i've come and testified a couple of times before, and talked about my efforts to reduce water consumption. on my last water bill, it was 13 gallons perday. one of you did mention after the public comment was over that it wasn't realistic to expect the average citizen here to actually be able to reduce their consumption that much, and i agree. average -- i really am appalled, again, as to how much we do actually waste water. water is life, and it really -- it needs to be -- we are a center of innovation here, and one of the editoryials that was written in the mercury news and the san francisco chronicle

highlights that, in that we are not stepping up our game to invest in innovation, and how do we conserve? this needs to be priority number one, because as the climate does change even more, i fear that the -- you know, the trickle that comes down through the tuolomne river now, that may disappear entirely. and what do we do then? we're taking -- the p.u.c. is taking a very short sighted view of trying to adjustment -- to grab whatever it can right now. it is putting off the priority we need to invest major amounts in recycling, developing new water sources. and until we do so, all the accusations that the p.u.c. really is standing against the environment, that's what i

believe. shame on you. thank you for your time. >> thank you for your comments. is there any further public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is now closed. colleagues, any further comments? >> yes. >> yes, commissioner moran? >> first of all, thank you, everybody for coming and speaking with us today. it's been a tough couple weeks for all of us. within that, i think there has been a -- a shift that's come out of all of that. mr. richie's presentation talked about the need for alternative water supplies, and that we have instream flow requirements as

part of our planning for san mateo creek and alameda creek but not for the tuolomne river. we need to have that, and that's what he said we will do, and that's something we can do irrespective of any finding by the state board. we know there is additional instream requirement needed. we need to be planning for that to happen. and there's -- for both reasons. one reason being there is an evident need for relief for the fishery and the river. the other is if potential regulation can harm us, we have an obligation to step out of harm's way and to do what we need to to make sure it doesn't harm us. so i think incorporated into our water supply planning the idea that there will be additional flows on the tuolomne river is a very important and a very new

way of doing a water supply planning. i think there's also -- i have heard in the past couple of weeks, a lot of expression of understanding that while we -- you know, we bat around a lot of numbers and there's the questions of timing and all that, that this is likely to require significant investment in order for us to meet the needs of the fishery and our constituents. i think supervisor peskin referred to it as being a full employment program at one point. but there are things that we can do. they are expensive, and they will take some time, but we hned to be planning for it, and not waiting for something to hit us

upside the head and fix it. i think the letter from the n.g.o.'s, and this is the one that i don't know, it looks like a little less than a dozen organizations that wrote it. i think it was helpful in broadening the critique to more than just the n.g.o.'s, want to take care of the fish, and the p.u.c. needs to take care of the water. i think the good thing was there's a problem on both sides of this thing. we've got to meet the needs of the people and the fish, and we've got to find a way to solve that. we're vet good at solving things, and if we take that on as a problem, we'll do pretty good solving that. i think when you do that, normal planning processes extend over a

period of time. i think it is important for us to keep 265 m.g.d. is mind because that is an -- in mind because that is an obligation that we have. it is also important for us to realize that we're not delivering that today, and we couldn't if we wanted to. so time is a big factor here that we need to figure out in very concrete ways, what the kma challenge is, what the gap is between the cumulative supply and the cumulative needs of the system, and plot that over time. and the statistics that mr. richie went through, how they contribute to that, how they contribute over time, and where they fit in, as well. in addition, i know that barry nelson and others have said they have lots of ideas that there's things that we can do to ease the pain, and we should be open to that. i think that our planning needs

to be open to the input from the n.g.o.'s, as well as the bsca agencies, and they have spent a lot of time on that, as well. i believe there is a change taking place in the thinking on the commission and the part of staff that we need to plan for inextreme flows on the tu -- instream flows on the tuolomne that we haven't before, and we need to be very transparent in doing that. and that's what i'm looking forward to. >> thank you, commissioner. commissioners? i just have a comment. i did have an opportunity to speak at length with commissioner viator.

