"good afternoon supervisors. i work with the outreach program fubded by the department of building inspection. i would like to speak on behalf of dan jordan who is one of our amazing housing peer counselors with our housing counseling program in our office. he's applied to have a seat with the sro task force. as he as a soma resident living at the hotel, dan has worked with our office to improve habit ability issues in the hotel. because of the betterment of his hotel and the community he serves, dan has demonstrated major leadership skills and social justice. dan has closely worked with our office for renters rights and is a peer counselor and he can work with tennants around the tenderloin in his hotel. he has a deep

understanding of tennants in sro hotels and what kind of issues the sro population faces which is crucial in advocating and voicing the needs of the community. dan is a real deal with the heart of gold. i favor his application without reservation. thank you. >>supervisor norman yee: thank you very much. >> good afternoon, supervisors, my name is -- i'm an organizing coordinator with the sro collaborative and part of the housing clinic. i here to speak on behalf of dan jordan. i met him and worked with dan 3 years ago when he had issues in his hotel where he lived. dan actually after meeting with me the first time, he without us prompting him he organized a tenant meeting so we can talk to the rest of the tennants in the building about habit ability

and safety issues there and we worked with him and his tennants in the building and management issues. i think dan is a passionate person who understands the sro tennants in tenderloin and south of market. i think sro task force will greatly benefit from having him. i highly recommend him for the position. >>supervisor norman yee: thank you. >> hello supervisors, my name is russel slay ton. i have had several opportunities to work with dan on a one on one individual basis working with tennants with real issues such a bed bugs, vermins and unable to pay rent. we have been trained and equipped with the knowledge and the ability to help people and refer this em

to the proper agencies like rav co-and dbi. we've been to some of those workshops and we know a lot. we have been educated. i live also in sro hotel. i just wanted to tell you that dan jordan has been like a breath of fresh air when he came into collaborative. he's full of ideas and he's gotten down to the basics of people's rights of peace, quiet anden enjoyment of their unit. i would really like to let you guys know that working with him has been great and i would really recommend him for this task force. thank you for your time supervisors. >> thank you, very much. hold on. is this a question for him? >> no. >> okay. thank you. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed.

>> supervisors, comments? supervisor campos? >>supervisor david campos: thank you, mr. chair. anytime you have more applicants than you have seats, it's always hard to choose. i do want to thank everyone for their interest and each one of you had something to offer and the fact that people are willing to serve is really appreciated. let me share my thoughts and see where others are. with respect to seat one which has to be held by someone who is a resident of a sro. i certainly was very impressed with the presentation and support for dan jordan. and mr. jordan, you are very popular. i'm glad that i don't have to run against you because you have a lot of fans out there. but i think the fact that your fellow residents are coming to speak on your behalf as a

testament to you and i think it would make you extremely effective. with respect to seat 2, i'm not sure why the applicant is not here, sam pattel. i'm not sure if it would be appropriate for us to move forward or not. that's an open question. with respect to seat 4, i was definitely very impressed with amelia rudberg and i think she has the qualifications to do a good job. with respect to seat 5, joshua vining sent us a letter that he could not be here for special reasons. i'm familiar with his work and those who know him know hao he's a

tremendous advocate and i would like to make sure he's appointed. seat 7, angela chu. i think it's a no brainer. we need to make sure she continues to serve. for seat 8, i guess we don't have an applicant right now. so we are going to have to continue it. for seat 9, again i think we have great applicants, but for me what's compelling about seat 9 is that i do think that it's important to have a perspective of someone who is living in a private sro and somebody living in a neighborhood which i happen to represent 16th and mission that has a number of challenges. i think the fact that ms. frost man spoke about the application of ms.

alexander, speaks very highly of the kind of member that she would be. so that would be my suggestion. >>supervisor norman yee: okay. supervisor tang? >>supervisor katy tang: i'm glad that we are in agreement. i echo supervisor campos comments. for seat 2, i don't know if any members of my committee have heard from mr. pattel or received correspondence so i have not. i would be okay with delaying that particular appointment but move with the rest. >>supervisor norman yee: thank you. let me separate these things out. for seat 2 and seat 8 i would like to continue the item. >> so moved. >> without objection the motion passes. for seat 4 and

5, the candidates amelia rudberg and joshua vining would need a residency waiver. so somebody would like to move that? okay. no objection, motion passes. so i think this is what i'm hearing. that we would like to appoint dan jordan to seat 1, nicollette alexander to seat 9, amelia rudberg to seat 4, joshua vining to seat 5 and angela chu to seat 7. is that correct? >> that's correct. >> someone wants to make a

motion? the motion passes. thank you. i have to go back to item no. 4. there was a procedural error on my part. so, i forgot to ask for residency waiver. and so i would like to rescind. can someone make a motion to rescind the motion? >> so moved. >> no objection. the motion passes. so would somebody like to make a motion for lily wong to be in seat 1 and winnie yu for seat 2. we have to make the motion to do the residency waiver first? >> so moved. >> motion passes."

