Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Flood Disclosure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
SFPUC Recommends Flood‑Risk Disclosure Ordinance to Board of Supervisors
Summary
The commission voted to recommend an ordinance requiring sellers or landlords to disclose when properties fall within the SFPUC 100‑year flood‑risk map; staff emphasized the ordinance is a disclosure tool and not a limit on city liability.
San Francisco — The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission on Nov. 13 voted to recommend that the Board of Supervisors adopt an ordinance requiring sellers and landlords to disclose whether a property lies within the SFPUC’s 100‑year storm flood‑risk map.
Greg Norby and Sara Minnick (Wastewater Enterprise planning) reviewed the map and outreach: staff said they sent more than 4,000 letters to roughly 2,000 properties that appear on the flood‑risk map and held public availability sessions and parcel reviews (presentation; SEG 2279–2300). The ordinance would require a written disclosure at the point of sale or lease; staff framed the measure as an informational public‑education step rather than a city waiver or limitation of legal liability (staff explanation; SEG 2376–2396).
Public commenters asked for additional notice and time to review the ordinance text and to be able to request site reviews; one commenter asked the commission to defer the recommendation until January so property owners could receive mailed notice and study the ordinance (public comment; SEG 2468–2504). Staff replied that state law already imposes some disclosure duties and that the proposed local ordinance seeks to clarify flood locations using the SFPUC map; staff also confirmed further notice will be provided during the Board of Supervisors legislative process (clarification; SEG 2556–2564, 2570–2580).
The commission discussed the timing of the recommendation and outreach. Chair called the question after motions and seconds (motion moved SEG 2314; second SEG 2316). The commission voted in favor and the motion carried; the item will now proceed to the Board of Supervisors for the legislative process and associated public hearings (vote; SEG 2674–2681).
Next steps: the commission will forward the recommendation to the Board of Supervisors; staff said they will provide parcel‑review documents to interested individuals and will run the Board process notification when the legislative file is scheduled.
Sources: SFPUC staff presentation and public comment record at Nov. 13 meeting.