i've been speaking with general manager kelly and supervisor peskin, as well, at length. to your points -- and i want to associate myself with your comments. i think there is some movements. i do think the advocates, the faith based leaders, the fish and game folks, but the workers, the local workers, they're making their points and they're being heard. i encourage that to continue. i just want to say that. i'm honored to occupy former president sklar's seat. we always want to do the right thing -- i think i can speak to all of us that we want to do the right thing when it comes to all of these issues . i'm reminding of the issues that we had when rolling out c.c.a. i see an organized advocacy group that's something some

success at communicating their objectives, and i committed, despite the fact that i'm not convinced necessarily either way, i'm committed to facilitating that organization as long as i'm surprised the director is committed to doing the best thing he can. general manager kelly did everything he could to facilitate the interest of the advocates. i thought that that was a step in the right direction in terms of trying to find the common ground, but i know the situation we're in now. my hope is the general manager will continue to engage in that leadership going forward, and we can all end up on some common ground at the end. is there any other comment on

this part of the general manager's report? commissioner viator? >> yes, thank you. and i just want to extend appreciation to the n.g.o.'s, not only for their comments but sticking with us and continuing to hold us accountable and create transparency in this process because it's really critical to get to what i am hoping is going to be a voluntary settlement. and we do have another meeting, just to clarify, the day before the state water board votes. hopefully, we will know a lot more where we stand. a lot of this is behind closed doors, so we might not know until pretty close to that time, but my hope is because the n.g.o.s have continued to advocate and put pressure, we will get to a place where

probably neither side is going to be completely happy, but at least we will get closer to where we need to be. i also want to express on behalf of the commission our commitment to the health of the fish and the eco systems. that might have gotten lost along the way because of the politics that have gone down, and that i believe from my conversations with the commissioners and on my own behalf in my own seat is of the utmost priority, to make sure that we do not see further decline of the fisheries. so whatever we need to do to get to that point, we are going to take all of your recommendations and questions seriously. everything from the peer review questions actually to what it could and should look like. we're pushing pretty hard on the staff to let us know as a commission what the implications would be for the standard that the state is proposing and how

quickly we would then be able to makeup and diversefy our water supply in that eventuality. so we are really trying to work together with all of the stakeholders on this, and please rest assured that we have the same interests at heart at the end of the day, and we do want to work together in a transparent way to get this. >> thank you, commissioner viator, for your comment and for your guidance. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is now closed. commissioner kelly? >> the next is the annual commission performance review.

>> good morning, commissioners. i'm here to present the first year audit report for fiscal year 18-19. we ended our year with 36 projects, starting two new audits in fy 2018-19. when we completed six audits and problgs, these include three for the city services auditor who completes it -- their citywide fleet management performance review as well as a political activity fund compliance audit for the fiscal year of 15-16.

they also completed an expenditure audit for the 2014 earthquake safety and emergency response bonds, no findings were noted on any of these audits. at the sfpuc staff completed their very inventory audit counts. each of the enterprises, water, waste water, and hetch hetchy water were included in this review. waste water underwent a 100% full count. this quarter's audit highlight is city services auditors citywide fleet manager audits. they issued the report to the general services agency, however, this report does not apply to the p.u.c. even though we were a participant by providing field data for their field work and supporting documentation, as well. the audit objective was to

assess whether the city effectively managed the life cycle of its vehicle fleet. city service auditor made 11 total recommendations to the general services agency that included improvements to the coordination of vehicle purchases prior to department budget approvals. also further clarifying the see emissions vehicle ordinance. again, these recommendations did not apply to the sfpuc. g.s.a. did partially or fully concurred with all of the recommendations. our current out lock in q-2 ending december 31, we're expected to complete the following audited. a citywide cart audit financial audit for fiscal year 16-17, as well as a royalties lease

equipment audit. we will also hope to issue or assess fiscal year 17-18 financial statements for all three enterprises inclusive of cleanpowersf. up coming programs we're anticipating to begin include the lien hiring process. this slide here represents prior years' audits and recommendations that are still open. the last time we were here before this body, in the

appendix two of the actual quarterly audit performance review report, we have a new section that now highlights by recommendation all of the target closure dates for each of the recommendations. fore purposes of today, what we've consolidated peraudit and what you see is the target date of the closure for the audit itself, and that represents the last audit recommendation being closed. this past quarter, we closed two recommendations for the -- that were in the audit for the sewer system improvement program preconstruction practices audit. we will continue to work on our audit program, and we'll bring updates to this commission quarter. thank you. >> thank you. commissioners? >> that's excellent, and responsive to our request. thank you very much. >> okay. thank you. >> any other comments?

