president hwang: i would agree. i would debate with the meeting of naturalistic is. i prefer the field personally to stay as it is. i did not find a lighted fields with synthetic grass to be -- have any connection to nature, really. apart from my own personal feeling about it, and i also have kids to play soccer and i also know there are a shortage of fields and a shortage of space is for kids to play sports in the city, but apart from those feelings, i really cannot find any basis to find based on what we have heard tonight that the planning commission erred based on the law and guidelines. i would deny that -- deny the

appeal. >> i found one of the elements of the policy to be somewhat persuasive. it is the 3.3, the maintenance and improvement of recreational access in the western portion of the park and i'm pretty well persuaded that improvements that are being suggested would maintain and improve recreational access. i would take a little issue with that. people who cannot -- partly to be used during the day. there any number of people, residents who cannot access the parks and to open them up for evening news without a lot of serious consequences is very important. i would support the motion to reject the appeal.

vice president fung: i will make the motion, then. i am going to move that the appeal be denied on the basis that the local coastal permit has -- as issued by the planning commission was consistent with both the general plan and the relevant coastal's plans -- coastal plans. >> i think it is important that we make -- give the factual basis for your determination, and if it is a matter of adopting the factual determinations of recreation and

park department and the planning department, then we should be clear that is what we're doing, or if we have other factual determinations, we should make them. in some way, your decision must have factual determinations of consistency. vice president fung: it would be factual determinations based upon planning, not rec and park? >> i think this is -- and the factual information that is brought to your attention can be adopted by you. and so -- the permit is being protested and it has been brought to you on appeal and for basing it -- you are basically reviewing it tinto and making a determination on whether this -- reviewing it de novo and making

a determination. vice president fung: -- madame director. >> there were some draft findings that have been made available to the board in the event that you move in this direction and it talks about the ceqa issues and the local coastal program and the priority policies. if you're interested in basing your decision on these factual findings, we can read it into the record. you can vote on that. vice president fung: i think that would be appropriate. president hwang: having reviewed the testimony, the board of appeals -- denies the appeal. protesting the issuance of a coastal zone permit to the recreation and park to provide for the renovation of the beach chalet facility for the

following reasons. the board has had available for review and consideration the environmental impact report and/or -- all correspondence and documents related to the review for the renovation of the athletic field, the project. this is available for public inspection at the border appeals office at 1615 mission street and is made part of the record by this reference herein. the board based on substantial evidence in light of the record including information presented at this hearing finds there have been no project changes or changes in project circumstances and no new intimation of substantial importance that would change the conclusions of the planning department's california environmental act quality determination. this board finds the project is consistent with requirements and objectives of the san francisco local coastal program for the reasons stated in planning commission motion no. 18640, a case 20 11.

-- case 201. and in section c, which reasons are adopted and incorporated herein. this board finds the project is consistent with the priority policies established by section 10 1.1 b -- 10 1.01.1b. you have made a motion to deny the appeal and hold the permit -- and uphold the permit. vice president fung: based on these draft findings. president hwang: based on the findings just read into the record. we're ready for you to call the roll. >> again we have a motion from

the vice president to deny this appeal and uphold the coastal zone per met. -- permit. it is consistent with the local coastal plan and general plan. i believe you said that. president hwang: it is incorporated into the findings. >> just to uphold the coastal zone permit and with actual findings and ceqa findings as read into the record. on that motion, president is absenset, commissioner -- is absent. the boat is 4-0. both appeals are -- the vote is 4-0. both appeals are upheld. >> i wanted to acknowledge that this is commissioner phillips' reportedly last meeting with the board of appeals. he is supposed to be sworn in as a planning commissioner tomorrow morning. i wanted to thank him for his

brief but valuable service to the board of appeals. we will miss you and appreciate everything you have done while you are here. >> thank you. >> there is no other business. vice president fung: this meeting is now adjourned. >> my name is jamie hopper and i am with the san francisco recreation and parks department.

