francisco unique with just empathy, love, of being acceptable of different people, the out liers, the crazy ones. we've become so focused onic maing money that we forgot about those that make our city and community unique. when people come to discover, i want them to rediscover the magic of what diversity and empathy can create. when you're positive and committed to using that energy,

>> chair fewer: the meet willing come to order. this is the february 21, 2020 of the local agency formation commission. i'm sandra lee fewer. i likmadam clerk, do you have ay announcement? >> please make sure you silence all cell phones and electronic devices. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. please call the item number two. >> approval of the lafco minutes from the january 17, 2020 regular meeting. >> chair fewer: any comments or questions. let's open this up for public comment. any members wishing to comment, public comment is closed. like to make a motion to approve

the lafco minutes. could i have a second commissioner mar, we can take that without objection. >> item number three, community choice aggregation activities report. >> chair fewer: we have michael hyams for a short presentation. >> yes, good morning commissioners. happy friday. michael hyams, director of the cleanpowersf program for the san francisco public utilities commission. i do have a few slides for you today. our last presentation was to focus on the renewable energy report. i got sort of more of standard update for you. i will cover our enrollment statistics, cleanpowersf enrollment statistic. i'll provide update on key

activities from the past few months that we haven't discussed in previous meetings recently. update on items that are coming up, some work that we're focused on now. first of all, our service to clean power customers continues successfully. the program opt out rate has ticked up a small amount since our last update where we presented these statistics. it's now at 3.7% of all enrolled accounts. that's still more than 96%. our super green enrollment has increased. we're now serving 2% of our active accounts with 100% california r.p.s. eligible renewable power. that's .2 percentage point higher than the last update. from an energy standpoint, the usage represents more than 4.5%

of annual sales. that's a 20% increase. the program is showing continued steady progress in this respect we're doing a bunch of work to figure out how to bring the numbers up. what has been happening? i wanted to tell you about some renewable energy contracting work. pursuant to our resolution number 18028 and board of supervisors ordinance 0818. the p.u.c. executed new renewable energy contracts. expanding our commitment to new solar and wind power in california. first in december of the general

manager executed an expansion of the voyager 4 wind project. that was initially executed in 2018 for 47 mega watts of wind, power capacity. increasing the total commitment from clean power up to that project now 110 mega watts. what that means the project will be taking down old turbines that are more than 25 years old and installing new efficient turbines that have environmental benefits to affect indian wildlife and they'll be more efficient. that project is going to come online in phases starting in december of this year. should be fully operational by the middle of 2021. the p.u.c. executed a new contract for energy from 100 mega watts of new solar from the maverick 6 solar project. that project is expected to

start operations in december of 2021. all in all, as this slide shows, that's four long-term contracts of 15 to 22 years in duration to buy renewable energy from to be constructed plants in california for our cleanpowersf customer base. that totals 372 mega watts generating million mega watts hours of energy. that's about one third of our cleanpowersf annual energy needs base the on current enrollment. we're laying the foundation for getting to that 100% renewable energy goal by 2030. >> just a question on fees reduction about one third of our current energy usage. >> that's right >> what's the total just for adding that on to the existing

renewable energy? >> these projects are going to be coming oline in a different times over the next several years. we balance those long-term commitments in the market from operating power plants. in the calendar year 2018, we completed for renewable cob tent, we were 48% r.p.s. general renewable for green product. that's another 15% on top of these contracts. we're procuring more than what these alone represent. think of it it's a portfolio. each contract is sort of a layer that we add into it. the long-term contracts are really the vehicle that we use to build new projects. it's required for financing. around these long-term contracts

we'll have short-term purchases from existing plants. we'll be layering in more long-term contracts overtime. this is what we've done to date. we have solicitation that we just brought through the board. we're looking at regional projects right now. >> with these four new renewable sources, how close does that get to us 100% renewable goal? >> in terms of capacity delivering in 2030 -- there's a time element to this. we're at 50% for 2020 in terms of r.p.s. eligible renewables. that gets up to 90%. most of those products are acquired under shorter term transactions. the contract expire well before

2030. that's why we're in the market of procuring. these contracts represent about one third of the cleanpowersf obligation for 2030. i'll get to the integrated resource plan here in a minute. we can talk more about that. i wanwe reported to about this t fall. our staff has been working on a cleanpowersf equity project. actually the lafco executive officer, bryan goebel serves as a member of our steering committee. i want are refresh your memory with the work we're doing. we're hoping to wrap it up this fiscal year. the purpose of the project is to develop policy framework that embeds an equity lens across cleanpowersf policies programs and business practices.

