appeal later because there is a timeline. you have to act within a certain amount of time to protect your rights. that is our reality. i also believe we can chew bubble gum and breathe payment and litigate and negotiate payment, too. we need to figure out how to as we continue the discussion where the proposals fit with in the timeline and where we can be flexible and where we can't. one other thing raised was the viability of transfers. i don't think anybody is says they are not viable. trying to come up with the transfer tat 11th hour suimpossible. if nobody has water to spare, finding a willing seller is hard to do. you have to set this up ahead of time.

they are viable. people made good use of them. there are some big plumbing problems. we aren't part of the state water system. if we have one state water system customer willing to transfer water to us we have a hard time taking delivery of that. somebody suggested maybe we should look at that. our aqua duct is potable water. when we think of transfer the most obvious to us and the most technically and financially feasible are ones that end up from oakdale if it gets on the river we have the same plumbing and chemistry. those are highly viable. we had trouble consummating those deals.

we were close with modesto and that blew up. don't think water transfers are not viable. every agency has their own issues. we have particular constraints, but they are viable and frankly should be part of our planning how we deal with things, whatever the threat environmental or regulatory induced. that is the end of my comments. anything else? okay. next item, please. you bay area water service conservation agency update. >> good afternoon, nicole. there are three things i want to

talk about today. first relates to the same conversation you have been having. i want to open up and thank you for the hearing that you scheduled at your second meeting in august. that was something i sincerely appreciated timing wise coming out of our meeting in july was interest to have such a thing. we didn't meet until september. you offered up the opportunity and i think we all appreciated that. it started a good dialogue. i also, you know we had 19 members from the agencies here including my chair who felt it was significantly important to hear from them as well. i wasn't here. i was on vacation. i did watch it. in general it was a hearing that initiated a good conversation as evidenced by some of the discussions today talking about where do we go?

bosca is focused on the idea of voluntary settlement agreement. there is no way i can tell thaw is easy to do. none of this is easy. i believe strongly that is the way for you to get the best result in the soonest possible time with the least amount of otherwise unnecessary expended costs legal or otherwise. we are putting all our resources to that end and to try to bridge that gap to figure out what is going on here so we can achieve objectives of the plan but not decimate the water supply. i see appreciate the agenda. it was on the board last week and there was good conversation there as well. a couple things to offer to the conversation you had on transfers.

as you know we were trying to do a pilot water transfer to test this concept before the drought. we have been doing it since 2012. i will tell you what we found was one of the fears we had. we are not a member of the state water project, we don't get a borough contract. the borough said we don't care you are talking about it, go away. you can't use our facility. it all fell apart. we initiated our conversations. there are viable options out there. it is complex and difficult and it needs a lot of work and the tuolumne river options are there. that is always our interest as long as ier. that was as option we suggested at the time. it has not been able to bear any

fruit yet that is where we are at with the delta plan. the second item i want to talk k about is last friday. that was a good news story. i appreciated the effort of your staff to really create that celebration. more importantly to get the word out about what has been done. the number of people that have reached out to me separately because they heard about it, saw it on the news. it had been such a long time since we had all of the problems, and i think it really speaks to fortitude, leadership, persistence and strength to get that project and get that dam done. that is a significant improvement to the service area. i do applaud the skilled workers and your leadership.

lastly, if i could have the slides. just to continue my tracking of water use and it also does relate to the discussions we have been having about the delta plan. this is water use through july 2018 as reported to the state board. this is total, not just purchases. for july 17% less than the pre-drought use. you continue to see the gap between the top blue line 2013 and the red line which is our current use. obviously, there has been some rebound, but not back to the pre-drought use. we are now five years later with -- i can attest to tremendous growth in the service area.

this brings to mind the last comment which is because of this and because of the delta plan and because of making water conservation a way of life, the bosca agencies and board are moving sooner for a request for proposal in january for an update youd water demand and conservation water study to look at the entirety in the service area based on adopted land use plan by the land use entities. coordinated among themselves around looking at demand projections, total demand projections and conservation opportunities both making water conservation a way of life and more conservation opportunities to see what we can do there and also what we can do with

nonpottable use or i wouldn't call it satellite type use of changing of water us use at the particular buildings and i am you looking forward to bringing you that information when it is ready. that concludes my comments. thank you very much. commissioners, anything? any public comment on this item? okay next is the consent calendar. >> item 11 all matters listed constitute the consent matter are considered routine. they will be acted upon by a single vote. there will be no separate item unless requested in which event it will be removed in the calendar and considered as a separate item.

