are the 100-year flood risk zones. there is also a light blue color on the map as well and that indicates the water bodies like creeks and marshes. this is the low-lying areas that would have alignment with what continue to be flood risk areas today. we also provided for your reference this map for 1869, which is pretty interesting. it shows the location of the historic waterways before development and, again, you can see that there's a very close alignment with where our flood risk areas are today because of the topography. so the maps that we developed are searchable and zoomable and we wanted to provide an example today of what it looks like as you zoom in a little bit farther into a neighborhood, for example, next to lake merced

here. and we did notify all property owners who are within this map area, which is about 4,000 letters, notification letters, that we sent out and they can search and find their property on this map. this is an example of what folks will find when they good to sfwater.org/floodmaps and they can enter and search by address. we did try to develop a bunch of resources for the public in parallel with this technical effort, so people could understand what the map means and navigate the information. like i mentioned, we sent out this notification letter. we also developed flood risk map information sheets and faqs available on the website and established a direct email and phone line specifically for this initiative. we fielded about 25 separate

inquiries in those methods and we've had people visiting the website to look at the resources, which what flood insurance is available, how to sign up for adopt-a-dream program, etc. i also want to address that we had public availability sessions, where staff was available to answer questions and we gave five public presentations to key stake holders as well. as you know, today's presentation is for discussion only, but the next steps will be coming closer to actionable items. we what intend to do in august is to finalize the map and develop a request for review process that we'll be able to

share when we next come before the commission in september. at that time, our aim is to finalize the map and subsequent to that, use the map to move forward with legislation that would require sellers and leasers to notify buyers and renters of the location in the 100-year flood risk map. that's all we have for you today on this topic. are there any questions? >> president kwon: anything, commissioners? >> commissioner moran: do we have speakers on this item? >> president kwon: we have one. >> commissioner moran: lets do that and then i will have a question. >> president kwon: it's time for public comment. i have one speaker card. michelle settles, did i pronounce that right? ms. settles, are you here?

>> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm michael settles. i'm a homeowner in san francisco. my home is in the outer mission terrace area. and i, like many in my neighborhood, we get communication about the maps and about the sessions that will be held to let us know where the information sessions will be occurring. i've owned the property since december, 1980. we know it's a flood zone. we've been flooded twice. the first time that i experienced it was in december, 1982. and me and my neighbors came to the city and said, gosh, something's happening here, can you help us out? and there was no help. none. everybody had to do their own cleanup. and we were not controlling the

water. it was a person in my neighborhood, an elderly man that told me my home is located on cayuga avenue, and he showed me pictures where cayuga used to be a river. somebody in their wisdom years ago drained the river and built the houses. my house was built in 1929. so this has been an ongoing issue. this is not a new issue. when gavin newsom was mayor, he had a flood during his time. he's the only person that i know that came from the city to come and talk to the neighbors and find out what was going on. following that, there was some mitigation, where they did some tunneling in the street. they tried to get the water to do whatever they're trying to get the water to do. theres with an improvement. we haven't had a major issue since that time. so my concern is, first of all,

where the meetings were held, a lot of my neighbors are senior citizens. so i didn't understand why the community meetings weren't in the library that's right on mission street near our neighborhood. that would ensure -- it's 2, 3 blocks away -- my neighbors could come to that. when there are meetings all over the place, they're not coming. they don't know how to get there. that's one suggestion. my other suggestion, prior to going forth, the language -- i'm sorry? >> president kwon: didn't say anything. >> okay. my other suggestion that the language that will be proposed, i would suggest that the people that own this property, we get to see what the language is. i think that's only right. if we're going to be impacted by it, we should see it before the meeting occurs, based on the other things going on. my other recommendation, that while the city under mayor newsom did some things, the idea

