working in the meeting with our office. i want to give a big thanks to study. -- sonny. this is an issue the crosses many of the departments and it makes it more challenging for us to effectively address this issue. we have to meet as a collective continually so we know what the rules are and how we can address this together. again, i think it has shown that this is not a flood policy issue, it is something that is very important, it impacts of budget and human lives. i wanted to summarize a couple of key things i am hoping we can follow up. to-way street, doing traffic and crosswalks, traffic on

freeways, near betsy carmichael and marshall elementary school. and also a round of senior housing. we need to do police enforcement based on data. those are some of the key points that i think we can move on immediately. this is obviously a citywide issue. and also many of the residents are not necessarily district 6 residents. i think there is a lot coming out in the future, we can increase partnerships that are happening whether it is suggested through some of the public comment, america oppose a cut, also partnering with three development and other departments. last, better data collection.

what ever departments can share with us of the board of supervisors, we can held. taking down those barriers, recommendations about what we can do about that, this is one of my priorities. i want to the community to hold me accountable on this issue. >> i thought it was a very worthwhile and substantive hearing. i agree that this is very much a citywide issue. i look forward in whatever capacity to hold you accountable. [laughter] and all of us, too. i don't think there is any further business of this particular item. can we get a motion to file this? this hearing is now filed.

is there any further business? i want to say thank-you to the director that has been a steadfast fly on the wall the whole time. the rest of the city family has been here for the long haul. this meeting is now adjourned. >> welcome to "culture wire." on this episode, we explore what it means to the aged, in today's

society -- what it means to be chicana in today's society. chica chic features an array of artwork by five leading chicana artists that addresses a range of issues such as integration, sustainability, and integration. using a distinct visual approach, each of the artist's response to the shifting needs of their communities in ways that offer unique perspectives and multiple points of entry. >> the exhibition is to bring together the voices of a new generation chicana artists, all of whom reference the works of the civil-rights movement in their works, but they are also responding to a new cultural concerns and new cultural

circumstances. >> the works in the show include a large canvas depicting a woman washing the beach with her hair at the u.s./mexican border. the painting encourages the viewer to engage with the current debates over immigration and the politics of women and labor. influenced by the campaigns of the chicano civil rights movement, this oakland artist is a print maker whose work has helped and sustainability with the immigrant community as well as other current sociopolitical issues. this print-based work draws on appropriated agricultural worker manuals and high fashion labels to satirically address class issues, cultural identities, and consumerism. >> angelica -- her father was an agricultural worker, so she has drawn a lot from the materials the agricultural department

sends to agricultural workers, referencing the depiction of farm workers and some of the information about pesticide application. >> mitzi combines a variety of media, including embroidery, to create artifacts of mexican, chicano, pop culture. she greets immensely detailed drawings of celebrities on the same platform of her friends and families. her work combines elements of chicano portraiture and low writer art, rendered in upon new art style, or intricate drawings on handkerchiefs, also -- often associated with prison art. her portrait of three girls is among several of original posters by the exhibition artists, which are on view at various bart stations as part of a public campaign funded by the national endowment of the arts. from the outset, the curator felt it was important for the

exhibition to have a public art components of the work could reach the widest possible audience. more than just a promotion, the posters connect the work of these powerful artists with new audiences, including the vital chicano and latino community. images can be found in bart stations located in san for cisco and oakland. >> it is enormously exciting for me personally and for the institution. the poster with up right after new year's, and i remember very vividly -- i am a regular rider, and i went into the station and saw the first poster i had seen, it was incredibly exciting. it is satisfying to know that through the campaign, we are reaching a broader audience. >> for more information about

>> i work with the department of environment and we are recycling oil. thank you. we can go into a refinery and we can use it again. they do oil changes and sell it anyway, so now they know when a ticket to a. hal>> to you have something you want to get rid of? >> why throw it away when you can reuse it? >> it can be filtered out and used for other products.

>> [speaking spanish] >> it is going to be a good thing for us to take used motor oil from customers. we have a 75-gallon tank that we used and we have someone take it from here to recycle. >> so far, we have 35 people. we have collected 78 gallons, if not more. these are other locations that you can go. it is absolutely free. you just need to have the location open. you are set to go. you are set to go. [horns honking]

announcer: the first step to getting into college is finding someone who can help. for the next steps, go to knowhow2.org. chairperson campos: good afternoon, and welcome to be lafco meeting. my name is david campus. we're joined by committee vice chair ross mirkarimi, as well as commissioner lia pimentel. i want to thank members of the audience for being here today. covering the meeting for sfgtv are caroline and derrick.