and next, we have the quarterly budget status report. >> let me do -- before we do that, is there any public comment on item 7-c? seeing none, public comment is now closed. sorry, a.g.m.richie. >> i am here with a first quarter budget report, and what it is, it's a budget report for our various enterprises based on our experience in the first quarter plus expectations of the remainder of the year. at a high level, what we're seeing is at or below revenue

and budget reductions and for all of our enterprises, we expect our financial results to meet the commission policy goals. for the water enterprise, what we're seeing are reduced water sales principlely in terms of wholesale revenue, so we're seeing a slightly rux in water sails, which is about a 5% reduction in water revenues, as well as some vacancy saving in the water enterprise. the water water enterprise is looking very straightforward in terms of revenues and savings. about a $5 million savings in terms of underspending and labor and benefits, and that's because

of a high level of vacancies. the power enterprise is a little more involved, explanation. we're experiencing reduction of revenues of about $14.6 million. it's -- there are a lot of different drivers in terms of what's driving those numbers. we're working with the power enterprise management to drill into some of the drivers there and to discuss whether or not we bring before the commission any sort of recommendations at the midcycle. that revenue reduction is offset by a number of reductions in expenses, including a $2.4 million underspending in the salaries line, $4 million purchase in the power contingency, $4 million in steam savings. we're experiencing about a

$3.3 million increase in power purchase and transmission costs, and we need to procure replacement power. in the clean power fund, we're looking at revenues that are essentially at budget and uses that are at budget a little under that 1 million, and that's power purchase costs and vacancy savings. this projection doesn't incorp. ray any of the discussion -- incorporate any of the discussion that you heard earlier from a.g.o. richi red. when we return to you on december 11, we'll show you the procedure form a, including what this current fiscal year would look like. and finally, the financial ratios for fund balance and did he tell service coverage as well

as clean power fund balance are all within the commission policy goal, and i'm happy to answer any questions you might have. >> colleagues? >> i have a question. >> vice president caen. >> could you expand a little bit about our lack of power sales. >> so there was a -- there are a couple of elements with respect to the power sales. so on the power revenue sails in particular, there were a number of one-time items included in the budget with respect to -- so when we drill down and we look at the under lying sales volumes, we're not looking at vary abili variability in terms of demand

for our product. and then, there is a number, about $4.2 million, that was included in the budget revenue projection. it presumed that we would have a resolution in the contract negotiations with the districts with respect to transmission costs. so what we're seeing in terms of the reduced revenues, just to recap what i said, isn't really a reduction in the amount of power we'd thought we'd sell. there are a couple of one-time items that are influencing that number. the two i described with respect to the district and then there's a third with respect to what we call a transfer customer. there's a large customer that we had expected their load to transfer from pg&e to us. it's taking a little longer than expected, so it'll resulting in

a loss of revenues that will not be repeated in the future, but we can talk about that in the midterm cycle, as well. >> colleagues? is there any public comment on item 7-d? seeing none, it's closed. thank you very much. a.g.m. richie? >> yes. we'd like the garden path up grate, and zumi will provide that. >> good afternoon. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm here today to update you on the status of the garden project. can i have the slides, please. today's update is essentially

going to be broken-down into two sections: where we've been and where we've going. so in terms of where we've been i'd like to give you some history and background with -- our partnership with the sheriff's deputy over the last 14 years with their former grantee, the garden project, and the section that we talk about, where we're going to be going, i'd like to focus more on the volving of our current job training program to a much more robust workforce development program with pathways and somewhat of a preapprenticeship program that's attached to it. a little bit of a history. the sfpuc began contributing funds to the sheriff's sponsor garden project back in 2004.