in this episode, we feature the realm wonderfully romantic parts locations in your very own backyard. this is your chance to find your heart in san francisco with someone special. golden gate park's largest body of water is a very enchanting way. it is a popular spot for strolling and paddling around in boats that can be rented at the boathouse. the lake was designed for leisure voting and of, not for were strong carriages. the 12 acres of broad shapes around strawberry hill, a wooded hill that once flourished. it follows the lake parameter passing huntington falls, where 110 boat waterfall. the strawberry hill island. they climb to the hills summit,

the highest point in golden gate park at more than 400 feet. you can still catch at the western side of the city. a romantic look out. ha for public transit, who take the train. it is accessible. it has a peaceful atmosphere where you can enjoy the warm san francisco bay turtles. watch the ducks, swans, and seagulls gliding and lasting. it is a tranquil spot to stroll, and joy to the company, rent a boat, and sail away. many couples take a boat ride around the lake, passing the chinese pavilion and the waterfall. a quiet getaway for the busy city life making for a memorable and a magical experience.

located on nineteenth avenue, the wondrous grove is the place to wear your hiking boots, when the family, don't forget the dogs, because they have so many strolls to offer you and your loved ones. it is a truly hidden gem in the city. the park is rich with people and industries. have is that allow you to meander around the tree are perfect for dollar walking in an urban environment. >> i enjoy the history behind the space. the diversity of nature that exists out here in such an urban city, with concrete streets and cars, who have this oasis of a natural environment reminds us what san francisco originally was. >> plentiful transit on the 23, 28, at 91 bus can get you there

easily. the park is accessible. one of the city's few remaining natural lakes, this is your chance to stroll around hand in hand and let the kids run free. the lake also has many birds to watch. is the place to appreciate what you share with great strolls and wonderful breath of fresh air. come and experience lafayette park and enjoy the people, techniques, and sunshine. this is a lovely place to take an afternoon stroll with your loved one's hand in hand. in the middle of pacific heights on top of the the rolling hills, it offers a great sunny square of peaceful beauty.

the park features tables and benches of playgrounds, rest rooms and more at the end of the park. lafayette is very much a couples apart and there are a multitude of activities you can experience together. stroll the pathway that take the entire park, bring your dog with the dog-friendly community, or a picnic at one of the many picnic tables and enjoy all that has to offer together. many couples find this is the perfect part to soak up the sun. this wonderful park is a majestic place that you can share with someone you cherish. it is located along the routes of one at 10 buses and easily accessed from the 47, 49, and 90 buses. for more information about reserving one of these romantic locations or any other park

locations, call -- this number is best for special events, weddings, picnics, and the county fair building. or for any athletic fields at neighborhood parks. you can write us at permits a reservation, 501 can industry. or just walking in and say hello. and of course, you can find more information on line.

>> to an afternoon, and welcome to the july 27, 2012 meeting of

the local agency formatiofor the city and county of san francisco. my name is david campos, and i am the chair of the commission. we want to thank sfgtv staffer covering the meeting today. carolyn and jesse. madam clerk, please take roll- call. >> commissioner of a los, absent. supervisor campos, present. supervisor olague, present. chairperson schmeltzer, present. chairperson pimentel, present. we do have a quorum. supervisor campos: thank you very much. please call item number two. >> item two, approval of the lafco minutes from the june 15, 2012 special meeting. supervisor campos: colleagues, we have before us the minutes of the june 15, 2012 meeting. i like to open it up to any

member of the public who would like to speak on this item. seeing none, public comment is closed. if we could please take a motion. motion by commissioner schmeltzer. second by commissioner olague de. we can take that without objection. madam clerk, please call item three. >> item 3, community choice aggregation activities report. status update on cleanpowersf program. and a status update on proceedings at the california public utilities commission. supervisor campos: i will turn it over to michael campbell of the san francisco public utilities commission, as well as jason fried from lafco. >> hello. michael candidate, director of cleanpowersf at the sfpuc. i have a short update. hopefully a sweet update.

in terms of where we stand, as you know, we have been waiting for the board of supervisors to act. during that interim time, the good outcome of that time has allowed us to go back and renegotiate with shell and get better terms regarding the collateral amount. notably, we have been able to discuss with shell and get them to agree to reduce the amount of collateral that would be going into escrow from $15 million down to $7 million, a reduction of $8 million. that is 3 positive. it increases to $4.5 million. that frees up $6 million from the initial 19.5 appropriation. the appropriation ordinance that will go before the commission, before the board of supervisors

, it keeps the $19.5 million appropriation, but we are using that additional $6 million that has been freed up to allow us to start out of the gate at $2 million for energy efficiency for participating customers for a solar incentives and have $2 million available for getting studies under way to have the bailout -- ability to do local builder out sooner. the $6 million is all contingent upon the program getting under way. it is before the board of supervisors. minders getting is that the items are up for consideration

