I was dennis casey. Oh, sorry. Too many pieces of paper here. Go ahead. My name is chris hinkey and i have had my Building Three years. There has been three floods there. After the first flood, i realized its going to be a lot of work to get this fixed. I spent almost million on the building to prevent water getting in with doors and floodprevention systems and pumps and everything. I urge you to get this motion passed so all the other residents can do the same things to protect their buildings. It would really be helpful, particularly before el ninos come in and Global Warming and so on. The bigger picture, we would like to get this fixed permanently to prevent the surge waters getting into our builds. There are proposesals and one is to put a proposed park on 17th and folsom street. But if we can put that in, it could actually prevent the water getting into our buildings anyway. So i really hope we could look at this further and meanwhile today, lets get this first stage passed. It could really help a lot of people. Thank you. Thank you. Now do we have mark jordan . Okay. Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is mark jordan. I am a 13year member of San Francisco motorcycle club, the same club that dennis casey just addressed you about. Dennis has told you about our history in San Francisco. We are really an institution here and i believe a true asset to the city. In addition, to the things that dennis mentioned that our clubhouse does, one thing that i would add, we do a lot to support not only the motorcycling community, but all of the folks in our peripheral communities when they need help. We do a lot of fundraising and so forth and now its us to do Fundraising Efforts to waterproof our building. Were having to rebuild our foundation because of hydrocompaction that happened over the 100 years or so that the building has been there. This is one of the lowestlaying areas of the city. On march 19th, i attended the public sevenday forecast safety and Neighborhood Services commit, where they discussed improvements on folsom street. Im not hydrologist or engineer, but the takeaway i got effectively there is no easy solution to fix the flooding problem that we have in that area. What was discussed was large numbers and large reservoirs to be constructed. So i urge this body to approve the motion before you today, the modifications. And i also have an estimate actually from a Company Called flood i will submit that to you to give you an idea of the numbers and amount of money. Its about 20,000 to floodproof the top two feet of our wall and add a floodproof door. Thank you for your consideration. Thank you for your time. The next three speakers hans arts. Angela sinocropi and francisco garcia. Hi. My name is hans art. Im an auto mechanic and i have been running my shop for 45 years in the Mission District at 17th and folsom. We had to mop out our shops more times than i can remember because of overflow of the sewer system. I want to support this program, because we will i tell you, we will very effectively use the dollars available to help keep the waters out of our properties. One of the difficulties that i have is that i have a parking lot that acts as a conduit that floods the restaurant next door. So that is the sort of specific solution to a problem that the earlier program didnt have the money to support. So well save you a lot of money. Good. Thank you. Hi my name is angela and i own a building that is both my business and residence on 16th street. We got flooded off and even more in 2004 and got flooded against this last year and to thank the puc and meeting with hans and others and discussing in depth the changes to the grant for our buildings. Because the dam was just not the right solution for the majority of the buildings. I think very, very few people actually went through that, because it wont work. You know, it would prevent you from entering your building. You would have to be there to install it and know ahead of time. Things like that. So the changes would be so each of us could individually do something that would specifically prevent our buildings from flooding. And we really, really need it. You know, i mean its really stressful. Its really expensive. Its an ongoing problem. So we need this, so we personally can hopefully immediately act on it to prevent damages, rather than repair thing after they have already been damaged. So i think its a really good solution to at least get things started and that is about it. Thank you. Thank you for coming. Our next speaker. Mr. Garcia. Hello commissioners. I ran a restaurant in the mission, cafe and we have been flooded five times in seven years. So we support 12 families, all mission residents. Its a little hard to keep going with a business, you know . When we have every winter is a headache. We can barely sleep and we appreciate that the city helps us cleaning and opening again. This time, we were closed four months from december to april. So really actually were doing our best. We already installed the barriers, but we get 70 of the water so we really need the help. And we really want the issue to be solved on the ground, and not just cleaning every year. So we really need to be able to grow. So we really appreciate that you help us in this matter. What was the name of the restaurant [speaker not understood]. Thank you. Its on the property of malcolm davis. We opened seven years ago and we flooded five times. Every year, every