signed into law about a year and a half ago and the whole idea behind it was to help homeowners strengthen buildings so that they would not collapse. >> did you the soft story program apply to all buildings or building that were built in a certain time frame? >> it only applies to buildings built in the time frame of 1978 and earlier. it's aimed at wood framed buildings that are three or more stories and five or more units. but the openings at the garage level and the street level aren't supported in many buildings. and without the support during a major earthquake, they are expected to pancake and flatten ~. many of the buildings in this program are under rent control so it's to everybody's advantage to do the work and make sure they protect their investment and their tenant.

>> notices have gone out to more than 6,000 owners of potentially at-risk properties but fewer than one-third have responded and thousands might miss an important deadline in september to tell the city what they plan to do. let's talk worst case scenario. what happens in a collapse? >> buildings have the tendency of rolling over. the first soft story walls lean over and the building collapse. in an earthquake the building is a total loss. >> can you describe what kind of strengthening is involved in the retrofit? >> one of the basic concepts, you want to think of this building kind of like rubber band and the upper three floor are very rigid box and the garage is a very flexible element. in an earthquake the garage will have a tendency to rollover. you have to rubber band analogy that the first floor is a very tough but flexible rubber band such that you never drive force he to the upper floors.

where all your damage goes into controlled element like plywood or steel frame. >> so, here we are actually inside of a soft story building. can we talk a little about what kinds of repairs property owners might expect? >> it's a very simple process. we deliberately tried to keep it that way. so, what's involved is plywood, which when you install it and make a wall as we have done here already, then you cover it with this gypsum material. this adds some flexibility so that during the earthquake you'll get movement but not collapse. and that gets strengthened even more when we go over to the steel frame to support the upper floor. >> so, potentially the wood and the steel -- it sounds like a fairly straightforward process takes your odds of collapse

from one in 4 to one in 30? >> that's exactly right. that's why we're hoping that people will move quickly and make this happen. >> great. let's take a look. so, let's talk steel frames. tell me what we have going on here. >> well, we have a steel frame here. there are two of these and they go up to the lower floor and there is a beam that go across, basically a box that is much stiffer and stronger. ~ goes so that during the earthquake the upper floor will not collapse down on this story. it can be done in about two weeks' time. voila, you're done. easy. >> for more information on how to get your building earthquake ready,

>> good morning, everyone, welcome to the san francisco budget and finance committee meeting for wednesday, december third, 2014, my name is farrell and i am jound by avalos and will be joined by mar. and i want to thank the sfgtv for covering this meeting as well as the cler. items acted upon today will be on the december 9th. >> if we could call up item $9 for 11.

together? hearing on the implementation of greenfinancesf for residential properties that qualify for property assessed clean energy financing in the city and county of san francisco. resolution authorizing the city and county of san francisco to join the californiafirst program; authorizing the california statewide communities development authority to accept applications from property owners, conduct contractual assessment proceedings, and levy contractual assessments within the territory of the city and county; and authorizing related actions as defined in the resolution. resolution consenting to the inclusion of properties within the city's jurisdiction in the california home energy renovation opportunity program to finance distributed generation renewable energy sources, energy and water efficiency improvements, and electric vehicle charging infrastructure; and approving the amendment to a certain joint powers agreement related thereto. >> thank you, madam clerk, so in front of us today we have a hearing which will be relatively short and two

resolutions that i am co-responsering with mayor lee, to restart, degree ssf, we approved the legislation to have the department of the environment to take the steps to refinance, sf. and this program will apply, a property assessed clean energy advancing program for residential properties of 4 units or less that will allow the home owners to fund the efficiency and renewable to the homes and all at no cost to the city. for the last year, everyone involved has been working closely to craft a green, finance, sf program, that we can be proud of here in san francisco and i want to thank you for their hard work as well as others that are not here today. and the program that will include, workforce opportunities in the emerging clean energy, economy and create the local jobs, and a program that provides, competitive interest rates to the residential home owners have the best possible financing tools moving forward. the recent court decision out of san diego that we are aware of causes a shift of green finance sf just slightly, and thanks to a lot of incredibly hard work done by all of those involved, especially our department, the environment and i want to thank rich in

particular for all of his hard work, the court decision will not break our stride and we just have to get there through different means, this will allow the program to be up and running next spring as a result. and in terms of green, finance sf in the emphasis behind it, i think that we talked a lot about how the clean energy economy can trigger a market transformation, just like the it market transformation happened a few years ago, and in order to unleash this here locally in san francisco, we need all of the tools possible and one of those in my opinion is green finance, sf. we have seen other parts of the state that have adopted similar, what are called pace programs. and most notably in the sonoma and river side countis that have seen the impacts of the fall aof for years, this can save money and crucial home energy services and also a monthly utility bills to the tune of thousands of dollars,