-- i would like to see more effort in how we can potentially reclaim some of this water. the city needs the water. if there could be a means by which it can be reclaimed, that would be a good idea. >> president kwon: thank you. >> those are my comments. i was hoping more of my neighbors would be here, but they're not, so i will speak for them. >> president kwon: thank you. any other public comment on item 9. >> commissioner moran: i had a question. we received some correspondence from the residents along one street in particular. and i forget the name of the street. and their basic complaint was that whatever our models say that their street doesn't flood. and in the exchange, it sounded like we were saying, we trust our models. and they're say, yeah, but it doesn't flood. could i have a response -- how do we deal with those kind of complaints? >> i think you might be

referring to bloxom street. >> commissioner moran: yes. >> that will be an important part of request for review that i mentioned on the last slide for next steps. and we'll bring it before the commission for your review. we understand there needs to be a fair and objective and repeatable process based on physical criteria that we can use if someone comes forth and says, we don't believe that our property should be on this map. we would then take a look at that based on the criteria and get back to that individual with sfpuc's determination. we haven't completed that procedure yet and we'll bring it forward. we know it's a big item on the to do list so we can have it available for people. >> commissioner moran: does that review go beyond just reviewing the model to see that our proposed action comports with

the model or is it that -- >> are you asking if there needs to be more than relooking at the model? >> commissioner moran: if somebody says, i don't care what your model says, it doesn't flood and we've lived here for 50 years, can we deal with that? how do we accommodate that? >> that's an interesting question. my take would be that our review process would be robust enough to come back to make a final determination and say that -- we can't change our determination if that person doesn't believe in it if all the criteria point to it being on the map. if we want to workshop that question further once we get the procedure outlined and presented to you, i think that would be an interesting exercise.

point -- >> i think we'd have to look at the model. if something has flooded in people's memories, doesn't mean it hasn't flooded into the period of time. so i guess the models of one tool and we can look at the tool and see if it really does reflect what is happening in that .5 square mile area. >> and we would be including site visits as well. it wouldn't just be looking at the model. >> commissioner moran: it is a difficult area. and i recognize that. storm effects are localized and models may not capture that. on the other hand, we're using the model as a tool. and we don't need to be slave to that. and if it really appears, if there is good evidence, that in the history of the city and the

development, it's been in that location, it seems like we ought to be able to somehow deal with that. >> i think one additional note to make is that this is a flood risk map. so we're not characterizing it as, this is the condition on the ground for certain, for sure. and i think we want to frame that to the public that this is a map for you to make good decisions. so the notion of risk is -- >> commissioner moran: if that were an information document that's sufficient. but we're saying there's a disclosure on sale and that takes it out of the hypothetical range. that impact is real. so it's not just information. i'm sure as this goes on, those property owners will let us know if they think we've responded properly. >> president kwon: i'm sure they will. >> other questions? >> president kwon: thank you

very much. any other public comment on this item before we go on to item 10? yes, sir. >> my name is murray cole. i wasn't prepared to talk at all or speak at all. and i own the property at 1650 davidson street in san francisco. we've had three floods this year, four floods last year. up to 4 feet deep in our office. i would like to know what's being done. >> president kwon: provide your information to the secretary and we'll follow up with that. >> sure. i will give it to you. >> president kwon: thank you. anything else? next item, item 10. >> clerk: item 10 is bay area walter supply conservation

agency update. >> nicole, really? >> thanks. good afternoon, commissioners. thank you for the opportunity to speak here today. there are two things that i wanted to talk about. first, i handed the commission secretary and she can pass out to you my most recent statement on the bay delta plan that i distributed last week. i'm not going to read the statement, but there are a couple of key things that i want

to speak to and highlight for you. first, and i think most importantly, bosca has continued to support the bay delta plan. our concerns lie with the proposal on the table and the impacts of the proposal, specifically to the water customers. with implementation of the plan, average customer water use during arrest drought would reduce from 79 gallons per day to 41 gallons per day, with some of our communities going down to 25 gallons per person, per day, which is well above below health and safety standard in any industrialized area. that's cause for concern. bosco truly believes there's a way to smartly plan for water supply and environmental protection together. they're not mutually exclusive.

