>> extremely favorable. >> probably like being aligned with the city ratings. >> they have been considerably favorable. of course, we will not know until we go after the market. 4.1%? >> which is a blended, 30-year rate? commissioner? >> i want to thank all of you for your work on this and talking about the financial aspects, with a high line in manhattan, getting a sense of what we will be able to achieve once this is all connected.

cutting it back to the finances, it will be money well spent. >> i think that i know the answer. this is general obligation without specific responsibilities. but do we end up sort of giving back to the city's and funding because of general obligation bond? >> we have some obligations that we are required to report quarterly on the expenditures and profits. we have no repayment obligation. in terms of the partnership with the city, we have agreements with the department of public works on engineering design and planning departments, etc., with voters supported bonds but with

such a wonderful windfall to the report. >> any other comments? >> did we pass the resolution? all in favor? the resolution is approved. >> any new business? >> commissioners, i would like to point out, for the record, new businesses targeted calendars and yesterday they were meeting with the planning commission, getting ready to hold a hearing for final projects. the two items on the forward calendar were accordingly --

work done accordingly. >> correct. >> is there any other new business? let's public comment. -- >> public comment. >> we have to take public comment before the business. >> i understand that there is a gentleman here? >> ipod that i would return the favor and come by and visit briefly. the concern that i wanted to share with you was regarding how your agenda items deal with that decline. action items that have certain status, generally the discussion

is related to where things that. for information items in budget items, it is not consistent. there is not always that paragraph. i would ask the you direct the staff in the future to include most every project that has implications. seems like everything that you do these days does for reference in that status. whether or not you adopted the findings from the commission or were affirmed by the supervisors, what the number was where if you reviewed it or the public might access those documents -- more specifically, this also applies where there is an exemption. exemption documents are incredibly difficult to find.

if those can be referenced by date, and if there is just a one-page reference to but that in as an attachment, so that that much of the documentation and paper trail can be followed by members of the public. i am one of the people that actually gets your detailed agendas and tries to keep track of what you are up to. you are doing a fine job, otherwise. given that point of feedback, and in the future. >> are there any other public comments? >> i only have one. sue? >> i am talking about lot 251.

the staff report was supposed to come out 72 hours in advance. i verified that with that before, just to try and find when it was coming out, getting back a flat report that staff reports were available 72 hours in advance. in that case you would have a report out on tuesday, a few days ago, two days before the planning commission meeting on thursday. if it is continued through the 23rd and 28, your report will come out on friday, because friday is three days in advance. this particular staff report is going to include the position development agreement, purchase and sales agreement, trust exchange agreements, amended agreement for exchange,

agreements on san francisco waterfront partners, a dramatic drawings, and at least a term of 66 years. because we have seen all of the property tax revenue payments with possible infrastructure financing to be created, as well as various lease payments for restaurants. that is a staggeringly complex documents -- document to go over in 72 hours. i would ask the commission to ask the staff do not put that complex of a packet out 72 hours in advance. it is abusive to you and the people trying to follow new projects. it means that we will not even have which were doing until after.

72 hours is the minimum that this is allowed. the planning commission cases on complexity that are available one week in advance, i would ask you to revisit deadlines on documents of this complexity. you really do not get informed testimony. maybe you do not want some. and these people could read them. 72 hours just is not going to cut it for this project. >> thank you. any other public comment? >> sorry. david?

>> i am a member of the [unintelligible] town center association. we do not get down here much, but an important issue for us is the overdevelopment of the park, with the restaurant complex there. those restaurants are obvious the way too big, too close to the street, and now they will come back and are going to expand some more. let me remind you briefly how this happened over the last 15 years. the original project, it was four and 8000 square foot restaurant. by that time it's got to beat our f p, remember that 12,000 number. the neighborhood bought into it with an outline that was one restaurant, one story, 12,000

square feet. it was a 17 foot height limit. it went to two buildings and exceeded the height limit. the square footage when up to 18,000 19,000 square foot. double what was originally discussed. they were adamant that the height limit would not be violated. that was repeated over and over. it is a pretty poor excuse for

a park where half of it is off limits for various reasons. and now there have been 19,000 square feet. what are they saying? there is not enough square -- there is none of space because they built two restaurants? they had 12,000 square feet, if they had stuck to the r f p. it is their fault, and now they want to add more. and what they want to add is one of the tacky sheds that we unfortunately see popping up along the waterfront to much. they are all associated with restaurants. there are four or five of them. i cannot afford to go to all of these restaurants, i do not

know who they are all associated with. but you know what i mean, these plastic metal -- [beeping] they are trying to get around this by calling the addition a canopy. these shenanigans need to stop. i would ask the you bring this back to the commission to consider whether this really needs to expand again. call it what it is. it is a shed, what ever. not a canopy. one of those tacky, plastic sides that we see too much of. thank you. >> thank you. commissioners?

i think we would like to have a motion for adjournment. >> so moved. at the end of the adjournment, we are doing it in honor of investment banker, warren helumun. i would like to add the name of walter johnson, a longtime civil-rights advocates. >> second. >> all in favor? >> aye. >> thank you.

