department and the historic preservation. san francisco public works for sidewalk modifications, office of small business will be doing outreach and education and providing resources to small businesses and your staff, the mayor's office on disability for their expertise on disability access standards. compliance is required, so for properties, for property owners who have places of public accommodation, they're required to comply with this law. and so, places of public accommodation examples are restaurants, bars, hair salons, nail salons, gyms, retail stories, grocery stores, daycare centers, et cetera.

there are four exemptions to the properties entryways that are exempted from the law and one is buildings that are built on or after the year 2002, because those are deemed to have been built compliant. buildings owned and operated by religious organizations. bona find private club. and four, buildings without public accommodation. barriers to accessible entrances include one or more -- bariers to entryways can include one or more steps to the entryway, door handles that do not meet regulations and sloping or narrowed doorways and uneven floors. so, there are several steps that a property owner needs to report to the department of building inspection in regards to their entryway. so the first step a property

owner will need to do is determine whether they are a place -- they have places of public accommodation residing in their properties, or they are exempt. if they are exempt, they must submit a prescreening form to the department of building inspection by may 23, 2018. and to tell the department of building inspection why they think they're exempt. the department of building inspection will certify this. if not exempt, then the process goes into step two and step two, then the property owner must sult with a certified specialist. after the entryway is surveyed. in that survey, you will see

it's to help determine what are the barriers, if any, what barriers are there at the entryway and what category they fall into. so after the survey is completed, then the survey must be completed and submitted to the department of building inspection. identify which category they fall into. and then also provide a proposed remediation to the barrier if there are barriers at the entryway. after that is done, then -- and the department of building inspection obviously, you have questions to this, we'll be able to provide you with more details. then after that is done, the barrier removal that require permit from the department of building inspection, the property owner must then file an

application for the building permits by the deadlines. and then the final step, step 5, obtain the permits by the deadline and complete the work to receive a certificate of final completion by the year 2021. this slide provides you with the list of the categories in which entryways can fall into. and the checklist guidelines. the first category, entryways where they are compliant, there is no steps or barriers. and again, the property owner must complete the checklist or actually certified specialist or design professional or engineer, completes this checklist but the property owner is to submit it by may 23, 2018. the next category is category 2. which there is no step, but may

have barriers. so it could be a handle, if there is a minor slope, there may need to be power doors. or the doorway may need to be widened. again, that checklist needs to be submitted to the department of building inspection by may 23, 2018. they need to file for their building permits, if building permits are going to be required by august 23, 2018. and then obtain a permit by august 23, 2019. category 3, entryways that have one step, the property owner to submit the checklist by may 23, 2019. file an application for building permits by august 23, 2019. and then obtain their building permit by august 23, 2020.

and category 4, is where entryways have one or more step or other major barriers. november 23, 2019, property owners need to submit their checklist to the building of inspection, file for application, file for the building permits by february 23, 2020. and then obtain the building permits by february 23, 2021. outreach and education, so as the interagency team has been working together and we meet monthly, want to inform you what has been done to date. notices have been sent to property owners. the first notice sent in november of 2017. this week we mailed -- department, i say we, i feel like we're all a team here. we're all working together, but the department of building inspection mailed out a second

notice to the properties again. and property management companies. we have several brown bag scheduled, so march 30 and april 13, at the department of building inspection. there will be brown bags for property owners, professionals to dive into the details of what is required to be reported to the building of department inspection and those are from 12-1 at the department of building inspection. they can go to the dbi website, to be able to get that information. also informational materials and handouts are being developed. our office is working on specifically handouts and informational materials to the small businesses who occupy the spaces that may have entryways that are worked on and fixed.

and inform property owners and businesses of the legal laws around accessibility. and financial and tax resources that are available. so our target audiences are the property owners, business owners, business organizations, the disability community, design professionals, certified access specialists, city staff, the board of supervisors and city leaders. and so, again, more resources, department of building inspection has a really good detail page for the accessible business entrance program outlining what a property owner and guidance to the design professionals or certified access specialists. that information is provided online, at business entrance section of dbi's website.