>> any request to remove an item. >> i move the item. >> second. >> before we vote any public comment? seeing none all in favor. aye. >> approved. next item, please. >> possible action to adopt the 100 year storm flood risk map review process. delegate authority to make future updates for certain specified purposes. >> we have any discussion, commissioners? >> we have a presentation. >> good afternoon, commissioners, i run the utility planning division and

wastewater. i am here to talk about the draft 100 year storm flood risk map, and as it says the potential action item is to adopt said map to make it final as well as review the process for parcel review. if i could get the slides up. as we spoke about, i believe, in july for this item the 100 year map falls within our greater flood resilient strategies for san francisco. our working project definition is the capacity to anticipate risk, limit impact and recover quickly when damage occurs from flooding and to achieve this, we have three work areas. the first is our capital projects aimed at meeting the level of service storm, five year three hour storm and significant funding as you know in our capital plan for that.

second is the collection system o and m street sweeping, catch basin cleaning. the third is within our program and legislative initiatives. the goal of those initiatives is to really inform the public about where these flood risks are. in addition the next part of the project will be to work with the city family to leverage the phases of development point of sale, new construction and plumbing and lateral requirement to make our city more resilient with each phase of development. >> so the 100 year map is what it sounds like. a map that shows where flood risk is for the 100 year storm. our goal in publishing this is to give property owners and perspective buyers information about the flood risk to enable

them to make in formed decisions about their properties, projects to do on the properties or assets they have on their properties. this map is also to support the development of legislation which will require sellers or lessors of property to disclose to buyers or tenants the location of the property in the flood risk zone. it is a foundation for the city family to advance flood resilience efforts city wide. >> the legislation would be a disclosure on your sale -- what is it called? >> the legislation would require disclosure, yes. we will speak more about this. that would be the next step for this deliverable is to utilize the map for the proposal of the

legislation. >> do you have a timeline for that? >> the ordinance is drafted and is in pretty final form. we would share with the city family group and begin to advance to the board of supervisors. that would be clearly with this group's approval and the first critical path item is today's map. >> do you anticipate push back on that? >> we have not seen much so far. i will get in a little later in the presentation into the outreach and what we have been hearing back from the community during the outreach. for the most part people are glad to have the information. they did have questions about review processes which we have developed. i will get to in a couple of slides as well. >> let me quickly go over how we

developed the map, the basis for it is. as part of urban watershed assessment process sfpc developed state-of-the-art model to support the watershed approach to public engage mend and that model was one of the significant contributions that urban watershed made. we used that to develop the map to have the flood resilience effort. >> this slide just tells how we then used the model. we simulated the depth and extent in flood anything a 100 year design storm. the model including within it drainage infrastructure pipes tunnels and pump stations. it includes ground surface data

about elevation. we did include the impact of expected sea level rise on our infrastructure in terms of back flow. to be clear, however, that is about sea level rise in coastal waters, not the advanced precipitation models for stormwater. when we receive that data under development with a large project that could be incorporated into the model. i want a fine point on that. that is one of main questions we have been getting. we took all of that data to express it using gis and identified areas with deep flooding which we defined for this purpose to be greater than 6 inches of flooding and contiguous flooding which we defined greater than half a block. when we identified all of the parcels that met both of those criteria, drawing a boundary

around that is what yielded the map. >> so you can see the result you have that exercise here. this is the draft map that we have been utilizing for the project and for our outreach. the blue areas or blue wish purple areas are flood risk zones, not surprisingly you can see that they very much overlap with the historical and natural waterways which, of course, are low-lying areas. i am not sure if you can see very well. it is in turquoise, historical waterwayses. hatched areas were not included in this study at this time. then for your reference this map is from 1869. it was part of the basis for the watewaterways on the prior slid.