and promote the clean air and green air local economy, it will further cement our national leadership role in this area. in reducing greenhouse gas emission and making it easier for the property owners and neighborhood to make the energy efficient up grades, while creating good local jobs on local project wes have a lot more work to do in unrolling the program and i hope that everyone will join those of us who have been involved so far to help us roll this out throughout san francisco and i want to thank a number of folks in particular that have been involved, mayor lee for his leadership on this issue and the department of the environment and the entertainment and the department of public finance and the commission on the environment and particularly from my staff. and so we will move to a quick hearing where rich is going to come up and talk a little bit about the program. and so, if we could have you come up? >> thanks for being here and thank you for your hard work on this you.

>> thank you, supervisor, and chair farrell, good morning, supervisor campos, i am sorry. >> my named is rich chin with the department of the environment and i am the program manager for green finance sf. chair farrell's comments sumed up what i was planning to say, just to provide a little bit of context, in response to the board and the resolutions that were passed to direct the department of the environment to restart the component of green finance a year ago, the staff, developed an rfp and we issued that early, in 2014 to solicit interest from the third party pace providers to provide a suite of services namely the capital, the program and administrations and the... >> mr. chair, one thing that will be helpful david campos here if you could provide as you have been presenting your information, if you could

address this issue for me as well. what does this fit in, relative to clean power sf? because i think that this is a good step. but, i think that it is only that, and i would be willing to support something like this, provided that it is not something that would be in place of clean power sf. so i am wondering if you could address that where this fits into the community choice , and moving forward. >> sure, i will run through my comments and see if there is a place and i will try to address that. so, we did our rfp, and we had three proposers, they are all here, in this room today, to answer questions specific

questions about their programs. and from the outset, the policy direction of the board, was to work with multiple page providers, to offer to raise in the competitive options for consumers. so, as a result, we have selected the three entities who proposed. and because of this september, san diego court of appeals case that supervisor farrell mentioned we have sort of changed gears from having a direct contracting arrangement with the three entities and instead, the resolutions before you today proposed that we, san francisco opt into the other joint powers authority programs that are operated by those entities. so that was based on some evaluation of the different options we could formed our own 8811 program which is not impacted by san diego case and we could have validated the existing program or joined the other jpa programs and for the purposes of getting the program

available after multiple years, of wondering how we were going to bring the residential case of san francisco, and it seemed that that was the quickest solution to providing residential pace in san francisco. and i think the benefits of joining a jpa program are that we would be able to make this available very quickly, we would save a lot of time as opposed to the other options we would do so with the minimal and administrative costs and other tasks that would be the responsibility of the city. that said, city staff is looking forward to working with the program administrator to market the program, help with communications coordinate with the installation contractors and develop an intergrative workforce component that supervisor farrell mentioned and the program data will be made openly available for the city so that we can track our

progress and ultimately, regional aggregation provided by the programs will result in the over all vision for the scale for san francisco and may lower the borrowing costs for property owners and it will create jobs and economic assessment while incrisinging home values and it will increase local efficiency and renewal generation and water conservation, to your question, specifically, i think that we have been running in parallel. the pace is a privately financed mechanism to bring energy efficiency and renewable energy and water conservation to scale to home owners across basically the entire country at this point, but california has been a leader in pioneering how public, private partnership between the pace providers and local government and home owners and consumers and contractors can really leverage all of the prior energy

efficiency activity in the state from the programs like the solar initiative and solar installation and so this builds on that and uses the long standing tradition of local governments that you finance improvements using leveing of the special taxes or other assessments where the property owners repay that through a line item on the property taxes. so it is really a great public-private partnership. and i don't foresee the reason to believe that a clean power sf program would conflict in any direct way with what we are trying to do with the ph program. >> if i may just, so the mayor, or the department of the environment are not going to come back and say we don't need clean power sf because we did this. >> that is not, i don't think that that is in conflict at all.