that projector the partnership was joined by the police department in 2008. as of this last june of 2018, the grant agreement with the garden project expired? in terms of our relationship with the partnership, our relationship with the sheriff and the partnership with the garden project, they have done a good job in delivering maintenance on sfpuc properties over the last 14 years? with the at-risk population that they had working on vegetation management, basic landscaping and fire prevention, as well as providing life skills programming for their participants. the two distinct programs that they had were what they call a

year-round program and the summer youth program, and that consisted of adult as well as young adults. and the summer program, it averages from 150 to 200 kids every summer over the last 14 years. as i said, they delivered maintenance on our property with the at-risk population, three very distinct areas. one is the jail, where they reference as the farm, where they germinate a lot of our plant species, assisting our gardeners with clearing plant infestation, and then down at

hetch hetchy, clearing brushes nearing transmission lines to prevent fires. so with any kind of a long-term relationship with any partner that -- over the last 14 years, since their grant has expired in june of this year, it gave the sheriff and us an opportunity to look and hopefully evolve this next phase of the job training program to make it, you know, much more robust? and with any kind of collaboration, we recognize there is that opportunity to evolve that current program and refine it to a workforce development model that actually will create pathways for job ready at risk young population who have gone through our

program at the end of a 12 month cycle. so the lessons that we've learned with the previous grantee is that one. the other is, you know, establishing policies and governance for the operation. and the third is on a high level, is to track metrics so that we could talk about the numbers of kids trained and post program job readiness as well as job placement. so moving forward, which for me, is a lot more exciting to talk about, we will continue our partnership with the sheriff. there are many benefits with the sheriff. we work with them as well as the police department and juvenile protection to identify some of the young adults that will be entering through our program. they will allow us to use the

farm as a training program for the beginning of all of the cycles of the 12-month defined programs. i'm going to skip eight and get to nine. to give you an illustration, which really gives you an overview of this pathway model that i'm talking about with a preprebt sh preapprenticeship component. as you can see, they would spend a very fix 12 month term, paid, on the job training. it allows the participant to enter into a preapprenticeship program, to acquire additional technical skills towards the end of this 12 month cycle? and case management, continuing education, and all that soft

skill work would be done throughout? and at the end of the six-12-month term, he or she would graduate onto what i talked about earlier, which are the pathways, providing him or her with or graduates who successfully completed the year-round program to have citywide civil service apprenticeship jobs, to work with or be hired by contractors performing work on our sites or other city contracts, as well as any other provide contractors. so that kind of gives you an overview of where we're going in terms of the r.f.p. with the sheriff? the very last page gives you a sense of the sheriff's r.f.p.

timeline? between now and march is the selection process, and we're hoping to have everything in place by april to launch the new program. thank you, and if there's any questions -- >> colleagues? so on our agenda is our workforce development policy. we're putting that in together. we have that on the general manager's list of to-do's. i think we have it for summer, so you're writing that for us. >> yes. >> so youtstanding. is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is now closed. a.g.o.richie? >> that concludes the general manager's report. >> madam secretary, item eight, please. >> item eight is the quarterly

water system update. >> good afternoon, commissioners. dan wade, director of water capital projects and programs. i'm pleased to present what's the quarterly update july 1 through september 30, 2018. if i may have the slides, please. the status update slide shows that the program has achieved approximately 96% completion, specifically, 75 of 87 projects are either complete or in close out. the only project that still requires ceqa approval is the alameda creek recapture project, and this team is currently continuing work on the revised draft e.i.r. for recirculation. once the timeline for that document is established, the overall project timeline will need to be reevaluated. they have met with the agencies, and they're working through

comments as we speak. the calaveras dam replacement project received a very significant milestone. it topped out at 220 feet at this year. the project is overall complete at 96%. we're continuing excavation of the approach channel, replacing rip rap and installation of instrumentation for dam performance monitoring, both in the embankment and the instructional. it's the first time our water supply and treatment division

will have the full are -- >> as long as i've got that seat. woohoo. >> all right. i like that, steve. thanks. and then, on september 21, we had the honor to host a media event to celebrate that talk at that event at the embankment, and we appreciate you all coming out. that was a great event, and we look forward to celebrating the total project completion next spring, so we hope you all come back for that. moving onto the alameda creek diversion dam fish passage facilities praj, this is a subpraj of the calaveras dam replacement. this project's 94% complete. we're on track of completion of physical field work at the end of this year, so the work is going very well. they're currently working on