>> it afternoon, everyone. welcome to the -- good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to the january 27, 2012 meeting at the san francisco local agency formation commission. my name is david campos, i am the chair of the committee. we want to thank the following members of sfgtv staff who are covering the meeting, tom and nona.

>> item number one, call to order and roll-call. call at the role, commissioner avalos. present. commissioner campos. present. hope schmeltzer. present. we do have a quorum. supervisor campos: thank you. call item number two. >> item two, election of the chair person and vice-chair% for 2012. supervisor campos: colleagues, i do not know if you want to take action on this today or wait until the next meeting. supervisor avalos: i was ready to take action, but if we feel like we need more members, that is critical. if not, i am willing to renominate supervisor campos says the chair of lafco. i think your works beats -- where it speaks for itself could you have done a great job

steering as the past year, looking add cca as well as the waste contracts in san francisco. i think your leadership has shown in many ways, and i would like to nominate you. supervisor campos: thank you, supervisor. commissioners? >> i would like to nominate supervisor of the los for the vice-chair -- supervisor avalos four vice-chair. supervisor avalos: thank you. supervisor campos: we have nominations for a chair and vice-chair. let me add to the vice-chair, i have worked with commissioner avalos in his capacity as a member of the board of supervisors, and i cannot think of anyone who better embodies the leadership qualities that you want to see in an elected official. so i would be proud to support

that nomination. why don't we turned to ms. miller to advise us as to the best way to proceed. >> nancy miller, you can proceed on the item concurrently. it can be by affirmation. supervisor campos: we have nominations for a chair and vice-chair. before action is taken, let's open it up to public comment. >> good afternoon. i represent the san francisco green party and the local grassroots organization in the city. i know you'll probably get through the agenda pretty quickly today, but i cannot let this moment pass without saying how important it has been for myself and other advocates that commissioner campos has exercised the incredible leadership on this issue. between him and ed harrington at the at that -- at the sfpuc, we

have made incredible advances because of that leadership. i would just say that i would very much second the idea of having supervisor of a los -- supervisor of a lusby the vice- chair, because i have worked with them on various grassroots issues for very long time, and i think that he would be a very good advocate. there things coming up that i will suggest later that will be helpful on a digital inclusion that we should start taking up here, too. i think the commissioner would be excellent for that, as well. i wholeheartedly support both your motions. supervisor campos: thank you. is there any other member of the public who would like to speak on item number two? seeing none, public comment is closed. we have nominations. madam clerk, take roll call, i guess. >> on the motion to appoint

chair person campos and vice chair% avalos. avalos. aye. campos. aye. pimentel. aye. supervisor campos: i want to stake my colleagues for their nomination and for their confidence. i think it has been a very exciting year for the local agency formation commission. the year has maybe been more exciting in 2012, and i look forward to continuing the work with the members of this commission, and i know that we will be gaining another member on the commission soon. my understanding is that supervisor olague is interested in serving on the lafco, and i look forward to welcoming her when that appointment is finalized. the last thing that i will say is to simply think the public

utilities commission and the advocate community for all the work that has been done on this important issue. it really has been a team effort, and i think that the fact that we have made it this far is only because of that collaborative approach, and that will continue. ultimately, that will ensure the success of community choice aggregation and any other endeavor that lafco undertakes. with that, madam clerk, please call item number 3. >> item 3, approval of lafco minutes from october 11, 2011 special. -- special joint meeting. supervisor campos: colleagues, we have the minutes. i do not know if there is any changes. before we take action, is there any member of the public who would like to speak on this minute? seeing none, public comment is closed. we have a motion by supervisor avalos. a second by commissioner pimentel.

