Meeting Information
MINUTES
Special Meeting
Friday, June 28, 2002, 2:00 p.m.
City Hall, Room 263
Chairperson: Commissioner Gonzalez; Vice Chairperson: Commissioner McGoldrick
Members: Commissioners Ammiano, Hall and Schmeltzer
Alternate: Commissioners Peskin and Fellman
Clerk: Monica Fish
SPECIAL AGENDA
(There will be public comment on each item)
1. Call to Order and Roll Call
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Gonzalez at 2:15 p.m.
Members Present: Chairperson Gonzalez, Vice-Chairperson McGoldrick; Commissioners Ammiano, Hall, and Fellman (noted present at 2:58 p.m.).
Members Absent: Commissioner Schmeltzer
2. Approval of the Minutes of the Commission Meeting of June 7, 2002 (Action Item).
No Public Comment.
Commissioner Hall moved to approve the minutes; Vice-Chairperson McGoldrick seconded. No objection. Minutes unanimously approved.
3. Discussion and Action regarding Outside Legal Counsel versus City Attorney’s Office support to the San Francisco Local Agency Formation Commission (SF LAFCo).
Theresa Mueller, Deputy City Attorney, City Attorney’s Office stated, as you know, the City Attorney’s Office would be happy to represent the LAFCo. You have a letter that the City Attorney sent you last month, and it sets out what we believe would be necessary parameters for that. Once we know what you wanted us to do, we could develop a transition plan, we could work with your existing attorneys to make sure that you are well represented in any transition, and we could provide you with a budget once we knew what you had in mind. It is not entirely clear to us now exactly what you anticipate the LAFCo doing going forward so it’s really hard to say what kind of budget would be required.
Chairperson Gonzalez stated, I think that’s a fair point and thank you for coming and expressing that. My own sense is that once we have the finalized Energy Services Study, there probably will be some discussion among the members of the LAFCo about what the next steps would be. It might be useful if you had a preliminary meeting with Ms. Young and our current counsel in anticipation of what that might look like. I know that you can’t take into account all the possibilities, but you could certainly have a preliminary discussion. That way as we make our decisions what path we might want to take after we receive the Final Study, we can be informed of some of the things to keep in mind related to the relationship with counsel.
Vice-Chairperson McGoldrick stated that this issue was discussed at the last LAFCo meeting.
Ms. Mueller stated, we read the transcript of your last meeting, and I think that sounds fine. We are happy to do that.
Public Comment
Mr. Ow stated, two years ago when LAFCo tried to put forth an initiative for the people to vote on, the City Attorney opposed it all the way. We are going to have a public power initiative in the coming November election. I suggest that you retain outside counsel until the people vote up or down on public power. There is a potential conflict of interest between the PUC and this LAFCo. If this will be passed, PUC will be out of existence, so I urge you to consider retaining your own counsel, so that your own counsel will do the best they can with loyalty to this Commission. We just heard the City Attorney say that the City Attorney will consider it. That means there will be a negotiation. The City Attorney representing this Committee all the way is in doubt.
No further public comment.
Public comment closed.
Chairperson Gonzalez stated, I don’t think we need to say anything more on this item and that everyone is in agreement.
4. Discussion and Action regarding Public Outreach for the Energy Consultant Study and Possible Community Meetings.
Gloria L. Young, Executive Officer stated, through the Chair to the Committee, that did in fact indicate as we were going through the process of reviewing the Draft Energy Study, that there was discussion about the possibility of having outreach into the neighborhoods to discuss the Draft Energy Study. You asked that I get some cost estimates from the consultants. We’ve been told by Mike Bell, R. W. Beck, that the cost would be $216.00 to $259.00 per hour and if you needed our legal counsel there, it would be their hourly cost. I would suggest that we continue to have the hearings at this facility as opposed to having them outside in the community, but that we do a good job of outreach in our outreach newspapers and other possible advertisement to let folks know that we are discussing the Energy Plan. The concern that I have after discussing this with Ed Smeloff is that the outreach that they did for the PUC Energy Draft did not produce a great deal of public participation in the community, but the cost for us having consultants might be steep for such a process. Unless, you wanted to have maybe one or two. But if we wanted to do one for each district or have several, it could be costly.
