questions about the amendments if not we'll take that without objection. they're adopted and on the motion to forward item one to the full board with with a positive recommendation i'll we'll take that without objection. madam clerk madam clerk, any other business before this committee? >> there's no further business. >> then we're adjourned thank you [gavel] . good afternoon. today is december 12, 2014. welcome to

the san francisco local agency formation commission. my name is john avalos, the chair of the commission. the clerk is alyssa samir a madam clerk could you call the roll. >> commissioner avalos. >> present. >> commissioner breed. >> here. >> commissioner campos. >> commissioner crews. >> present. >> commissioner lindo. >> here. >> commissioner mar ma. >>here. >> you have a quorum. >> let's go to the next item please. next item is approval of the lafco minutes from the october 24, 2014. >> any questions on the minutes colleagues? okay. we will go on to the public comment. seeing none. public comment is now closed. [gavel] and could we have a roll call vote to approve the minutes or do we have to have a roll call

vote i believe. >> you could take them unanimously. >> okay. very good. >> we need a motion and a second. >> commissioner lie commissioner breed breed and seconded and we will take that without objection. [gavel] . thank you. next item. >> item four is a community choice aggregation. a status update on the cleanpowersf and enernex report and b -- >> [inaudible] >> i'm sorry. we are doing number 3 first. >> i'm sorry. item number 3. the 2015 lafco meeting schedule. >> okay. thank you. we have our director mr. fried. >> yes, jason fried your executive officer. in the packet you have proposed meetings for next year. we try to follow the fourth friday rule

but when it doesn't occur with a supervisor's meeting and we moved those to the third or fifth friday and we take august recess same as the board and move it to the middle of the december to avoid the holidays so those are in there i checked with the supervisor's offices and checked with the commissioners, the public seats. all the dates work. i know commissioner lindo had an issue with one or two of the dates but we could reach quorum on the dates listed so proposing that you go with those date scpis know that chair avalos you were wanting to have a discussion about start time of the meeting and possibly moving it up a little bit so i will leave that up to the commission to decide if you want to do that or not for next year's meetings or not. >> thank you. my issue is i have to run across the bay and

meetings that end later get much more challenging so i wanted to see if we could have a start time at 1:30 o'clock instead of 2:00 o'clock which we currently have so that is my recommendation and seems like there's nodding heads that might be okay. commissioner breed. >> yes. i move that we change the meeting time from 2:00 o'clock to 1:30 o'clock and approve the schedule. >> okay. we have a motion from commissioner breed. seconded by commissioner mar and colleagues we have that motion in the air. we're going to go to public comment on this item. any member of the public that would like to comment on the schedule for next year. seeing none. public comment is now closed and on the motion can we take that colleagues without objection? very good. schedule is approved. [gavel] . next item -- you already called it correct?

>> yes. >> okay. presenting is barbara hale and jason fried. >> jason fried lafco staff again. once again the enernex report has been issued to us. we have a copy and distributed to all of you as well as the puc and the the general public as a whole. it's on our website. there is a lot of good information in there. we took pretty much all of the comments we received during the draft period of the report and incorporated them into the comments and changed it for example -- one of the issues that the puc brought up was the issue that not all of these jobs are considered local, some are for projects for example in southern california, so one thing we did and went in and looked at the physical location of all these were and broke it up to a local and more regional and state job creation and broke the projects up and calculated them accordingly so we could

get more local. we used the local hire ordinance to the definition of what is local and san franciscans getting jobs for as a good example considered local so in the final copy you now see the numbers broken up and all the projects broken up into regional, local positions that we can count on san franciscans getting a job for and the broader base staff, like there is stuff in southern california that clearly san franciscans wouldn't see the economic benefits of that but it's still a project that could have potential. the thing to keep in mind and they're clear in the report on this we're saying we're going -- we're not saying we're going to build all of them and cost prohibitive to do but 10 years down the road you might be building and they're not all launched on day one and get

thousands of jobs created. it's going to get to some time to that creation and there were some things. there were other stuff requested and change of clarifications done to clean up the stuff, make sure everything was copesettic throughout the report and i think they did a very good job and show where it is now and took -- because there were some comments -- especially from the public side that were outside of their scope of work or were more for lack of a better term opinion of how things should be done and while they accepted that was someone's opinion they weren't necessarily incorporated into the report itself because it wasn't something the report was focused on so like i said they took everyone's comments. we got comments from puc, the department of environment, from advocates and got extremely high level comments from ted eagon about it as well and all -- his comments were this seems to be fine. they used different