you can see the alignment with the 100 year flood map. >> that map where the sewer areas were not part of the study. >> the separate sewer areas. >> there is a couple reasons for that. one is that as you know there is significant development occurring there which is subject to subdivision regulations including flood elevation for the separate sewers such as treasure island with its own plan and hunters' point. those are under different conditions than our combined sewer areas. >> can i get the slides back up? this is to zoom in to a neighborhood around the lake showing the map as you get more detailed. we also did create and piloted a

searchable, zoomable map for the public so they can put in their address and zoom in to their property to determine whether or not their property is in the risk zone. then we did a robust notification process which we described in our last visit here in july. we mailed about 4,000 letters to properties in this area to inform them about their location as well as all of the differently sources available to them. we have a lot of faq as well as rain ready programs such as adopt a train, etc. our outreach included public available sessions where the publico talk one-on-one with

staff about technical questions as well as presentations. we reached out to neighborhoods particularly in flooding areas. when we last visited with you, this parcel review process was something we talked about. it was under development at the time. staff has now completed this process. the purpose of it is to acknowledge that property owners may want to request a review to understand whether or not their property would remain in the flood map. there are two criteria that could potentially have them taken off the map. that would be if the parcel's ground elevation is above the 100 year storm elevation. secondarily if there is a significant barrier to stormwater to prevent the flooding from entering the

entire parcel. >> can that barrier be a temporary barrier? >> we center in that category retaining walls, concrete walls and senses. staff did have a lot of discussion about whether or not a fence, for example would be in the same category. the conclusion we came to was that if upon a site visit the staff determined that the fence was a barrier and was routing stormwater off of the site, that that would be grounds for taking it off. however, we also determined there would be a map updating process recognizing that in the future somebody co-opt to remove that fence. similarly, with our flow factor

adjustment when the property owner gets the flow factor adjustment they don't keep it forever recognizing they may do something else. there are updates and this would follow that same process. we then determined how this process would work in terms of getting back to the customer. the first step is that the applicants would submit the information to the sfpc and we do have a form developed for this. we would then review the property based on our model data and new data the applicant was able to provide and at the puc's discussion after looking at the site, a site visit would be performed at this time. we would then make a determination about the outcome for the property, then we would get back to the person about the

determination and update the map. because the update will take a little bit longer, we would give them documentation about the determination and update the map on the recurring basis. so based on the fact we have the substance of the map completed, the 100 year map, but the re-- plus the review process required for the public to potentially ask to get property removed. our next step is to ask for formal adoption of the flood risk map. following that we would move forward with the legislation we also discussed last time which would require sellers and lessors of property to disclose to buyers and tenants the property is in the flood risk zone so they could make in formed decision about protecting their property and assets. that is what we have today for

you. happy to take any questions. >> just to be clear, what is before us today does not require any ratification by the board of supervisors, is that right? >> no, my understanding is that today's action would just be to adopt the map itself. >> that will be a final action? . >> that would be a final action. >> what won't subject to the board of supervisors review would be disclosure ordinance. thank you. >> i will move the item. >> second. >> any public comment on this? seeing none. all in favor. >> from is public comment. >> please come on up. >> may i ask that you give the

commissioners the packets. my name is marilyn amini. my parcel has been identified as being on the flood zone map, and i am at 2667 14th avenue. you will see an arrow pointing to that. the criteria 4-bing on this map -- for the being on the map it is likely i would experience deep and contiguous flooding at least six inches. if you look at the second page of what i have handed you. actually, the fourth page showing how high my home is, i think it is highly unlikely that i would have any flooding at all