okay. make a motion for seats. >> make a motion for lily yu wong. seat 1, winnie yu seat 2 and dion jay book ter seat 4. >>supervisor norman yee: madam clerk, anymore items? >> the clerk: that concludes the agenda for this

>> good afternoon and welcome to the san francisco local agency formation commission. today is january 24, 2014, >> i would like to acknowledge our clerk of the committee, lisa miller. i don't have our sfgtv names here, but i would like to thank them for their assistance today. call the roll. >> avalos, present, commissioner breed, campos, present, mar, present, schmeltzer absent. we do have a quorum. >> thank you. let's go to the next item. >> the election of the

chairperson for 2014. okay colleagues we have before us a position for local local agency formation commission. i actually do have ain't in continuing as chairperson for local agency formation commission and just want to put it out there. if others have an interest as well, i would like to hear about that. and interested anyone interested in being a vice-chair you can speak about that sex with. commissioner campos? >>supervisor david campos: thank you mr. chair, i don't know if there could be a combined nomination. my nomination is to nominate you as chair and breed as vice-chair. >> i will second that. >>supervisor john avalos:

okay. any discussion? commissioner breed, you are in accord with the motion? very good. okay. let's go to public comment. eric brooks, representing san francisco green party and local grass roots. just to comment commissioner breed has shown some really outstanding leadership on this issue and it's extremely appropriate for her to move to vice-chair on this lafco. thanks. >> wolf neighborhood council in acclimation. >>supervisor john avalos: is

there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. this is motioned by campos and second by mr. mar. can we take that without objection. first i would like to say this you for the support and i'm really excited about serving with commissioner breed who will be the vice-chair of lafco and i really appreciate your pushover the past several months on cleanpowersf. next item. >> approval of lafco minutes from december 13, 2013, meeting. >>supervisor john avalos: any comments on our minutes? is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. can we have a motion to approve the

minutes? motion from vice-chair breed and seconded by commissioner campos and we'll take that without objection. >> okay. neck -- next item. the clerk: item no. 4. community choice aggregation activity record. a status update on cleanpowersf program, status update on proceeding at the public utilities commission. we have miller to speak on these items. >> yes. barbara hale at the puc. speaking on item b and c first. as i believe you have been following, we've been having our public presentations about our budget and in private conversations as well with our general manager wefrment facing

difficult times with the financial circumstances within power enterprise and with the power operations of hetch hetchy. we have some capital needs. we have higher than anticipated increases and cost for distribution services from pg & e and we are projected to be out of balance by fiscal year 16-17. in light of that, our direction from the general manager and commissioners are to really focus our efforts at the puc on solving that problem. so we are really refocusing in a way that helps us achieve our highest value revenue which points us more toward increasing the customers we serve on our publically owned utility side

of the house if you will and not on our cca side. we are also looking of course at ways to reduce our cost. so that's where our focus is at puc and with respect to item a, we did make a presentation to our commission on january 14th. we did include, the general manager did include the memo that describes these issues in greater detail that i would be happy to provide to you. i provided copies to the executive director already and perhaps we can talk about that further at a subsequent meeting if you would like. >>supervisor john avalos: i think there has been some discussion about having a joint sfpuc lafco meeting. given how there has been a huge neglect or real effort

to not move cca forward that i felt has been going on and a lot of rationals that have come out even when the mayor came and spoke about why he didn't support cleanpowersf. i felt there was a lot of information that didn't come out. trust is really low right now. i really want to see some real verification on how there is some proposed or per expected shortfalls within the power program and i want that presented at the lafco meeting. i also think we should have more conversations too about how to make clean power happen and in the meantime between this meeting and the next if we do a joint meeting, have some real

conversations about what possibilities there might be. i don't think it's a matter of just asking for money. i think it's a matter of ideas that can be shared that could create an opening for the passage of clean powersf in other form. >> okay. in talk wth general manager very interested in going fort with the general meeting and i will bring that back to the commission and we'll look for ways to help restore that trust that as you have expressed has been lost. and so perhaps engaging some of the other city departments in an overview of the materials that we've been presenting to our commission. >> thank you, commissioner breed? >>supervisor london breed: yes, if we can have that information and made available to the public as well. i keep hearing there are some

challenges and we have to redirect our efforts. from my perspective, i'm not certain if this is another tactic to move away from trying to move away from clean power. i would like to see some documentation of this and not see a situation being created just to derail clean power. just some evidence of that would be really helpful. >> absolutely. happy to provide it and we'll be able to exile -- compile some prior information. you may recall 2 years ago we came to the board, the mayor and commission and expressed concern about having an out of balance financial picture. as a result of that, we made some major cuts in our infrastructure program. we committed to going forward with an acquiring a rating to