modeling than what the city uses but because the city's model is a proprietary model and you have to pay and it's expensive to pay for they had a similar model they had a contract on and license they could use so they used their model rather than the city model of calculating job creations for money that is spent on projects and construction, so ted didn't have issues with the other model. if you unran it through the city model you would be off by a few jobs because they're slightly different but in the same ballpark for estimates. >> what is the overall job growth mentioned? >> the final job number if i remember correctly state wide was about 9,000 and half of those fell into the local hire ordinance jurisdiction area, and so you had about 4500 -- 4700 -- i don't remember the numbers off the top of my head but half were the local jobs created. >>

there is a difference between permanent and non permanent jobs? >> those were construction jobs and a couple hundred ongoing operational jobs and again i don't remember the break down. i haven't memorized the numbers yet and we hope they will come to a joint lafco puc meeting and we could get into the details of the reports itself and ask the consultants directly and get the feedback on ti wanted to give you an update of what is transpiring with the report and if the public wants to see it they could go to the lafco website and review it. on top of that on tuesday i will let ms. hale discuss this and the puc had a meeting in the enernex report and i will turn it over to her. >> thank you. barbara hale

assistant general manager for power. as was mentioned on tuesday december 9 our commission had a meeting and we included an update on the lafco report within the general manager's report agenda item. we provided a brief preview of the report's findings and what our comments were from the puc which were provided to lafco staff on november 20. we will -- because we received the draft actually just the afternoon before the meeting we didn't comment on this most recent revised version. we're going through that process now at the staff level reading the report and understanding how it has responded to the comments we have given. and i think it's getting better. it's moving in the right direction. we're looking at the the request of the general manager clktding with your staff to put together a summary, sort of pro and con

of what differences remain. mr. mr. fried mentioned a couple of examples that i could use where we might have issues to work on. for example our request to be more specific as to what was local, what was regional, and what was state wide. we still have concerns about that. the local hire ordinance included a 70-mile radius for water system improvement projects for example which made sense because the work performed was serving a service territory that is broader than san francisco. the assets are located outside of san francisco and so we're not sure that using that radius is the right radius here. we're still trying to figure that out but we would still like to see the tables be very specific as to what is local in san francisco and what is not in san francisco. the report is still not clear on its face to the reader. i mean you can know if

you know the projects well enough that a project titled so nol is in alameda county b but not all of the readers will have base information as they read it and we had suggested that the tables just include the county that the project's name is listed in. that didn't happen but i think it would be helpful to the reader to understand and then we can pull out the numbers truly associated with san francisco versus alameda county and contra costa county or sonoma county. i think those were some of the counties listed in the regional listing. another example would be the construction jobs. the tables indicate numbers of jobs and their titled construction jobs. there is a footnote that makes it clear that they also include indirect i think, so they're not all construction jobs and part of the reason why in the commentings we said the numbers

look big to us in the construction in our experience and it needs to be clear to the reader they're not construction and construction indirect induced outcomes. >> what would that be a construction job versus a indirect induced job? >> i think the report blends the two so the folks actually working the manpower hours to construct the facility that's being referenced i would call a construction job and then jobs that are not actually job site employment but are perhaps equipment or services because there's -- a cup of coffee the kree chief buys while they're there those are indirect jobs. >> so the people who would provide -- who would deliver equipment or who would provide -- make the coffee, like a starbucks. they're counting

star backs? i believe that's what the report does but i will let him speak to that. the point i am trying to make there are tables that say construction job which i think most readers would think a person in a hard hat on a job site but the numbers under that heading are more than just the construction jobs. i'm not saying we shouldn't get information of the non direct jobs along with the construction jobs i am just asking it's transparent to the readers of what the numbers are. i think they're all appropriate to be included and whatever the correct methodology is and they should be included but i am asking for better specificity to the jobs and i think it's mattered to policy makers in the past. it's good information. it's readily available in the metadata behind the tables but not in the tables provided and that that's way of example of things that we will have a dialogue on and look to be more