because there is a continuous down sloping of slapped past my home to the corner at 14th and remarkable down -- what shall i say. down sloping down to 15th. the water opinioniously goes downhill around the corner at 14th and then down to 15th, which suffers real problems because you have the fact there is in sloping on all corners of the section. you will see the hand out that fpuc gave to all of the neighborhood asking for help after the 2013 flood at 15th and walanona asking that we remove

street debris to help what is circled as being a flood zone. i don't know how my property got on the map as being a parcel that would in fact be subjects to 6 inches of flooding because as i say, the water keeps moving on, and i think i included on the third page this is my home. it sits quite a bit higher than the 300lanona home at the corner. 7 to 12 feet higher than that. there is no way that i would accumulate 6 inches of flooding. i question that, you know, i

should be on this map at all. i think it is sens should have the -- citizens should have the opportunity to review this before you adopt the map. >> thank you. your time is up. we can forward this to staff to see if it is something we can look at later. thank you. >> we can forward this to staff to look at your assessment of your property. thank you for your comments. >> my understanding is that there is a process for a circumstance like this to be able to say that exactly what you are saying through staff charnels that you don't believe your home should be part of this map. i think there is a process that

sarah walked us through to show us a process for community members. >> the point is that we use modeling and the information we have nout the field. in case something changes or we miss something there is a process where you can remove your property from the map. we adopt the map because we did extensive outreach with everyone. by coming here and giving us the information, we will evaluate your property right now. [ inaudible ] >> once you give us information we will take you off the list.

-- off the map. . >> that is the key. i think to the resident's point the contiguous is the problem. if you are talking about seven to 10 feet, i can see how that would be an acceptable appeal. at the end it says delegate to the general manager to make future updates for certain specified purposes. would this be a specified purpose? a unique circumstance? >> it is interesting because you could have a complex where you subdivide it. you could be on the 12th floor. you don't flood. you feel sorry for who is on the first floor. can you hear ne? >> i can hear you.

>> i think those are the challenges. it depends how home are subdivided, right? you can live in a complex, you know, a multi family home where on the first floor you flood, but on the third floor you don't flood, it is two separate units. those are the challenges w were facing when we came up with this map. i understand your issue. >> i don't think i should have appear order the map. nobody came out to look. i did bring the situation up when i came to the community meeting. i got a letter back saying, well, there is a flow. i could read the wording of it. there is flow past my house, but that doesn't mean that i would be affected by the flow. in fact, the fact that there is

contiguous flow past the house means that i will be protected from a 6-inch flood. >> we will look into it. we will look into it now. okay. thank you. >> if i could get your information, staff can get back to you. >> i want to add because this is a model that synthesizes storms that is why we established this process, recognizing not every storm is how the model says and that there can be variations in ground elevation. if we get your information, we can look at it. >> i think we will have this conversation in other area us. in rules committe commit they we

particular when 71 residents. we have to be you ready for the ordinary circumstances people think they have or don't have at all and be ready for each individual appeal without having appeals, right? it is a little dicey. >> we tried to reach out, we did millers, community workshops, we notified the community organizations to get the word out, and, you know, we will miss people so we have a process where we can reevaluate everything. the main thing that helps us improve the model. one thing we have included in the model is the urban watershed assessment. that is in the model. the more accurate data we can get from the process will be helpful as well. >> i'm sorry.

this is going into title. >> you just by your action you today creates an appeal process. it sits forth the rules why by property owners can file formal request for review on their parcel and sets out the process to review. two criteria for granting request if he willvation is higher than what the competitor model showed or retraining wall our structure that our model didn't pick up to you block the water. if that grants it, you have delegated authorities in this action if you vote on it today for staff to amend the map. you are right, the parcel shouldn't be in here they can a the map and pull the parcel out. >> the urban watershed

assessment is online? it feels like that would be an important document four residents to be able to look at. they are in the watershed, for example. >> the urban watershed assessment information attained in all you have the features, the curbs and the areas and the slopes and all of that stuff have been placed into the model -- into the model so that it knows all you have this information? that was what i was saying. based off that information and effort we went through to do that assessment, we incorporate in the model. >> i understand. i did two things. i went to the website as we were