>> please make sure to turn off all cellular phones and pagers. chairperson campos: thank you very much. madam clerk, could you please call item no. 2? >> approval of the minutes for the meeting february 28, 2011, special lafco meeting. chairperson campos: colleagues, i believe you have a copy of the meeting minutes. any comments or changes to those minutes? and we open it up to public comment. is there any member of the public to like to speak on this item? seeing none, public, disclosed. emotion? -- a motion. we take that without objection. madam clerk, item three? >> report on the status of community choice aggregation activities, san francisco program, state legislation

consideration of their resolution of support for sb 790, report on legislation affecting committee choice aggregation programs, status on marin clean energy, and status of proceedings at california public utilities commission. >> this will be sort of a tag team for item three. i will be presenting a few of these items. i intend to cover an update on where we are in the negotiations on clean power sf, a status update with petrol solar, and update on what is going on in iran, as well as regulatory and legislative update. and we may have more to add to that.

first off, we continue our discussions with noble americas, and shell is marin's supplier, delivering a greater portfolio mix than we otherwise get from pg&e. we will be utilizing the contract from work that we have as the starting point with shell, working through issues coming up in the discussions there. we've had numerous all-day sessions, constant contact with shell, and continue to make progress there. we're very glad having the assistance of both the city attorney and our lafco colleagues. as i mentioned, we are also thinking about working with a noble americas, as the provider of back-office support, and

noble americas has been providing this service for marin in concert with shell. on a parallel track, we're working on an rfp for the development of a generation resources, looking at existing city policy as the guide for that. with a clear preference for in city renewables and combined heat and power projects. we want these resources to tie their online dates and outputs and profile to what the portfolio will ultimately negotiate with shell, to make sure those are all lined. a quick update with a pole mounted solar. considerations, over the last --

commissioner lapimentel: excuse me, could we call item 5? >> item 5, report on the pilot pulled mounted solar program. >> thank you, i got ahead of myself. butthe pole-mounted solar, the renewable team has been working with and evaluating the proposal, continuing to have a good dialogue with the solar team. based on the proposals, i should note their solution appears to be significantly higher in price than other solar project bids that are renewables team has received in the recent past. we have shared the results of our analysis, and my understanding is the team intends to provide revised proposals and additional information for the sfpuc to evaluate, but we are continuing have productive dialogue with them and moving forward.

as for what is going on in marin, the biggest news is primarily their progress on their rfp for their local build out and development of new renewables continues to move forward. they issued an rfp in december, got responses in february. there were 14 firms that responded, with a total of 25 projects tied with those responses, totaling 620 megawatts of new generation of all of those were built. their rfp focused on the wind and solar, and the location most likely to get those was the central valley because of the good insulation characteristics there. their criteria for evaluating the bids in some ways with similar to those highlighted in city policy here, so it was interesting to talk about the characteristics of the

counterparty, how much experience they have in the field, their credit rating, those types of things, localized pricing, per kilowatt hour output from the proposal, the product's viability, how likely it would be to be built and generating energy, the project location. they're giving the highest party points to those proposals located in marin. they also are a family wedding proposals in the portfolio. -- there also is evaluating proposals in the portfolio. marin short list three of the proposals, and the firms are san diego-based, not new york city based, and san jose based sun power corp, and marin's expectation and hope is to get

40 megawatts under contract in the may, june timeframe. marin continues to be a great ally in our legislative and regulatory activities, which i amusing as a not too subtle segway to talking about regulatory -- which i am using as a not too subtle segue into the next topic. we have additional topics. the three are giving an update on the status of the bond case before the sfpuc, status of the bond case, and a little bit of news on the legislative front. regarding what i am calling the bond case, this is in relation to ab 117, which requires cca to post a bond to cover expected reentry fees should they cease functioning and return their customers to the incumbent

utility. in december, if you recall, they were set to reproof -- there were set to approve a bond mechanism that could have had negative consequences for the cca in general. the city along with our allies manage to get that adverse decision reconsidered, and they are reconsidering that case. they have reopened that case for additional information. it is not clear of the timing of the decision or what the rules ultimately will be for evaluating that bonn did not, but we expect it around midsummer. since they were willing to pull the decision back in december, we feel it is realistic to assume the outcome should be better than we first saw. under the exit fee case, along with our allies, we have been

working hard to address the method for calculating exit fees. sometimes the exit fees are referred to by their acronym in terms of how it shows up on customer billed charges as the pcia power charge. the current method, we have been arguing, and appropriately undervalues or does not recognize the value of the renewable attributes, including the exit fees customers are paying for the coverage to capture the above-market costs. the renewables tends to be above market cost. we would not be getting any credit for the renewable energy associated with that. at the cpuc, even the utilities have been backed into agreeing that the existing method is for all that and result in the calculation is biased towards a higher amount, which is a higher charge for a cca customer.

