you can the three puc i so no glass ceiling the opportunities are end >> good afternoon, everybody. welcome to the tuesday, february 13 meeting of the san francisco public utilities commission. madame secretary, role call, please. [roll call 1234*678d and we have a quorum. >> perfect. if you are here for the aging adult services meeting, they're meeting in 408.

all right. so, we're good. item number three, approval of the minutes. wi aer going to approve four sets of minutes today. the prebudget hearing january 18, 25 and february 1 and the january 23rd regular meeting. do we have a motion to approve these minutes? >> move to approve all of them. >> second. >> any discussion, commissioners? any punt comment? ok. all in favour? aye. opposed? approved. item number four is where members of the public can address the commission on matters that are within the matter of jurisdiction and are not on today's agenda. do we have any public comment? for general public comment? yes, please. >> hello, everyone. i'm name is bonnie, may i have

the overhead, please? i'm here to talk about the islay creek watershed, flood mitt investigation, opportunities, climate change, and the triple bottom line. and here we are upstream at the school district, the l-shaped piece of land which is under that black -- [laughter] you can't see it because it's under that black. ok. right here. this is a school district property of two high schools, a middle school, an early education school. and my organization has been working at the site since the mid 1990s. we've just secured a 633.3-k grant to redo a portion of seneca avenue and i want to talk to you about that because

this is directly in the flood zone, the overflowing sewer at the end of cayuga avenue. we're talking about seneca between the end of san jose avenue and cayuga. and i want to look at this mid zone of the watershed which is where the extreme flooding is at cayuga, which is at the convergence of the part of the creek that comes down from glen park and the other part that leads into the cayuga valley and that is why there is all this flooding there. and the opportunity there where there is quite a bit of open space land behind some of the houses to develop an islay creek watershed confluence community park. and then further downstream in the interchange where there is a great deal of open space is

the opportunity to create an islay creek watershed southern gateway community park. and then the chavez at 101 creates an opportunity to create the northern gateway community park that really represents and expresses and calls attention to the value of the watershed. and we talk about triple bottom line, we are talking about improving the quality of life, making areas safe and accessible, community and school education, green skills job training, habitat restoration and helping with biodiversity goals, utilizing abundant public lands and engaging city, state and federal sectors. and it would be beneficial to have the city -- the p.u.c.

contribute some resources to expand this 633.3-k opportunity that we've already -- that we have in hand and do more to mitigate flooding upstream. and i know that this section at cayuga and seneca is part of the 100-year map that you will be seeing. >> ok. we're out of time. thank you. thank you very much. thank you. any other public comment? ok. i am -- item five, please. >> item five is communications. >> any discussion? commissioners? any public comment? seeing none, item six. other commission business. any comments, commissioners? any public comments?

we'll move to item number seven. >> item seven is report of the general manager. >> so, the first item is a clean power update. barbara hill. >> good afternoon, commissioners. barbara hale, assistant general manager for power. we have item 16 later in the meeting on today's agenda so i'm just going to update on enrollment and service to customers and legislative and regulatory activities. our enrollment really hasn't seen change since january 23rd. we are serving around 80,500 customer sites. our opt-out percentage is 3.2%. our super green upgrade rate continues to exceed our opt-out rate at 4.1% of our customers, choosing 100% renewable power. looking ahead, our next enrollment will be a small enrollment in april of 2018. we have closed the wait list

for that enrollment and have been -- have begun noticing our customers will be adding about 230 accounts starting april. on the legislative front, consistent with your vote november 14, an ordinance was introduced at the board requesting the board of supervisors provide a limited delegated authority to our general manager so the p.u.c. can enter into supply contracts to support the completion of our programme enrollment. the board adopted the ordinance january 23rd. mayor farrell signed it january 26. later, we'll be asking the committee to ask on that authority in item 16. at the capital, cal-cc's lobbying day was held on january 25 and 26. all 16 operational members of calcca participated. cleanpower s.f. was representative by emily lam. thank you to her publicly for