winter, especially now with el nino coming its very scary. Its hard to run a business, when you know that you close and you have to reopen again or have the funds to start again from zero. This is all mission San Francisco residents that we support, lowincome people. Thank you very much. Thank you for coming. Next speakers, malcolm davis. And mr. Picasso, is that pronounced correctly . And are there any other speakers that want to speak to this item . Im malcolm davis. Im sorry, some of you have already spoken. [ inaudible ] fine. Fill out a form. Okay. Mr. Davis. I think you called sam picasso and malcolm davis. That is me. Who is on first . [laughter ] malcolm davis, could you please speak . Yes, i just wanted to show something on the overhead. May we have the overhead, please sfgovtv . There is actually a possible solution for our problem at 17th and folsom. There is an existing parking lot there. There is an existing parking lot that is currently sladed to be a park and Affordable Housing. And if that area was lowered by 4, it would hold 1. 5 million gallons of water and be a straightforward and simple way of doing a temporary fix, that would keep all of these buildings in the area from flooding. Right now its currently planned that they are going to start the park construction. Its imminent. I havent been able to get a straight answer from anybody about the park. I have talked to supervisor wiener and representative from david campos office and i cant get a straight answer when the park is really supposed to start . I think its really foolish to take the park out of conversation about the solution to the problem. Because its half the site. And once we were talking about threelevels of problem solution. We were talking about immediate, sort of shortrange solutions, Midrange Solutions and longrange solutions and working through the Grant Program, which im very much in favor of. We have gotten down to the Grant Program being the midlevel solution as opposed to ground storage as the solution what i am talking about here is this is from december 12th, when midterm solution was subsurface storage underneath the park. I think a lot of people think there is going to be storage underneath, but it has no storage. So i think its a silly longterm plan for the city to be spending money on a park that is either going to make the problem worse. Because if the park is higher than the floodlevel, it will go First Evangelical Lutheran Church and if its lower than the floodlevels, its going to flood and it has a play yard and vegetable gardens. So neither one of those is a good solution. Like really this piece of land needs to be part of the solution. So that is what i wanted to say. So mr. Carlin, can you put somebody in touch with mr. Davis . We certainly will. I can leave this with you, if you would like. Our next speaker. Buenos tardes. Translator my name is samuel picasso. I live in folsom and 17th. For 44 years. In these 44 years living in this area it has been flooded 37 times. Okay he is saying a lot and he doesnt see a solution, unless something big, like a big step is made, like changing the pipes or maybe making what malcolm said. He says never fixed never. Never. Never, translator he said his child saw him 20 years ago, there is a big canal under folsom could be the solution that is all. That is it. Thank you. Thank you for coming. The last speaker is Mary Anne Robertson. Hi, my name is Mary Anne Robertson and i have a business at folsom and 17th, and own the business at the or own the building that the business resides in. It floods every time it rains, even though we are in a drought year, last year it flooded twice. So we do need this Grant Program and hopefully it i mean im not even sure that this is going to help my business actually. Its right on folsom and 17th. Hopefully it will, and hopefully a longterm solution can be found, like sammy said. Increasing the pipe size along folsom street, particularly when there are more residents in the mission. Theres New Buildings going up all the time and i dont really see any increase in the sewer system capacity that we so desperately need. So im here to reiterate, thanks for the grant money and hopefully a permanent solution can be found. Thanks. Thank you. No further comments from the public, any further comments . Yes. I would like to request i mean, i have been on this commission for seven years now and i have heard a lot of flooding stories about 17th and folsom. I know there has been work and all kinds of possibilities looked at and i have followed the Affordable Housing and what has happened within the city family to really take care of that property on the corner . That piece i think is heading in the right direction, but i just have not really heard about what the solutions are, that are going to address these ongoing Flooding Issues at 17th and folsom. So i would like to request that we have a presentation from the puc on what we can do to solve this problem permanently, and for the longrun . And whether that is potentially part of the related to the storm watered or separate and what its going to take to resolve this issue . I think we need to give you a history of what happened at 17th and folsom its a lowlaying area in San Francisco and also, all of the projects that have been approved by the puc over time, have been built in that area and some of the solutions that were talking about as we move forward in time the issue on the sewer capacity is not there