we've continued to support the comments as that smarter plan for the river and to achieve that balance. it's based upon site-specific and it's worthy of merit and investigation and analysis and review, as we're continuing to support that and support volunta voluntary, so we'll work on there and work with your staff. there's been some comments and you've had some comments here about the lack of public discussion on this particular item. and i went back and looked at our office. our meetings are public, board meetings are public, committee meetings are public. and we've had four discussions leading up to the submission to the state board. it was appropriately times

around that. since that time, the conversation has had to stop, but the ball was back in the state board's court. we were waiting for them to respond to the comments and that's what they did earlier this month. that's where we are with that. add usally, there were some questions raised. our website, bawsca.org, contains several documents that will be helpful for people. we publish an annual survey that provides information by each of our agencies, so 26 water suppliers, use, population, employment, business counts, projections, water supply sources, out to 2040. it's quite a comprehensive set of information. we also do an annual water conservation report that documents what's going on. and lastly, drought response

report that talked about what the service area did in response to the drought. he found it to be very helpful so far. those are the key things on that. lastly, if i can have the slide, please? wanted to give you an update about the water use. so this is through may. it's remaining at 22%, less than the baseline of 2013. that's that middle red line close to the bottom. not seeing or significant rebounds, but a little bit of an increase and it's slightly greater reduction on p.u.c. purchases, but it's down 24%. total usage down 22%. we'll continue to watch this

again. it's interesting to see what happens as the summer goes through. that concludes my remarks. i will answer any questions you have. >> president kwon: any questions? thank you. public comment on item number 10? okay. seeing none. let's move on to consent calendar. >> clerk: item 11 on consent calendar, all items are considered to be routine by the san francisco public utilities commission and acted upon by a single vote of the commission. there will be no separate vote unless a member of the commission or public requests. then it will be removed and considered a separate item. >> president kwon: any request from the commission or public to remove any items? >> commissioner moran: i move adopti adoption. >> second. >> president kwon: any public comment before we vote?

all in favor, opposed? okay. approved. >> clerk: item 12, public hearing, adopt rules for billing property owners in san francisco without water or wastewater service accounts. a portion of the monthly p.u.c. sewer charges is attributable to stormwater runoff from their property. >> good afternoon, commissioners. charles poole, here with erin franks to present this item to you. it's a rules change to our wastewater service to apply our existing rates and charges as well as creating a billing system for property owners that don't have a water meter. as a reminder, we have a combined wastewater system that creates storm and sanitary flows and recover the costs of

operating that system through our rates and charges. we have 500 property owners that are not currently an sfpuc customer. we're looking at rates and charges that incentivize property owners to control stormwater flees from their properties. we've begun with a grant program and we'll work towards modifying our rates and charges in the upcoming years to further incentivize property improvements. i will turn it over to aaron franks, who will provide more detail today. >> hello, commissioners. i'm erin franks, principal rates analyst and have been working on rates related to stormwater and other generates for the last four years. can i get the slides?

i will do some context for why we're here and the particular proposal in front of you here today. so over the past few years, we've done a lot of work to figure out how to reflect the costs in our structure. 17% of the total wastewater enterprise costs goes to collection and treatment of stormwater runoff. so it's significant for the sfpuc. our existing customers that have a water meter pay for that stormwater management through the sewer charge. so they're paying a portion of that 17% right now. we're beginning this work to make sure that we have a way to apply our existing sewer rate.

we're talking about unmetered customers. it is customers that have stormwater runoff but they don't pay a bill because they don't have a water meter. so we don't have a way to apply to them. the point of this agenda item is to develop rules to apply the sewer rate to customers that are unmetered. it's not a new rate. it's a methodology change. we're also gearing up for bigger and longer term changes. one of the goals is to incentivize property owners to have it on their properties. it does help our system. we would like to be able toll reward customers for having it. we would of -- we would like to

institute a credit program. we are also having a grant program. $8 billion budgeted in the next two years. we'll use a lot of outreach to provide benefits for the services to customers. so turning now to the rules in front of you today and come up with a methodology. we sent out a letter in february with a proposal that was going to be a flat monthly charge for all parcels within the city. and we got great feedback from customers and our rate fairness board. what we have today is refinement, based on what we heard from them. we are proposing a two-tiered rate.

we will have a standard and low runoff. there are some properties that generate less runoff. we wanted them to be grouped. the general concept is that we looked at you existing customers. and what portion of the average customer of the bill goes to pay for stormwater runoff. so that category is about what the average, existing customer pays for stormwater runoff in the city. the question is, once you have two tiers, how do you group them? this is a tough question. we worked with a lot of the folks that do have some great models. it's called the impermeable area. i have city hall here.