her extensive efforts in supporting calcca's lobbying and legislative efforts and cleanpower s.f.'s programme. the group spent time educating and raising awareness about community interests and local energy agregation programmes. on the regulatory front, the pcia, the exit fee. our customers continues to pay pg&e and continues to be under review and reform at the cpuc and we're preparing testimony now for hearings that are expected. we spent considerable time over the last couple of weeks responding to questions from other party, mostly pg&e and mostly about our supply costs and preparations for those hearings. the staff resolution on resource adequacy was before the commission, the california commission last thursday. they issued a resolution. that resolution is intended to

integrate c.c.a.'s initiation and expansion with the timetable. with the timetable, the cpuc has on resource adequacy. this is the resolution that, when it was first issued as a draft, would have resulted in delaying c.c.a. expansion and start up at least a year. the state of -- the stated objective by the cpuc staff that drafted the resolution was to avoid cost shifts from. departing customers to residence maining utility customers by aligning the c.c.a. expansion and startup dates with the cpuc's planning cycle for resource adequacy. we filed comments and reply comments, both as a city and in collaboration with calcca. we participated in several conversations with cpuc staff. the utilities and other parties trying to influence the outcome there. we joined stakeholders in making our views known on the

steps of the cpuc before the vote. the p.u.c. ultimately adopted a much-improved resolution. i think largely as a result of that participation. we still remain concerned about the process that was used and are evaluatesing with the city attorney whether we should be filing an appeal at the cpuc over those process concerns. it engendered quite a bit of activity at the cpuc, this item. they took over an hour of public comment prior to conducting their business. that's not typical at that entity. so, the c.c.a. folks came out and made sure that the california p.u.c. understands the concerns of the community. at that same meeting, the cpuc also adopted their integrated resource plan approach. they've establish add two-year cycle where all load-serving entities -- those are entities that provide retail electric service to californians that

are subject to cpuc regulatory authority need participate in that two-year cycle. our cleanpower s.f. programme will be subject to those regulations and will participate. you know because we already adopted or presented to you the integrated resource plan fur our hetch hetchy programme that that engagement with our regulators happens at the california energy commission. so, the publicly-owned utilities all go to the california utility commission. the ccas go to the california p.u.c. for regulation of their integrated resource plans. so, i'm sure we'll hear more to say about how we can successfully comply with the objectives there. i think the objectives in our programme are in alignment with the cpuc with respect to their

objectives in the integrated resource planning format where they're really looking to reduce the greenhouse gas impacts of providing electric service to customers. we're down with that objective. right? so hopefully that alignment will help us have a successful engagement there. and with, that i'm happy to take any questions you might have. >> should we have any public comments on this item? ok. 7b, please. >> the next item is our water enterprise capital improvement programme quarterly report. and also the water system improvement quarterly report. >> good afternoon, president kwon, commissioners. dan wade, director of programmes. i want to start out with the water enterprise quarterly report for the quarter ending december of 2017.

i'll start with advances that i've noted before in past quarters that are flaged in this report. the first one is the water treatment plant, addition of powdered activated car gone. -- carbon. there is an advance of 1.68 million as a result of adding that project to that suite of projects and steve richie in the budget presentations decided why that's needed prior to the 60-day shutdown scheduled for next year. the san andreas ii lockbar replacement project has an advance of $4 million and 16 months and this is due to design development and higher engineer's cost estimate than was previously forecast. the project is essentially on hold and that continues to grow over time until we decide whether to do that promise or nots and we'll make a decision

on that prior to establishing the new baseline mid year for the new ci. p. for the new skyline trail extension, we have a 22-month variance that's been previously reported due to the additional time that's needed for the ceqa review going to a full i.r. rather than a more expedited ceqa process. and then lastly the long-term promise which consisted of two components, the sinola yard which is under constructioner over 30% complete and the watershed centre, which is -- has been on hold should the budget be approved later today, we would go forward with a watershed centre thaurnlz project as well. and so the variance shows the additional cost for the watershed centre as well as the time needed for that. so with that, i'd just like to state a few highlights from the reporting period.