Mr. Mike Bell, Client Services Director, R. W. Beck stated, what we have done in some other cases is simply just be available should there be specific meetings where the consultants are required or requested. We’re open to whatever would work best for the City in this regard. Sometimes clients hold meetings without the consultants present in smaller groups, and sometimes they will have fewer meetings with the consultants present. We stand ready whatever your desire is.
Chairperson Gonzalez stated, I don’t think this is a decision that we have to make now. As long as all the parties are giving it some thought, I can’t imagine that we wouldn’t have some kind of public outreach with the findings.
Vice-Chairperson McGoldrick stated, that pretty much echoes what I raised at the last meeting and what our Executive Officer just reiterated again. It is the fact that we should be very careful how we spend our money. PUC spent a lot of money and didn’t get many people out there recently for the Water Bond meetings. Four people from the public and five PUC staff turned out. I think there are better ways to do it, and we can learn from this too for not just this Commission but in fact for another venue, the Board of Supervisors where we also wear the other hat. How we might do it in some way with the lists that we have, the mailings that we can do to meet both the spirit and the letter of any kind of codes or guidelines by using those lists and maybe consulting with other departments. Using the resources we have there are probably four or five departments that do a lot of outreach, and we could probably name them and ask them if they can send us their lists. That is public property and we can make use of it.
Ms. Young stated, in terms of at least getting feedback for the Final Plan, we could revise the previous notice asking for written comments, send it to a number of departments that have their outreach efforts, and ask them to include it as we include it in ours as well. We have also placed it on the web as you will find out today. We haven’t gotten any written comments yet on the Plan, and we did a pretty good outreach as of June 17th when we had the meeting here. I think you can leave it open as there is no need for a decision today.
Vice-Chairperson McGoldrick stated and we can consult later. Some of the departments that are required to do a public outreach and public notification, the Planning Department and the Department of Building Inspection are the first two that come to my mind, and I think they have fairly extensive lists.
Ms. Young stated, most departments because of the inexpensive costs that we use with our outreach advertising will send their non-legal ads or notices to us. That is in the control of the Clerk of the Board’s Office. We will in fact send that kind of a notice out as a part of our outreach in terms of our next meetings on the Final Plan. We plan to do that as our next outreach effort, and we did the same thing with the first Draft.
Public Comment
No public comment.
Public comment closed.
Chairperson Gonzalez stated I think we could defer action on this item until we have the Study. At that time, we can have Ms. Young re-calendar the item and put together however small a proposal of her thoughts of different ways we can go and the number of meetings in mind. One meeting here in City Hall, three or four meetings, eleven meetings, just different alternatives as Ms. Young sees it.
5. Report by Commissioner Ammiano regarding the public power authority measure (Continued from the June 7, 2002 Meeting).
Commissioner Ammiano stated, there have been a lot of hours and discussion about the drafting of this item. As always, there is some contention that the two issues that we will be dealing with on July 5th at the Rules Committee meeting are the governance issues elected, appointed. Supervisor Gonzalez has some amendments in regard to that. Also, the actual issue of grid acquisition when, where details of that are still to be brokered. Hopefully, we’ll come up with a version that will pass mustard not only at the Board of Supervisors, but in terms of the voter. Trying to get all of the stakeholders involved in our Board sometimes is an intricate process. I think you colleagues know that having been involved in drafting legislation and charter amendments. Certainly, labor is an important issue. No surprise that PG&E will come out again to this issue. I had a meeting with them just to share the draft and the ideas so that was I suppose you could say self-evident that that was going to happen. So, we’re almost there and hopefully, the process in and around certifying the final version will happen, and we can put the item on the ballot and have a campaign that is successful.
Public Comment
Chairperson Gonzalez stated, I think what Commissioner Ammiano is also trying to communicate is that this item will be heard at the Rules Committee on July 5.
Mr. Hunter Stern, resident of San Francisco and representative of the Local Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, IBW, the union that represents the utility workers here in San Francisco. We would just like to say that we are interested and have been engaged in some discussions with Supervisor Ammiano and look forward to working with the Supervisor and also Supervisor Gonzalez’s amendments, we would like to have some discussions around that. We look forward to having a chance to speak more fully on the measure when it comes up in the Rules Committee next week.
Vice-Chairperson McGoldrick asked, were you able to catch our last meeting in which there was a discussion we had with Mr. Mellor from R. W. Beck. The discussion was around this issue. In their studies, they found no municipalization efforts in which any unionized workers had ever been in any way hurt.
