my boss would love to discuss what mr. owens sees for this location. it is important to the neighborhood. i was in mr. caen's office, concerned about what happened there. i have not heard anything since. eight months later and all of a sudden this comes up. we want an opportunity to work with mr. owens and make sure those type of activities do not occur and the neighbors are heard. patricia is one of the people who informed me. if we could have time to discuss this or pursue something like the limited live informant --

performance permit, we would appreciate that. >> thank you. any other members of the public? this would not fall under the umbrella of the limited live entertainment, right? >> as he has applied and to go past ten, it would not be limited live performance, as he revised the application. >> ok. >> commisioner joseph: i make a motion at this point. before i do, i wanted to make my feelings really clear. i do believe that some things are going to open in that space, whatever it is. having something without a dance for is a far better cry then having another gravitate type club opened in that space but -- gravity type club opened in that

space. opinions of what his sound is going to be like is unrealistic. he cannot have in-house system and put a dj through it and bands. it would make our sound enforcement impossible. that is not realistic to me. i also think that his neighborhood outreach was somewhat lacking. although i am reticent to continue it because we continue it, we can only continue it for how long? the next meeting would be when we could continue it to, is that right? if the applicant asks for a

continuation. >> we do have an issue that the commissioners are aware of. if there is a continuance. it might be 45 days. we do have to be careful. there is a clause in 1060 but that does not trigger if it is a request from the applicant. >> commisioner joseph: i am not sure if the applicant would request the continuance. mr. owens. would you consider requesting a continuance until our meeting in august? there is no second meeting.

august 9 is not enough time? >> we can push it back for a month or so. is that fine? >> commisioner joseph: when is the next meeting in september? >> that is fine for me. is it ok if i have the pool tables in their bacere? >> i think you can. >> just the pool tables. >> a motion for staff ith respect -- with respect for a request for continuance. but not the pool tables. >> you can coordinate -- she has a list of community groups in the neighborhood. i certainly suggest that you

speak to the supervisor's office as well. and make sure the community groups they are concerned with as well that you reach out to. >> that is fine. >> make sure you get the security plan to us. >> it is ok with the president, i would like to make a motion we continue for discussion. if i can request to make it clear, a motion for the staff to direct us with respect to the request for a continuance on the place of entertainment. >> that is fine. >> you can coordinate with joycelyn.

>> make sure you get the security plan. >> if it is a depressant, i would like to make a motion and we can move it forward. >> does want to say that i talk to -- and i know that he is concerned about entertainment in his neighborhood. one of the things that i would like to do is volunteer some time. i would really like to have you help contact the neighbors.

>> i live two blocks from this place. i know that has the potential to be a positive feature. i know this is our standard procedure. we treat everyone the same. i don't want to come back to this commission under any circumstances, so we are trying to make sure that you succeed. i want to give you that precursor. >> thank you. >> ok, i will entertain a motion. >> my motion is this, i move to

bifurcate the permit application and approve the billiard tables. at the applicant's request, continue a place of entertainment permit to the first meeting that we are going to have in september from whatever that date is. that's it. i think that is everything. >> second. >> may ask one more question? >> sure. "we sent the picture in and week

posted it loudly and clearly. >> you will have to repost. >> i think we should have made a deal. >> ok. >> all right. moving on. the next item, steve johnson, doing business as underground sf. >> this has been in operation for some time. this is a bar in the lower 8 neighborhood. -- lower haight neighborhood. >> don't touch it.

>> i have a really good relationship with the seller who has been facilitating the transfer of the business. he is here with me today. i am happy to answer any questions you have regarding my application for my neighborhood outreach. we are keeping the name the same come this jury staff the same, the bartender's the same. i really stepping in to replace sean's role. i have been a fan of this neighborhood anbar from the second that i opened this restaurant. i loved it when i went to college here. it has always been a dream of mine to start a small business. when this opportunity came before me, it was a perfect fit. i have a ton of respect for it.

