do that. i don't think it's good public policy for the board to micro manage lafco that way. i think it's better to give them flexibility. that would be my

response. >>supervisor katy tang: i appreciate that response. i'm not here to micro manage lafco. i just want to understand the nature, the scope of the work to justify the 3-year extension is really my question. >> i think supervisor campos hit the nail on the head is to give lafco that freedom that at the time actually this was put together and as he also pointed out this has taken some time. we weren't quite sure of the scope of work and lafco is still having those discussions. at the time this resolution was developed they hadn't passed cca at the board. it was really to give lafco that flexibility and give it that sensibility that there would be that staff person through that transition period and really let lafco make that decision whether they wanted the staff purn -- person on for one or two or 3

years. that 3 years would be a time to make that transition. >>supervisor katy tang: my follow up when will that discussion be happening in terms of determining the length of time that person will be serving at lafco. >>supervisor david campos: i think that lafco as i understand and supervised or avalos is the chair and breed is the vice-chair. they are waiting for the board to provide the authority to have that conversation. but, they are not going to be able to have that discussion unless they first have the authority from the board to actually expand the scope of work. i think that once this item moves forward, i would imagine lafco would have a discussion. i don't know the exact date, but i assume that's what they are waiting on. >> yes, that's the intention as soon as this passes is