implementation costs that we face. -- ourxd jurisdiction is startig to grasp. the goals are enormous. we have to cut our greenhouse gas emissions by 800,000 tons a year. one of the slides that we offered on page 6 of the handout indicates the amount of greenhouse gas production we will gain essentially for no additional pain. we get 2/3 of the way toward our goal by flipping the switch. on slide number8, you can look up the cost. every single jurisdiction should be able to flip a switch. that means that my colleagues

will have to confront a $100 million cost to the government of marin that is in fact a taxpayer's liability. the clean energy drops the cost by 2/3. you can calculate what that cost would be to your government. there are many applications and there will be some politics. >> we are very excited for what is occurring. i can safely say on behalf of the members here, we are rooting for marin.

we know that your success is somewhat intertwined with our success. we have a great deal of hope and a great deal of encouragement to see where marin is going. we continue to nurture this relationship over the next few months. we are in leader in this new developing field. we want to demonstrate were california should be going. >> i cannot tell you how happy marin is. good luck with your program. >> thank you. we would like to open this up to

public comment. >> good afternoon. we have been watching over the bridges from the east bay and from san francisco. we want to put forward the respect for the way that the energy authority has shown amazing tenacity, persistence, and alacrity with facing and avalanche with the attacks from

the enemy which we all know is peachy and e -- which is pg&e. for our own selfish reasons, we need to see this working somewhere else and also because we are excited to see what is happening. our thanks go out to the tenacity that we all have shown. to the extent that we are working with hard renewals, as we work as hard as we can to get the best sort of project like this in san francisco, we will reach out to marin to help make that happen in your locality. hopefully we will work on the east bay and marin and san francisco.

>> is it any other public comment. >> public comment disclosed. -- is closed. >> item number7, summary of recent philae's at california public utilities commission competition to modify. >> this is an appropriate follow up from the conversation that we just had about the intense -- the intent of san francisco to become an energy at decatur and implementing the renewal program. we are thankful for any assistance by the city attorney to pave the way.

>> thank you, mr. terra. -- mr. terrochair. the california puc is charged with implementing the choice aggregation in california. the petition that we filed calls on the puc to modify their roles. i want to give you some background about wind it is critical 40 commission to make the changes. -- about why it is critical for

the commission to make the changes. one of the key positions in the legislation states that the utilities are required to "cooperate fully" with the programs. in 2005, when the california puc was making the rules, pg&e continues to be a supporter of community choice aggregation. pg&e proposed that utilities should not be allowed to market against committee's choice aggregation programs. they should not be allowed to discourage customers from becoming customers of the program. add that time, a judge here recommended utilities are barred from marketing. the final decision did not adopt

that particular provision without providing a full explanation. based on the cooperative attitude of the facilities, they did not see any need to be concerned about the cooperation. things have changed considerably. pg&e has reversed the position. you know about the various efforts. there are some references today. pg&e is funded by an organization called common sense marin. there is a website that went on line in september. it went out to businesses which were attacking the program.

the mailer was targeted to san francisco businesses. there is a cap headline that said that businesses be where;h bebeware. -- beware. 'v[

-- had to make explicit that utilities are barred from making misleading p >> , there is not an effective

track record on behalf of municipalities that are bullied by the private utility companies. what if they cannot respond favorably or dragged their heels in this particular case? >> that would be a business decision that he did have to make -- that we would have to make. >> and a legal decision? >> we have to consider whatever options are available. >> based on part of the lonaw, that is a pretty stark description of what one can and cannot do. how would one not interpreted in our favor based on what history we have experienced on

interference so far? >> we think there's very strong legislation language that says that they shall cooperate and cooperate fully with the programs. we have good language in the statued to support our position. >> thank you very much. colleagues, any questions? public comment on this item, please. >> i am an activist not only for community choice but also the in pending ballot measure. a lot of people have asked me, maybe if one of you could indulge us and asked the city attorney -- if we kid a

favorable ruling, to what extent does that enable us in the ballot measure fight to stay in whatever is advertised, comments about a community choice and aggregation are off limits. many people are curious about what that would be. >> any other public comment? public comment is closed. i could paraphrase potentially but it depends how eager the city's office would like to weigh in. i think that there are tactical decisions. >> thank you.