if you look at the map, orange is impermeable -- asphalt, concrete, roofs, anything that when rain hits it, it runs off, goes into our system. green is permeable. one of the things that our wastewater staff worked on was thinking about the personmeable areas, because in a heavy rainstorm, grass will be saturated so they did some modelling. they have 10% of the runoff. so we're defining it as permeable at 10%. there is more detail.

and we grouped them into one of three tiers. some have so little runoff, we're not proposing to charge them. those have under 500 square feet. the next two tiers, low runoff and stan arrested runoff. in low, it's 500 to 1,300 square feet of e.i.a., those parcels have about 2/3 of the runoff of the average property in the city. so their charge is about 2/3 of the standard charge. everybody else, which is over half of the unmetered properties, are in the standard runoff category.

so we need to look at the charge. how we calculated the dollar amounts. how we separated out the tiers and how customers are assigned to the tiers and talk about exemptions. there are certain customers that don't discharge into our system. so we have a discussion of the process for appealing, whether this charge is even applicable. and also appealing the e.i.a. of a specific property. if the rules are passed, we need it implement them and we believe they go into effect around october, 2018, when customers would receive the first bill. that's the end of my slides. i'm happy to take any questions. >> commissioner moller caen: i have a question. i'm a little unsure about how you are calculating the e.i.a. for example, i go to wells fargo bank and the bank is there and

they pay -- they have water, a water bill. how about the parking lot? what -- is that going to be separately calculated? >> great question. if a building has a water meter at all, if they have a parking lot, it could be adjacent to them, we're still saying, that bank is a customer of ours and not one of the 500. if you can say, hey, the property in question is adjacent to and part of a property that has an account with us, it's not an unmetered property. >> commissioner moller caen: i see. >> commissioner moran: that leads to my question. you talked about wanting to provide incentives for people doing things on their property that make a load on the sewer system less.

if you are an unmetered customer, there is no incentive to do anything, right? >> that's one of the reasons why we want to have this long-term program rolled out. >> commissioner moran: so what we're moving toward, is that there would be features of this that would apply to metered customers as well? >> yes. that's the long-term goal, that everybody in san francisco would have a portion of their sewer charge be for runoff. >> commissioner moran: and when do we think that with take place in the rollout? >> we're trying to do it in the next rate study, so fiscal year 2022, so after this four-year rate package expires. >> commissioner moran: okay. thank you. >> president kwon: we do have a stormwater ordinance for redevelopments. that takes place when people are redoing their properties, that they have to comply with that stormwater ordinance as well.

>> commissioner moller caen: i think it's a brilliant idea. i commend you for all the hard work. we've talked about this for quite some time, actually. i would like to move the item. >> i will sicked. >> president kwon: let's take public comment first. thank you. we have one speaker card. mr. robert rossi. welcome. >> robert rossi. i'm a property owner, native, fifth-generation san franciscan. i've spoken before this today. if you vote in favor to support staff's recommendation on item 12, i'm concerned that there is an appeal process. so if a property owner can prove with soil testing that there is no runoff on a permeable process, they have that appeal option. in our case, many of the lots we're going to build on are in

the pipeline with permitting and building. so you have significant fees for wastewater and water capacity. so that can be shown or proven to the p.u.c., you shouldn't be setting an unmetered account on some of the properties for us because you will get your fees, significant fees. if i can demonstrate that to the p.u.c. i wanted to make that clear. >> president kwon: do we have a staff answer for mr. rossi? >> we've been working with our customer service division who does handle new meter installations. and so they've worked this into their new meter installation process. so when somebody applies to put in that meter, they would

trigger them not being subject to the property meter charge. >> president kwon: thank you. any other public comment on this item? okay. all in favor? opposed? approved. next item, please. >> clerk: item 13, approve water infrastructure finance and innovation act in agreement with the e.p.a. in an answer up to $699,242,023, with a 35-year repayment period starting at completion of the project. authorize the general manager to issue the wifia loan agreement and documents to the transaction. >> good afternoon. charles pearl, c.f.o. this item requests the approval of a wifia, water infrastructure finance and innovation act.