i mentioned the sinola yard administration building. the structural framework has come along. i'll show you a photo in just a moment. the water valley treatment plant has some server upgrades that have taken place and we also issued the powdered activating carbon to proceed to the contractor -- actually, we will issue it very shortly. it has been awarded. the n.t.b.'s coming up. and then the pipeline, we did advertise and bid that project. we actually just recently rejected all the bids for a couple of reasons. one is that two of the lowest bidders withdrew due to bid error and the other bidders were well above the project budget so we're pulling that one back for now and taking another look at it. and once we've deciphered what's going on there, we'll repackage and rebid. on the local watershed, we've completed a number of projects and we have a number of projectss in construction, not

the least of which there's some very large joint projects, namely van ness and some others. this is the structural framework. this photo out in sinola. the jazzeder 30% complete. we have continued to encounter archeological artiing facts that have been relocated. but we have been able to work through those issues and we expect to have total completion on this project by tend of the year. and i mentioned that the watershed centre would move forward once the new budget is approved. finish the snow valley water treatment plant, i mentioned the activated powder carbon addition. there's been a lot of work at this plant, but we continue to have improvements that are made

under the water 10-year ci. p. and should the budget be approved today, we'll move forward with a long-term solution for the taste and odour issues, which is the ozone treatment. a much larger project longer term design and planning process. and i'll end with this slide. this shows the water main replacement mileage that we've made in recent years and steve richie showed this slide during the project hearings but i wanted to highlight that, you know, we have that target of 15 miles. we haven't been able to make the 15 miles for a number of reasons, including the costs and volume of projects with other agencies that are in the lead. delays that have been encountered in these multiagency projects and analysis of our staffing levels that were made two years ago really, over time, it's been

shown that the staff have priorities and only a portion of their time is going to the water line replacement. for those reasons, we're forecasting about 10.7 miles at the end of this year as opposed to the target of 15. but that is where we stand. with that, i'd bz happy to take any questions. >> thank you for that presentation. i appreciate it. i'm curious about the microturbine project and i don't know if now is the time to get some more information on that. and if that, indeed, is going to be able to move forward. i'm interested in that way to continue to diversify our power supply. >> yeah. so that project has been in the planning stages for some time. it was put on hold, primarily because the alameda creek recapture promise has -- project has not been fully approved yet. and depending on how much is part of that promise and how the flows around the valley are

managed that could affect the availability of the microturbine project. so very shortly we should be able to provide some additional information. >> that would be great. thank you. >> great. any public comment? all right. next item. >> he is going to do part two. >> so, moving to the wsip. so, as you know, we're about 95% overall with the wsip. and we still do have a lot of work going on. some of the highlights are shown here. i won't read all of those to you, but i do want to point out one very important achievement for an individual, but also

really for the whole team at the replacement promise and the east bay as well as all the wsip teams. susan how, the project manager, was recently recognized by engineering news record which is a very well known publication in the industry as one of the top 25 newsmakers in 2015. they came out and did a nice cover article on the project and she was named the newsmaker. >> that's great. >> and so we do have some remaining challenges with wsip. again, i'm not going to read all of these to you. but we are getting to a point where our risks are coming down significantly. but until we get through the next winter season, we have

significant risks out there still. we values other risks to really finalize the system-wide testing and cite additional well sites in the san bruno area. although we're having discussions about some possible rescoping of that project and we would fwlaing to you as a change if our discussions appear that that is a good idea. the siting of those additional wells has been a very difficult challenge and so we're looking at some other options on how to possibly rescope that promise and then come back later and, if needed in the future, add those additional wells. >> so, the replacement project is about 87% complete.

and this recent aerial photo shows the new dam access in the lower centre of the photo. the dark brown is the clay core. the grey on the left is the upstream rockville shell and the brown on the right is the downstream shell of the dam. the dam has taken shape. and this photo was taken in january and shows the dam of that elevation is 693, which is only about 60 feet below the top of the dam. and so once we start again in the spring with the embankment construction, we expect the dam to top out late summer, early fall. and, of course, we'll continue with other components of the project and push for substantial completion next year. but the project is on schedule and making good progress.