i don't know that some of the things that should be said about this are things that should be said in open session given the nature of some of the issues involved. i think that for strategic and other reasons not to engage in that kind of discussion in open session. i want to thank the city attorney's office for being proactive. the strategy is the correct strategy and i think it sends a pretty good message to peachy andy that you cannot have your cake and eat it too. you cannot say something to the public utilities commission and then do the complete opposite. i think that this kind of discussion is more prepared in closed session.

course we will continue this item. -- >> we will continue this item. >> item number8, public comment. would anyone else like to speak? public comment is closed. item number9. >> election of chairperson and vice chair person for a one-year term. this is pertaining to lafco's agenda. >> i have not had the opportunity to talk to people about this. in my opinion, given the amount of progress that has been made,

it makes sense for us to have some continuity in the leadership in the structure of a lafco. i did make a motion to renominate the chair to continue in that capacity if you would except that. >> thank you. >> seconded. >> yes, i will accept an accord to helping to continue to shepherd us and the net -- shepherd us into the next phase. of like to have a new chair in the not so distant future. >> vice chair.

i will renominate in absentia commissioner dufty who is the current vice chair. >> no. >> i was misinformed. i renominate commissioner campos. so approved. public comment, please. none, public comment is close td. >> item number 10, extension of contract for the council. >> we had a contract with miss

miller and her long firm to represent the legal counsel and the executive officer. she cannot be here today. she went to the doctorx"b and e found out that she had h1n1. she decided to stay home. i wanted to say from a staff perspective that she has done a very good job since i have been here. i recommend that we continue her contract. there's one thing i want to point out, we are asking for more money for her in the upcoming year. we might need her assistance from a the co-counsel side -- from a legal counsel side. we might need extra attention turned to the money that will be spent will not be coming from the general fund. this is money that is good to us

from the puc. this is where the legal counsel will be needed. that is what the staff recommendation is. >> thank you. i did have a quick question about this. i am ok with approving something that provides us any additional resources. i think that the increase is something that would be needed and this is separate from the function that she had been performing in the past. the question that we have to ask publicly and for the record is that to the extent that we have hired two lafco staff.

we should explain why we have done this. we should extend the contract and also increase the contract with an outside individual. i think to the extent that there is general fund money involved, we should be clear about why we need to do that. if you could maybe speak to that. the general understanding is that when you hire internally, you are going to use outside assistance class. if you could talk to that, that would be helpful. -- you are going to use on-site assistance bless -- less. >> i recently sat down with the clerk's office and we were reviewing how this work. there is a clear process. the city has been taking this

out of the general fund. we are reviewing the contracts. these invoices separate them out. there is assistance on reviewing the process. the general fund money will be reimbursed. that part, we are working on it. once again, it comes down to dealing with a large workload from a legal perspective going through the contract negotiations. getting it through the entire process. it will be a lot of work. >> let me put the question differently. i understand there is additional work that needs to be done andño

the extent that we're renewing the same amount of the contract from things that are separate and dependent from that additional work, what is the savings we're getting from hiring the two staff relative to that? for the record i want to make sure we're clear about that because we have here the chair of the budget committee and the vice chair. we're going to be cutting a lot of programs and services because of the deficit we're facing. i want to make sure we're very clear about what we're doing and why. >> correct. the full budget discussion we'll be having at our next meeting. we'll get into this a lot more in detail but to get into some of it right now. the amount of money that she and lafco will be using we're keeping a very close eye on because of that general fund issue. and the increase that she'll be