if i could have at slides, please, that would be great. here's an overview of what i will cover today, starting with our 2018 capital financing plan. i will cover how the transaction fits into the strategy, including how we're considering low-cost alternatives as opposed to bonds. and i will present the wifia and legal structure. going to click through all the checked boxes here. here we are. here's our capital financing plan, which way first shared with you one year ago last year in september. as you can see, it's been a very busy year in terms of capital financing efforts. and the wifia loan is the last item on the list. we are working on the capital

financing plan for the current fiscal year '19 and we'll share that with you in september. staff has been developing a capital financing plan to fund wastewater's large capital program, including the ssip in a measured way to mitigate the upward pressure on sewer rates and charges. so actively managing our capital financing costs is very important. and the points that are noted here is what we look at all the time. we look for opportunities to refund our outstanding debt we're a leader in the issuance of green bonds, with being able to attract a larger investor base. through the latest bond you approved at the last meeting, we introduced that to a capital financing program that can

result in overall lowered borrowing costs. so in terms of loans, loans can serve as a cheaper alternative. we have actively pursued the loans. and we've entered into the loans for just over $100 million that are funding our ssip projects. in terms of the cost savings, the loans bear interest rates of 1.6% to 1.8%, well below the current 4% average revenue bond rate. we, of course, will continue to pursue state loans and to that end the states recently adopted the intended use plan allocated $171 million to the sfpuc with $8 million being a grant. so good news as it relates to

the state loan front. the reason we're here today is to talk about wifia, the federal loan. complementing the state loans, we've negotiated a $699 million loan with the federal government. wifia was enacted in congress in 2015 and issued by the e.p.a. the e.p.a. requested applications for the inaugural round of funding. we submitted an application to fund 49% of the $1.3 billion project, maximum allowed to finance a project, 49%. we were one of 43 agencies to submit an application. it was one of 12 selected for funding and our loan represents the largest in the entire country. so we feel fortunate to present this to you today. since this selection from the

e.p.a., staff has been consulting with advisors and legal team to negotiate terms for the loan. with your approval today, we're scheduled to close the loan this friday, july 27. the remaining costs of the bio solids project would be funded with combination of additional state loans and revenue bonds. in terms of the loan terms, the amount, as i noted before, $699 million, consists of $625 million to fund the project. $47 million of financing costs. the interest rate will be set on the loan of the execution, again, scheduled for this friday. it's estimated to be 3%. so the 1% difference represents about $200 million of assumed

debt service savings over the life of the financing, so an incredible amount of potential rate payer savings. in addition to lower interest rates, it allows for longer, more flexible terms. so it can be deferred until two years after completion. and the loan allows for debt repayment to occur over a period of time, in this case, 35 years, rather than the 30-year repayment for revenue bonds. unlike revenue bonds, where we take bonds up front, wifia is a disbursement loan. that means we repay ourselves after disbursement occurs. the interest of 3% on the loan begins to accrue when proceeds

are dispersed. rather than doing that, the sfpuc has developed a line of finance to provide more interim, cost-effective financing, which are bond appreciation notes, b.a.n.s. so in today's market, b.a.n.s can be released at 1.5% to 1.8%, lower than the 3% wifia loan rate. so we'll issue these as needed at the lower interest rate to finance project construction. we'll come back to this commission for each of the b.a.n. approvals. stay tuned for that. when sfpuc would make full dispersement to pay off the loans, we would do that after the construction is complete. with this plan of finance, it

can be achieved at a lower cost than making the loan disper dispersement during the funding phase. and it preserves our wastewater funding program for other wastewater capital project needs. in terms of the loan's legal structure, loan repayment is secured by a senior pledge of wastewater system net revenues and the loan would be on parity with our outstanding revenue bonds and s.r. bonds. the wifia is rated as same as wastewater revenue bonds, which is aa from s&p 500 and aa moody's. the loan will conform with our current wastewater indenture. here is the sb-450.