is an efficient sewer capacity with dry weather, but its when it rains. The storms are getting more intense with more runoff and frying trying to combine our programs to take on that peak flow. So when you say you want the permanent solution, we have lots of ideas and lots of proposals, but we havent landed anywhere yet. We can present that to you. Thank you. Any other comments . If i could add to commissioner vietors questions, i would be interested to see what the Health Repercussions are. I grew up near the river and it would overflow on the sewers as well. It was clean enough that we could swim there it, which i know sounds disgusting, but would i like to know more about the impact of any overflow sewage . If that sits anywhere for a period of time, does it have a Health Effect only the community . We can give you percentages of what we call sanitary overflow and there are some issues, regulations how you can reuse that water and under what conditions . So we have costed that out as well and we can present that as part of the discussion on 17th and folsom. So you understand all of the different facets of what were trying to solve at this point. Would you also mind including where the housing and park project is and the timeline for that buildout . We can contact the Mayors Office on housing and the department to find out what the timeline is. Thank you. Make i have a motion, please . I will make the motion. Second. All those in favor . Aye. Opposed . The motion carries next item, please. Item 13, approve 2015 updates cwarea Community Choice aggregation Implementation Plan and authorize the general manager to file the updated Implementation Plan with the California PublicUtilities Commission for certification. Good afternoon, commissioners, barbara hale. I have the action item and i have thestants updates on how were doing with the clean power sf implementation schedule and our key mile stones. Sfgovtv, if i could have the overhead screen, please . The laptop . You will notice that in terms of updates, on june 30th we hads a very successful conversation with many stakeholders discussing our Program Marketing and communications plan. The communicates staff from the puc presented some ideas and got a lot of good, helpful feedback from the stakeholders who came. Were going continue to have those sorts of stakeholder sessions. We havent scheduled our next one yet. Our focus right now is on getting our requests for offer for supply together. So that we can make our next milestone on the schedule here, that early august activity. Today is the day when july 14th, when we will be talking with you about our Implementation Plan and that is the action item. The other thing that you see as a change here on our implementation schedule and milestones is to roflect the fact that we will be presenting risk analysis when we come to you in september for approval of the supply contracts that we hope to execute to support the program. Commissioner moran, you have mentioned that a number of times and i thought it was worth making a note of when we expect that to happen in the schedule. It could happen before this date. But it wont happen after. We will definitely come to you with a risk analysis prior to asking you to authorize execution of those contracts. Thank you. Excuse me, with that risk analysis, would you mind also pulling any data that other ccas, particularly marin might have around the risk analysis work that they have done . Certainly. Thank you. Now we have three operating Community Choice aggregation Implementation Plan, marin, sonoma and the city of lancaster and well talk to them. We have regular con necticut tact with them. So the action item is before you seek yours approval to update our Community Choice aggregation Implementation Plan filed with the California PublicUtilities Commission. That plan, the existence of that plan and your support of it is a required step for all perspectives ccas under the California Law that allows Community Choice aggregation programs to operate in the state. We initially filed our Community Choice aggregation plan in march of 2010 and received certification from the california puc in may of 2010. So we have been certified since then. We did update that plan last in 2012 to incorporate some privacy customer privacy rule changes that the california puc implemented. And now were before you with changes to that plan that i will summarize, that reflect the changes that we have discussed on the program design. Specifically that the program, the clean power sf program will lead with affordability. That the program will offer two products to launch. Default product, that will be up to 50 renewable. With an optional premium product that will be 100 renewable at a price that is competitive with pg es green tariff program. The Commission Adopted not to exceed rates, and Rate Methodology is described in the new Implementation Plan and power Enterprise Staff will take on a larger role is one of the changes and finally, the fact that we have issued a new rfp in may of 2015 to solicit bids for our program billing and Customer Care services. So that is a quick summary of the changes that this Implementation Plan includes as it goes before the california puc, with your approval. The action item itself asks that you approve the plan and the statement of intent and authorize our general manager to file that updated Implementation Plan with the california puc for certification. The california puc