and if there is questions, for those who are listening, there is website, available for folks to e-mail to, phone number, (415) 558-6128. also for small businesses, we have information on the office of small business website. dbi's website does provide a link to certified access specialists so that it makes it easy for property owners, at least if they want to know who are certified access specialists, to work with, department of building inspection provides that information. and with that, that concludes my presentation and happy to take any questions. >> co-chair blacksten: i want to personally thank you for your

presentation. this is a fascinating subject, especially with the national discussion on the ada. so i have two members of the council who would like to ask questions, the first one is helen. go ahead. >> council member smolinski: i don't. >> co-chair blacksten: alex? >> thank you for coming. question, is it -- first question is what do you guys do when businesses has -- such as -- but there is accessible -- in the back? what do you guys do with that

businesses? and the second question i have is that, can you explain the steps on making accessible? >> the first question, if i understand correctly was regarding the inside of a business. >> no, i'm sorry. >> -- >> oh, alternative entrances? i'm not the design expert, so i'll turn that over to the department of building inspection ed sweeney. >> good afternoon, commissioners, deputy director.

to your question about design, it's a case by case basis, of course we would like it -- what you're describing is a hardship. we would take it, analyze it, it would probably have to go to planning. and again, it's a case-by-case basis. in the scenario you're talking about, i think that would be reasonable and we probably would approve it. >> ok. if there is -- >> we would prefer the primary entrance to be accessible, but if it's too much of a hardship, we would consider it. >> and my second question was, how come clubs are except on

making the entrance accessible? >> i didn't write the legislation. i suppose that has to do with the overall title 24, if there is nobody from the public going to go in, it's a private club as defined, they would be exempt. i'm a member of two clubs in town, both are not exempt. it's going to be very few clubs that are going to meet that threshold. it's a very high threshold. i'm a member of the elks, there is no way they make it. >> thank you. >> co-chair blacksten: all right, thank you for your presentation. anyone on the bridge line from the council? any questions? if not, let's go to staff.

>> i lost my microphone for a moment. thank you to both ed, regina and other members for being here today. if we could -- it would be helpful for the council to hear about how the outreach has been going so far and any suggestions you would have in terms of what the council might be able to do to help spread the word about the accessible building entrance program to the disability community? >> well, the outreach -- so we've done the first mailing. and we actually did have one brown bag in january, which was at capacity. so there is definitely interest in learning about what is

required. i think -- we know there are property owners that have many different properties. and so they're likely doing their assessments, because if you think of a neighborhood commercial corridor, a building might have one retail space, or it might have four retail spaces. if the building is on a slope, then there is going to be varying degrees of what each of those entryways have to report on in relationship to the compliance checklist. so we're still -- we're really kind of in a robust stage of doing outreach, so as outlined in the presentation, we have some brown bags lined up again to educate the property owners and design professionals on what the requirement are. working, one of those, will be taped so that we can make that

available on dbi's website, so for those who can't get to the presentation. of course, desk number 8 at dbi is open monday through friday for property owners or design professionals to go to get more information or have the one on one conversation. then our office is also -- our offices will be sending out a mailer to all the merchants, or e-mail to the merchant associations to let them know that we encourage them to schedule presentations at their merchant meetings. we will be working with -- we will be also doing round tables with the various media to be

able to educate the media's predominantly the ethnic media on what this program is, the details of what is required, because that's a good way to also get out to the property owners. and then we'll continue to push out through social media, do advertisements, and i think that sort of the core package of what the outreach is. the one thing we haven't yet included in our outreach program is the best way to be able to get this out to the disability community. our first approach obviously is here with you, giving the presentation to the council, but then would really want your guidance on who else and what other organizations we should be reaching out to. >> thank you. >> co-chair blacksten: all

right. so just as a quick follow-up to the media, have you sent out any press releases, or made any -- had any public service announcements made? >> i'm going to have bill strong from the -- who is on the press side of the department of building inspection answer that. >> we have not done psa, we have done press release to announce the program and have been ramping up through this series of outreach steps that regina just spoke about. it is quite early in the campaign, we just got started in late november.