instrumentation and controls, and then, putting in some davit and lifeline support systems for operational support. we're also working on repair of one of the access road improvement areas to make sure we have access to the site. there is, however, a long backlog of potential change orders and trends that we're working through, and we, you know, are making good progress, but it's going to take some time to get the paperwork done. this outstanding photo by sfpuc is really emblemattic of the work done on all of our projects. this alameda whitstake, which is

a threatened species, i'm pleased to say that the environmental compliance group is outstanding, so i just want to commend all the people, the great people of the work of the construction workers, of the construction management team, of the people who obtained the permit, and maintain the permits have really done outstanding work. and then, lastly, i just want to touch on the regional groundwater storage and recovery project. as you know, the phase one wells have been installed, and we're working out some issues currently, but we're getting ready to start operational testing once we have a california division of drinking water permit. for phase two, there's two test

wells that have been installed to help evaluate the viability of potential -- potential we wills for future -- wells for future groundwater supplies, and there's a third we will that nay go forward this year. with that, i'm happy to answer any questions. >> colleagues? yes. >> with calaveras, we have some additional instream flow requirements. >> yeah. when do they take effect? >> so -- well, go ahead. >> go ahead. >> so -- so we're currently making instream flows. those will change once the project is complete and we have full use of the reservoir, and so -- now, there are other things that are happening drown stream, in particular with alameda county water district.

there's a fish ladder that's being installed by that agency, and so the flows will be used to help meet the instream flow requirements to support steel head once that project is complete. but for project planning purposes, once the project is complete, it's our untderstandig that the flow requirements would be in place. >> so is that basically when the reservoir fills up? >> no, it does not relate to whether the reservoir is full or not. i'm not sure if it will be this winter or actually the next winter because the project won't really be complete until the end of this coming wet season. >> okay. thank you. >> okay. colleagues? is there any public comment on item number eight? >> actually, can i ask a

question? >> commissioner viator? >> yeah. i'm still thinking about one of the options that was put up for diversefycation of the water supply. is there some efficiencies that would being gained by doing it sooner rather than later? >> well, so we did design the current dam to be -- so it could be raised. we'd certainly have to go through the environmental review process, which would take time, so that would be -- there would be efficiency -- i would say in the sense that we have a good understanding of the environmental resources at the project site. i think there would be efficiencies in going forward sooner rather than later. if you wait time, you'd have to

redo all of these studies? >> so it would be great if we could hear back on all of these. i would think from an economic perspective, not just a timeline, that there would be efficiencies to be gained. >> i think for this type of project, time is money, so i think it will definitely come out of the physical construction costs. although i was thinking -- you know, i don't think i can talked with dan about the fact that i was going to put that up there today, so i was trying to find out his reaction. so maybe we'll just put a gravel road on top of the dam, instead of paving it. >> well, we knew how sad dan was at losing this project. >> keeping him on for the job. >> keep him on, i don't know, for another five years. >> but that discussion it definitely one that's coming for the next month or so. >> thank you. >> thank you, commissioner

viator. >> i have one comment, also. >> ike kwon. >> what you've done for the whip snake is terrific. i just wanted to acknowledge the really hard work, and you did great job on such a big project, so thank you. >> really the work of all the others, but thanks for saying so, and i'll pass that along. >> thank you. >> hear -- is there any public comment on item eight? seeing none, public comment is closed. madam secretary, next item, please. >> update on the bay area water project. >> miss sanculla, thank you

again. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i have a brief report today, and if i could have the slides, please. just to continue to give you updated information on water use, because it does continue to be interesting and unique in drought recoveries, for september, our water use, again, total water use was 14% less than it was in the september preceding the drought, so that predrought number, that pattern has been quite interesting, and one that we want to investigate further. so in particular, i spoke to you last time about moving forward an updated demand study. and in fact we released our request for proposals last week for a new demand in water conservation study for the entire regional service area, so all 26 regional water suppliers and the full course of all their

suppliers, so it is a demand and water supply course and conservation. the last time we updated this was in 2014, and if you look at that, when you do a study in 2014, obviously you're looking at date at several years before that, so it predated the drought. this is going to be critical to see what we come out with in this project. when we went through wisip, that was the first time we had ever done regional demand projections, and through everything that happened through the course of that, and that demand e.i.r., those demand projections stood very firm, and i expect that these will be, too.