the idea here is that systematically applying equity lens will help us ensure factors, race, income, gender, language employment status, for example, do not determine access to the quality of clean energy services within our community. we have a working group at the p.u.c. that's been developing a draft policy framework. they are also planning outreach, an engagement with stakeholders to get feedback on the proposed framework once it is ready for circulation. after incorporating stakeholder feedback, we end to bring the policy to our commission for approval. we talked about this in the past. this duck tails with some of the things we've been talking about here at lafco that are on the lafco work plan related to clean power equity. i want to remind you, we have this going on. this is something our team is

working on. this is sort of first of its kind. we're hoping that it will be a model that can be replicated across the p.u.c. business lines. also serve as model for other communities. we're excited about this. what's coming up here? when we presented to you last november, we indicated that we anticipated a cleanpowersf rate action to address impending pg&e rate changes. pg&e changes its rates frequently. they typically do it at the beginning of the year but increasingly over the last years it's been delayed. we now have more clarity regarding pg&e's 2020 rate changes impacting is cleanpowersf customers. as a reminder here, we have

sought to deliver value to our cleanpowersf rate payers by managing our electricity generation rates that are at or below pg&e's generation rates. after accounting for are the exit fees that pg&e charges customers and cleanpowersf customers. that fee is called the power charge indifference adjustment or p.c.i.a. we're now expecting for 2020, 4% decrease in pg&e's rate. with no cleanpowersf rate adjustments we estimate that our customers will be paying 4 to 6% more for their generation cost than we would with pg&e. to help our customers manage these changes, we have been preparing a rate action which we'll be bringing to our

commission next week on the 25th of february. the action will be consistent with others that we taken around cleanpowersf rate and of course, if approved by the commission, it will go to the board for the customary rate making process. this action will ensure both cost recovery for cleanpowersf but also ensure competitiveness in affordability for our rate payers. this is sort of last area i wanted to discuss. we've been talking about this for quite a few months. just as a reminder has been working on cleanpowersf resource plan. i.r.p. evaluates demand and

supplies over a 20-year time frame. to identify supplies that will deliver reliable low cost energy while meeting the city's policy objectives. cleanpowersf is required under state law to prepare an i.r.p. every two years. the plan must be approved by our commission and submitted to the california p.u.c. for certification. we've had some schedule changes since the last meeting where we shared our timeline with you. i wanted to bring to your attention. first the california p.u.c. extended the due date for the i.r.p. submission requirement from cleanpowersf from may 1st to july 1st. that will give retail additional times to incorporate final guidelines coming from the california public over th -- p..

over the next couple of months. there are guidelines we need to follow in our plan. they provided couple of extra months to account for them and file follofollow the plan. the slide here summarizes key action items over the next several months. the p.u.c. adopted our budget including cleanpowersf first capital plan at its last meeting. that was informed by the local renewable energy planning work that we presented to you the last lafco meeting. that will next be submitted to the mayor's office soon for consideration in the development of her budget proposal that will ultimately go to the board of supervisors for approval around june. we will be delivering a draft of the written renewable energy report to the commission later this month. we did share an initial draft with the lafco executive officer prior to last meeting and have been doing some additional

cleanup based on internal feedback and editing and that's almost complete. the california p.u.c. is expected to issue its final guidelines in late march. we will then make any changes necessary to our plan based on those guidelines and are planning stakeholder engagements starting next month through may. we shared some of the plans at the last meeting. the timeline for that, we added another month there to make it as comprehensive as we can. the i.r.p. will be adopted by the sf p.u.c. in late may, june time frame. we will submit the i.r.p. to the california p.u.c. by the required due date. which is july 1st. that concludes my update. i'm happy to take any questions you might have. >> chair fewer: any questions?

let's open the public comment. are there my members of the public that like to comment on item number three? >> thank you chair fewer and commissioners. i guess in addition to just kind of being the representative here decry the fact that our fees going up another 20%. it will be great to see a slide of the pcia charge maybe since cleanpowersf launched. i know that some years we've had over 100% increase, you add in 20% increase to a few years in the past, that might have been 50 or 100% increases, that's a big 20%. i think it would be great to see -- i know they have these figures and they sometimes report them to the commission -- how much money is getting

shipped out of san francisco into pg&e's coiffures just from this fee. it's enough to make your blood boil. related to that, there's been drama with c.c.a. programs currently. because of the p.c.i.a. charge, we're kind of already paying for diablo canyon open. there's an issue of can pg&e give us some of that energy that we're already paying for so that they can get some of the nuclear off their power content label and give it to c.c.a.s. i know east bay clean energy and others in the region are considering that. i've yet to determine whether sf p.u.c. is interested in that. advocates do not want nuclear energy because of the scam of the pcia, we're already paying

for it. last thing, we're very interested to see the local renewable energy plan and i.r.p. but continue to think that there's a continued need for comprehensive plan. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. public comment is now closed. doesn't require an action today and so madam clerk, please call item 4. >> approval of resolution authorizing the first amendment to the agreement with bryan goebel. >> chair fewer: we have an attorney here. thank you. >> good morning chair and members of the commission. today i'm here to present to you a resolution that would authorize your chair to sign an amendment to bryan goebel's contract with lafco. his original contract was entered in may of 2018 and allows him to get paid $75 an hour with not to exceed amount