madam clerk, please call item number four. >> item four, lafco calendar for 2012. supervisor campos: this is the proposed lafco calendar from the 2012 year. let's hear from mr. jason fried. >> what you have in front of you is a calendar for meetings to help us make sure we're able to get the schedule far enough in advance. we take the traditional fourth friday from the previous year and continue to that, with some exceptions in may. we went to the third friday because the fourth friday, and that leads into memorial day weekend. i wanted to make sure we have a quorum. in august, we take a break. in november and december, we can find those two meetings for the holidays. it will be at the beginning of december. that is the schedule that is proposed of the board wishes to

accept it or not. supervisor campos: colleagues, we had a schedule that is proposed. i do not know if any of you have any comments to the schedule or any proposed changes on the schedule. of course, you know, whatever action is taken here is taken with the understanding that there could be amendments to that calendar as things come up. and as we also get in the additional feedback from the community. >> absolutely. at any point in time, we can always call a special meeting. that occurred last year. we wanted to do a joint meeting with the puc. they have some issues meeting on friday, so we may need to address with special meetings at that point. supervisor campos: thank you. i will open it up to public comment. any member who would like to speak on item four? lafco calendar for 2012.

seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, we have the proposed calendar for us. this is an action item. motion to approve by supervisor avalos. second by commissioner pimentel. we can take that without objection. i want to note that we have a special guest this afternoon here at lafco. we have little lawrence, who is an honorary member of the local agency formation commission. so we want to thank the honorary commissioner for being here. item number 5. >> 5, community choice aggregation activities report. status update on cleanpowersf program. and then the status update on proceedings at the california public utilities commission. supervisor campos: mr. michael campbell, good afternoon. >> thank you. i am the director of

cleanpowersf, often referred to as community choice aggregation to work in the sfpuc as part of power enterprise. i will be brief. taking the theme of this meeting here today. as you all know, we're very excited that the board of supervisors is set to take up the big parts of the contract approval. we hope to make cca a reality with the contract with shell for the power supply. and a contract appropriation for funds as necessary for collateral and to manage unforeseen events, starting off at launch. i know that is being set to be heard, most likely in february. we are excited to have that move forward. where that leads us is needing to have all the pieces in place so that one week -- when we do

get the approval launched, we have got what we need. one of those is having a service agreement with pg any extended. we already have one in place with pg&e. we are set to head that included before the end of february. we also need to is a bullet -- submit updated information plant. we have one that is already certified. we need an updated one that has been certified with the firm that we have been negotiating with in 2010 as our supplier. obviously, that is not correct. pretty pro forma. i expect that to get approved pretty quickly once we submit that. we're also doing the final word on finalizing the contract with noble americas, some back office services, that we require. the term sheet has been made public. the deal points have already

been arranged, and it is the hard work of putting that into a contract language. the other item that i have is a big one, which is the cpuc update, where things stand. we're waiting to hear on what will be the method for calculating the bond amount for any cca, legislation that allows cca stipulates that all cca's must post a bond designed to cover the anticipated costs of, should a cca terminate abruptly, with the ink from a da costa that might be to the utility. cpuc has been charged with determining the method for calculating that. in the last year, we have gone through the regulatory process for that, but the cpuc has not

yet issued a proposed decision or comment. at the very least, we know we are a bit least a month, maybe more, from a final determination on that a that is critically important because of our mission. sfpuc has made it clear that they're not willing to launch until they know the specifics of what that bond and that it would result in for calculation. so we are anxiously awaiting that. that is it for my report. happy to answer questions. i know that ms. miller had comments to add. supervisor campos: thank you. ms. miller, if you want to add anything? >> i just wanted to add, your interim executive officer, that in my memo to you, there is a date that is erroneous, which is that the matter would be going to the budget committee on february 1. that is no longer the case. we're meeting with the advocates next week to try to sort out

some issues with them. so the meeting for the budget committee will not be on february 1. it will be postponed until a later date. i also wanted to bring up this issue of the bond amount that mr. campbell just talked to. i think it has been under submission with the hearing officer for at least four months. so i think it might be a good idea to contact our center and a couple of our representatives, maybe having them sent a letter to the cpuc requesting action, maybe from the chair of lafco, to make sure it does not get lost in the many, many critical issues they're dealing with over there, because it is critical to us. we need to know that answer soon. supervisor campos: is there something specific we need to do? >> if the commission can just direct as to prepare the letters, the requests to go to our representatives, and the chair to authorized to sign the letter, that would be all we

need. supervisor campos: colleagues, would there be any objection? i think that makes sense, and we should do that as quickly as we can. >> ok. supervisor campos: i have something that is not specific to committee choice aggregation, but something with respect to the california public utilities commission to there was an interesting editorial today in the "san francisco examiner" that talked about a piece of legislation that was introduced by senator yee that is trying to address the issue of the revolving door of the employees between the california public utilities commission and the utilities that the commission actually regulates. what the bill does is it changes the current law that basically has a one-year prohibition against current cpuc staff or commissioners