i have listened to the group for suggestions that they have to help keep the character. >> commissioners, questions. >> seeing none, >> i had a question. one thing that came to me is that you live right above the establishment. >> yes. in one part of the application, it shows in your address is 173 summer. >> that is my current address. i purchase the building as well as the business so was the final closing, i will become a tenant in the back. courts would you call the police if there are problems downstairs -- >> will you call the police if there are problems downstairs? >> [laughter]

i have made myself available to the leaders of the neighborhood. we have been in contact and i have participated in their meetings. i have made myself available should they want to answer questions. a few of them have contacted me and we have worked a little bit to try to participate in the lower haight art walk. >> i just want to say that san francisco will suffer a gray loss with mr. soprano of in back to the east coast the. i am sorry to see you go. as a former new yorker, you had better keep in touch. >> any other commissioners? ok, we'll see if there's any public comment. is there anyone from the public that would like to address this application? seeing none, it is in the hands

of the commission. >> can i have a motion? >> i move that the application be approved and including i suppose all the conditions set forth by the captain. >> a second. >> second. >> please call the roll. >> ok. good luck. i'm sure that it will help improvement to the neighborhood. >> thank you very much for your time. >> moving on, item six. commissioners comments and questions. >> i just wanted to take a minute to think a few people for being able to be here on this side of the partition tonight. i look forward to working with

all of you. thank you for doing the of reach the day after i got passed through because that meant a lot. i appreciate it. it made me feel more secure. i wanted to think -- and everyone who works with him for all the help that they did. also the supervisors, i was passed in an 11-0 vote. i hope to do him proud and i would like to thank him for all of his art work and i hope to continue. i look forward to working with all of you. >> ok. item number seven, new business request.

seeing none -- >> joslyn, have we completely abandoned the annual party? that is the big question. >> the annual party for the end of the year or the birthday party? >> the birthday party. >> the birthday party. >> no, i don't think that we have abandoned it. >> what about the elections? >> the commission decided to take it that we will calendar.

supervisor campos: i think we are ready. good afternoon and welcome to the special meeting of friday, july 29, 2011 of the san francisco local agency formation commission. my name is david campos, and i am the chair of the commission. we are joined today by commissioners john avalos, hope schmeltzer, commission alternate leah pimentel, and we will be joined shortly by ross mirkarimi. madam clerk, do we have any

announcements? >> please make sure to turn off cellular phones and electronic devices. completed speaker carts and copies of documents to be submitted as part of the file should be submitted to the clerk. supervisor campos: please call item two. >> approval of minutes for the june 3, 2011, lafco meeting. supervisor campos: colleagues, you have before you the minutes of the june 3, 2011, meeting. i do not know if you have comments or questions. commissioner schmeltzer: i move we approve the minutes. supervisor campos: before we act on that, is there any member of the public that would like to speak on item two? seeing none, public comment is closed. we have a motion and a second by commissioner avalos. can we take that without objection? so done. can you call item 3? >> item 3, report on the status of cca activities.

a, approving a resolution authorizing the continued implementation and definition of a community choice aggregation program. b, a california state legislation update. c, status update on proceedings at the california public utilities commission. supervisor campos: great, and mr. campbell is here to present for the public utilities commission. before that, i just want to ask the executive officer if you wanted to say anything before mr. campbell spoke. >> we have arranged the proceeding that mr. campbell will present a brief synopsis of the term sheet before you, and i will follow-up on that with -- with comment. >> good afternoon, commissioners. in your packet, you had received

the presentation that i and my colleagues at the puc had given at the san francisco public utilities commission meeting on tuesday. i am going to provide a high level overview, and i'm happy to take questions throughout the presentation as you see fit. one thing to start out, just to highlight is, we have been working together very collaborative lee -- very collaboratively. the chair of my commissioned it highlights how she would like to have feedback from this body. where we are -- i can just sort of go through a bit.

first, as you know, the program, given the market research we have done in terms of where we think our likely participation would be and the ease of marketing 100% clean program, and that costs for the 100 percent premium will not be a driver of additional opt outs. we are looking at 100% renewable product. we are having the program be set so that our rate format is similar to pg&e's that will be going into effect in july 2012. that is a flat generation rate where rates do not increase with usage. pg&e will be rolling out a similar type of rate in july 2012, and we were thinking we would roll out at the same time. low-income cristobal's -- low- income customers remain eligible for a discount. we are talking about a contract

with shell for the same supply as the big-ticket item we have been discussing, talking about having a supply contract for wholesale supply with shell for a 4.5-year fixed term with the price is known in advance. i did not necessarily mean price a for all four years, but we know what the price is for the first year, what it is for the second, etc. we are also building into our expectations that we will have a rate stabilization amount included. we will have a small surcharge included in the overall bill. that is to make sure we can cover any fluctuations as well as start to build up a reserve to handle price changes that we might see in the future after we get to additional rolling out to more customers or further development of new resources.