couple of the key tasks will be to update the demand projections for each agency and then combined for the region, determine conservation potential. so how do we meet the gompor's mandate, but what else it out there, as well, so what is out there, not just one, for both. you know, there's different types of water, and it meets different uses, and how do we look at that? and then, in addition to the scope that we did not do last time is to have a stakeholder engagement process. my vision is that this will really be targeted towards the conservation piece, kind of have we looked at the right type of conservation activities? what are the new and other things out there that we should be investigating out there atz part of this, so i'm really excited about that, as well. so our schedule is press aggressive. we plan to select a consultant

in january , move forward with the project start in march, and then, complete the report by june of 2020. this gives enough time for our agency to use these numbers in the urban water management plans but also for us to use it as part of regional planning efforts, as well where we'll really have this robust picture of our current demanded and current use, what happened from the drought, and what do we have to look forward to and plan for, especially when we're talking about that next level of significant investments that we're going to need to make. with that, that concludes my statement. >> thank you. colleagues, any questions? seeing none, public comment. seeing none, public comment is closed. madam clerk, can we move into the consent calendar, please. [agenda item read]

>> are there request to remove sites? >> i'll move for approval. >> second. >> i'll call for public comment. is there any public comment for item 10-a and 10-b? seeing none, public comment is closed. i'll call for a vote. all in favor? [voting] >> all opposed? [voting] >> madam secretary, call the next item. [agenda item read] >> good afternoon. >> good afternoon, commissioners. greg norbi, assistant general manager with the waste water enterprise. first of all, i don't think i've had a chance to introduce myself, so it's a pretty to be in front of you this afternoon.

the action before you is the consideration of adopting a resolution recommending that the board of supervisors approve a new ordinance. the purpose of that ordinance is to ensure proper disclosure for properties that are located in the newly defined 100 year flood risk zones of the city, and i have the waste water enterprises utility planning division to go through this topic at a high level once more for you today, and then, we'll be happy to answer any questions that you might have. >> colleagues? good afternoon. >> good afternoon, commissioners. thanks, greg. you all have seen this item before you sefrlt several times before. i just want to reiterate the item and the process that has gotten us to this point.

it is one of the foundations for increasing flood resiliency in san francisco because it allows people to be informed of their flood risk. so that was our first step. in july, this commission held a public hearing allowing folks to learn about the effort and allowing public comment, if they had it. later in september, this body adopted and finalized the 100 year storm flood risk map, and we also reviewed a parcel process with you at that time. i wanted to remind you before we move further that we did do extensive public outreach for this effort. we sent 4,000 letters to 2,000 properties of the folks that are included in the 100 year flood risk map. we also did availability sessions across the city at different hours during the day

and five public presentations after business hours that folks could come to. so within your pact today, you had the map that we had presented throughout, as well as the parcel review process which allows residents to request a review of their parcel being included within the map itself, and the third item you have in your packet is the ordinance, and that is the action before us today, which is the adoption of the resolution before us, requiring landlords to disclose the flood risk to tenants. >> colleagues? >> i'd like to move the item. >> and seconded. >> seconded. >> i have a question. >> commissioner moran?