of $312,000. there was no expiration date in that original agreement but at this point, we're running out of the not to exceed fun. we're asking you to extend his agreement to september 20, 2020 and increase not to exceed amount $65,000 which would be total of $377,000 for the total two years nine months he's been under contract. that reflects basicallial 40 hour workweek. i'm here if you have any questions. >> chair fewer: iany questions for questions? let's open this up for public comment. any members like to comment on item 4. public comment is now closed. i wanted to refresh the memory of my colleagues that mr. goebel is on contract with us as a consultant. we're extending this contract to september 30th to ensure there's some lead time we're putting in a proposal a budget

proposal that was heard at the budget committee to actually make this position now civil servant position. thatch. i thin-- thank you very much, ie this a -- oh, i said that. public comment. any members like to comment on item 4. public comment is now closed. i like to make a motion to approve this resolution and second commissioner mar. thank you very much. please read item 5. >> approval of the resolution to accept an extended grant from the ford foundation in the amount of $150,000 for lafco survey on demand workers >> chair fewer: mr. goebel? >> thank you, good morning commissioners. this item would authorize the lafco to accept and extend grant

$150,000 from the ford foundation. this will fund the data gathering. the survey itself which is under way and communications plan surrounding the release of the final report in june. we did work hard to secure this grant. i'm grateful for everyone who made it happen. i said this at the last meeting, it was a team effort. i like to thank the ford foundation for airline their help and support. i would recommend your approval. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. any discussion? let's open up to public comment. seeing no public comment. public comment is closed. i want to say, thank you to everyone who worked on this.

this is no small feat. this is going to help our labor study. thank you mr. goebel for your hard work. like to make a motion to approve the resolution. i can have a second with commissioner haney. we can take that without objection. item number 6. >> update on the request for qualifications for renewable energy expert. >> i like to provide a brief update on your r.f.q. for renewable energy expert. we're close to announcing prequalified list in narrowing scope of work if a consultant or consultants. we did receive total of seven responses but got only one response for the service area that will provide general advice to the lafco and renewable energy issues. we. wanted to give all seven firms a second opportunity to apply to that service area since it seem like most of the firms were qualified to do it.

we reopened that process and encouraged all the firms to apply to that service area. the deadline was yesterday and we now have a total of four responses for that service area. the next step would be to issue a prequalified list of firms for each service area. again, those service areas are providing general advice to the lafco on renewable energy issues. developing programs for communities of concern, the disconnections and equity issues that we're working on and studying potential renewable energy projects at affordable and senior housing sites. which we discussed. at that meeting, you did approve the scope of work. i'm in the process of putting together a more comprehensive scope of work for each service area, i have a meeting next week with cleanpowersf to talk about that. i do expect the process will move quicker. we can hopefully get the

consultants in place the next few months. i will be coming back to you with contract proposals. >> chair fewer: any comments or questions? let's open up for public comment. my members like to comment, public comment is closed. list make a motion to -- no action needed. great, please call item 7. >> executive officer's report. partnership with the university of san francisco and also budget update. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. >> commissioners for the second year in row, lafco is partnering with the urban and public affairs program at the university of san francisco. a research methods class is going to conduct research and provide recommendations again on our study of on demand workers. this class will be led by professor killy mcbride. there are 16 students in the class. they will study the labor,

environmental and transportation impacts of on the demand delivery sector. this is going to be very helpful for our survey team as they consider the recommendations to make in their final report. they're looking very closely at a report that was issued by the world economic forum titlely "future the last mile ecosystem." it's part of their research. the class will begin in march and they'll report their finds at our meeting here on may 15th. very excited to be partnering with u.s.f. the second item which is in your packet, is an expenditure update. nothing out of the ordinary to report there. i wanted you to see how the spending is going >> chair fewer: any members of the public like to comment. seeing none. public comment is closed. i don't think we need an action

on this. please call item 8. >> public comment. >> chair fewer: are there any members of the public like to comment? seeing none. public comment is now closed. please call item 9. >> future agenda items. >> chair fewer: let's take public comment. any members like to comment on item number 9? >> thank you. i would just suggest, i was just mentioning it's mr. hyams, i think in addition to just kind of receiving what sf p.u.c. would like to present to you. i think it will be good in the commission and as the program has kind of been out of policymakers, they've been just getting it up to scale for you to submit questions to them for them to kind of answer to help

guide kind of what you're most interested in. couple of things that we're interested in particularly our kind of pcia, shipping money out of town that i mentioned. also you know, we're surrounded by other community choice programs. they don't have access to a general fund if the political will decided that some money was called. i feel like i'm a little unclear how they manage to ramp up their programs much faster than yours

and some cases the rates are cheaper than ours and some cases they have incentive programs. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. public comment is now closed. madam clerk. do we have any more business. >> that conclude the business for today. >> chair fewer: thanks, we're adjourned.