the new resource of the term sheet we have been negotiating permits resourced substitutions. that means we would be able to substitute resources we may be able to develop with resources already part of the shell portfolio. in addition, we are talking about having a customer enrollments strategy where we phase in new customers. new customers will be coming on line, so we can sync those of so the new loaded generation customers comes online at the same time as the new resources. when the board of supervisors were talking about getting details about greenpowersf, the

strategy was to enroll all customers at the same time. there is significant risk with offering to all customers at once. one of the biggest ones, when we are talking about a program where we have a fixed volume of energy we are buying from our supplier, is if we do not get the right amount of load, then there is a possibility you would be having to buy energy from the supplier and not have the customers purchasing enough energy, having enough revenues to buy that energy. we really want to make sure that we can mitigate the risk. we were thinking of doing it in phases. it makes a lot of sense. we were looking at a target of 75,000 in old customers in the first wave. that would be a 30-megawatt program.

bringing customers over time allows us to add additional loads as appropriate. one key reason why this is important is that at one point, there was the hope we would find a single supplier that would take on all the roles we wanted and would take on 100% all risk, and it would be no risk whatsoever. this is a way of mitigating the risk by phasing in period we are currently in negotiations with shell energy. that is for energy supply and schedule coordinator services. we are also talking with noble america's about the customer care side of things, account management. again, this is a change from where policies were in 2007. we hope to have a single entity that would take on all of the supplies and performances we would need with zero risk to the

city, before issuing our rfp, we got an ordinance that related to changing that. moving on briskly to the areas of risk allocation and the city's liability, one of the things we are getting by working with shell is we are getting to work with a credit or the entity -- a credit worthy entity. they are committing to a price, and we think that that commitment is a very firm one. on the flip side, the negotiations have raised the need for the power enterprise to have the appropriations to get the program up and started, and there is a few. one is a reserve amount that would be required, similar to what marin has with shell. they call it a reserve

appropriation that would go into the account that the customer revenues go into that pays all the various bills, and it is designed to give shall comfort -- shell comfort that the bills will be paid on time. we also think it would be prudent for us to have an operating reserve appropriated, just in case something does not go as expected. even though we are being very conservative, should we estimate the up doubts -- the opt-outs incorrectly, we would be able to pay and keep moving forward. we do not want to have to terminate the program because things are off by $50,000. the big one we are working on with shell currently is funds to provide security in the event the city defaults, and that will be another appropriation. that is a number we still do not have. i touched on the issue of flow

of funds in terms of the reserve amount. need to take a moment on that. the customer revenues -- remember that the genie is the billing on our behalf. they collect the funds associated with our program from our customers. they send that to an account that we specify. there would be a specific account that would have specific controls on it, and shell would be given the first priority on that account. they would pay their bills, and the account would be swept, and the remainder would go to pay for the noble contract as well as other city things in the process of managing the development of renewals that the city would be managing. there are several outstanding issues, just to touch base on quickly. one, we have talked about

before the regulatory question that remains about what we call the cpuc bond amount. this is something that is required by the cca statute where thec -- the cpuc has been required to set a method for calculating what has been estimated to be the potential cost to pg&e of a sudden return of cca customers. the idea is if it were to collapse suddenly and all the customers were dumped on pg&e at a time when prices were high,

this would be an amount equal to what the additional cost would before serving those customers. the cpuc has been moving very slowly on this. it is an open decision for them to make, how you do the method for calculating what that bond amount should be. that may require an appropriation to cover. we have been aggressive in those proceedings and are continuing to push the commission to try to make some sort of decision there. also, we talk about the termination provision. last is that there is the -- we have been given indicative prices from shell as we go along with after the contract is approved by the board of supervisors and signed by the mayor, we are thinking the contract would have -- it will contract would have -- it will specify terms under which the