the facilities at the alameda creek diversion dam is going well. this shows it in the upper left of the photo and the fish ladder, you can see, taking shape downstream of the dam and the screens have been installed to screen the water that is taken in through the tunnel to the reservoir. we were able to get out as planned for winter season. the project is about 82% complete and we expect complete by the end of this year. testing is, of course, we will be doing testing in this coming winter season. >> and this is a recovery project, the existing wells that constructed in phase one

in the testing and startup period. we expect to continue both the individual well station testing as well as the system-wide testing through the end of this year. but, again, fwao*iz was planned for two to three additional wells in the san bruno area and we haven't been able to site those wells to date. we are looking at other possible locations and we'll do test wells starting in march at two additional locations in milbray and south san francisco and we'll look at the viability of those sites. for the time being, we're focused on really getting phase one up and operational. and then the bioregional habitat restoration programme is coming along. the -- as you recall, there is 18 sites between the alameda and peninsula water sheds. 10 sites are entirely complete. there is eight remaining sites that are part of the peninsula

vegetation removal promise, removing the nonnative vegetation project. we're forecast ago delay to completion of the project because we need to accommodate the preparation and negotiation of conservation easements that's required under the regulatory permit answer so we need the time to do that. but the construction will be complete this year. and last but not least, this is what i call my nuts and bolts project. this is librarising when you get to the end of a project, there is some loose ends that you need to take care of. we have what these close out promises and some of these are, you know, fairly substantial projects in and of themselves. but there is a variety of them throughout all the regions that we're work on and will be continuing with this until the end of the programme. with, that i'd be maep to take any questions.

actually i have one more slide. excuse me. so where do we stand now? the overall cost forecast is 4.887 billion. that is about $42 million beyond what was approved two years ago in march 2016. and so the completion schedule is currently forecast for december 2021. as you know, we're 95% complete. so, it's not that the whole programme has been delayed, but there is a couple of projects that need to be extended to allow for these loose ends and challenges that we've encountered. we have forecast enough time and cost for active construction contracts that approximately 80% confidence level for risk. and we've included a request in the 10-year water c.i.p. that

is becoming before you today to cover the additional cost for the w social security dip -- wsip being forecast here. what we've done in the past, two years ago we came to you with a change notice under ab-1823 rules so we plan to do that again at the end of this month. to come with a 30-day change notice and then for a public hearing and then come to you in march to ask for your approval. >> all right. thank you, dan. >> and also please extend our congratulations. >> will do. thanks. >> well said. for this item here, i'm going to invite public comment. we also have tom francis from bosca. i'd like to invite you up, please. >> so i'm tom francis, the

water resource manager for bosca. on this team i want to make two brief statements. i know there is a time limit here and i typically extend over that. first of all regarding what dan was mentioning with the wsip. we were made aware several months ago that sfpuc plans to extend wsip until 2021 and increase the budget by $42 million. we've been reviewing the proposed wsip extension skelz and budgets increase and we'll be looking forward to seeing the same documents that you folks will be seeing in another couple of weeks. our main interest on that note, aside from reviewing those documents, will be to extend the period that ab-1823 and i think dan will probably talk about that. it will end the oversight -- it will -- excuse me, we just need to extend it a few extra years and we view that the schedules are still a little bit

uncertain and so our role as bosca is to make sure that we have state oversight in place. we've had discussions with the p.u.c. staff about that. we believe they are in support of that particular activity and hopefully they'll discuss that coming up. the last is reported to the quarterly reports in wsi. i know the last fall has been a challenge for your staff because the city's budgets has been -- or at least the new software that tracks budgets has been in an upheaval state. and so what we're asking dan to do and steven and harlan and his staff is take another look now that it appears that that software is up and running and running smoothly. take another look at that $42 million because some of that was estimated by his staff at a time they weren't able to access all the records that they had in place. now those records should be in place. what we're asking again is to take another look so when he

comes back to you in two weeks he has great confidence in that $42 million. that ends my comments. and you can ask -- feel free to ask questions. >> questions? comments? >> thank you. >> ok. >> any other public comment on this item? ok. >> number eight. >> no. i have -- first of all, i just wanted to thank the commissioner for participating -- is this close enough -- in the calgary p.u. c. there was a rally regarding the c.c.a. and she showed up and rallied folks around the support of c.c.a. so i want to personally thank you for that because it means a lot to our programme. the second and last item i wanted to give you -- let you