help issue debt to help fund some of our longer term investment needs. we have taken those steps and we are back out of balance with these unanticipated capital and operating cost. the materials that we presented to our commission are public materials, but we would be happy to put into a greater picture at the meeting about the capital needs and how we are spending the revenues we do have. >> sorry, one thing about the conversation with kelly was we would have an independent analysis of what you present and controller involved and analyst to weigh in as well to help understand what you are sharing right now. >> right. and to restore trust. right. >>supervisor london breed: i think my comments were along the same line as chairman

avalos because there is a lot of information out there about when where the $19 million seems to have gone or where is it or how this whole thing works. i'm trying to understand what's happening with revenues and i'm not specifically saying this was all completely earmarked for this purpose, but i'm trying to understand exactly where money has been shifted and what that means for not just our efforts, but the efforts that puc claims to be making towards trying to provide a real clean power program for san francisco. >> yes, let me assure you the $19 million is on reserve and unspendable by the sfpuc. it's waiting in a bank account waiting for direction. >>supervisor london breed:

but there has been communication to me that those revenues are going to be used for another purpose. i want to make sure that if there are talks that we are not aware of, that we are made an aware of any relations to that or any other plan that might be to lafco. >> it seems this is the perfect venue to bring all of that out. >>supervisor john avalos: just to apropos to on the lafco side of the meeting on a brief path way to make clean power go forward under the current situation that the power program is in and i'm hoping that mr. freed can touch on that. >> sure, jason freed, lafco staff. at the workshop they had about a week or two, this subject was brought and they did a full presentation. one

thing i brought up at the comment period is that there are two ways that cca can actually help alleviate the budget short fall and that is if you were to rearrange the cc program so that all the things that were in the contract for shell to do to brought in house, perhaps there could be some savings on the operational side because the power side is on cca. if you are adding 30 mega watts of power, i don't think it would be that much of a load and you can shift to the cca the money for the cost and reducing the cost to shell. and there is a fund that everyone pays into their bill that puc can apply for it. i'm not convinced that puc would

give it because there is not an operational program but there is money to give to the program. >>supervisor john avalos: so if shell is no longer involved, who is creating the energy? >> sfpuc has the staff and able to do that and when the rim fire went on they were able to replace the energy and this staff is able to do that as well for scheduling and there might be some part that shell would do but you rearrange the contract to cover that. >>supervisor john avalos: we can meet with puc staff to talk about this idea and then bring it to the joint meeting as well? okay. >> miss miller? >> i would like to add that i appreciate miss mchale's comments. we designed this

program to be a self sufficient program that it was going to run itself that they were not going to take other resources and apply it. in the financials which i would like to make sure that we talk about at the joint meeting, i do believe that there were provisions for paying back all the money advanced at the program and the financials handled that over a period of time and we strecht that out at one point but the plan itself, the cca program paid for itself. i don't really understand the idea if there is a budget cut because of increased capital cost on hetch hetchy side and power supply. i understand that is a real problem. but cca wouldn't contribute to that problem. that correlation which is how does capital cost would

initiate. your sufficient program that we had designed. >> yes. so we had a couple of areas that we wanted to update you on. we arrest actively continuing to participate in pg & e's green tariff filing and opportunities for customers to choose hundred percent renewable gas portfolios. we are participating there to make sure the pg & e is compliant with the legislation that was adopted last september by the legislature in sacramento. in particular we are asking the california public utilities commission to enhance a

community renewal program. that's part of what's required in sb 43. pg & e has not included that in their proposal. we are asking the c puc provide a mechanism in it's green tariff proposal from a small distributed renewable project. a mega watt or smaller located in disadvantaged communities. that is another aspect of 343 in making sure we are included. if the california puc required pg & e to put that in their proposal. and we are asking the california puc to require pg & e to ensure that all green tariff cost are born only by participating customers so that their green tariff proposal is not

subsidized by non-participants. in the california puc's energy efficiency funding and we'll continue to stay involved protecting not only the city's interest but also the particular concerns of how to take advantage for the community choice aggregators. thank you. >> okay. also we have presentation on the rfp. >> yes. staff was directed at the last meeting to address the local energy build out program. some of the issues that staff was directed also

included a marketing approach. that's not in this particular rfp and we were under the impression that that did not need to be under this particular draft. but if that is not the direction of the commission just let us know. what this rfp deals with is a build out program to find an independent consultant to issue criteria that the commission has developed which is obviously maintained energy efficiency and increase local control and maximize job creation and maintain affordable electric rates to support environmental justice and provide and describe the economic opportunities. this was a criticism that we heard both from the mayor's office and sfp