machine. >> at that point there was two guys inside there. >> it was probably if january. >> okay. >> i took it from my phone here. >> so that would have been january 21st. >> okay. thank you. okay yes. >> anyway. >> actually your time is up. >> i was answering her question from me to you that's how far the vent of the paint booth unfiltered paint booth. >> how is that your view from the backyard. >> it's not my view. >> there's 4 windows. >> on mr. macy's building on

the backside of the building has 4 windows. i'm just looking at and right in >> you're at the window taking a picture. >> okay. from the permit holder you have 3 minutes of rebuttal. >> that's evidence we haven't seen i'd like to see the phone why there's not activity going on into the booth. >> that's reasonable okay. >> that's the outside of the booth the lights on the outside that's the booth to the left and the door in the front and the booth is not being used the light is on do you see anybody walking around the building how

can that car on the outside. >> wait - >> this is the outside and that's the bother and that's (inaudible). i open the doors this is outside >> so you're saying the vehicle is blocking the door. >> not door is in front. >> overhead please. >> that's the front and this the the back and (inaudible). you can see that can't be inside the booth this is inside the building that light is on >> you're saying through be no car inside the booth. >> you can't see inside the booth because of the garage. >> okay. that proves there's a

car inside. >> nobody is using that booth. i told triple a we toe 2 hundred and 50 thousand cars a month so is it one of the nuisance take the tow trucks away i put the sprinkler system in i had no idea you think i'll let this get out of control i've been there 40 years the fire department sensitivities if you don't comply our out i feed my family by being in business i did what i was supposed to do and if the permits are not resolved i'll get them revolt.

this means nothing to me the issue is the fire department wanted me to do a line test whether the building is there or not they coyote one a year and i wanted to upgrade the system and they've pulled the permit and the bell rings in the building the radio frequent is the state of the art and that's why we're here this other stuff means nothing >> i have a question pretty naive i guess would the fire system and alarm be required of our business without the paint booth. >> no, when you paint paint can be flammable you can't have a flame within the booth within 25 feet bus because spray booth is

in the building i have to have is a sprinkler system. >> if you were only doing repair the spray booth it is strirm and the filters are brand new and they don't smell any paint do you have any certifications for using the booth no and they were in his backyard and he says he smells paint so smell the filters i told the dbi twenty-four hours and i'll open the door and if someone is in there are they'll be fired. >> i want to clarify i thought mr. duffey referred to nos of visions or advise you need a permit. >> i got a letter in january saying i was invited in to have a permit important the booth i

called the city she would send me the pictures and i sent them all. and someone said well fill out a permit i went down and all of a sudden when they appealed the permit i was in the process of doing the permits as soon as i got the appeal i stopped so i want to be in compliance i had no idea that booth was not permitted i only wanted to do with the board i had to file that's a state agency but once i got the notice i stopped everything >> if not paint what's the fumes do you understand the fumes to be. >> the building a empty. >> you think someone is making up the fumes.

>> if they smell. >> if not paint what fumes. >> i don't know what their smelling i painted inside this this and cleaned that up. >> you did paint but ♪ the spray paint >> no, that booth has been there the booth we're disagreeing i cleaned the filters i don't smell anything. >> okay got it. >> do you have - >> i have a question for mr. patterson. >> so as commissioner fung has stated i'm troubled with the fact you don't have a brief yet our professionals were able to do their homework. >> yes. we had decided to withdraw the appeal looking at

this particular permit being a fire safety permit we don't have that problem but it was entitled for the spray booth. >> yet our professionals have oounl done the homework but you're not able to have a brief because it leafs one party at a huge disadvantage. >> we started to dig through the records how to intiefl a spray booth. >> so basically, they had time to go their briefing but you are

company didn't have time. >> our briefing would have been duplicate if we went through with the appeal at this point we got the true process of the permit. >> that be it. thank you very much >> mr. sanchez and mr. duffey anything further. >> thank you scott sanchez i'll brief provide context bp about the photos of the booth at the end of the brief on the overhead we have a day have the overhead please. all right. so this is the entire of the booth it shows the

sprinklers and the side windows noted in the appellants photo and interior latin-american for the booth and the photo of the outside of the booth seeing the lights on the inside have off and some covering and the outside the boothd you can see the window to the left through which the patent took the photograph of the car sitting outside the booth you see the light this is a better one the lights on the exterior of the booth that's what the appellant is claiming it appears there's a light coming from within the booth it seemed to be covered $0.35 that's the issue raised. a that's all i wanted to present for information >> commissioners any help on