>> we're ready to begin. today is wednesday february 19, 2020. this is regular meeting of the building inspection committee. please turn off our electronic devices. first item on the agenda is roll call. [roll call]

we have a quorum. next item is item 2, president's announcement. >> president mccarthy: good morning everybody. welcome everybody to the b.i.c. meeting of february 2019. congratulations to director who participated in other safety outreach program graduation january 20th. another 48 residents grafted from a five-day training course. this brings our total number of seismic safety ambassador to 4000 since the program began in 2015. we're better prepared to recover quickly. special thanks to all the d.b.i. employees who volunteered for the chinatown fair. they talked with community members about our housing information service, emergency preparedness and distributed 300 first aid kits and 15 of our

emergency backpacks. several chinese new year events in chinatown throughout the city, chief among them was the annual chinese new year parade. many thanks for representing the department. finally, d.b.i. employees committee reviewed and selected this year, senior building inspector, joe duffy as employee for 2019. inspector duffy has been recognized for his outstanding dedication to people of san francisco. mr. duffy is not here as of yet. is he coming? he could not make it today. we're going to probably give it to him this month. we recognize him next month.

mr. duffy thank you and congratulations. it's a great selection. board of appeals mr. duffy represents the d.b.i. commission and the staff and whole d.b.i. as a whole and the research he does and he's really understanding of complex pross s here. we will be here next month. mr. commissioner lee did you want to add anything? that concludes my president's announcement. thank you. >> thank you. is there any public comment on the president's announcement? seeing none, item 3, general public comment. the b.i.c. will take public comment ton matters within the

commission's jurisdiction that are not part of the agenda. seeing none, no public comment. our next item is item 4, election of the b.i.c. president and vice president. we have the nomination last month and we supposed to be doing the vote today. >> president mccarthy: if there's any questions, i open this to the commissioners, if not i call the question. >> i respect the time and the knowledge of the two nominees. i did want to reflect on commissioner walker's comment at our january meeting about the importance of having a balance between the mayoral appointees and board of supervisors president appointees. especially in an era where people are concerned about balance and transparency in

government. i think making sure that there is a balance within the leadership position in our commission it's important. i hope that gets reflected in the many different leadership positions that we have available as a commission. i wanted to have that updated. >> president mccarthy: thank you. >> commissioner lee: i like to echo that. we're here in the spirit of unity for this commission and having a very productive and fruitful year. i think it would be a miss the opportunity to not mention those comments that commissioner walker had stated at our first meeting. in addition to just kind of highlighting the importance of that balance in addition to the importance of balance of the agenda equity that we tray to achieve as a city to ensure that we have leadership that is proportionate. as new commissioners will be learning what we do in-depth as a commission. i think it's important for this

coming year when we look at those officer positions. as long as that's in our thought process, i think it's worth stating. >> president mccarthy: thank you. can we call the question please. >> there was a motion the january meeting to elect president angus mccarthy as president and sam moss as vice president. that was a motion needed to second. >> those were the nominees and motion to elect or appoint. >> i'll make a motion to those two positions. >> i'll second. >> there is a motion and a second. i will have to do a roll call vote on this motion. actually, is there any public

comment on the motion first? seeing none, i will do the roll call vote. [roll call] that motion carries unanimously. congratulations to both of you. >> president mccarthy: thank you for your confidence in your votes. next item. >> next item is 5 item, commissioners questions and matters 5a, inquiry to staff. at this time commissioners may make inquiries to staff regarding various documents, policies, practices and procedures which are of interest to the commission. >> commissioner jacobo: so, as we've all been keeping up with the unfortunate news of what our city is going through currently with some of the fbi indictments, i think it is worth

asking to agendize some kind of report for our viewers and city and county of san francisco to understand what d.b.i. knows off these indictments. i think that it's important to try to be as transparent as we can. we're making a good effort to do that. i also like to see in that what we're trying to try to mitigate some of these potential accusations or bring clarity to. these are thoughts that i had and incidente i wanted to put oe commission. i like to see it agendize for future meeting. >> president mccarthy: i obviously would like to hitchhike off that statement by the commissioner. i also probably like to add maybe the director could give us -- or staff can give us training, what our policy and procedures are and even how that

compares to other cities and how they handle this. i learned that to get best practices is usually from other city. maybe some suggestions on outreach to the city to see what they do as part of that. obviously, i echo the concerns that we read about in the newspapers. as i tell my fellow commissioners, we've been doing this long enough to know that usually it's always best to let things kind of take its course. let everybody do their jobs and when all the necessary information is in and it's factually, we can bring it front and we can have a comprehensive hearing on what the next steps are. i'm very cognizant and weary of rank and file being tarnished and reputations being tarnished by people with no any names in

articles who have opinions. i'm always very defensive of that. i want to just stress to the staff that as a commission, i know i haven't had a chance to talk to individually, we are here to support the staff in this difficult time. when things appear in the article that are not backed up or can't be proved, we understand that this is more hearsay and keep on doing their job and keep your head up high. my humble opinion, you're one of the finest departments in the city. you do lot of hard work and hard decisions that have to be made. it's not an easy job to do. you more than likely to have bad news to give to people than good news. lot of people get offended by that. i wanted to stress that fact. we want to stress to the commission, it's important that everything is done correctly and by the law.