we have a fairly aggressive advertising campaign, paid advertising campaign. the department is also sponsoring to make sure property owners do know about the program. we know from our story program which has been going on for the past four years, that's a ret retrofit offing buildings trying to prevent building collapse in the next earthquake, we've had in the high 95-99% compliance results with that. primarily because of i would say nonstop public outreach. and that's often because property owners seem to have this human habit of waiting until the last minute when we have a deadline to respond to that deadline. so we know that the fact that the first deadline for this program is may 23 of this year, means we're probably not going

to hear from property owners until may 22nd. and we're trying to talk to as many organizations and do outreach to ramp up and accelerate that response rate. we're particularly interested in the buildings already compliant and director sweeney has made a rough estimate out of the 27,000 buildings we may be dealing with in this program over the next 3 47b years, maybe a third of those are already compliant. it would be good to get this that low hanging fruit, where all the owner has to do is sign a self-declaration form that says we're compliant and files that with the department and we'll probably eliminate about 7 or 8 thousand how of the buildings -- 7-8,000 of the buildings and then we'll be well on our way to understanding about the program. >> co-chair blacksten: thank you. we're at 3:40 right now.

so alice, can you make it real brief? did you have a comment? >> alex, can you make it real brief? >> my final question is, when -- how do you guys have experiences from landowners and landlords of new laws? >> we're expecting some resistance, we always have resistance. we oversee a number of

ordinances that are passed about the mayor. there are people who wait for the last moment. there are other people that wait for us to come out with code enforcement, meaning we would cite the building and it would start the enforcement process. we hope that people comply, because it's easier for us, but if need be, we'll get into code enforcement process. >> so far -- >> so far, no, there hasn't been any. i'm sure we'll find some. >> thank you. >> co-chair blacksten: thank you very much. we want to thank you for your presentation and that will conclude all of our questions. this is a great topic. it's high interest. are there any -- we have a card i think? >> jim, regina would like to add

one more thing? >> my apologies, and just to add on to deputy director sweeney's comments in relationship to council member alex's question. i think you know, we will hear backlash and/or confusion, why aren't we making the businesses do this, but i hope we carry forward the message that property owners have an equivalent sort of -- i don't know if it's equivalent, but they have a responsibility in making their properties accessible. we are a city that does champion the civil rights of individuals and so this is just another step that the city is taking to ensure the civil rights of individuals with disabilities are upheld by mandating the entryways be accessible. we're hoping that message that we as city leaders carry on and why this law is in place. >> thank you.

i think we can move to public comment. >> co-chair blacksten: let's move to public comment. any people from the public out there that would like to step up and make a comment? i was a founder of the mayor's council on disability. let us note stephen hawking's passing. if there is one person on the planet who was, he's the guy. on the tang ordinance, i want to thank supervisor tang for taking a step forward. the problem with title 24, which is the state requirements and with the ada is that it's fine for new buildings where we get a chance to look at everything, look at the drawings, make everything right from the

beginning. the plan from the beginning was to override very long period of time, bring other buildings up to code or up to a standard of accessibility when they applied for permits. however, we have many buildings who never got a permit. in the last many decades and it wasn't because they were cheating. it's because they didn't do permitted work. some of them were cheating. however, our policy goal is to integrate people with disabilities and if you can't use your neighborhood cafe, laundry, grocery store, barber shop, then it's not working very well. so i would like to thank supervisor tang and everyone who worked in all the city departments that contributed to this, including mod. this is a real step forward. we're dealing with two steps backward which are important to recognize. one is the hr 620 problem, which is where there is a backlash