-- my understanding is that the items are up for consideration on the 12th. they could be a proving that legislation by the end of september. there is also regulatory update. do not have much to their that is very exciting -- i do not have much there that is very exciting. supervisor campos: i knelow commissioner shmeltzer had a question. commissioner shmeltzer: it was put together to review documents that were to be produced for the program by of local power. the last three or four meetings have been canceled. my understanding is there has been no work product submitted

in several months. could you clarify that? >> the next set of deliverable that are due from local power on their time line is a financial model that would demonstrate the cost effectiveness of the various types of programs and proposals they think could help the program achieved local bailout and better economics. we have not seen any deliverable in three months. that is the reason the meetings have been cancelled. the various groups have been clear that without something to discuss, they did not want to just meet. commissioner shmeltzer: there are quite a few people from a pretty diverse bunch of organizations, nonprofits and other government entities, and i know your office did a lot of

work to schedule and coordinate people amongst all of those people. the last meeting was in may. i think the consensus on the work product was that it was not -- the usability of it could be improved. we have not seen any further response to the input we are asked to give. there were supposed to then work product submitted before each of those meetings. we have a time estimates? -- do we have a time estimate? >> i have been assured that the local power is working very hard on the is work products. -- on these work products. all of the deliverable slow at of this financial model.

but unfortunately, the representatives have not been able to provide me with estimates of when they would even be delivered. commissioner shmeltzer: is this holding up other parts of the community? their failure to submit these products? >> it is holding up whatever parts of the program that local power might gets rolled then. we can still launch the program without it. we can still have the legislation gets considered in september without it. we have designed the program in a way that -- as we do various methods of build out, we can later those then as those become available. commissioner shmeltzer: how much was the total contract? >> $380,000, i believe. commissioner shmeltzer: have

they been submitting invoices? >> i have not seen an invoice for awhile. i would have to double check the precise numbers. i think about $180,000 has been spent. commissioner shmeltzer: $180,000 has been spent and we have not seen it work product in three months. >> that is correct. commissioner shmeltzer: must be nice. supervisor campos: i appreciate the questions. i think we want to make sure that we get as good a work product as a possibly can. i also do want to acknowledge, though, that my understanding that the puc has been working closely with the consultants and they are monitoring the work. i am confident they will ensure they meet the obligations that are required of them under the

contract. absolutely, it is important for us to monitor this. and that we request that the work product be surprised -- provided as soon as possible, so i appreciate the questions. >> mr. campbell touched on most of the items i was going to bring not. beyond the budget hearing, there'll also be an informational hearing in front of the government audit oversight. that should also be occurring in september. it is tentatively set on september 17 -- september 13. supervisor campos: why don't we open it up to public comment? in a member of the public who would like to speak, please come forward. >> good afternoon.

san francisco green party. to kind of dovetail on what you said, mr. chair, i would first say that it's every once in a while i am in contact with local power. the logjam is not having the financial model ready. it is a concern that things are slow down. we are really glad that general manager harrington decided to stay on until september so we can make sure and wrap this up because it will give us all more time to get everything nailed down. i would also say i think maybe

staff might have misunderstood that even though there has been a delay in deliverables, the advocates would still like regular meeting so that we can get some information from local power at least by phone. so that we can communicate in general about the whole program. we would ask that we go ahead and schedule meetings even if the deliverable is not there so we can hash things out and get the advocates point of view across. commissioner shmeltzer: are you authorized to speak for local power? >> from my contract with local power, i have a different view. i agree that it is a concern that we have had a three-month delay. the thing i really want to get to is the general manager

harrington and the puc commissioners have been really strong on cleanpowersf. we finally got a strong local bailout component integrated into this program -- billed out component integrated into this program. we have been hearing rumors that the commissioner might be replaced on the public utilities commission. he is to be a director in the department of the environment, it is extremely strong on environmental issues and clean energy. with this program for building hundreds of megawatts at stake and with what we have been seeing in colorado and the rest

-- and record heat waves, a lot depends on getting this right in san francisco. i would ask the commissioners of this commission, the staff, and anyone watching this hearing on tv, please contact the mayor's office and asked that we retain this very important environmental commissioner for the public utilities commission said that we can get a clean power sf off the ground properly. supervisor campos: public comment is closed. i do not know if we need to take any action at this point. it is an informational item. >> item number four, presentation of a final report on the voting process, including