know that we had an unexpected death at the p.u.c. it is a colleague. his name was ron miller. he served at the department lab director since 2006 and next months would have marked his 12th year anniversary. he passed sunday. february 11. he -- you know, the lab actually is a very busy lab because we have -- we provide lab services for the water and waste water as well. but we work with our wholesale customers in the community so it is a 24/7 operation. and we have, you know, several labs that he managed. one at milbray, one at southeast and then a small one at the moccasin yard so he kind

of serves -- he managed all that. and i just wanted to, on behalf of the department, give our condolence to his family, his co-workers. the water enterprise under steve richie and particular andrew degasa who is his direct supervisor. and i just wanted to really make sure that our staff is -- you know, we provide whatever resources they need to cope with this because he was an important employee at the p.u.c. so i wanted to let you know that we'll be sending a letter out to staff and see what resources we could provide through this time. and so with that, that completes my report. >> if i may. would you be kind enough to extend our condolences on behalf of the commission to his family? >> will do. >> thank you.

>> ok. item eight. >> item eight is the con sents calendar. all matters listed here under constitute a consent calendar are considered to be routine by the san francisco public utilities commission and will be acted upon by a single vote of the commission. there will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the commission or the public so requests n which event the matter will be removed from the calendar and considered as a separate item. >> move approval. >> second. >> ok. any other discussion? any public comment? all right. all in favour? >> aye. >> opposed? carries. item number nine, please. >> a presentation and discussion of the draft 100-year storm flood risk information map to provide property owners and prospective buyers information about the likelihood that flood willing occur during a 100-year storm event on a particular property.

>> good afternoon, commissioners. brian henderson, interim a.g.m. for waste water. over the last few years, we talked a lot about flooding and what this item is about is one of our problematic strategies aimed at informing property owners of their risk -- of their flood risk during a 100-year storm. i'd like the introduce stephanie harrison who will come up and show you the draft and talk about next steps. >> thank you, brian. good afternoon, commissioners.

stephanie harrison, project manager. so we're going to be talking today about the draft 100-year storm flood risk information map and this is really intended to be a first glance at the maps and the process that we went through to develop them. and then at the end, i'm going to lay out what our planned next step r.s pull up the slides, please? as you recall, our flood resilient strategy in san francisco is three-pronged. we have capital projects to address our level of service. and we have collection system o&m, operation and maintenance to maintain our assets and the third piece we've been talk about more recently in the past year or so, is the problematic strategies and that is what i'm going to be focusing on today. in september, i present add full suite of problematic strategis to you, some pertained to the 25-year storm, some to the 100-year storm and some are citiwide and today

we're just focusing on the 100-year storm, which is an extreme but conceivable event. so, what is this information map? it identifies parcels in san francisco that are subject to core flood risk in a 100-year storm. that is a storm with a 1% probabilities of happening at any given year. the purpose is, first of all, to enable property owners to protect their properties. so, if they know that they are subject to flood risk and can take steps to protect their properties. and then secondly to inform prospective property buyers by mandating disclosure at point of sale. now there's already an existing state law that when you sell a property in california, tough disclose flood risk at point of sale. but we've heard many anecdotetal stories from property owners in our core flood areas that they didn't know when they purchased their property. so what this map in combination with the city ordinance would

create a clear and transparent process that is consistent with the intents of the state law to make it much more clear and transparent as to whether you have flood risk and when to disclose it. i'm going to talk a little bit more about the future ordinance and that process, how that process looks later. but right now let's take a look at the draft map itself. so this is what the map looks like city wide. and hopefully you have hand outs and there's a link on the online agenda to download the entire p.d.f. with the neighbourhood zoom-ins. this is an example of one neighbourhood zoom-in. the map would be zoom tonight a parcel scale so a property owner or anyone would know which parcel are in or out of the map. before adoption of the map, though, staff would be proposing process for any property owner to request parcel information such as the

el investigation, the d*eptsz of flooding, extent of flooding, that was in the mapping process and then potentially to appeal their inclusion in the map and potentially redraw the boundaries. there ising a process of appeals that will be asked for you are asked or consider adopting any map. let's look briefly at the technical assumptions that went into the mapping process. s that brief snapshot. first, how do we meaningfully define flooding? we look at deep and contiguous flooding. it's not just a problem on the parcel, but a problem in the neighbourhood on the half block scale. we considered sea level rise