against people with disabilities with the democratic party unfortunately is permitting. and i don't comprehend it. we were one of the darlings for a long time and now people with disabilities are considered to be drive-by thieves. so there is a backlash. we're not just defending ourselves, we're going to improve access. it's the first time i had a chance to work on that, quite a while, after improving access every year and month. on the other is a drive-by problem. media coverage has very much demonized people who have -- people with disabilities who have asked their local merchants to make improvements. the tang ordinance is a compromise. it doesn't require full access, but it does require steps forward. i would like to spend another minute if i may to task you with two things. one of which you have already

raised. the first is this is really about title 3 access, that is access to privately owned public accommodations. not to those private clubs, not just to offices but the places that the public is invited to use and that's a title 2 which is the vain of the disabilities -- >> co-chair blacksten: can you wrap it up? i have a three minute limit. >> i am wrapping it up. san francisco owns over 500 properties. the department of real estate has a list of those which are leased in, where we lease private property and which are leased out, where we're the landlord. you guys are landlords and a place where you can really help is with people who are your tenants, these small shops that happen to be in city owned buildings. they can get more help from you than the building department gives to other title 3 entities and i hope you will look at that, get the list from the

department of real estate, see how many we have that are covered by this and then help them out. the other is outreach to the community. there has been precious little, virtually no outreach to the community. you asked us what outreach you're doing, with you heard that, but really you are the people who need to contact the organizations and the individuals that we know who are people with disabilities in our community and get them engaged, because there is push back here from the small merchants. a reasonable pushback. they're afraid of the costs but they need to be reminded there are people who are customers and citizens who need this, want this and will praise them and shop in their shops when this happens. i hope you take that on in organized way. >> co-chair blacksten: thank you. do we have one more? another comment? >> yes, one more. >> co-chair blacksten: ok. >> hi, i really want to thank

everyone for this terrific presentation and moving forward i think is a great example of that, i have friends that are small business owners and i can sympathize with them the challenges that creating ada access can pose. this is quite a task and it's a very important one. so i'm glad we're having this conversation. i had a few questions. one is what is the process of reporting noncompliant businesses for this program. and how long does the complaint usually take to respond to? and i want to ask as a council member alex pointed out, so keenly, there is fear of backlash here and can that reporting process be done anonymously? another question i had, are automatic doors part of the program? are there any types of businesses that require automatic doors within the program? another question i had is there any process or acquiring accessible bathrooms at these

businesses that fall within the scope of this program? and finally to address the question as far as reaching out to the disabled community as far as reaching to us to gauge interest and to garner interest into this program, i would just advocate strongly for online database, a map that shows which businesses are accessible thanks to this program which could be a great visual indicator for the improvements made. >> co-chair blacksten: thank you, your questions are excellent and as i indicated earlier, our expectations are to respond to any and all questions that have been raised from the public in this meeting. that's important to us. i want to assure you of that. as an entrepreneur myself, in the field of insurance, you know, i have a particular keen

interest in this area of accessibility with regards to businesses. and so this is an important subject to me. we're going close this public comment. and again, thank you very much. so, let's move on to, let's see, are there -- do any council members have announcements? ok. we did that. oh, i'm sorry. i did miss it. is there any correspondence? that needs to be addressed right now? >> no, there is not any correspondence.

>> co-chair blacksten: all right. thank you. i didn't mean to miss you. all right, now any council members, do you have any comments or announcements? no announcements. all right. well, i think that concludes our meeting. this has been very robust, exciting, energetic. you know, one of the best i've seen in a while. and i want to thank everyone for attending. please come back to be with us in april, at that meeting and we look forward to seeing you then. this meeting is adjourned.