transparent about as we go through the comment process. >> right. i do appreciate that. although there are a lot of economic reports that go out that don't have that level of specificity either, and have a huge impact on decisions we make here on the board of supervisors, certainly in the report that was made on the america's cup and all of the economic activity and job creation was going to be was way off and certainly didn't have that, and what i think is important is that we have a process to create renewable energy and that we have something that it will be run by one aspect of the city and the jobs are really important, but the real importance is that we're going to what is our goal according to our climate action plan of reaching in 2030 100% renewable energy for residents and i guess that's -- in the

next report and our effort creating a clean power program is getting towards that goal, but if mr. fried wants to respond to the convention about the construction jobs and what's direct and induced. >> yeah. i think you actually hit it right on the head already which is we use the exact same process that the city and county uses when it does the large scale projections the economists that we're doing the work for, enernex followed the same process. they used a slightly different modeling program than what the city does but they're comparable programs and did the exact same work the way the city and county would do it. in the example you gave is perfect example of the america's cup but any project is using this model including puc proximate to my understanding. >> if i may? >> sure. >> >> my commission doesn't have

the breath of experience reviewing the kindses of documents you are referring to commissioner what i am getting it's confusing to the reader, like the commissioners when a construction job shows such a large number for a solar project for example knowing we all right reported our numbers for jobs running. the numbers are so different because we're reporting actual construction jobs and this report goes broader than that. i am not suggesting that the methodology is wrong. i am just asking for transparency of the type of jobs we're talking about when we have a table that provides a large number per product under the title of construction jobs i think the lay readers, the usual people that could read this or see the presentations associated with this report will have a different understanding of what the title means perhaps what

you have given exposure with these documents. thank you. >> thank you. did you have anything else to add on the overall report ms. hale? i guess not. >> just the idea that we're going to be collaborating to provide input to our commission. they requested at our commission meeting that we work together to identify any outstanding issues or thoughts or questions so that they can have that in hand as we go into the joint meeting and i understand that -- i heard a lot of interest in having that joint meeting opportunity and the opportunity to hear directly from enernex as to what their report is teaching us. thank you. >> thank you. ms. miller. >> yeah, i just wanted to say obviously i think these kinds of debates are good things to have because we're not debating over something really substantive.

it's just we need more clarification about number of jobs and where and how. that's very easily done, but i think it's important to i think we started this process to answer some questions that had been raised when we went to the sf puc before for approval of the project so it's a really good thing to me that a lot of the answers that we provided are not being questioned, at least by staff, so we're just talking about providing more clarification in terms of tables so that's a good thing to me in terms of a joint meeting maybe we answered a lot of the larger questions that the commission had with respect to moving our program forward so i take this kind of -- these questions more of clarification and certainly it's important to know. multiplier effects on jobs are -- like you said they're very sensitive to whatever model you're using, economic model

you're using, but indirect jobs are just as important as indirect jobs. they're all jobs so i think it's fine to provide a table with more data but still a job. >> that's great. and just for our purposes in the past the city has really tried to emphasize in any way by any means necessary the number of jobs created for a new project, new program, some initiative. it's the america's cup or monconey center, just to be able to justify the investments we're making. i think it's important as we look at renewable energy and neclear power and we have a ways to go to the goal and maximize the jobs possible and looking wherever we can is important and a strong selling point no matter what so we should do what we continue to do for the events and not to over

state but that we're looking everywhere for right numbers. we have a number of you that want to speak. commissioner campos. >> thank you mr. chairman. just a couple of questions for our executive officer, so in terms of process when do we send the report or draft report to the puc? >> the report has been sent over to them. we actually sent them the report in two versions. one is the final report and then we included a red line since they provided comments to us we sent that back so they could see how the comments were interacted into the report so they have both versions to them to use as they see fit. >> [inaudible] >> yes we sent to over to them on monday and i sent to everyone who made comments and out to the general public. >> so how long have they had to review the report? >> since monday. four or five

days. it will take a few days to look at changes. i'm not surprised they haven't done that yet. >> can you talk through the chair the level of day to day communication is so these issues are clarified as the questions come up. >> the way it's been working recently we don't have day to day conversations. it's more as i get information i give it to them and they review it and in the future depending how long they need they get back to me. i will give the example of how we went through the draft version getting their comments. i sent it to them. i was following up to see if we're on time. will we get the comments back? they asked for a delay to review which we gave. they asked for a few of those and different lengths and in one case it was one day. so we did that. there hasn't been a weekly or day to day conversation. we are talking as