Mr. Stern stated, we are interested in continuing to work on the Draft, which we find very favorable in its premise. But of course with some fine tuning, we’re interested. We have been involved in two specific takeovers by Municipal Utility Districts, Lassen and Sacramento, in which some of our members chose not to work for the new Municipal Utility District. That was in Sacramento and the other Lassen, in which some did. Our issues are with our membership as a whole, many of whom work in San Francisco, many more who do not.
Vice-Chairperson McGoldrick asked, are you the Local who pulled out of the Labor Council?
Mr. Stern stated, Local 1245.
Vice-Chairperson McGoldrick stated so you had folks who chose not to, but indeed the testimony before us from R. W. Beck was that in their experience, no union workers had ever been disfavored or hurt in any way.
Mr. Stern stated, I think the issues that we have are peculiar to the work environment here in San Francisco as well as where our members live and work and because of our labor contract with PG&E, and the effect of people who are displaced into locations that may be far from where they live. I think it is reasonable for the Beck group to come to that conclusion in terms of the bottom-line wages and benefits. I’m also certain that that would not be the case with our members, and that is why we have had an interest in this proposal for some time.
Vice-Chairperson McGoldrick asked, what was your concern last time when this was on the ballot?
Mr. Stern stated, the principal concern was that the measure on the ballot last fall was focused only on the acquisition and did not address fully the generation side of the equation, which is in our view the fundamental problem. The City of San Francisco and its residents need a cost-reliable source of electricity and the utility because of deregulation may not any longer be a good source of that. The proposal that was on last November’s ballot focused almost exclusively on the takeover of the utility, which as I said before has some adverse effects to our membership.
Vice-Chairperson McGoldrick asked, what are the adverse effects?
Mr. Stern stated, it is a little bit complicated. It does derive in the number of people that work in San Francisco, which are about 1,000 for PG&E and the effect of their displacement into work locations which may be far from where they live. They could end up as far away from here as Bakersfield in the south, and up to the Oregon border in the north. Some people may approve of that, but a majority of them like working and living in this area.
Vice-Chairperson McGoldrick asked, is there some language in your discussions that would be able to satisfy these concerns?
Mr. Stern stated, yes, we have had some discussions with Supervisor Ammiano’s office.
Vice-Chairperson McGoldrick stated, I would like to see those concerns addressed. I am the president of a Local myself and have a lot of empathy with the Brotherhood and Sisterhood. I would like to see us resolve it, and I know we have a strong position to wanting to support working brothers and sisters. I think it is very important that those issues be specified and get the language in there that you need.
Mr. Stern stated, and we look forward to arriving at something that is suitable for everyone.
Chairperson Gonzalez stated, I am reading a history book that discusses labor at the early part of the twentieth century, and labor has not been a monolith in this town. There was a story told of how even back then the building trades when unions got together to march in the May Day labor parade, they would assemble in the middle of Market street and essentially march in different directions because they felt such antagonism toward one another. I don’t mean to suggest that that is what 1245 is doing.
Mr. Stern stated, I think it’s an interesting and somewhat archaic view of the labor movement given the time, but not necessarily inappropriate on any one issue. What we’ve tried to do in the last eighteen months is to educate primarily. Because we represent not only the utility workers here in San Francisco which are PG&E employees, but utility workers in public agencies throughout Northern California, we wanted to educate folks as much as possible to the changes of the industry and why it is important for cities to try and take control of their generation assets as much as possible.
No further public comment.
Public comment closed.
Chairperson Gonzalez stated, Commissioner Ammiano, we will take up the item on July 5th.
6. Discussion regarding San Francisco LAFCO’s Future Work Plan (Continued from the June 7, 2002 Meeting).
Ms. Young stated, I would defer to Commissioner McGoldrick. This was his item in terms of wanting to have a discussion at this Commission about the future plan.
Chairperson Gonzalez stated, I think we were all kind of in the context of talking about who would take over the attorney work, and we started into the dialogue about what we are going to be doing in the future. I am wondering, Ms. Miller, if you could help me with one question-is there any prohibition under Sunshine laws from the Chair of the LAFCo meeting with the individual members to discuss future possibilities? I know there are prohibitions on the seriatim meetings. Would there be a prohibition from simply discussing what individual members are interested in doing?