. >> the meting will come to ord order. this is the february 23rd, 2018 special meeting of the san francisco local agency formation commission. i am sandra leigh fewer, chair of the commission. i am joined by commissioner cynthia pollock on my left and hillary rope then on my right. i would also like to thank the staff at sfgovtv, for recording today's meetings.

madam clerk, do you have any announcements? >> madam clerk, can you please read item number two. >> item 2 is the approval of the lafco meeting minutes of november 30, 2017 workshop, and the november 30, 2017 regular meeting. >> thank you. do any of the commissioners have any changes to the november 30, 2017 minutes? >> yes, i do. >> under opening remarks and proposals presented by the commission, i recall it says rise chair pollock provided the following two proposals, broad band and revisiting an affordable housing study. i believe there was also a third, an expansion of clean power sf. >> supervisor fewer: okay.

are there any other changes to the november 30, 2017 minutes? all right. seeing none, i will open this up to public comment. are there any members of the public who wish to comment on item 2. seeing none, item 2 is now closed. is there a motion to approve the minutes? >> so moved. >> second. >> moved by commissioner pollock and seconded by commissioner rhenown, those minutes are approved. madam clerk, can you call item number three. >> item three is lafco regular meeting schedule. >> i believe we have a message from angela calvillo, interim chair officer. >> thank you. i wanted to introduce item three. for the first few months lafco meetings were on an as-needed basis. now lafco is suggesting that we set the next couple of

meetings, particular, march 16, 2018; april 20th, may 18, june 15th, july 20th, september 21, october 19, and november 16, we have the room space available for the lafco, and this will also assist us in aligning our meetings with the regular board meetings. >> thank you very much. colleagues, any comments? seeing none, let's open this up for public comment. are there any members of the public who would like to comment on item number three? seeing no public speakers, public comment is now closed. colleagues, can we have a motion to approve the regular meeting schedule for 2018? >> great. moved by commissioner ropenen,

seconded by commissioner pollock, the item is proved. madam clerk, can you please call item four. >> item four is nominating two members to the board, ending. >> i understand we have not received any applications for either of these seats, is that correct? >> that is correct, madam chair. >> commissioner pollock did submit her application right prior to the meeting but it did not make it into the packet. >> so seeing that, with that understanding, i'd like to continue this item, but let's first open this up for public comment, are there any members of the public who wish to comment on item number four? seeing none, public comment is now closed. to allow more time for applications to be submitted, i would like to continue this item for the next regular meeting on march 16th. colleagues, is there a motion to continue? >> so moved. >> thank you move. >> seconded. >> moved by commissioner ronen and seconded by commissioner pollock, without objections,

item number four will be continued to the next regular meeting on march 16th. madam clerk, can you please call item number five. >> item five is a community aggregate report and a community report. >> good afternoon, commissioners. michael himes, director of clean power sf for the sfpc. it's a pleasure to be with you this afternoon. i've got some remarks to update you on the status of program growth, work we've been doing since we last met. first and foremost, though, cleanpowersf continues to serve about 81,000 accounts within the city and county, and to date, our cumulative program opt out rate is 3.2%. it's been at that level for a

while. probably the last time we reported it, it was there, as well. i guess another way of looking at this is we have a 98.6% participation rate. 4 4.1% of our accounts have opted up to our renewable energy, super green, and that is the highest of any cca operating in california. and as -- well, we're also preparing a quarterly enrollment for customers that have signed up for the program since january , and that enrollment is coming up in april. that's a small enrollment of about 250 accounts that have signed up over the past few months. you might recall that in addition to the large enrollment fees is we've been inviting sign ups on an ongoing basis and then conducting these quarterly enrollments to bring those customers into the

program on a timely basis. since we last presented to the lafco in late november , a number of things have happened with respect to our program development work. first, on january 23rd, the puc approved some new rates for cleanpowersf. this is a limited rate action focused on two things. first, at reducing our super green premium for participating customers so effective march 1, next month, our residential super green rates will be 1.5 cents perhour on top of our green kilowith the hour, down from two cents. this reduction will allow the program to remain competitive with comparable offerings by pg&e. the other major actions we took were some modifications to our net energy metering.