and considered how to draw the lines in a way that is very clear and encompasses a whole parcel and also we didn't want large parcels with small amounts of flooding to skew the whole map. we used two distinction tools. the first was our hydraulic and hydrologic model and that simulates the depth and extent of the flooding and for that we input our 100-year design storm. we input sea level rise assumption, the city drainage infrastructure is already part of it. ground surface data and then that gave us the depth and extend of flooding. we put that into a mapping process where we identified the parcels that are impacted. i'm going to walk through a series of maps here on the slides to sort of walk through the process very quickly. i don't see here that same intermission neighbourhood. this tells us depth so the

darker blues are deeper flooding and the lighter blues are lighter flooding and we identified the deep and contiguous areas outlined in black and isolated those areas so the rest of the more shallow flooding came off the map and then we identify what had parcels are affected by this deep and contiguous flooding. and then we drew a boundary around those par else is and that generated this city-wide map. on a city scale, you are looking at a little over 2,000 parcels and a little over 5,000 properties because a parcel can have a multiunit building with multiple properties in it. it is about 1% to 2% of the parcels, the properties and buildings in san francisco. to give you a sense of the scale in a 100-year storm. and when you add -- when we add the historic hydrology layer on, you can see house closely, again, the flooding follows the waterways because it's driven business topography.

following today's very brief introduction to the mapping, these are the plan's next steps. so what we would be planning to do is to send out some notifications in march. this looks like a written notification to all the property owners within the map to let them know that the draft maps have been developed. and also stakeholder in this process and post the draft map online. all of this out reach would point to public availability sessions, any public sessions that we came to answer questions but also in the spring timeframe we would plan to come back to the commission, hold a hearing and go into more detail over the processs that i just breezed through today. in the meantime, continuing our discussions with the members of the board of supervisors for an

ordinance that would require sellers to disdmroes they're within a commission adopted final map. and, again, this is just a -- this is very in line with the existing state law and just providing information on existing dons give people a very transparent way to report whether they have flood risk or not. later in the year, then we would be coming back -- if that ordinance passes, they would be coming back to the commission to propose a final map for adoption. and again before we ask for adoption, we would be looking at specific regular leighs, noticing to the property owners an appeals process for any particular parcel's inclusion in the map and also a process for periodic reviews and revisions of the map. and approvals for that. so then following adoption, we fo*s final map online and that would be part of the process when you sell a property is to

make sure that you're disclosing and disclosing whether or not your property is within this map boundary or not. so with that, i would take any questions you might have. >> what is the impact on a property owner of being included in the area there is a disclosure requirement proposed. what about availability of flood insurance or subsidy for flood in[stph-urpbgs/] ?urntion >> [stph-urpbgs/] ?urntion -- flood insurance? >> great question. the process would be that the property owner goes to the map to fill out their disclosures. with respect to flood insurance, flood insurance is available city-wide. that was part of the national flood insurance programme that we joined in 2010 as a city.

so that federally-backed flood insurance is available city-wide. now where you have a fema-designated flood plain, which is associated with an open waterway, which is along the bay and ocean. so, the very, very coastal properties of our city are in preliminary feeze ma designated flood plains and if and when those flood plains are finalized, the fema designated flood-vulnerable properties would have higher insurance policy premiums. but most of the areas are outside of those fema designated flood plains. and so the insurance premiums are significantly lower. i looked up the premiums to get a sense of what we say they are. when we say "affordable" that doesn't mean the same thing to everybody. but in 2017, the national flood insurance programme annual premiums for propertis that are not in fema-designated flood plains, so that would be most

of the propertis that we're talk about on this flood map, if you are a renter and you're ensuring contends only, the annual premium is $40. can start at $40 a year. depending on the values of your contents. and if you are a property owner with a basement and you're insuring both contents and structure, the premiums start at $127 a year. for content and structure. it is not like earth quake insurance or homeowner insurance because these propertis are primarily outside of fema-designated flood plains, it's almost like it's heavily subsidized. like obamacare wants to get the young, healthy people into the programme. >> like a.a.a. insurance for your car. roadside assistance. thank you. >> i have a couple of questions. so i was curious on the