Nancy Miller, Esquire stated, there is prohibition against serial meetings, like with you meeting with each one to reach a consensus on a work plan. But you could meet with just one. Or you could designate a committee to come up with a work plan. Or you could ask your Executive Officer to gather input from the different Commissioners and have that be an agenda item and report back to you in terms of if there are different things that your Commissioners want as a work plan. We don’t really have any other work plan other than the study right now. We have money in the budget right now to finish up with the electric study and come back for one or two more meetings. Beyond that, we don’t really have guidance or issues that we are dealing with.
Chairperson Gonzalez stated, I think it is important that we be thinking about this for the future. Once we have the final report, hear from the public, and start considering the future, there will be some issues related to financial constraints, the need to go to the Board and deal with supplemental requests in the event there is something that we need. There might be a time period where we decide to reconvene after the end of the year. There are a lot of different ways this thing can unfold.
Commissioner Ammiano stated, I was thinking of a conversation I had with a leading local public power advocate. We talked about LAFCo and if the ballot measure is successful, what role LAFCo might have. I personally have been thinking we would continue for a very long time, but then that was something that we "noodled" around a little bit. Maybe there would be life after LAFCo that LAFCo would continue even with public power in place if that happens. We have some scenarios to explore and develop in hat way.
Chairperson Gonzalez stated, I hadn’t thought about this prior to this item being called in the meeting. I know that Supervisors McGoldrick and Daly have the public advocate and Auditor General proposals pending. I know they very well may be on the November ballot. The LAFCo does have rather broad powers to go into the creation of agencies, it goes into government efficiency. It could very well be a place where we could try to flush that out. The Controller made available to us at the Rules Committee a law review article written in part by Mark Green who was the public power advocate related to the history of the public advocate. I just got ten pages into it, and I think it is a fascinating issue. So, we can explore.
Ms. Young stated, since the Chairperson is prohibited from meeting with you individually, one suggestion is that Nancy Miller and I meet with each one of you and discuss some of the broad responsibilities associated with LAFCo, collect your ideas and thoughts and bring it back to you for discussion.
Chairperson Gonzalez stated, I think that is a good possibility. I do want to quarrel with the advice because I don’t think I am prohibited from meeting with the individual members. I am prohibited if I go to each of the individual members and talk about my idea about what I want to do to try to build consensus. But if I to go to Commissioner Hall and say, what do you want to do with this agency and then go to Commissioner McGoldrick and ask him the same question, that is okay.
Ms. Miller stated, you cannot just seek consensus. But, if you are going to seek input, you could definitely do that and then come back. Your Commission Executive Officer could as well. As a LAFCo, if you remain constituted, there are certain statutory requirements you have. Basically, they are called service reviews. You are supposed to constitute and run service reviews of public agencies within your jurisdiction, and you can be aggressive about that or as non-aggressive as you choose to be. Some LAFCo’s are very aggressive about that, and others are not.
Chairperson Gonzalez asked, can we change the name of the LAFCo and call it the Department of the Auditor General? I know we are all incredibly busy, but I would appreciate it if folks meet with your respective aides and give some thought to what we might do in the future. Maybe, each member here could communicate that to Ms. Young. I would be glad to meet with you and we could certainly have a presentation. It might be helpful if Ms. Young could make the language available to the members of the Commission as to what our charge is under state law.
Ms. Young stated, I was just having a discussion with our attorney that we would scope out a fact sheet that would give you some information about what the possibilities are, what some of the charges are so that could be a prompter for your discussions with your staff. Then you can get back to me with your comments.
Commissioner Hall stated, that is what I was going to ask for. I would like you to set up a meeting with Sean and myself.
Ms. Young concurred.
Vice-Chairperson McGoldrick stated, we have the potential to do a lot of good things here. That is all I wanted to do and to bring up the possibility that we would have some other tasks before us which would promote the general welfare of the City including ideas such as what Chairperson Gonzalez just expressed are things to think about. I am on board for keeping our ears and eyes open.
Public Comment
No further public comment.
Public comment closed.