that's a program that supports customers that have roof top solar. it's a billing credit mechanism that allows customers that own solar to get credits on their bills for any energy they produce and deliver to the grid. that's tracked every month. net credits that accumulate in a given month are carried forward for application to a following billing period. and then, every year, we look at whether the customer was a net producer of energy or a net consumer, and they were a net producer, we compensate them for that energy. so we made changes based on our experience to date in managing this program. after about a year and a half in operations, the changes were really to improve is simplify the customer experience, so those changes were first to -- we eliminated two net surplus compensation rates that we were using.

that's the rates we pay the customer fore additional energy produced over the course of the year. we're now just compensating the customers at the higher of those two rates, which is the average super green rate. we also adopted a credit carrie forward at the end of the period at our default mechanism. customers can also request a check rather than a carrie forward of the credit on their bills. and finally, we have adopted a policy of carrying forward credits for any customers that have been on the program less than ten months, and the intent of that is to avoid harming any customers that may be expected to get additional credits for the balance of the year. so that's a little bit in the weeds, but those are adjustments that have been made to, again, improve the customer experience, protect our koestner mers were any lost

value, and also help improve the efficiency of administering the program. also on january 23rd, the board of supervisors authorized the puc to enter into power supply contracts to support the next phase of program enrollment. that legislation was signed by the mayor on january 26th. and then lastly, the puc commission affirmed that the conditions necessary to execute the contracts had been met, and authorized the general manager to move forward with all actions in esto complete citywide enrollment for cleanpowersf. so really a major milestone for cleanpowersf. the elements are really coming into place now for a july enrollment. and towards that end, staff is -- we are working to finalize our power supply contracts and bank credit agreement. we're targeting execution in early march of our first set of

agreements to come out of the solicitations we issued. we are also working on our enrollment plan, taking into consideration the available renewable energy supply in 2018 to support our customer enrollment again while meeting our overall program content power objectives. we're providing updated program notices, program collateral and fine-tuning our outreach program for the next enrollment phase, and a lot of that is going to be centered around who we are going to be enrolling in the next phase, and that's something we're working on right now. and then, last but not least here, we're also evaluating a potential rate action for our green product. the reason why we've separated these rate actions is because we are waiting for pg&e to set

its rates for this year, and pg&e had been delayed. normally, their rates go into effect on january 1. last year, pg&e issued its rates for 2018, and those will go into effect next month. and what we're seeing is -- you might recall the pcia of the exit fee that cca customers paid pg&e. we are seeing that go up by about 14%. the -- but we are also seeing pg&e's generation supply rates also go up by about 8%. so the net result is that cleanpowersf rates will continue to belower than pg&e after -- than pg&e's comparable rates by accounting for the pcia. to the extent we do take a rate action in april, it will maintain that beneficial rate differential, and it would go into effect on july 1.

and that actually concludes my update. i'm happy to take questions. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. colleagues, any questions? yes, commissioner pollock? >> commissioner pollock: i just want to -- excuse me. first of all, congratulations -- >> yeah, thank you for your support through this effort. >> commissioner pollock: i know so many people are so excited to see how it moves forward. i just wonder if we can get a chart, again, of the new dates for the different parts of the roll out and just when we see the big launch and how that's moving along. >> absolutely. >> commissioner pollock: okay. great. thank you. >> yeah. be happy to do that. >> supervisor fewer: commissioner ronen, any questions? okay. seeing none. >> okay. thank you. >> supervisor fewer: let's open this up for public comment. are there any members of the public who wish to comment on