we present this with each funding transaction. the goal is to present some information that the state wants to be sure it's communicated to you in the public. true interest cost is all in, 3.13%. finance charge of the loan, cost of issuance, estimated to be $817,000. amount of the proceeds received is the loan, amount of $699 million. and the all-in costs, including principle and interest repayment is a little over $1.3 billion. the documents with you today is the sfpuc describing the loan terms and the agreement between sfpuc and the trustee. our trustee is u.s. bank.

december rubing contractual loan, repayment and redemptions. the next two slides are, again, standard slides that we include when we're talking about financing transactions with you. i will not go through the details directly. you can read them at your convenience. i do want to make a point that the financing transaction is not a public offering of securities as is the case when we issue revenue bonds. this was a direct placement transaction between sfpuc and e.p.a. there is no public offering in the form of political official statement. so it will be posted on-line and will share it when ready.

the schedule is noted today, requesting your review and approval of this item. we're scheduled to close later this week on friday in washington, d.c. deputy general manager will be flying out to attend that closing, along with some of the folks from my team as well as alexander ganell from infrastructure. it's been a large team effort and we're excited to be able to close on this transaction. we've included the other dates, so you are familiar with that. you approved the wastewater bond transaction. and we're scheduled to close on the wastewater sale and receive

that on august 6. and the recommended action for you today is to approve the loan agreement and delegate to the general manager authorization to execute and deliver the final documents, as needed. i'm happy to take any questions. >> president kwon: commissioners? >> i move approval. >> second. >> president kwon: before we vote, any public comment on item 13? with that, all in favor? opposed? it's approved. terrific work. next item, number 14, please. >> clerk: authorize general manager to execute a second memorandum of understanding with the city of daly city for groundwater storage and recovery project for an amount not to exceed $435,000 with a duration

not to exceed two years. >> steve ritchie. this is a second m.o.u. it's to continue payments for consulting services, which is part of the groundwater storage recover rag project network of wells and for groundwater modelling services not to exceed $435,000. i would be happy to answer any questions. >> move the item. >> second. >> president kwon: before we vote, any public comment? all in favor? opposed? it's approved. next item, 15, please. >> clerk: approve the selection of moffatt and nichol-ags joint venture award pro-0092, not to exceed $3,750,000 and duration

of five years. >> good afternoon, commissioners. cathy how. this item is before you today because we have one proposer on the project, but we're confident that the proposer meets the minimum qualifications and, in fact, exceeds them. we did public outreach. it's for erosion control of lake merc merced. they've had previous contracts with the port related to waterfront protection of assets. >> commissioner moran: is moffatt and nichol on one end and a.g.s. the other? >> yes. >> commissioner moran: are they independently capable of bidding on the work?

>> they are, but they chose to joint venture. >> commissioner moran: in the process of doing that, they had no other competition? >> pardon me? >> commissioner moran: there was no other competing bid? >> correct. >> commissioner moran: do we have the authority -- do we review joint venture proposals like that? do we have the right to approve or disapprove? if this is a strategy for eliminating competition, that's something we should care about. >> we can't tell them they can't joint venture. that's their -- that's the consultant's prerogative whether they want to come in as a joint venture or not. >> if i could restate your question slightly. you are asking if we have the authority to say that we will not entertain joint ventures, it

has to be a single entity proposing on the project? >> commissioner moran: no. there are legitimate uses for joint ventures. >> i understand that. >> commissioner moran: if it's part of your portfolio that doesn't meet a certain need and you need a partner, that's reasonable. and it's a nice way of building ownership interest for smaller firms. so there's a lot of good reasons for the joint venture stuff. it also appears to me that there is opportunity for limiting competition and that's something we should care about. i'm not sure what the strategy is that we should follow on that, but i would like to hear about that. >> that's sounds great. i think we'll formulate a question and give it to our city attorney. >> commissioner moran: thank you. >> president kwon: any questions? any public comment on this item? do i have a motion? >> so moved. >> second.