i think that they could be put together. >> that was not my question. >> will the department of the environment and the mayor come back and say that we don't need clean power sf because of this program? >> certainly from the department of the environment perspective we would not come back and say that about a future green power sf program. >> could we hear from the mayor's office on that? >> thank you. >> good morning supervisors, kate howard through the chair, i have not had specific conversations with the mayor regarding the relationship between the pace program and the cca program. however, as you will recall, last spring, the mayor and the board did agree to move forward with continued study and work to develop a cca program. and that was funded in the

budget that came before this board last june. at this point, the mayor has no, and the mayor's office does not intend to see this as a replacement of cca. >> not to my knowledge. >> okay. >> thank you. >> and maybe i could add some color to this as well and i thank you for this and for the comments and i just say that someone has been working on this and this is just a completely separate thing. i think that we are working on kind of having a cleaner san francisco in both regards and both topics and i think that there are questions on both sides if you will. but this is completely separate and again this is a really private market finance mechanism for a home owner upgrades and that will hopefully create a lot of local jobs in that market and there is no reason to think that one can't exist without the other or that we are somehow mutually

exclusive. >> thank you. >> that concludes my comment and the proposers to the rfp are also managing the programs and are here to answer any questions. >> thank you. >> and so with that, we pass around a few technical amendments on item ten, but first why don't we open up to public comment, if there is anyone that wishes to comment on items 9 to 11 please step forward and if there is anyone else you can line up against the wall. >> i am sad about that there. and the local program, and the local jobs, and the local project. (inaudible) the objective of the mix of the ideas that i was... (inaudible) yesterday and there was an issue and a resignation of the (inaudible) of present force. you see, it was a realization

of what you can do for the (inaudible) and also, on the site of the level to be more freedom and the observance in the investigation and the research and up on the special thank you (inaudible). >> thank you. >> anybody else to come up with a public comment for items 9 to 11. >> seeing none, public comment is closed. so, we have a hearing on item 9, so we will file, item 9? motion to do so, we will take that without objection. >> and then, item 10, and is there a motion to approve the amendment that is circulated? >> so moved. >> and accept them as amended. >> so moved. >> item eleven? could i have a motion? >> so moved. >> we will take that without objection. >> thank you, everyone for those items. we can now call item number 1.

>>resolution consenting to the inclusion of properties within the territory of the city and county of san francisco in the california statewide communities development authority (cscda) open pace program; authorizing the cscda to accept applications from property owners, conduct contractual assessment proceedings, and levy contractual assessments within the territory of the city and county; and authorizing related actions as defined in the resolution. >> okay. thank you so, item number one, is mr. otalini. and... >> good mortgage, good morning supervisors, the last resolution to launch the soft story program for the city and county of san francisco, just to refresh your memory and to give the context, on september 15, 2013, the city noticed, 6600 buildings that were required to comply with a mandatory screening process of the soeft story ordinance and september 15th, 2014 was the end of that deadline and i am pleased to say that we had over a 95 percent compliance rate with the program like this for the first phase and that is unheard of for any program like this and i think that it speaks to the amount of hard work that

my team or the department or anyone else involved in this took on and educating the public around this. and this financing program has already generated a lot of interest and we have 330 applicants, for 27 million dollars in this first round, these are the early adopters and these are the people that are required to have these retrofits down and the important thing here is that by the year 2020, 15 pepser of the population will live in the retrofitted soft story building and this improves our capacity to recover after the next major earthquake, allowing the residents to get back to life as quickly as possible after a disaster. this is really exciting too, because this program as we are working with our partners on alliance energy on this we are going to be able to provide these property owners 30 year loans and this is huge. and this is the big advantage of the property owners and we are going to be able to get money up front for the design fees and that is another thing that unheard of in this world of finance. so very excited to get the

property owners the money that they need to hire the energy and for do the wosh and get the contractors out there and the projects complete and happy to answer any questions, supervisors may have but i think at this point you have heard this from me several times and i am happy to address anything that you may have questions on. >> thank you. >> any questions? >> okay, seeing none we will accept the public comment, anyone wish to comment on item one? >> seeing none, public comment is closed. motion to approve this item? >> so moved. >> we can take that without objection. >> could you call item two? >>resolution retroactively authorizing the department of the environment to accept and expend a grant of $300,000 from the california energy commission to accelerate the adoption of alternative fuel vehicles in the city and county of san francisco for the term of june 30, 2014, through september 30, 2016. >> thank you. is there, is mr. haydon. >> yes. >> thank you for being here. >> thank you, supervisor farrell and campos, my name is

robert haydon and i am the manager of the clean air transportation at the department of the environment and this is to accept a grant that was awarded to us from the california energy commission, that is a 300,000 grant, and extends through mid 2016. largely a planning and consumer out reach set of activities. and it is, it is a significant point of it is that, it deals with the full range of alternative fuels vehicles and vehicles infrastructure. and of course, you know our primary effort is trying to get consumers, travelers to recognize the best alternatives actually not a vehicle at all or a personal vehicle, but transit, biking, walking, or other transit first type of strategies but to the extent that there are going to be significant number of vehicles in the future on the streets and we also take many steps to try to promote and encourage