so that is a positive direction there. the case is now focused on determining what is the appropriate value for what to renewables should be. the lower the value, the lower the charge, and hearings in that case are scheduled to begin on monday, and we will have sfpuc experts and others testifying on monday. last, exciting news on the legislative front. i know that the lafco team has additional information, but sb 790 is a bill to help the cca programs through the state. the co-sponsors of that bill or the marin energy authority, sfpuc, and also the sierra club. it is a strong force there, designed to address the

shortcomings of the original legislation and tie up some of the loopholes that have allowed pge need to take actions on the board. some of you may know that sfpuc being a large municipal utility and waste water and electricity areas has a strong presence in sacramento. we have our lobbyists are fully engaged. with that, i can answer questions. i think the lafco team has more to that. chairperson campos: why don't we hear from ms. miller. >> i want to underscore what mike said about the negotiations with shell. they have significant resources working with us trying to put together our term sheet and program. that has been moving along i think really well in terms of their commitment to the program.

the bond and the pcia exit fee issues are very important because those are cost incumbent on our program and it makes our program cheaper if we have those eliminated, and that is always good. finally, along with sb 790, i just want jason to give a little presentation because we have a resolution of support. in addition, we're working with other groups, utilities, to have them help pass the resolution. >> before you you have a resolution and support of 790 so we can at san francisco lafco to the group that is supporting sb 790. it also instructs lafco to inform the board of supervisors we have passed this bill.

it would also be a bill of support. there is one of the bill that we are also monitoring closely. it is a bill that was sponsored by ibew 1245, which is the local that represents pg&e workers, and that bill looks to be a spot bill, introduced, does not get the true language of what they want to do, but deals directly with cca. we will be monitoring that closely. that bill has a hearing next month, and we will have to react quickly to that bill. we are prepared to do so once the amendment is made. chairperson campos: if i may, in terms of our involvement, may be on the resolution, what else can we do in terms of our advocacy? >> we have been active at the coalition that has been working on this.

miss miller and myself have been reaching out to some of the same people on the government side that we reached out to when prop. 16 was coming about, to make sure they are aware that 790 is out there. we're working in course with the broader goal to give the bill as much support as we can. chairperson campos: ms. miller? >> i was going to add that we're going to send them a model resolution. this helps move things along, and model resolution and a staff report to present to their government entities. chairperson campos: commissioner mirkarimi? vice-chairperson mirkarimi: has the california puc ever taken legislative considerations like this themselves? >> yes, the cpuc is allowed to take positions on legislation before them, just like your body here. you are not allowed to take

positions on legislation before voters. vice-chairperson mirkarimi: and have they or will they weigh in on this? >> i don't know the answer to that question. vice-chairperson mirkarimi: i would suggest they do, because this was instigated by the assembly bill. with their endorsement, which they should endorse -- if not, they should be removed -- then i would ask that that happened. i would like to tie up all loose ends, because ultimately, cpuc needs to be enforcing the very reforms we are talking about, and i want to make sure they are actually on board. >> that is a good point, and we will check with them. there are two new commissioners. i know that sfpuc has been in contact with them. it will come up on their agenda at some point. we will probably be in touch

with some of you about insisting -- assisting with that in denver for support. also, it occurred to me that the california utilities association is having their conference next week, and i have been in touch with their executive officer about doing a resolution. it is that kind of duplication of activities that we will do with this effort as well. there are a number of those kinds of associations that will be in contact with. vice-chairperson mirkarimi: right, but in the meantime, is kind of like a sport for pg&e to snipe and undercut municipalities were trying to pursue this, and it was literally nothing with the exception of a little bit of response from cpuc in defense of marin. i am just wondering if that will change and could this get the cpuc more emboldened to protect municipalities from this level of subversion.

>> we are certainly trying, and that is the kind of thing with new members, you always have a different position. chairperson campos: i am wondering all along the lines of what commissioner mirkarimi was saying, if we pass this resolution, should we send a letter on behalf of lafco to all the members of the puc indicating we have taken a position and it is appropriate for them as the regulatory body for the industry to let the legislature know. >> yes, and we could do that with the executive director as well. chairperson campos: yes. a final question for staff for me, we were trying to set up a joint meeting of lafco with the san francisco public utilities commission, and our last meeting was supposed to be a joint meeting, but there was an issue of quorum. i'm wondering if you could say little about when that is happening, assuming both

commissions be on the same page and continue to push this forward as quickly as possible. >> we are working to try to put together that meeting. my guess is it will be sometime in mid to late april is the time frame we're looking at now that would coincide with the april meeting. we will have a joint meeting with sfpuc, schedules permitting of course. chairperson campos: i would underscore to our staff and the puc staff the importance of making sure that happens. i think there is momentum, and we need to make sure we take full advantage of that. colleagues, any other comments or questions? why don't we open it up to public comment. any member of the public who would like to speak on this, you have three minutes. >> good afternoon, commissis.