talking and i didn't see the urban watershed assessment. that is the first thing to look at to see if my house is in the urban watershed. then i went to sf water.org you and that link didn't work either. it iit is important for resideno have a first step to go to online or two steps which would be the assessment and floodway site like me to be my house on the map? so the watershed assessment is made up of numerous patters. the first part was characterization, looking at what are the physical characteristics of the watershedses? that is on the website. i think it is very interesting and very useful. that being said, i would suggest

that it probably would not assist somebody in this particular conversation just because it is so broad and it is targeted at explaining the physical characteristics of all eight of our urban watersheds. critical for urban planning but not for flood map appeal process. that is available. the characterization and assessment online both went into informing the improvement strategy. >> blooyou mean to look up the property itself? that is a user friendly interface to put your specific parcel address in on the flood map and see if it is in the flood risk zone. >> i tried that. it didn't work. when it does work, it would be important for residents to do

broad outreach effort. >> some outreach effort so residents can be able? >> if it does not work we will address that. it worked yesterday because we checked it. we will definitely look into that. just so commissioners are aware of the outreach, we did send 4,000 letters. we sent letters to every person whose parcel was in the flood risk zone. we then had five different public availability sessions across the city and i didn't mention in the interest of time but in the presentation we did do the presentations at weekends, nights, workdays, all kinds of times to be available to the public as well as with targeted presentations we did all evening presentations. the outreach was robust.

there are always going to be exceptions and physical conditions that we need to account four and hence the parcel review process. that is what we want to recognize. >> could i request that -- because i think it is correct to assume we are going to continue having this conversation for a while -- that we lead off with social media, mail, social contacts, 9% return on the mail so we are armed with that as we go to individual matters, yeah, i know we do that, but that is perfect. >> absolutely. other questions? >> we have a seconded motion. all in favor.

opposed. >> approved. next item, please. you. >> item 13 adopt a resolution for code section 8387 determining the sfpc operates overhead lines that present a risk of wildfire that are located in high fire danger zones and high fire danger zones and authorize development plan. >> i move approval. >> any public comment? >> all in favor? aye. >> it is approved. nicely done. >> next item. >> 14. approving c s1100 for installation of aclara technologies for the san

francisco power commission power enterprise not to exceed $9,993,604 and a duration of 10 years. >> a motion. >> i will move it. >> second. >> any discussion? any public comment on this item? all in favor? oppose the. it is approved. >> item 15. performance goals for fiscal year 2018-19 for the general manager. >> motion. >> i will move to the attachment. >> i will second it. i have questions. first of all, comment. these objectives reflect the discussions we have had. when i focused on particularly

the policy areas with the emphasis on compliance, which is what we have asked for, and i think those provisions are appropriate. i did have a question about under the water capital project implementation you have two items. ground water project and recycled water project. these are listed as ongoing. i am not sure how we know if you have done anything here. no disrespect. i am not sure what it is. i don't know what the target is in what are we trying to hit? 5.2 or .2 and .3? >> so 5.3?

>> 5.5, 5.2 and 3 on page 226. >> the reason i put it in there is to sort of measure the effort that we have done in those topics and i think we put them there so that it will be subjective of how much effort we had to do for like ground water acceptance, and, you know, how we move forward. that is a challenging one. we can eliminate it, but some of the things how do you get people to kind of accept, you know, the

recyclecled water one. we do have the capital projects and we can give you interim date on the recycled water project. but i think it is just more ongoing is more of acceptance, but we can definitely. >> this is under the section title water capital project implementation. it seems there is a target to be hit. >> have a question. are you done? >> well, i am. i have one more thing. a couple pages later 5.7. you have eligible customers or

portion there of. the last operation or portion thereoff that makes it hard to understand what we are measuring. >> 5.7. >> the date of july has gone by. >> july of 2018. >> that would be 19. >> the fact that there would be some kind of target. >> i think the date is off here. >> our intent is by the end of the year we will have extended the enrollment to all of the city? >> no, 2020. >> so 2020.