the issues i think the owner knows he has an outstanding notice of violation so far the spray booth. we saying to dbi there's no permit and he's not disagreeably but what's ahead is a hearing of code enforcement if he didn't apply for the permit the spray booth has to meet the mechanic code and probably the fire codes so the fumes and that is going to come up the sprinkler permit needs to be approved and a final inspectors without i don't know if we need more time but there's a standing items the fumes is going to come up on the building sprishgs and if they don't get

the permit they're looking at an order of abatement i'd imagine that process should be started soon because we sent that up in march there's a 3 month hearing. we could daily with the expired permit for the sprinkled. i thought i'd mention that >> go ahead. >> go ahead. >> to clarify the combravpt of the permit will not enable anything not a life insurance to start the paint thing or - >> i mean this is related to a aspect of a safety issue. >> that's rilthd to the

sprinkler permit but people if their using it their using it without the benefit of a proper building permit, you know, and that's what you know the issue is i think >> but the permit holder has an expired permit for the fire alarm. >> that's been brought up but probably should be addressed by building department. >> prepared to address it shortly. >> i imagine we'll get a complaint. >> the question our raising is whether the building department will allow them to connect the new work there the permit to a a system that's not been permitted. >> you're talking about the

sprinklers. >> yes. as the sprinklers are probably okay. >> will you allow address work to a system that's not been finalized. >> it may have to be updated based on old system in the 4 i'm not qualified and you're right whatever work they have to bring up to today's code. >> and you explained to the commissioners that i wasn't quite sure that was the right answer open whether or not sprinklers are required or not i think it's depending on this occupancy and size of the building. >> there's a definition in tcoe

for sprinkle code. the other thing as well the whole mechanism system will have to be brought up a mechanical engineer for the spray booth >> did you have a question commissioners. >> again for my own sake this is an alarm system linked to a fire prevention which we'll assume is functional even though not properly priltdz so we're what the permit is doing augmenting a fire protection system which we believe is functional even if the permit is not ever been certified. >> yes. it's a tied to the sprinkle system that's not about permit it's good we're doing

this but their point is they're doing it before they've done other things. >> i'm not sure from my point of view that's a safety enhancement. >> okay commissioners the matter is submitted. >> motion. >> i'll vote to deny the appeal and approve the permit on the basis it's compliant. >> you want to consider at all continuing the case? mr. duffey >> i was go ahead. >> i mean the thing is sometimes those things to need to have other actions to tie it

altogether. >> in my mind i'm separating the actual physical processes and protection system from the underlying permit. yes mr. duffey >> just real quick if we continue it it may allow them time to renew the permit and get a final inspectors then there's nothing wrong with the permit it's not a big deal tide into a sprinkler permit it might give them time a question for the attorney that's not hard to do sometimes you can finalize a permit in a week if you've got the documents. >> one complication is that dbi

will not precede when an appeal is under a line of work perhaps the board wants to deny that it's it's a typical process. >> you're wanting to me one what's in front of of us and what's not in front of of us is clear this is regarding whether or not the permit is valid regarding fixing the sprinkler and i think with that i'll lean more towards agreeing with our president. >> you think i will as well my concern is the gains manship that seems to be going on i don't want to leave this hanging outs there i want to end the

appeal here now. >> is that your motion president so deny the appeal and uphold it's code compliant. >> optometry formulation the president to uphold the permit commissioner fung. commissioner hwang commissioner hurtado. commissioner honda >> thank you. vote is 5 to zero this permit is upheld on that basis >> commissioner hwang there's no further business. >> we're