>> president kwon: all in favor? opposed? approved. next item, please. >> clerk: item 16 authorize the general manager to negotiate and execute a purchase and sale agreement with alameda county to sell approximately 5,484-square-foot road easement and an approximately 22,548-square-foot slope easement to be designated portion of calaveras road and sfpuc. >> i move approval. >> second. >> president kwon: any public comment? all in favor? opposed? it's moved. >> clerk: item 17, approve cleanpowersf integrated resource plan compliance filing and authorize to the general manager

submission to i.r.p. compliance filing. >> president kwon: welcome back. >> we're seeking your approval of the integrated rye source plan or i.r.p. compliance filing attached to agenda item and to authorize the g.m. to submit the i.r.p. to the california public utilities commission by its august 1 deadline. senate bill 350 required programs like cleanpowersf to prepare and file an i.r.p. an i.r.p. is a plan that efrm -- shows how affordable rates and meeting other environmental goals. it requires that electric energy providers file individual i.r.p.s every two years with the

first to be filed this august. the sfpuc obtained a firm, technical advisors to conduct analysis and support the development of the draft report for cleanpowersf. that was provided to you as a communication item. we'll come back to you with a more detailed presentation and discussion of the draft i.r.p. in the next couple of months. the analysis conducted to date has been designed to help cleanpowersf make informed procurement decisions as full enrollment is completed and identify resources and actions required to meet state mandates in city and county renewable energy and greenhouse gas reduction targets. the cases featured different mixes of resources, pred

predominantly solar and wind as well as local resources as well. we focused on wind and solar as the dominant resources analyzed because they stand out as the most cost effective over the i.r.p. planning horizon. under each case analyzed, all existing state and city energy supply requirements and goals are met. case five in particular with higher wind energy and local resource mix represents the lowest cost portfolio. as since we believe it best meets the goals for cleanpowersf and meets the requirements for submission. the filing attached to this

action item reflects the use of this case. the submission on this case represents the beginning of an ongoing, long-term planning process at the cpuc. while the cpuc will be required to use this as a pathway to energy and climate goals, cleanpowersf is not bound by the resources or locations of resources that the plan identifies. the city can update its plan and provide it during the next i.r.p. cycle the i.r.p. will be updated as needed to reflect changing market and technology conditions as well as policy directives from the commission, mayor and board of supervisors. with that, i'm happy to take any questions you have. >> president kwon: any questions? okay. any public comment on this item?

yes, ma'am. >> thank you, commissioners. i'm i'm michelle pierce, environmental justice organization. i'm particularly concerned with this draft i.r.p. this draft i.r.p.

>> i would really like to encourage some more converted effort to speak directly to community residents, citizens on the ground, with this issue, to make sure that we, in fact, benefit from this plan, especially considering that the new plant, the updated plant, which is half a block from my house, i live on phillips and newcome is capturing and burning methane, which bay view hunters point spent 30 years giving the pg&e plants that burn methane

out of our neighborhoods. since we're going to be more highly impacted by that piece, we would like to also see what some of the benefits in the i.r.p. plan are to help reduce that burden on our neighborhood and our communities specifically. thank you very much. i'll be bugging you. >> thank you. you answered my question. i wasn't initially understanding what the mechanism would be for concentrating the impact on your neighborhood. i think you address nad and i t. i see you were talking. thank you for coming and bringing this matter to us. >> any other public comment? i think we had a motion and a second, is that right? >> i'll move it. >> second. >> all in favor. >> aye. >> opposed. >> it is approved. so we are not going into closed session. there's no closed session today. and so i am going to move to the

end and the other new commission business. i will note again, august 14th, that meeting is canceled. is there any public comments on new business? meeting is adjourned, thank you, everyone, for your time.

is. >> good afternoon. we will proceed with the health commission meeting, and the secretary will please call the roll. [roll call] >> clerk: the second item on the agenda is the approval of the minutes of june 19, 2018. >> so the minutes are before us for approval. a motion is in order. >> motion. >> is there a second? >> second. >> are there corrections to the

minutes? seeing none, we will proceed with the vote. all those in favor of the minutes, please say aye. all those opposed? the minutes have been approved. >> clerk: and on that item, there was no public comment request for that item. item three is a director's report. >> since the meeting is long today, i'm expecting dr. omagon to come and talk about the i see of camp mather and just for your edification, it's open now. but i think i'll start, if you don't mind, until he gets here regarding the issue of anything on the report -- on my report. >> okay. and you want dr. aragon to present at this point? >> he should be here shortly. he just stepped out for a second. >> okay. commissioners, we have before you the director's report.