7. Discussion regarding the Draft Energy Services Study.
Chairperson Gonzalez stated, I was interested in maybe having a few of Ms. Young’s thoughts, to hear from Mr. Bell. I was hoping to have Mr. Bell address some of the points that Mr. Maynor raised. I don’t know if Mr. Bell has seen his remarks. For the benefit of the Commission, maybe you could just go down them and summarize and give us your thoughts in the event the Commissioners have not had a chance to familiarize themselves with those remarks. Certainly, to open it up to any other concerns.
Ms. Young stated, I would defer to Mr. Beck. I did in fact concur with the comments that were made by our legal counsel, Don Maynor. It is my understanding that Mike had a conference call with Commissioners Hope Schmeltzer and Diane Fellman yesterday with respect to the comments they had as well as the ones that Don Maynor had presented to Mike Bell. I would defer to him since he has the most recent information.
Mr. Bell stated, why don’t I start by taking a moment to describe what we’ve done since the last public hearing. What we’ve attempted to do is take the discussion and the comments from that hearing and work those thoughts and ideas into this next draft. Also, we have been working the last couple of weeks with the Task Force receiving written comments back from Task Force members and addressing those written comments. The comments that you referred to from Mr. Maynor are, as we speak, being worked into the draft. We had, as Ms. Young pointed out, a conference call yesterday afternoon with the Task Force specifically with regard to those comments and the comments of the other Task Force members. Mr. Maynor’s comments essentially go back to the last public hearing and also attempt to bring out the issues in the Executive Summary with regard to energy pricing, reliability, and local control. The suggestion that he had in terms of developing a matrix that shows how each of the different options would affect pricing, reliability, and local control is what we are working into the Executive Summary of the next draft. He also had several other good comments that are also being worked into the draft as well as comments from other Task Force members. We are on schedule, and I expect that we will deliver the report as agreed to.
Chairperson Gonzalez stated, this is a point Commissioner Schmeltzer brought up previously, the importance of keeping in mind as much as possible the unique characteristics of San Francisco. I know that you have done that, but I did concur with Mr. Maynor that that was something to keep at the forefront because we certainly want that in the document.
Mr. Bell stated, that is a very good point and that really came out in the public hearing. What we have done is taken some of those comments and moved them right up to the front of the report. The other thing that we’ve done is add a new section in the report that identifies next steps for these options, the amount of time, and budget estimate of what it would take should the LAFCo decide to move forward with any of these options.
Chairperson Gonzalez stated I also thought Mr. Maynor’s remarks about the effort at trying to assign some kind of cost of acquiring distribution, but really almost like a comparative analysis of what had happened in other jurisdictions. I thought that was a novel way of trying to "skin the cat."
Mr. Bell stated, what we have attempted to do in the new section is come up with a bar chart that would identify what those costs might be with a couple of different scenarios. Obviously, there hasn’t been a great deal of time or budget to quantify that in extreme detail, but from what we know and what we have done in this area, we have been able to take a crack at putting that together. What we are doing with regard to the draft is circulating a revision today to the Task Force that incorporates the comments that I have just addressed. All of that has worked into this draft which we are delivering to the Task Force today.
Vice-Chairperson McGoldrick stated, during Public Comment, Mr. Brugmann stated he was interested in exploring some deeper more detailed kind of analysis. Mr. Mellor indicated that would take a lot more work. The scoping for that would be much deeper, and that would be something that you would need a work order for that. That is not part of your work order or program. I just want to get an idea of how long that would take you to do if you were asked to do something deeper and more detailed in terms of a more complete package of acquisition of the grid, generation issues, or deeper transmission issues.
Mr. Bell stated, within the context of what we discussed in terms of coming up with dollar estimates and more thorough analysis of the costs of acquisition, we estimate it would take about three months to complete that work. That would be physically looking at portions of the system and so on, evaluating them, coming up with cost estimates. The cost of that would be in the range of about $150,000 to $200,000. That is incorporated into this next draft of the report as one of those potential next steps.
Public Comment
Mr. Stern, Local 1245 IBW, stated, several comments and observations based on our experiences in the past with all three types of utility employers, municipal public agencies, private utilities, and private energy generation companies. The first is that it is our view that the timeframe that the Beck Company was allotted to perform the study was really too short, and it is difficult for them to put together a full and incredible study. We think they have done rather well with the timeframe, but there are some things that would probably need further study and further detail. Particularly, the specifics of San Francisco load projections. We do keep track of our estimates of the state load need for various reasons. We have various utility union groups that we associate with. Our estimates for load growth and this is for the state of California indicate that there will an increased load at a faster rate than what the Beck study shows. Because Beck and the study correctly identifies the transmission or location problems in San Francisco that exist, because of the problems of getting electricity to San Francisco that does put the City at a greater risk at a faster point in time.