>> beabarbara hale. it was directing us to offer enroll meant to the extent feasible to all of san francisco by july of 2020, but we are in a position to do it by july of 2019. >> moved it up on me. >> put it in the growth plan. >> whatever the objective is we should state it, not just say some portion of it. >> we would get rid of portion there of. >> if that is what we mean. if the objective is to get it done next year that is what we should measure you against. if it is something else, we

should put something else in there. >> all right. i am gathering that we don't have to amend each and every item here. we just get to say change it. >> i am comfortable with that. >> there is 2.6 work force development policy october 2018. that is not going to happen. i am holding it up. i am meeting with staff they are extremely attentive and supportive. the delay is attributable to myself. you haven't seen the work done on that item. it is appropriate to bounce that to summer of next year as well. that is only fair, right? >> if you would like. it doesn't mean we have to wait. i am trying to get it done.

in the description we say why? i want to make sure my staff, you know, that i can point to we are making these commitments. >> in january. >> january 2019? >> october we know that ain't happening. >> the only other thing is our practice based on the last one was we could attach something that is perfectly appropriate. santa cruz i haven't submitted, mr. chair, but we are allowed to submit these because they have our signature with comments as appropriate. >> i have a question. have we looked into the bottled hatch snatchy did many years ago

and it proved impossible. >> i am glad you asked that question. it is part of which one is it. >> 5.3.1. >> so what we are doing is that, you know, going to start mentioning it to some of you. going into the board chambers and supervisors office, they havtheyhave bottled water. certain pipes when they retrofitted this building we didn't do all of the plumbing. some of the water is brown, you have to let it rub. run. they ask me if you care for water. i look at nestle. at least the five gallon we need

to say really take advantage of this opportunity to brand so they see our water. when we come in there, it is positive. we start looking into it, working with steve richy. they identify a bottling company that will bottle our water in a five gallon and we are using pretty much the same logo that you had back there. we modified it and updated it on the five gallon bottles. as part of that is the work force component where we get folks and do the training to not only refill them. one, you have to take the water truck to you the bottling place, then you have to bring the bottles and store them. also, you have got to take them to each one you have the supervisors offices at city

hall. if that is successful, we will do it at the hospitals. it is part of the mou with nurses they require bottled water. we are looking at the costs. actually, the costs the departments are paying for bottled water will pay for what we are doing. we are going to do the five gallon, then i don't think we will do the smaller ones, but i am starting to realize when you go to certain events where, you know, they want to hand out water, you know, there may be an opportunity tour, you know, special supply of that. we need to think about that approach. the five gallons, you know, you can reuse the five gallons that is the plan. >> i love it. >> that is great. >> i will have paula do the

whole presentation on the five gallons. >> perfect. >> anything else, commissioners? did we have a motion already? and second any public comment on this item? all in favor. opposed. approved. >> now to closed session. >> we will read the items prior to public comment. item 18, existing litigationtor pacific gas & electric. item 20 exist you go litigation pacific gas & electric. item 21, item 22, item 23 exist you go litigation pacific gas & electric. >> any public comments? prior to closed session? okay. a motion?

attorney-client privilege ledges. >> both to assert. >> second. you >> you we are back. this concludes closed session. do we have a motion regarding whether the discussion of closed session >> you motion not to disclosed. >> moved. commissioners is there any other new business? >> we need to vote. >> i am sorry all in favor. >> aye. >> opposed. it is approved. >> i will get it right now that i will not be president any more. any other new business? okay. with that, the meeting is adjourned. thank you all very much. regula

meeting of the board of regula education today. it's tuesday, september 25. and it's my last board meeting. so thank you, all, for being here. we're going to get started. i'm calling this meeting to order. i'm doing some adjustments to the agenda this