the cleanest alternatives possible. and alternative fuel, vehicles, means anything other than gasoline, or petrolium and so that covers natural gas vehicles, bio fuels. and it includes hydrogen fuel cell, electric vehicles and battery electric vehicles and we have over the years done numerous things with each of those types of technologies individually, this grant gives us the opportunity to take a complete picture strategy, to do several things, and look at the full range of those types of vehicles and the types of fueling infrastructure that could be available for public use of those vehicles in san francisco. number one, we will be conducting a thorough assessment of where we stand in san francisco, and to some extent in the nearby parts of the bay area. in terms of types of alternative fuel vehicle that

are currently in place by consumers and what type of fuel infrastructure is now in place and then, secondly, to do a comprehensive plan for how we will move forward and encourage the full range of those types of alternatives both in terms of vehicle use and the fueling infrastructure, and then finally conducting out reach activists in terms of workshops and ride and drives and other ways of reaching public consumers and fleet operators and car share companies and encouraging them to use these alternatives to gasoline vehicles. as i say, it extends through 2016 to mid 2016. >> thank you. >> could i answer any questions. >> thank you for being here and talking on the item. >> seeing no questions, we will go to public comment, anybody wish to comment on item two? please step forward.

>> (inaudible). >> okay, anybody else wish to comment on item two. >> seeing none, public comment is closed. >> approve this item? >> yes. >> we can take that without objection. >> okay. >> okay. clerk, we are going to skip over three, could we call item

four, please? >>ordinance amending the administrative code to direct the small business commission to establish a legacy business registry, authorize an administrative fee for the registry not to exceed $50, and, for the next five years, provide a rebate to qualified legacy businesses that purchase the real property from which they operate and to qualified landlords that purchase the real property from which legacy businesses operate if the purchaser extends the term of the legacy business's lease by at least ten years, in an amount equal to the transfer tax levied on the purchase. >> okay, thank you, this item is sponsored by supervisor campos and so we will turn it over to him. >> thank you, for your co-sponsor ship as well and this is an item that we have been working on to address a very real issue that many long time san francisco businesses that have been in business for decades in san francisco, what we are calling legacy businesses, are pacing a lot of challenge, and being able to stay in san francisco. and there are models in other parts of the world where the cities have actually tried to do something to protect those legacy businesses. these legacy businesses are businesses that essentially have helped to shape the

character of the neighborhoods without these businesses or these neighborhoods would not be what they are. through this legislation, we would essentially become the first city in the country to create a registry and that not only would identify those legacy business but also would create different incentives and in ways to assist these businesses stay in san francisco. and my understanding is that there will be a number of changes and recommendations coming from the small business commission. and so with that understanding, i would like to make a motion to continue this to the call of the chair. >> but, i know that there may be public comment. >> okay, thank you, supervisor campos. >> there is a motion on the floor but we will open for the public comment first, anyone wish to comment on item number four? >> supervisors, thank you for your time today, golden gate restaurant association, and i

just wanted to speak in support of the legacy business registry, i think that it is great and many people love it and restaurants in san francisco will fall into this registry and so anything that we can do help support them we are in favor of. so i would like to thank supervisor campos for your work on this legislation and that is all. thank you. >> thanks very much. >> anybody else wish to comment on this item? >> seeing none, public comment is closed. >> i just want to say that i appreciate my friends at the golden gate restaurant association coming to speak on behalf of my legislation, but thank you. >> we have a motion to continue this item to the call of the chair? we can take that without objection. >> madam clerk, could you call item number five, please?

>>ordinance amending the business and tax regulations code to authorize methods of electronic payment for parking; reduce parking ticket requirements; increase small lot exemptions; amend valet parking requirements; and clarify revenue control equipment requirements. >> okay. we have mr. breeze here, in a new role in the budget committee. >> welcome back. >> good morning, supervisors, an ma da freed here, here to present the ordinance on the parking and revenue equipment ordinance and today. i have available for questions, rob malone from the mta. and this ordinance amends the rce to make it possible to pay electronically in san francisco without the need for a printed ticket, right now if you go in to pay for parking today, not that and perhaps you do and you have to give a customer a ticket when you enter and you can take those up for five years, and in the bigger garages and the amazing amount of real estate that we are using up for the paper tickets and that is in the mta who run,

many of our largest parking lots in the city, came to us and said, you know, we really like to upgrade the systems for parking control and allow the people to pay electronically and could you help us out and that is the legislation that you could have today. if this ordinance is passed it will enable the mta and other parking operators to procure technology and to go into the garage, and you can check in with your smart phone and you would be able to slide in your credit card or use your fast track and exit the same way without these little tickets. and what is important here is that it will allow our office, the treasurer's office to maintain a high quality of control over the parking fees paid and actually enhance that by moving to electronic payment. and in addition the office trenthens the requirement for unattended parking station