i'm very cognizant not to say too much at this point. any other commissioners want do weigh in, more than welcome. we will close the comment on it. >> commissoner moss: i agree, well said. i want to bring back special budget meeting, if this isn't the right place to do it. we started having discussion about additional staffing and the d.b.i. staff just, there's a monumental amount of work. i'm wondering what is that the form as far as like a review of the staffing? where it is, where it needs to be. we are currently enjoying quite a building boom. i know that we scaled back when the world fell apart in 2008. i want to make sure our staff isn't -- i want to make sure they have the resources they need. i'm wondering if, perhaps, an

audit is the right word. if staffing is adequate and what it needs to be. i don't know we would do anything now but certainly i want to start talking about it now instead of right when the budget is discussed. >> president mccarthy: i second that. you brought up the point about that. i noticed that chief building inspector in the housing, there's three or four positions open right now that needs to be filled. i have a question why those positions are not being filled. we had a very -- there was a lot of clerks needed. housing inspectors are equally needed. is it because there is nobody from human resources that have applied for it, is there a list

not up to date? i want to know why they are not filled. >> i wanted to echo some of the statements that were already made and also to encourage staff full participation with any investigation regarding ongoing investigation. i know we've said we will discuss this, i have lot of questions about the database and issues with the database and are we going to find a new database, keep working with the old database. i know this isn't mentioned before, this is an ongoing and this commission has addressed. i want to echo my interest in having that conversation sooner rather than later.

finally, i'm hoping that we can get updates on what is happening with airline c.o.b.s regarding the cola. the last meeting there was a little bit of wait and see. i'm hoping that can be part of the report that we get kind of play by play so we know if there will be a cola, just kind of keep that on our minds. >> next item is 5b, future meetings and agendas. at this time, the commission may discuss and take action to set the date of special meetings and determine those items that can be placed on the agenda and other future meetings of the building inspection committee. did not write down the date. i believe it's the third wednesday in march. is there any public comment on

items 5a or 5b? seeing none, we'll move on to item 6. discussion and possible action regarding proposed ordinance repealing ordinance numbers 38-17 and 19. by amending the administrative code update the hotel conversion ordinance refining definition, conversion and low income house hold, revising procedures for permits to convert to residential units in addition to other requirements. >> good morning commissioners. i'm joined by our housing inspection services. going off court order of prevent ordinances that amended the hotel ordinance.

the court agreed with the plaintiff and voided the entire ordinance. what this ordinance does, it reinstate portions of those ordinances b3817 and 10219 that were not actually challenged by the plaintiff. it's just sort of reinstating stuff that was not challenged. thank you. maybe it will be helpful if you

can summarize in detail what is in here. besides just asking general questions. >> sure. the general things that are happening is that we are updating fines to make them more in line with the current climate, i guess. enhancing reporting requirements for the hotels for their annual reports. then giving administrative subpoena power. we cleaned up some the language of the ordinance. there were some subsections that were referenced that didn't exist. we took out some things like that.

>> can you help me understand the seven-day rental piece? >> this does not -- the seven-day is not dealt with in in part. that was dealt with in another ordinance. the city stipulating only enforce seven day minimum for residential guest rooms. pending litigation which is now finalized, now there's also the amortization period. right now we're enforcing for residential guest seven-day minimum. >> the original ordinance in

2017 was one of the first updates in many years. it's updated some of the fines and procedures for record-keeping and some of the other requirements in addition to formally changing -- providing the definition for the first time. it allowed rentals seven days or more. that ordinance in 2017 changed to requiring a transient less than 32 days, that was change to less than 30 days would have been tourist transient use. we are repealing both of those. ordinance will change it to 30 days which tacks on the ordinance that changed it up to 32 days. we're going back to the original ordinance which allows seven day rentals or more.

i don't think it moved forward yet, an ordinance that will go back to 30-day change. but it allows much longer period to reach compliance for it to change hotel practices. this ordinance if you want to separate it out, would happen in 2017. where is lot of updates and addition of definition. the definition of the primary subject of the litigation. this ordinance repeat 2017 ordinance, readopt everything that will be litigated out. >> i'm a little confused. the document w -- the document s

seven day. >> 2017 ordinance is what provided a new definition that removed the seven day definition by repealing 2017 ordinance we go back to the way it was written prior to 2017, which is seven days. >> commissioner alexander-tut: t hank you for that. is the question about the rental documentation and the enforcement of comparable units -- comparable rent, is that before us today? >> that is part of the 2017 ordinance that will be readopted.

