to lafco. perhaps that can be incorporated. >> that makes sense. supervisor campos: miss miller? >> we can certainly do that. we can have a report on the status of the negotiations. we have been working on phase ii. it would be renewable portion. supervisor campos: seeing no other questions, why don't we open it up? >> it is a cca bill. out of the pg&e bill. it is a limitation with respect to the energy service provider that can be providing the service. it was just introduced. i don't even have a language for you yet. it is by assemblymean hall. we will get the language to you as soon as possible. this is not a huge surprise to us since we figured with our legislation to do what we want, it is not as supportive of the activities. supervisor campos: is there a specific action you are asking from lafco? >> we don't have support for the bill that the senator is carrying. supervisor campos: thank you. why don't we open it up for public comment? if anyone would like to speak, please come forward. >

>> approval of the minutes for the meeting february 28, 2011, special lafco meeting. chairperson campos: colleagues, i believe you have a copy of the meeting minutes. any comments or changes to those minutes? and we open it up to public comment. is there any member of the public to like to speak on this item? seeing none, public, disclosed. emotion? -- a motion. we take that without objection. madam clerk, item three? >> report on the status of community choice aggregation activities, san francisco program, state legislation consideration of their resolution of support for sb 790, report on legislation affecting committee choice aggregation programs, status on marin clean energy, and status of proceedings at california public utilities commission. >> this will be sort of a tag team for item three. i will be presenting a few of these items. i intend to cover an update on where we are in the negotiations on clean power sf, a status update with petrol solar, and update on what is going on in iran, as well as regulatory and legislative update. and we may have more to add

>> well, we have our lafco hearing, i believe, is set for april 25. if we don't have an sfpc joint hearing, the idea would be that i wanted that available for public review a sufficient time prior to our hearing. but it's available publicly at that time so we can set our hearing depending on what hearing we want to have any time after that date. i was thinking in our next regularly scheduled meeting. vice chairperson mirkarimi: so it sounds like there has to be some kind of negotiation between us, lafco and the budget committee. two months from the time that this was postponed puts us up into early to mid april. from budget committee. and i know that budget committee would love to entertain this before we get into the significant depth of our budget process which are hits the ground in april -- may. i think we want to avoid that process. >> so the chair and committee members are aware, i started to have a discussion with superviser chu's office about doing a joint meeting with us and then on this very subject, we probably do it during one of the regul

and i would ask lafco to have those consultants do that work. we make sure we are covering all the bases. those of you that remember the power plant battle might remember the previous 2002 electric resources plan was a problem because it promoted that power plants. staff and other officials with constantly bring up the electric resources plan as an excuse to say that we should build a power plant. that is why it is crucial that it does in due diligence to make sure that this is really robust on cca. that way we got, the hearings later that says it does not specify. we need that to happen so that we can be confident [chime] -supervisor campos: is there any other member of the public that like to speak on this item? >> i just wanted to point out that in the letter that i sent to the commissioners, i did mention that our interests in making sure that community choice was really a bedrock strategy, suggesting that it would be a good idea, consistent with what mr. brooks said. we take a good look at the plan before it is adopted to make sure if becom

i see that there is a letter to the lafco commissioners. with respect to a local renewable build-out which is what was provided in the original ordinance. can you speak to how that is going, when the time line involved is, and what, if any involvement we can have to make sure that it is progressing. >> that was part of the rfp for the build-up i was mentioning. we are working to ensure that we have an rfp ready to go with the power supply

i see that there is a letter to the lafco commissioners. with respect to a local renewable build-out which is what was provided in the original ordinance. can you speak to how that is going, when the time line involved is, and what, if any involvement we can have to make sure that it is progressing. >> that was part of the rfp for the build-up i was mentioning. we are working to ensure that we have an rfp ready to go with the power supply contract we are negotiating. we have had some good conversations about that. and potential resources are locations in the city where one of the things we want to do is include a detailed the appendix that will detail city owned and identify locations that would be ideal bowl for renewals. -- ideal for renewables. in terms of timing, we have a commitment, but i expect it will move in tanedem with negotiationsit