item number five? hello. >> good afternoon. commissioners, eric brooks for california energy choice and san francisco clean energy advocates. in the entire 14 kbraerz thyea i've been coming before this commission, this is the most important thing that i've ever had to say to you. warren buffet and donald trump are trying to get ahold of the california electricity grid to bring coal back to california and undermine renewables. the trump administration has directed regional grid operators like this one would become under a bill in the state legislature and has directed federal agencies to subsidize coal electricity once this happens, so they will be able to make it cheaper than renewables even though it's not. there's a bill that's up last year that's coming up again this year, it's going to be rewritten so that it's easier

to pass. the authors made mistakes last year and that's one of the reason they're going to be able to kill it. the result of this bill would be to make our california nonprofit electricity grid turn into part of a regional private grid of which the largest company acting, and it would be warren buffet's berkshire-hathaway, who has attacked companies in other states. once our grid is part of a private grid than state grid, our california electricity grid will be under the control of the trump administration. this could kill community choice aggregation, and it could kill renewables in general for a decade, possibly

more. this is the biggest threat we've ever faced, and it's vital that you oppose it. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. >> hi, commissioners. jed holtzman from 350 bay area. i just want to say attending the sf meetings, we're ready to go full steam ahead. the one thing i would say for lafco's role, as going forward, as we discussed in the workshop, the role you could play in cleanpowersf, the puc staff has a tremendous amount of work to do to roll out the program, get everyone enrolled, make sure that they're happy, make sure that the city, the board is happy with the budgeting and contracting divisions. i think one role that the lafco can play going forward is as advocates, we get reports on -- and i hope mike doesn't get mad at me.

we talk with him about this all the time. we get reports on what silicon valley is doing. now i'm getting reports on what east bay is looking like, and now i'm getting some reports on the north bay. what i'd like to do is transmit a lot of those best practices where possible from other cca and kind of just instead of growing at our own pace, not enrollment wise, but program development wise, that can he can kind of take the best pieces of the east bay, north bay, and south bay wherever possible, and we'd like to talk to lafco at some point in the future. thanks. >> supervisor fewer: all right. thank you. seeing no further comments, public comment is now closed. there's no action for the commission to take on this matter. madam clerk, can you please call item number six.

>> item six is the interim administrative officer's report. >> supervisor fewer: miss calvillo, do you have anything to report? >> thank you, madam chair, members of the commission, angela calvillo, interim officer. i wanted to provide just a brief introduction to what i've done with the lafco's budget without permission from lafco, but i think it's a good thing. essentially because the budget process for lafco is not on the same timeline as the budget process for the board of supervisors and the city in general, what used to happen is the executive officer would provide me a ballpark figure from lafco that wouldn't be confirmed by lafco until june, so while we are, a city department, submitting our budgets to the mayor and controller as of yesterday, february -- yeah, thank you,

22nd, i asked the budget committee, and the committee has provided me permission to put in the statutory amount that lafco is entitled to, which is $297,342. so by the time lafco does determine its needs and actually comes up with a figure, if it's lower than that amount, then, we'll just adjust the department's budget by that amount. this will make things a little easier for us in our conversations with the mayor's and the controller's office, so with your permission, i appreciate your indulgence to do that today. the last thing i'll say is that i'm the interim officer, and all of the work that we have done over the last couple of months is all done with the great assistance of alisa, your

clerk, especially the rfq for executive officer. i'm available for any questions. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. colleagues, any questions? no. seeing none, let's open this up for public comment. are there any members of the public who would like to speak on this item. >> yes. >> supervisor fewer: oh, i'm so sorry. [ inaudible ] >> so eric brooks again, san francisco green party, local grassroots organization, our city, californians for energy support, which is a statewide organization for community choice aggregation and clean choice energy advocates. i would just urge you real quickly to make sure -- in light of what happened last