they get a chance to put their thoughts together because this is 190 page report so it's not day-to-day operation of discussion but a regular conversation that occurs as needed between us. >> well, i would encourage both agencies to perhaps engage on more frequent conversations. maybe that could expedite some of the questions and maybe some of the questions would be resolved more quickly because there is more clarity given on something but that is just a suggestion but going back to the puc, just a general comment. i think it's important to clarify the questions raised and i agree with our counsel it's good to have this kind of discussion. the one thing that i hope though and i don't think this is -- it's not directed at one individual or individuals for

that matter, but i really hope that there is a real effort to expedite this and move this forward, and that some of the questions, which quite frankly to me they seem more about form over substance; that some of the questions don't get in the of delaying how this moves forward, and just provide some context. we are here because the puc, the commission was not able or willing to set rates, and i think it's in some respects ironic that they want more transparency. we want transparency as well, so i would simply say that i think it's important for us to engage in meaningful dialogue, but i also

don't think that it's helpful for the puc to expect or have a different set of standards for lafco than it does the rest of the city, and to the extent that your commissioners may not have the ability to understand some of the terminology that applies to every city agency we're happy to help in that, but they have a responsibility as well to become acquainted with those terms because it's just the way the city functions, so i just want to make sure this is not an excuse to delay this further, and i don't think it is, but if it is i don't think that this is going to be very fruitful, so i think that meaningful conversation and discussion is good, but there has to be an actual intent in moving this forward, and we know there are forces within this building that have a lot of influence that

have purposely tried to delay this and will continue to do that, and so i hope it's not those forces that are driving this process at this point, and then the last thing i would say is i'm certainly prepared as a member of the board of supervisors to do whatever i need to do to hold the puc accountable if they're holding up this process because there are ways to do that, and the chair and other members of the board have done that before, and i think that we as members of the board have to be continuing willing to do that so i want to be very clear where we are because i would hope that whether a job is terkically a construction job or not would not get in the way of this project moving forward. thank you.

>> great. thank you. commissioner campos. commissioner. >> yes, i want to thank the staff and for the dialogue. i have a question for the puc. you mentioned some of the readers may have issues understanding the data. what readers are we discussing? you had mention the commission but is that the only readers are you discussing or others we should be considering? >> commissioner, barbara hale assistant manager for power. i am anticipating when we have the joint meetings and presentations and we talk about this and see news articles or trade press on this that these numbers are going to be used and i want to make sure that we get clarity from the whole community, and understanding of what we're really talking about. i think it would be unfortunate for three years down the road for people to be questioning us as

to why we didn't get 9,000 jobs in san francisco. well, the report never anticipated 9,000 jobs in san francisco. so it's that clarity i am looking for, and i want to thank your general counsel for putting the context on this, but we're really just talking about how to get the message right because it's going to be used and that's good. we want to make sure folks understand what it is that we're talking about. having observed some of the feedback that marin clean energy has gotten when you talk to folks who chose not to be part of that program they chose not to be part of marin's program in part -- of what i am hearing from people -- things weren't made clear that it wasn't as transparent for them, and so i am sensitive to that i want to make sure that we get everything off on the right foot

and move beyond the study phase so we can all understand what it is that this program offers, this concept could offer to san francisco. >> thank you. so my follow up question is these readers, those on the commission, the only concerns you raised today were to commissioner's campos' point seem to be more form and i am curious are those the only concerns they have that you heard and if so are they suggesting they wouldn't move forward unless they're cleared up? >> no. i don't think anyone is expressing any heart felt concerns at this point. we use the report that we need to highlight the general meeting and the topic would be the enernex report and to be efficient and have the enernex folks come to the joint setting instead of one of our commissions separately and please get that on calendar and

awareness from the commissioners. i saw interest and nodding heads and taking care of that shortly after the new year. >> yeah, you mentioned there is potential discrepancy in the way jobs are identified so someone must have mentioned that. >> i was saying that the title of construction jobs i think is confusing to people, and certainly in conversation at the puc when we have talked about the report not -- staff, general manager, staff to staff, not at the commission meeting to be clear. >> okay. >> we have talked about how many jobs we had at sunset reservoir. 35, $40 million project. we had per million to use the same metric that the enernex report uses per million spent we