getting is not coming from the general fund. >> i understand that but is the level she's getting for everyone else remaining the same? >> no, she'll be spending less time in big us. she bills us by the hours that she does. so she'll be big us less hours in the general fund category so there will be less hours billed to that. the increase is for the other stuff we're doing. while it's not presented here because we don't know what the amount of hours are. we'll be doing a full presentation at our next meeting and we can go into the details there. supervisor campos: i guess what i would say is i was expecting a reduction in the amount of the contract for everything else that she was doing that is not related to new legal work given that we have staff doing some of that. that's the question i have. >> i believe she will be reducing the number of hours she bills us for for the stuff that we're now able to do.

supervisor campos: maybe it's in the pact. i feel like i have enough information on that. is this something we need to act on today? >> her contract expires in february. assuming we meet during the month of february we're ok but if that meeting slips until march we lose her legal services and i'd hate to do that. >> my preference would be to wait until we have more information and maybe we can engage in more in-depth discussion. supervisor mirkarimi: we have no choice but not to meet in february so that's completely satisfactory. i recommend that we do hold this off. i'm sure ms. miller will be here but more detail would be appreciated. >> if i may, mr. chair, not to take anything away from the good work that ms. miller does. i think it's important for us

since we have general fund money involved to be clear about this. supervisor mirkarimi: i think it's absolutely consistent with the larger discussions of our budget limitations. would you like to make a motion? >> a motion to continue to the next meeting. supervisor mirkarimi: very good. any public comment on this item? ok. public comment is closed. motion seconded and approved. this will be continued at the next meeting. next item, please? >> item 11. adjournment. supervisor mirkarimi: excellent. thank you. everybody. thank you very much. we look forward to seeing you in february. the meeting will be announced shortly. have a good weekend.

i'm the president of friends of mclaren park. it is one of the oldest neighborhood community park groups in san francisco. i give a lot of tours through the park. during those tours, a lot of the folks in the group will think of the park as very scary. it has a lot of hills, there's a lot of dense groves. once you get towards the center of the park you really lose your orientation. you are very much in a remote area. there are a lot of trees that shield your view from the urban setting. you would simply see different

groves that gives you a sense of freedom, of being outdoors, not being burdened by the worries of city life. john mclaren had said that golden gate park was too far away. he proposed that we have a park in the south end of the city. the campaign slogan was, people need this open space. one of the things that had to open is there were a lot of people who did a homestead here, about 25 different families. their property had to be bought up. so it took from 1928 to 1957 to buy up all the parcels of land that ended up in this 317 acres. the park, as a general rule, is heavily used in the mornings and the evenings. one of the favorite places is up by the upper reservoir because dogs get to go swim. it's extremely popular. many fights in the city, as you

know, about dogs in parks. we have 317 acres and god knows there's plenty of room for both of us. man and his best friend. early in the morning people before they go to work will walk their dogs or go on a jog themselves with their dogs. joggers love the park, there's 7 miles of hiking trails and there's off trail paths that hikers can take. all the recreational areas are heavily used on weekends. we have the group picnic area which should accommodate 200 people, tennis courts are full. it also has 3 playground areas. the ampitheater was built in 1972. it was the home of the first blues festival. given the fact that jerry garcia used to play in this park, he was from this neighborhood, everybody knows his reputation. we thought what a great thing

it would be to have an ampitheater named after jerry garcia. that is a name that has panache. it brings people from all over the bay area to the ampitheater. the calls that come in, we'd like to do a concert at the jerry garcia ampitheater and we do everything we can to accommodate them and help them because it gets people into the park. people like a lot of color and that's what they call a park. other people don't. you have to try to reconcile all those different points of view. what should a park look like and what should it have? should it be manicured, should it be nice little cobblestones around all of the paths and like that. the biggest objective of course is getting people into the park to appreciate open space. whatever that's going to take to make them happy, to get them there, that's the main goal.