process is by statute is to take 6090 days. Now there were some cleanup and corrections to the Implementation Plan from the version that was published by the secretary on our website. The corrections affect five pages, which have been distributed to you. And a complete, corrected copy is included in the binder, on the table here for the public. To summarize those corrections quickly, on page 3, the introduction clarifies that the default or light green product that our clean power sf program will provide includes a greater amount of Renewable Energy than is currently available from pg e under its standard product offering. On page 4, we have added a new summary section, highlighting the changes since the last ip, since the last Implementation Plan, the last changes i reviewed with you. Pages 67, we added headings to improve the readability of the document and page 28 we clarify that in the unanticipated event of program termination, notice will be provided and the added language is subject to any applicable restrictions. So that brings you uptodate on the changes in the Implementation Plan and the steps that we propose moving forward with. I would be happy to take any questions as i seek your support for moving forward. Thank you. Does any of this change the timeline . No, it does not. Commissioners, questions . Just have one question that is somewhat related, that you note about if you wouldnt mind addressing that, what the cpuc is doing with electricity rates . Yes, sorry. I forget to address that question. Yes, so you may have been reading in the newspaper recently, the California PublicUtilities Commission is making some rated structure changes for residential customers and those are rate changes that affect pg es customers. The changes that the cpuc, the california puc will compress pg es fourtiered Residential Rate structure into two tiers over next few years. This will increase the total cost of electricity to lowusage customers, and it will reduce the cost to highusage customers. It wont really have an impact on clean power sf and the rates the not to exceed rates that you adopted. The new rate structure that has been adopted by the california puc for pg e, redistributes costs between transmission and distribution functions, from highusage tiers to the lowerusage tiers. The clean power sf program competes with pg es generation component of the rate, not the transmission and distribution component. So that generation rate was flattened several years ago for residential customers, which means that these customers pay the same rate for generation, regardless of how much they use. So the rate compression that the california puc adopted affects transmission and distribution costs, not generation, and the clean power sf program competes with the generation component of the pg e supply of the pg e bill. So we dont expect the adoption of these changes to pg es rates to affect the clean power sf program or its competitiveness or require a change in the not to exceed rates that you have already adopted. If were if the customer is responsible for paying the pg e portion wont that portion of their rate go up . Yes, it will, but its not going to affect our costs or the rates that we charge. So the component of service will be responsible for, which is only the supply portion, the generation component of the rates. So the effects that were talking about on pg es residential customers, that increase in transmission and distribution costs for lowusage customers, and the decrease for the highusage customers, that is going to happen to them, whether they are receiving their supply from pg e, or they are receiving their supply from us. So we dont have anything to do with it . We dont have anything to do with it, but its going to affect our ratepayers, both cca and pg e. Its going to affect san franciscans low users will seize see their rates go up and high users will see their rates go down, which is crazy. Any other comment, commissioners . Any Public Comments . I dont have any cards. Jason creed, executive officer for lafco i want to [eurg ] you to approve this. So the nowline is in your hands so i dont want to encourage to you do that and i want to address one of the things commisioner vietor you mentioned about the pg e rate structure changing. I do agree with you and agree with agm hale it doesnt impact the rate structure were talking about. One of the negative impacts of that occurring across the board not just for ccas, a lot of time you go to the tier users, paying a lot more and do energyefficiency work. It can go for higher or more expensive products that they can utilize to reduce their usage and do behind the meter solar. Adu you have reduced that down a little bit and make it left cost competitive for solar and behind the meter efficiency work to occur. Once again, that is a problem that will be seen by cca and pg e customers and doesnt directly impact cca, but if one of our bools is to did a lot of energy offense behind the meter type of work, there could be a small negative impact. Tier 5 customers in the city, last time i saw the numbers were 5 of the load. You are not talking about a lot of customers that this would impact. So i think its something to be paying attention to. There is also a state legislative bill by Assembly Member tinge, ab 1110, could have have negative impacts on how Greenhouse Gas get reported. Some of the behind meter solar rooftop may not be counted as Greenhouse Gasfree. I know