supervisor mirkarimi: i think what the city missed has nothing to do with lafco. that conversation did not take place at the mayor's office. who knows? it can still continue to keep along the construct. there is enough to go around for us bringing the port into the discussion, whereas that was never mentioned before. solid waste versus >> and that's what needs to be zeroed on the port's ability to be able to help administer and process this with the proper environmental reviews. so maybe look at the issue of rekentucky cla believes -- recyclaables by something being hauled by port or barge is something we're looking at. >> i think it's important to include the barging piece in terms of the survey locally in terms of what is happening around the bay area. i would also hope that to the extent that that is not happening in the bay area that we actually look at, at least survey quickly what jurisdictions are doing that, for instance. i have heard that new york city is actually using barging and so i think that knowing who else is doing it, even if it's outside the bay

lafco. we have come to you today, and we are looking for you to endorse this plan being delivered to the board of supervisors for their endorsement of the overall goals. we are also looking for -- commissioner torres: when is that going to be presented? >> it will not be presented unless you release us to do so. i am here to ask you to do that. commissioner torres: is authorization is provided, when do you plan to do that -- if authorization is provided? >> within the month. we are looking to develop the recommendations more fully and bring them back to you. we need to make sure that the recommendations we developed through this plan are addressed in ceqa is necessary. this is a framework. we will come back to you with specific projects and programs for your endorsement, so you will have further opportunity to get into the broad areas i have described today. for members of the public to have yet to take a look at the plant or who want to access it in its final version, let me just put a slid

i wanted to make sure that my colleagues from lafco were part of that discussion. it was designed to clarify, really trying to undo some of the unfair advantages. a few highlights of the legislation include the code of conduct and better enforcement of procedures for utilities. and bringing violations to the cpuc. it may not be terminated without a fair public hearing. as you recall, there was a discussion about the reentry limitations. if a customer switches out of that, who have to stay out of the program for three years. it would allow them to come back after six months. it further of firms and clarifies that it would be at their discretion to a knowledge those types of resources for serving those customers. that is my general update. supervisor campos: we have been joined by commissioner avalos. commissioner schmeltzer: i wanted to go back to the meeting that you had with petro- solar. can you tell us more about what happened at the meeting and what their presentation in jail? -- e

and he serves on lafco. we have supervisors who served on four, five outside commissions on top of what they currently do. i will be supporting supervisor campos. as much as i like supervisors to volunteer to serve on communities, seniority is one of the rules we have in place and i will be respecting that. supervisor elsbernd: just for kicks, i am the most senior, if seniority is the rule of the day, i am more than happy to consider that. we will see where things lie when we get to the board. it is good to know that seniority is important. supervisor kim: is there a motion? you made the motion? seconded. roll call on the motion to amend? >> supervisor can? supervisor kim: no. >> supervisor elsbernd? supervisor elsbernd: aye. supervisor farrell: aye. >> thank you, the motion passes. supervisor kim: we will move to continue this to the next meeting. i may call for a special rules committee hearing to hear this earlier. thank you. madam clerk, would you call item no. 2, please? >> item 2, resolution confirming

>> we have another member who is working with lafco, and she has a background in technology and recently got her master's in public policy and is working on her mba with a focus on green business, so i just want to welcome her to our intern staffing group, and then also, just a quick update, we have received our photos for the photo contest comment nl the choosing of the finalists has begun on our facebook page, so we urge everyone to move forward with pepper -- a canastota contest -- a photo contest, and the choosing of the finalists has begun on our facebook page, so we urge everyone to move forward with it. we have 28 photographs that were submitted. just in comparison, the puc last year had a total of six entries for their water bottle contest. we did better. i know the group was narrowing it down to the final five, and they wish they could of had a few more photographs to select in that mix, because it was very hard to get it down to the final group. if you like, i did bring a thumb drive. if you want to take a look at them, i can show them. was there another question that you had i

the last lafco i was at, they were frustrated with how slow this process was, and i could not agree with them more. with respect to this agency moving quickly. >> i think the moving quickly sentiment or lack thereof that you heard at the last meeting was with respect to reporting on this but also with respect to the overall implementation of community choice aggregation, and we are in negotiations at this time on community choice aggravation and are making forward progress there. with respect to this report, our expectation in bringing it to the board is to have indorsed and give us the broad vision, endorse the broad vision, with the umbrella under which we will implement the recommendations and bring recommendations for with for endorsement, specific adoption and implementation. commissioner torres: commissioner. -- commissioner moran's comments? getting that before it is set to the board? >> we will bring each program element -- before it is sent to the board? >> we will bring each program element. it will be at the time the recommendation implementation is brought to the commission.