year, let's make sure lafco has full leverage on its own budget and can -- and so make sure you retain the power to not allow any shenanigans to go on in the future like we saw last year. >> supervisor fewer: okay. thank you very much. seeing no further public comment, public comment is now closed. there is no commission action to be taken on this matter. can you please call item seven. >> item seven is a discussion on lafco's strategic plan. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. we have discussed a range of things worth exploring, but until we have an executive director, i propose we suspend any further discussion until our march 16th meeting. colleagues, does that sound okay to you? great. now let's open this up to public comment. are there any members of the public who would like to comment on item seven. >> surprise, surprise. eric brooks, californians for

energy choice and all the other groups that i mentioned before. so the -- we've heard from the interim executive officer that the bids that came in on the request for qualifications are proprietary, and they're not allowed to be released. the public, of course, really would like to see the applicants and who they are, and so that we can weigh in on who we think would be the best person, but we can't really do it without that information. this is a question for the attorney and for the executive -- interim executive officer, but if we can even get the names of applicants, then, we can look them up themselves and decide what we think and then maybe make comments before your next meeting. i don't know if that's possible, but anything you can give us so that we can, as the public, weigh in on the process, that would be great. thanks. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. any other public speakers? and do we have a response for

mr. brooks? >> thank you, madam chair. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. >> in -- in -- in discussing this issue with mr. eng, who is working in conjunction closely with the office of the city attorneys on this, unfortunately, because we are still in the determination process about whether or not the named individuals that you were speaking about actually meet the minimum qualifications, we are not yet ready to present that information, but we will definitely provide the public that information relatively around the same time we provide that information to the commission. okay. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. seeing no other public speakers, public comment is now closed. i would like to continue this item until our next regular meeting on march 16th. colleagues, is there a motion to continue? thank you very much. great. moved by commissioner pollock and seconded by commissioner

ronen, without objections, item number seven will be continued to the next regular meeting on march 16. madam clerk, can you please call item number eight. >> item number eight is an update on obtaining executive officer services for the commission and possible direction to staff. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. i want to invite our interim administrative officer to give an update on the rfq process. miss calvillo. >> thank you, chair. so at the direction of lafco our office issued an rfq for executive officer services. the deadline was extended to february 13th, 2018. the anticipated not to exceed contract raid is $75 an hour. the panel deliberation was scheduled for this morning, and we will issue a notice of intent to prequalify, we're hoping by february 27th. at this time, the details of the respondents are

confidential in accordance with the administrative code chapter 67.24 for mr. brooks, but may be subject to disclosure once the panel scoring and the issue of the notice of intent to prequalify has completed. respondents are not gasuarante a contract if they meet the qualifications because it is on lafco for the qualification and certainly as the chair as she was authorized to conduct this r 23 q process, and the respondent's ability to complete the necessary administrative requirements in order to become an approved city vendor through the general services agency. respondents who are prequalified will remain eligible for consideration and contract negotiation on an as needed basis for five years from the prequalification notification date. we look forward to keeping you apprised on this issue, and i'm available for other questions.

>> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. >> thank you. >> supervisor fewer: colleagues, any comments or questions? seeing none, let's open this up for public comment. are there any members of the public who would like to comment on item number eight? seeing none, public comment is now closed. do we have a motion to continue this item to our next regular item on march 16? >> so moved. >> thank you very much. moved by commissioner pollock and seconded by commissioner ronen. without objection, the panel will continue item eight to our next meeting on march 16. item nine. >> consideration to approve the agreement with renne sloan holtzman and safai. >> supervisor fewer: i wanted to allow teresa tristricker to

present on this item. >> i am speaking here in my individual capacity and not as your legal advisor as the contracts before you pertains to the firm that i am currently affiliated with and the firm that i will be affiliated with starting next thursday. our firm that has been providing legal services to you is splitting. the firm will be splitting into two firms. a new firm is being created called renne public law firm, and that is the group that i will be affiliated with, starting on march 1. we will be located in the offices that are currently located in, and have a similar name, but it is a brand-new firm. in order to allow me to continue to provide legal services, we have made the request that the lafco agree to an assignment of the existing contract with the existing firm under the same terms and