aletoday is to look into whether you want to adopt 2017 ordinance as it was presented in 2017 but just without the change in tourist transient use. it's all the clean up provisions that we adopted in 2017. there are a few minor clerical edits that were not present in the 2017 ordinance. they are described in the legislative digest. the last paragraph of the amendments to current law. these are solely to update section headings. make sure we reference certain headings, we leave out subsections. so we'll add subsection

references. >> commissioner alexander-tut: h as any of the community organizations stakeholder groups had a chance to look at this? >> i think it went through the process of the board. >> president mccarthy: this goes from here back to committee right? >> this is set for first reading at board of supervisors. it's sent to the rules committee. that's where the rules made the amendments. >> president mccarthy: okay. commissioners to your point, it's going to go to prime time which is the board of supervisors and then it will be introduced after 30 days. if it's voted on -- it has been

vetted. any further questions? thank you. >> is there public comment on this item? >> good morning president mccarthy and commissioners, ron patterson. our firm represents the san francisco s.r.o. hotel coalition and hotel owners. may have known as immigrant families in the city. this ordinance comes from litigation. been going on for a while. getting the 2017 and 2019 proposed ordinances. these ordinances were enacted. we filed suit and we won in court. the judge ordered those ordinances to be repealed. the ordinance before you today, both repeals those two ordinances but it also make new amendments to the s.r.o.

ordinance. that does not comply with the court order. it's also simply wrong. it forces us to object to the ordinance repealing the things that we were fighting against. because we have a problem with some of the other new things that are being stuck into the s.r.o. ordinance. the confusion about what is in this ordinance is well warranted, given the odd procedural mechanism being used here. the ordinance is also unlawful for other reasons. the question about what is in this ordinance is good one. there's very significant things here not mentioned. this is a legislative digest referring to eliminating seasonal tourist rentals in vacant and residential units which has been longstanding.

there's a 25% seasonal search and rental. important part of the business model. under this proposed ordinance, if there's any violation of the h.c.o., those hotels lose that right to seasonal rentals. they lose the right to apply to conversion. this is a definition of substantial property rights without due process. even if there were an in-house hearing on the loss of this. property, such as the director's hearing or other procedure or d.b.i. reviews its own decision, that does not constitute due process. including under the city of oakland, fairly recent case. i note the planning commission should be reviewing this and i don't believe that has been scheduled because it affects planning's processing of conversion applications. i would humbly suggest the right way to go about this is to

separate out the repeal of the 2017 and 2019 ordinances as ordered by the court. accomplish that and then start over and look at any new changes that the city might want to make to the h.c.o. until then, it's premature. it conflicts with the court's or and it's illegal. i will briefly note that we had filed an appeal of the ceqa determination. that was rescinded by the planning department. >> president mccarthy: thank you mr. patterson. >> any additional public comment? seeing none, is there a motion on this item?

>> i reached out to some of the community organizations that are close to the community groups that organize with the s.r.o. tenants. they did not know about this. i feel like i need little more time. would it be appropriate or fair to table this to the next meeting? >> certainly something you can suggest. i would note that the amendments were all adopted in 2017. nothing has changed substancively from what was proposed by those organizations when we adopted it in 2017. >> mr. patterson, the question is, is this ready to go back out again? it could be back here again next year if this doesn't succeed in the court.

i'm on the fence myself. have we given this enough terminology mr. patterson, unusual way of doing this legislation. the planning commission should weigh in on this. >> there are no changes to the planning code. the planning commission would not rehear this. the original amendments were made in 2017. again, those have not changed. it's a substantial community presentation to do the 2017 changes, which was passed in 2017. the provision here is that the repeal, because there's several clause if this were to go forward and enacted by the board of supervisors, the repeal would take place immediately. if it were challenged in court

for the legal reasons, presented by mr. patterson, the repeal means our code reverts prior to 2017 without these housekeeping changes. that's if we go forward. if we were to continue, the city would continue not to enforce any of those provisions. it would delay the city's ability to repeal the ordinance as directed by the court. the basis for this ordinance was to repeal the ordinances in the entirety and readopt the provisions that were not subject litigation prior. >> president mccarthy: thank you for that robb. that helps. if we choose not to vote on this today, is this going forward? whether you get a vote or approval -- >> if you choose not to recommend or choose to recommend

or just move and push it forward, it would go to the board. if you choose to continue it, it would have to stay with b.i.c. before it moved forward to the board of supervisors. it would delay our ability to reply to the court's order. >> president mccarthy: i'm just trying to measure here. what level would you like -- i will be respectful, to see that this is correct. what you like? our options will be one and is to make a motion to have this back to the b.i.c. next month. which would give an opportunity for whatever commissioners are if you request more information to be brought back to that meeting. or if you request more people to come talk to this.