There are also two other things that are not inaccurate, but perhaps somewhat misleading. Table 4.2 identifies comparison of distribution services between public utilities and Investor Owned Utilities (IOU’s). The language says both adhere to General Orders 95 and 128, and this is very important to our members. In fact, the investor owned utilities or the private utilities are required to adhere to General Orders 95 and 128. These are state-mandated work orders. The public agencies are not required. They generally do on their own, but they don’t have to. We have gotten into some discussions with our public agencies and at times have had disagreements about whether they are properly adhering to what we consider to be reasonable safety work practices. Also, the rates and pricing, and this I think a true statement, but somewhat misleading--historical prices have averaged 20 percent below IOU’s for similar customer segments. We think that is correct. I think the difference in what we see as the difference now is the access to federally subsidized or low-cost federal hydro power is not available. In fact, we have an interesting situation with our employer, SMUD, in which we have been in contract negotiations for some time. They have taken a rather large hit during the recent spike in prices where they had to buy electricity on the spot market, and they are feverishly trying to develop new sources of generation for themselves. These are things that we are concerned about that the City and the LAFCo understand about the current environment in which to go forward and acquire municipalization.
Chairperson Gonzalez stated, perhaps Mr. Stern can speak to Mr. Bell and he could confer with you. I am sure that he would be glad to do that. I think that while I acknowledge we’ve certainly asked much of our consultants, they have a very fine reputation, and I doubt that they would be interested in publishing a document that they weren’t comfortable with and would rather miss a deadline than publish inaccuracies.
Mr. Stern stated, I am not suggesting that they are. I don’t think I found anything inaccurate. I think there are just some things that probably could use a little bit more flushing out.
Commissioner Gonzalez asked, Mr. Bell, could you have a talk with Mr. Stern? He seems to have some ideas.
Mr. Bell stated, I would be happy to speak with Mr. Stern regarding all of the issues he mentioned, growth projections which actually have been part of the Henwood section part of the work, but also Beck has worked in conjunction with them on that. The General Order 95 and 128 issues are probably more semantics than anything else. The publicly-owned systems as Mr. Stern identified largely do follow those regulations. I am not aware of any that don’t, but we can take a look at that language in the report. Perhaps I can identify with Mr. Stern where the comments with regards to rates are identified in the report. I believe that what we have commented on is the comparison of a new utility that is just forming to those that have been in existence for 100 years clearly creates types of situations that he has just described. I would be more than happy to meet with Mr. Stern and discuss his comments and questions regarding the report.
No further public comment.
Public comment closed.
8. Future Agenda Items
Chairperson Gonzalez stated, I think we have touched on this agenda item with Item Nos. 3, 4, 5, and 6.
Ms. Young stated, we do have one additional item. We would ask for a closed session at the next meeting to further discuss our potential litigation.
Chairperson Gonzalez stated, colleagues, if there is not an objection, we will schedule this item.
Public Comment
No public comment
Public comment closed.
Chairperson Gonzalez stated, we will follow the recommendation of Ms. Young
9. Public Comment on Items not on the Agenda
Mr. Charles Kalish stated, I apologize for being late, but the item on the agenda that had to do with outreach is what I tried to get here for.
Chairperson Gonzalez suggested that Mr. Kalish speak to Ms. Young about this item. What we have essentially done is we are going to delay final decision-making on that until we have a final report. Ms. Young is going to prepare alternative things that we might do.
No further public comment.
Public comment closed.
Ms. Young asked if we should set up the next meeting so we can direct Mr. Bell for coming back with the Final Plan. I was suggesting July 19th that would give enough time for the Plan to be done. Mr. Bell has agreed to that date, Ms. Miller, and Mr. Maynor can be here as well.
Commissioner Fellman stated that she would be on vacation on that date and to check with Commissioner Schmeltzer to see if she can attend.
Ms. Young stated, if not, we would poll the Commissioners for another meeting date.
10. Adjournment
The meeting of the San Francisco Local Agency Formation Commission adjourned at 3:02 p.m.
p>