designation of the sites. the 100-year storm notion seems to be changing since we're seeing greater frequency of greater storms. i'm wondering if there is modeling that you're using to factor into the maping? >> that is a really good question. with respect to climate change, when we think about dlie mat change, we have good understanding scientifically of how sea levels are going to rise, but we don't haves a very good understanding of how precipitation patterns are going to change, especially on the micro level, like you know san francisco's 50-square miles. so, we do not -- there is not scientific agreement and we don't have a range of how precipitation patterns may change with respect to climate change so we don't have anything quantitative to model. now that said, the five-year

storm, the statistical analyses to define these storms was available back in the 1940s and they have been visited in more recent years, post-2000 to sort of understand how much has that data period impacted the statistical analysis and it still looks remarkably consistent. so it really takes many decades of data to change a long-term pattern like that. we are working with lawrence berkeley labs to try and further -- to best understand the best available science on extreme participation. but as of today, there is not an agreement in the scientific community. >> i would also mention that we're trying to be consistent with fema, 100 years, so -- >> it seems like we've been seeing a lot more, whether it

is 100-year, or 50-year, whatever we call it, much more intense storms and that is almost driven some of this -- what we have to do to respond because they're happening more quickly and more severely. >> it's true. it's likele roing the dice. it's hard to know what influence statistics has and plain old probabilities and chance versus what is driven by climate change and it is hard to dissect that without a long-term record. certainly we're not expecting it to get -- the patterns to get less intense. >> anybody in san francisco eligible nar flood insurance? >> yeah. >> so, if you were on the edge of a flood prone area and concerned about the effect of sea level rise, you could voluntarily purchase -- >> yes. and anyone in san francisco can purchase flood insurance policies through the national

flood insurance programme, which is subsidized. as of right now, we don't even have final fema maps so even those in the preliminary flood zones are still getting subsidized rates on a national scale. because fema flood maps haven't been finalized yet. >> thank you. >> it seems like the goal of this mapping -- maybe not the biggest goal, but one of the main uses and goals for the map is this disclosure question and possibly tools identify individual recourse strategies for a homeowner? >> so, the primary purpose of this map is information. and that has a two-pronged trickle down. we want current property owners to be aware of flood risk. their flood risk. whether they're planning to sell or nots, we want property owners to be aware of their flood risk.

but also prospective buyers to be aware of what they might be purchasing. e the disclosure is for the buyer side of it. and general information piece is for the current property owners. we have a city-wide grant programme right now that twe ear going to be advertising heavily since in december you announced the major modifications to it and we've done contractor outreach so we have a lot more resources that we lined up now and we'll be doing major outreach on the grant programme and that is an example of some of the assistance we want to make sure people are aware of. >> so, would the people in the map zones have first priority to the grant dollars? are they tied together? >> not at this time. eventually the intents we have a 25-year storm map which is a little smaller than the 100-year storm map.

and we would be tying building code requirements to that. that is a much more tangible -- potentially impactful requirement to properties owners. so we would be eventually tying first priorities for the grants to that 25-year storm map. but right now, as a grant programme currently exists, it's open for anyone city wide and the demand for it has been underutilized to date. we welcome folks in this mapped area to apply for grants. >> and one last question. it seems like this tool, this map could have some broad implication and applications and from a policy perspective, as we look at wsip and capital improvement and storm water ordinances and storm water fees that it could be something to inform decisions as well where if there is one parcel in

particular, it's identified as severely impacted and maybe there is a great infrastructure tool or adjustment that goes into that place based on that map. is that ?obl has that been talked about? >> i think -- so our system is built for a five-year storm. and so that is what our infrastructure is. so, we're not building it for 100-year, but we feel that we need to notify folks because folks are unaware if they purchase property that lit flood in 100 years. so, this is just good information for people to have and i think what the commission and what we talked about is above the five-year, you know, capital investments we're going to make, what programme matic strategies that we can deploy to help folks and what we define is a 25-year is a good level to provide additional