>> adverse reaction to date? >> we did not have much adverse reaction. we did after we published the parcel review process have some individuals step forward to take advantage of that process already, so we've began to start to pilot that. we have had one visit for that and have another scheduled for thursday. these individuals were very straightforward in understanding, not being adverse, but saying hey, i don't believe my property falls on this map. there have been a lot of requests about interpreting the map, which is why it was good that we had the availability sessions, but overall, less reaction. >> thank you. >> further questions? commissioner kwon? >> has there been any confusion on service levels, so that

people are getting a clear understanding of what that means in these public sessions? >> yes, great point. so one of the questions that we needed to clarify again and again through this process was the difference between our level of service storm, which is a five year, three hour storm, and the map that this is addressing, which is the hundred year flood risk map. that was a question that came up, and staff was able to clearly articulate that in the different public forums and answer people's questions about it. the 100 year flood risk polygon represents a small slice of our city, like around 1%, so it helped people to understand the area peppered by that risk. >> thank you. >> colleagues? >> i have a --

>> vice president caen. >> yes. i would like to take it one step further and ask the question, how is this going to protect us from legal suits against the city for flooding. >> i'm sure he will have a much better answer, but it will be the responsibility of the seller or the landlord to disclose this information. they will hold that exclusive responsibility, not -- not the p.u.c. but -- >> the ordinance creates a disclosure ordinance at the point of sail where the seller must disclose to the buyer or the landlord must disclose to the tenant. that's really the purpose of the ordinance is information sharing and making sure that prospective

buyers and prospective tenants know that before they sign the lease that the property they're buying or renting is located in a flood zone to try to increase public awareness. i think the public policy behind that is an idea that would help people be better informed and also take precautionary measures to know that this could be happening. it doesn't really have any direct role in the city's liability for flood claims, but this is part of the overall suite of programatic options that the city's been rolling out, and this is really the public educational awareness side of that. >> i don't quite understand why it wouldn't have implication for the city? >> coverages, right?

>> it may. but the -- i think a lot of people that are in neighborhoods that experience floodings have claimed to p.u.c. that they were not aware when they bought property that their properties flooded, and i think that's the purpose of this ordinance, to respond to that. the legal claims are around inverse condemnation that we face, that issue is not directly implicated by that. >> so could that somehow be incorporated? >> i'd be happy to talk more offline about that. >> okay. >> another argument, just part of the backdrop here is that state law already requires that sellers disclose this information. the problem is p.u.c. seems to glean that most sellers don't disclose it and seller claim ignorance and say i didn't know my property was subject to this type of flooding, and so this map is to eliminate that

confusion and create clarity of where -- what are the parts of the city that flood in this type of a storm. >> are you asking that our liability be limited? >> yes. >> so that's not the actual intent, and that's not something we could include in this, correct. >> that is not in this ordinance, and the liability is governed by principles of state law and constitutional claim that in -- inverse condemnation. but again, i'd be happy to delve into this further offline. >> we are, right? i did have a question. we did have a citizen -- i understand the necessity of this, but also, the extraordinary nature of what we're doing. now we have an additional

procedure for citizens that don't believe they belong in that map. my understanding a citizen attended a meeting, showed us a map, you look at a parcel, how high the residence was. do you know if we resolved that particular instance because that was almost like appearing? >> that particular individual's appointment is on thursday, yes. >> oh, okay. >> so we will be reviewing that and staff will do a site visit, as well. >> oh, okay. and eventually, we may want to flush out -- it's not nice to expect the citizens to, like, lawyer up who are not engineers. i don't know that you've had a volume of appellants or whatever you want to call them, but we'd probably want to be open to having that particular conversation as well. i'd like to know what's happened in that particular case. but in any case, it's been moved, it's been seconded, and i will move for public comment.

>> i will say we will move in maybe a year, what did we learn, where did we come from, and what do we need to do. >> thanks very much. good afternoon. >> i would respectfully request that now that the ordinance is available, you reschedule -- or schedule action on the commission -- defer action on the commission and reschedule the action part of it until early january . this is very significant legislation. people have to include this on their deed, and i would ask that you mail notice about this, as well, to the over 2,000 individuals who are affected by this ordinance so they have the opportunity to review the ordinance and ask any -- address any questions that they might have. [please stand by]

>> you are here -- >> yes, i was here september 25 th. >> can we make sure that she gets the documents that she is requested so long as they are in existence? that she has them by close of business on friday, at the latest. this item is a recommendation to the full board of supervisors. >> right. >> it is not an action by us. go ahead. >> except that there may be issues that the commission needs to deal with like the quality of the ordinance being considered today. the need to, possibly if people haven't been aware before of their need to address quess