for example stakeholders and on. we vote not to approve. >> if you move without recommendation it goes forward. if you move with amendments it would go forward. if you move to continue it, it would stay here or you can move to approve. >> president mccarthy: just that last point about the court. we got a clock on this or is there a time frame? >> we are not enforcing the 2017 ordinance for stipulation and through action and compliance with the court and the decision prior to the court's decision. we elected not to enforce those provisions. we do need to report back to the court on our repeal of the code. >> president mccarthy: the question is, if we wanted to delay a month, what would it really mean? would it derail something? >> it would delay our ability to

repeal ordinance as directed by the court. >> is there any penalties attached to that? >> no, i will be hard pressed to know the answer to that. i think we're getting into, especially from the questions raised here, legal advice that we would to give in a closed session. >> commissioner lee: you mentioned this was heard at the rules committee? is that what you said? >> yes. the item was heard at the rules committee, i believe in second or third week of january. >> commissioner lee: how was the participation level from that public? did anybody come up and say anything about this? >> i believe mr. patterson on

behalf of the s.r.o. coalition attended. there was public comment. i'm not sure. again, just to repeat the brief history of this, these are rather big updates, housekeeping procedural updates that were made in 2017. the action by the court in essentially, what courts decision was, ceqa was not performed properly because of the change to tourist transient rental. that ordinance itself and everything inside including these housekeeping provisions, must be repealed. our action is to repeal the entire ordinance and readopt the provisions that were not subject to the litigation prior. they are not in direct

non-compliance with issues. >> president mccarthy: any further questions? >> is it possible we can go to full session real quick? >> president mccarthy: we have to schedule that. >> i feel that there's a lot of questions and we're going back and forth. i would say it's worth continuing until next month to get some additional questions from the sponsor or from community groups to have a chance to be able to get that through and articulate any concerns they may have. >> second. >> there's a motion to continue this item to our march meeting.

was it second? i'll do a roll call vote on that motion. [roll call] that motion carries unanimously. next item is item 7, discussion and possible action regarding proposed ordinance amending the planning code to existing dwelling units constructed without required permits and extending the waiver through december 21, 2024 in addition to other requirements. >> good morning commissioners. john murray again.

this ordinance just extends a sun set fee waiver for the unit legalization. there's a lot of illegal units throughout the city. this fee waiver was put in place to encourage folks to come forward and use our existing legalization path to go ahead and get those units up to code and sort of on the books. it had a five-year sun set date. that came up on january 1st. we are just extending it out another five years. there's going to be some reporting requirements added as well. similar to what happened with the a.d.u. program. we'll do total amount of money waived through this and number of projects, number of units

legalized, sort of breakdown of single family versus multifamily homes. trying to figure out who's taking advantage of this program and fee waivers. somebody owns multiple properties, how long they lived or how long they owned the property and whether or not the applicant as applied for a building permit at a another residential property in the last 10 years. to get a sense who's using the program and how effective it is, all that kind of good stuff. the department is supportive of. the total d.b.i. fees waived on the order of $660,000. we have seen, since the program, unit legalization program started, we've seen about 300 units legalized.

something 1000 folks coming in to do a screening form and apply for permits. about 500 permits issued. pretty successful. there's nowhere near the order of how many illegal units we suspect are out there. i'll be happy to answer any questions. >> commissoner moss: i'm curious with the department's outreach efforts around the program. just in terms of like you said, you think there's thousands more that have come forward. i'm sure most people who have a unit are afraid of the permitting process. it's certainly a real fear, even for me. that's my job, i'm afraid of it. i guess i'm wondering what if anything the department is doing to encourage people to come

forward and perhaps assuage fears. i assume you help them through the process, right? >> yes. part of the broader unit legalization program, there's screening process that's baked in. what that allows folks to do is come in and talk to our technical services division and see what it will take to legalize the units. lot of the units can be very expensive to get up to current building code. biggest issue we see is ceiling heights. people have them in the garage. what this allows for people to come in and say, this is my situation. what is going to take? it's sort of no questions asked. they can walk away. once they got to point they're filling out a screening form, they are locked in. they have to legalize or get a

c.u. to remove the unit. we have been doing outreach since the program began through sort of usual things next door, twitter. tom has done lot of these workshops. >> for outreach, we attend even myself, we attend those outreach programs. then we do advertisements to the radio and tv and advertise in the newspaper. also, i encourage them to come in. they fill out the screening form without their open.

we tray to encourage them. some people don't want to pay tax. also, i encourage them, once they come in, in the old days you can remove the unit, now you cannot remove the unit. you need to fix it. if you need to remove the unit, you need to go through the permit hearing. that's what we try to encourage them. we are trying to tell them come in. this legalization, besides the building department need the

fee. a.d.u. is only waived in the inspection. any other questions? >> commissioner lee: you're saying this is only building department waiving the fee? >> that leads me to my question about the amount of the fee that is waived. could tell us on average how much per project will they be saving? >> we're pulling those numbers together. it's about $5000 back in the envelope. that's planning and d.b.i. it's specific fees. it's not a blanket. >> maybe you can use that amount as part of your outreach effort to let people know they can save $5000 if they do this.