help to those people in those areas. we will give a programmatic assistance and that is how we're layering it in. >> that's helpful. it would be great, as the maps get developed, a better understanding. although the modeling isn't there. but what are we really seing? are we seeing a lot more 25 year, 100-year storms than we did in the 1940s? >> so, 2004 marked a very, very large [inaudible] and then there were a couple more since then. that's sort of the last 15 years of record and the statisticians are saying that you need a good 30-year period

to be able to discern a trend as opposed to a statistical anomaly. so, it's coming. as we continued to see patterns like it, we'll mark it as a trend but it is premature to do that at this point in time. >> work with lawrence berkery s that the atmospherics with river mapping? >> it's separate from that. the atmospheric river mapping is being sponsored by the departments of water resources. >> commission, anything else? thank you. any public comment on this item? ok so i want to call attention items 10, 11, 12, and 13 will be called together. secretary will read it and a.g. sandler will do a presentation

one by one on all four items after which we'll have time for public comment. all right. >> item 10 is a discussion and possible action to adopt the biennial operating and programmatic promise budgets for the interprice and bureaus opportunitieder jurisdiction of the fiscal year 2018-19 and 2019-20. and discussion and possible action to adopt the two-year capital budget of the sfpuc, authorize the general manager to seek approval for supplemental appropriations for the sfpuc enterprises for fiscal year 2018-19 and 2019-20 and authorize the general manager to submit to the board of supervisors proposed ordinances authorizing the issue want of $496,677,886 aggregate principal amount of water revenue bonds and other forms of indebtedness including commercial paper and state

revolving fund loans and $982,843,065 aggregate principle amount of wastewater revenue bonds and other forms of indebtedness including commercial paper and state revolving fund loans and two, $154,928,0 at in aggregate principal amount of power revenue bonds and other forms of indebtedness. and discussion and possible action to adopt the puc capital plan for fiscal year 2018-19 and through fiscal year 2027-28. and discussion and possible action to adopt the sfpuc10-year financial plan for fiscal year 2018-19 through fiscal year 2027-28. >> commissioners, these items are really the capstone of a tremendous amount of work on behalf of staff, but also a

tremendous investment as time of the commission to thoroughly vet our budget, operating budgets, capital budgets, capital plans and financial plans. and so you've gone through 12-plus hours of hearings on our budget and what i included with the package is a 40-page recap of what you've discussed over the past three meetings and 12 hours. i'm not going to go through that whole presentation right now. but i did choose a few slides from that just to highlight some of thework that you've done and changes regarding our review of the budget. there's information about the general manager's comments on the budget, timeline and commission actions, the budget

development process internally and the context of the whole city budgets, the review and recap of the enterprise priorities and summary of the operating budgets, including the new proposals and position changes t capital budget summary of the 10-year financial plan. it is a complete package. and i did want to highlight the degree and effort to which the commission went to vet this budgets. you held three public hearings, each four hours. we took up all the four hours each time and actually a little bit over on a few of them. on january 18, the general manager and i gave an introduction to the budget and an overview. we talked about the waste water operating and capital budgetses, the 10-year taptal plan and financial plan. on the 25th, we covered the water enterprise, hetchy water and hetchy clean power and on january 21, we covered the general manager's budgets, external affairs and infrastructure.

we have on record questions and answers that you raised during the budget process. the series of these hearings. so, the public can see in communication item 5e, the whole series of questions that you asked during the process, the answers that we provided and a number of support exhibits. so, it's clear and available to the public. the amount of inquiry that you as commissioners provided into our budget. at the same time, we followed up. there were a couple of hearings that we drilled down with commissioners over to the period one relating to green infrastructure and pathways. i wanted to highlight those. in terms of green infrastructure, we decided to

accelerate the grant programme targeting schools and parks. and what that means is moving -- it is moving some of those moneys from years two to 10 into years one and two. there is actually a red line revision of item 11, which reflects the increase to the biennial capital appropriatation. and then there was a lot of work that was done with the general manager, the head of h.r. the head of the water enterprise and waste water enterprise to work on commitments related to workforce development pathways. and for the water enterprise, we're implementing an apprenticeship programme for sdwren laborers and gardeners. we're adding an eight-week rotation to the glen eagles training academy as part of the preapprenticeship programme for waste water and then we're working as an organio