. >> welcome to the san francisco local agency formation commission. my name is john avalos the chair of the commission. joined to my right by commissioner london breed and to my left eric mar. the clerk of the committee is alyssa miller. thank you for your work and broadcast by sfgtv staff. thank you for your work. i would like to make a motion to excuse commissioner campos who couldn't make it here today. do we have a motion? okay. we will take that without objection . madam clerk can you

call the next item. >> item two is approval of the lafco minutes from the date regular meeting. >> colleagues you have reviewed the minutes. any questions? i see know none. we will go to members of the public. there are no members here and we will close public comment. >> i move approval. >> moved and seconded without objection. item three. >> item three is the community choice aggregation activities report. a status of update on cleanpower sf program. b status update on proceedings on california public utilities commission. >> c status update on the state legislature proceedings. e update on the request for proposals to provide build our plaj for cleanpower sf and e

status update on the board of supervisors proposed ordinance for community choice aggregation joining supervisor mar. >> as far as to go down the issues here we have worked on the study from the study approved from the last meeting. today we received the draft from the first task. there are multiple tasks involved. i forwarded that to each of your offices so it's in your emails and if you need hard copies let me know. the first part of the first task given that we no longer have a shell agreement or contract if we take procurement and all of the other activities shell would be doing on behalf of the city what would it look like as far as staffing needs and costs? how would this play into a knowledge discussion that is going on at the board of

supervisors around the power enterprise budget and this is the initial draft and more work to be done. we're literally talking about a week or week and a half to work on this and it gifses a high level synopsis and you have million to $1.1 million that could be available to the power enterprise to pay for cleanpower sf. they would pay them. it doesn't solve their entire budget deficit and i don't think we would do that with the clean power program but it solves part of that program so that's good news from that front if we had a cca program they have another option to utilize that. >> what was the response of the utility commission when you mentioned that? >> we just got it this morning and i haven't talked with them

and unfortunately their staff hasn't arrived on. state legislation. there were two bills we were monitoring and tracking. one is that was introduced by assembly man tom amiano to give san francisco a choice in how it does its energy cca programs. unfortunately that bill died in the local government committee. they had some concerns about t the forces on the other side that didn't want to see it said it violated the city charter but we said it didn't but the bill did not move forward. the other bill we're monitoring is the brad ford bill 2145 which would change cca programs -- it and the bill

would get through the committee. it's now sitting at appropriations committee where it will get a hearing next week. should it go from there to the assembly floor and pass that to the senate side so we're monitoring that. i believe ms. miller on behalf of chair avalos and sent that and i will keep you up-to-date as the legislature moves forward on the process and on the final one i will talk about here on the list is the -- as the three of you know since you're on budget committee and approved by the board unanimously this tuesday was they're looking at how do we potentially join marin as an option to our program. one of the things talking with marin as going through the process we are

a new way of doing things we are a much larger than they looked at before. we would dwarf them if we did it at one time and their program so they have more considerations to do than like richmond did or napa was just approved to move this forward so we have to deal with that, so what they have asked for if we can approve a $5,000 not to exceed rate they can start looking with the consultants and what would be the cost with the bigger study? if you give us a want to exceed rate but they would go so high it right scare people off so we wanted them to look at and pay for that part of the study and what would it take to join them? they said $5,000 is more than enough to do that so there is a resolution in the packet that would authorize that. i would say we would only moving forward it gets through

the second board hearing because the ordinance going through the board of supervisors process had the first reading and approved unanimously. i am guessing it's going to have a second one but not to delay and wait until june we're coming to you for the $5,000. >> and how long would that work take >> i would say it's a about a month or two to come back and there is the full price for what we need to do lafco and the board of supervisors could have that discussion whether or not that made sense to move forward at this point. >> and at this point we will by resolution pass allowance of funds to go, allocation? >> yes. assuming it was done through lafco. it could be paid for by other means and manners but if lafco did that through the cca fund we would

come back with approval for a not to exceed for that process as well. >> and do we get any indication of what the study could potentially cost? >> we know what it cost for richmond and for napa which just had their study done. theirs was in the 40,000 to $40,000 range and don was up front and closer to the higher number and there is something they want to do a study because of san francisco politics and what it would meep to their program and do broad base research to what it would look like a program and the appetite for their customers to join and they don't want to scare off their customers and san francisco is going to take us over type of thing and also the appetite for joining a marin style program and i don't know the cost of that would be. >> what do you see as the work,

the research that the city and county of san francisco have done so far that might help them and they're going to have access to that information? >> i told them they would have access to the information. on the market research side their concern it was a couple years old and none of our research incorporated commercial customers which they're interested in having and not incorporate anyone outside of san francisco and is a concern for them and whether to join up so they would have to do brand-new market research on their own. on the study side we have information and i hope that keeps the cost down on that side. >> what is the size of the customer base now. >> the size is about 130,000 although i haven't checked in for a while to determine the current numbers are but i want to say around 130.