>> good morning commissioners. daisy quan, legislative aid. i'm happy to wait for public comment. that's fine too. thanks for considering the fee waiver suspension for the unit legalization program. this came out of couple of constituents who were planning to do the legalization at the end of the year and realizing that weren't eligible for the fee. we thought it was good policy to continue the fee waivers for the next five years. as we addressed the affordability crises, not only look at the number of units you about also the condition and the quality and the affordment of these units and that applies to our preservation work and ensuring that the units we have are safe and desirable. what you all do as a commission.

our constituents include single family homeowners with u.d.u.s. some homeowners keep each unit vacant due to the risk. this is undesirable position for everybody involved. we heard from both constituentties this desire to come out of the shadows. we know all options need to be on the table. we are working to build more housing including 100% affordable housing, educator housing. supervisor mar is working on incentive program for new a.d.u. construction. at the least, these fee waivers for the legalization program ought to continue. it's just one additional preservation tool for us to product our relatively affordable housing stock. we did talk about with d.b.i. staff some tinkering on the reporting requirements to make it easier for the department and we're happy to look at any sort of amendments to make that

reporting easier. >> any public comment on this item? is there a motion? >> i move to approve. >> second. >> motion and second. commissioner tam. there's a motion and second to approve this item. i will do a roll call vote. [roll call] motion carries unanimously. next item is item 8. director's report, 8a, update on d.b.i.'s finances.

>> good morning commissioner i'm deputy director for department of building inspection. before you is the january 2020 monthly finance report. it includes revenue and expenditures from july 2019 through january 2020. i'll just do couple of highlights. on the revenue side, revenues remain strong. we've actually collected $46.3 million this year compare to about $45.9 million last year. just 1% increase. that's due to two revenues that we talk about lot, plan review and building permits. we're both projecting to actually collect more than

budgeted on the expenditure side. this year, we're at $38.5 million or 9% more than last budget year and that's just a reflection how much our budget grew over one year because of salaries but also because of services out of the department and lot of expenses in our work orders particularly for our 49 south van ness project. overall, permit activity remains the same about 22,000 permits. we are seeing valuation is lower. 24% decrease from last time this year. because building permits and plan review revenue fees are based on valle valuation. january we assumed we'll be lower because last month, we had talked about how we really had a

lot in december because of the code change. we collected $4 million in one month. maybe january may have ticked off little bit. overall, we're still doing well. our revenue still remains pretty strong. i'm happy to answer any questions. >> president mccarthy: thank you deputy director. >> next item is 8b, update on proposed or recently enacted state or local legislation. >> hello again. john murray. legislative affairs. >> president mccarthy: this is the john murray hearing. [laughter] >> so. you heard the previous two items on hotel conversion and legalization. last week you heard about successful business interest compliance deadline ordinance. other two outstanding items right now, the ordinance proposing buildings required to meet energy standards if with

natural gas. mayor signed a legislation last month and it took effect this week. that's probably last you'll be hearing of that for now. then the plumbing code cross-connection control, this has to do with backflow preventers for like soda machines. the ordinance was approved by the board of supervisors and awaiting the mayor signature. as soon as that happens, that will go into effect. that's it for me. >> president mccarthy: thank you. >> next touch is 8b, update on code enforcement. >> good morning. i'm director of the apartment building information. compare to last month, the major projects slightly increased by .224%. any other questions? >> sorry about that, that was 8c. director just gave updates on major projects. now we're on 8d, update on code

enforcement. >> good morning commissioners. january 2020 numbers, building inspections performed 5411, complaints received, 491. complaints with first notice of violation sent 69, complaints received, 298 abated complaint with notice of violation, 62. house and inspection performed 839. complaints received, 323, complaint response 24 to 72 hours. complaints notice of violation issued 140, abated complaints 265. number of cases sent to director's hearing was 53. routine inspection 95.

code enforcement number of case sent directly to hearing is 62. number of cases under advisement 30, number of cases abated, 164. code enforcement inspections performed 279. any questions? >> president mccarthy: to my new commissioners, do you understand all that? it was one thing back in the days where we had huge backlogs this were sitting there. the deputy director was very involved back then. it's very important that this report keeps us up to speed on that volume.

thank you. that's why we get this report even though it's pretty much on target every month. our way of keeping check and balances. >> any public comment on the director's report items 8a through d? seeing none, item 9, review and approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of january 15, 2020. >> president mccarthy: anybody have any comments? >> i move to accept the minutes. >> second. >> there's a motion and second to approve the minutes. any public comment on the minutes? seeing none, all commissioners in favor? >> aye. >> any opposed? minutes are approved. next item is 10, adjournment. motion to adjourn? >> i move.

>> second. we are now adjourned. everybody in favor. adjourned 10:58 a.m. >> a way of life in san francisco. when the next major quake hits, the city hopes a new law requiring seismic upgrades to five story buildings will help keep more residents safe and sound. tell me a little about the soft

story program. what is it? >> it's a program the mayor 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,y,y,y,y,y,y,y,y,y,y,y,y,y,

>> good evening, everybody. the chair has called the meeting to order. please silence all electronic devices, and please rise for the pledge of allegiance. >> i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> vice president would like to take roll call. president hirsch is excusessed. excusessed -- excuseed. [roll call] you have a quorum. also president are chief scott of the san francisco police depart