it is proposed for continuance to april 11th, 2020 for item two, case number 2022. hyphen 000438 drp at 320 frederick street. a discretionary review is proposed for continuance to. april 11th, 2024. item three, case number 2023 hyphen 006927 ce 858 buena vista terrace conditional use authorization is proposed for continuance to april 11th, 2024. item for case number 2023. hyphen 002390 tr drp at 426 fillmore street. unit c, discretionary review is proposed for continuance to may 2nd, 2024. an item five, case number 2023 hyphen 009433 pca and map at 900 kearney street. special use district planning code amendment is proposed for an indefinite continuance. and

commissioners, before i get ahead of myself, i believe i've. no. that's it. oh, no. that's what you know. that's right. okay. those are all the items proposed for continuance, and so should we. should you take public comment? members of the public, these are the. this is your opportunity to address the commission on their continuance calendar only on the matter of continuance. seeing no one coming forward, public comment is closed. and your continuance calendar is now before you. commissioners, vice president moore, move to continue. as noted. second, thank you. commissioners, on that motion to continue items as proposed. commissioner braun, i commissioner williams i commissioner imperial i. commissioner koppell i. commissioner moore i and

commissioner president diamond i so move commissioners that motion passes unanimously 6 to 0. placing us on commission matters. item six. land acknowledgment. vice president moore will read the acknowledgment today. the commission acknowledges that we are on the unseated ancestral homeland of the ramaytush ohlone, who are the original inhabitants of the san francisco peninsula. as the indigenous stewards of this land and in accordance with their traditions , the ramaytush ohlone have never ceded lost nor forgotten their responsibilities as a caretaker. takers of this place, as well as for all people who reside in their traditional territory as guests. we recognize that we benefit from living and working on their traditional homeland. we wish to pay our respects by acknowledging the ancestors, elders, and relatives of the ramaytush ohlone community and by affirming their sovereign

rights as first peoples. thank you. item seven consideration of adoption draft minutes for february 29th, 2024 i george i sent, mr. ryan a note. i don't know, i checked the minutes and i didn't see. i requested, please, that, something be added to my general public comment that i did talk about, remote hearings that day on the 29th, but i also spent most of my time talking about the democracy. and i submitted something, and i explained what i submitted and i just all i want to add is adjusting the demo counts to the my name and the minutes. and here is what i submitted. and here's a copy for commissioner williams if he wants, and i'll resubmit it again. i believe that amendment was made prior to issuance. pardon i believe that amendment was made prior to issuance. i looked i didn't see

it, but maybe. oh really? yeah, i don't know. i mean, you know, i don't know, maybe my technology is lousy. but anyway, there's one for commissioner williams. so thank you i appreciate that. sorry. last call for public comment on the minutes. seeing no additional requests to speak public comment is closed and the minutes are now before you commissioners. and, if they weren't already, the amendment proposed by miss schuetz, will or has already been made. commissioner braun, i, i don't see the edit in the minutes, so i'm assuming that that amendment will be made to them. i moved to adopt the minutes. second, thank you, commissioners, on that motion to adopt the minutes as amended, commissioner williams.

i, commissioner braun i commissioner imperial i commissioner koppell i. commissioner moore i and commission president diamond i so moved commissioners that motion passes unanimously 6 to 0 placing us on item eight. commission comments and questions i want to start by welcoming, our new commissioner, we look forward to you joining us in our deliberations and hearing your perspective and being part of our, decision making process. and with that, i will call on vice president moore, welcome, commissioner williams. thank you. commissioner, is this will be a short day, but you'll get a very good feel of how things are done, i like to ask my fellow commissioners to remember commissioner rose and her attempt to support the resolution that she had drafted regarding affordable housing

programs. and a note to the governor of the state of california. we had had drafts of that. and what happened is our own deliberation that we had planned was somewhat short cut because of the board of supervisors adapting, adopting resolution 5924. in early february, a resolution that in content very much resembles of what commissioner ruiz had suggested to us. i like to ask that we support this particular resolution urging the state of california to withdraw proposed cuts to affordable housing programs, and that the commission, agrees to support this resolution. i'd like to count your comments and ask for your support. so i'll start by saying i absolutely support the resolution. i thought it was extremely well drafted, and i'm very happy as commission

president to weigh in and say it has my full support. let's see, commissioner braun, sure. i want to start by also welcoming commissioner williams to the planning commission. it is great to seeing, more people up here on the dais again. and i'm really looking forward to hearing your perspective and everything that you have to share. and so welcome, and then as far as supporting the resolution. absolutely. you know, we recently had an informational item, and heard about the significant challenges that exist for funding affordable housing, how funding is the number one need in order to ensure that we're producing affordable housing and so, absolutely, yes, i support the resolution. thank you. commissioner imperial, welcome, commissioner, williams in the planning commission, and just like other commissioners, also would like to hear your, many comments that you will provide in the commission and welcome,

in terms of the resolution by the board of supervisor, i read the resolution itself and it seems like it's very, it's very well drafted and really looked into the, you know, the findings of why we need the affordable housing here in san francisco, so i solely, also strongly support the resolution drafted by the board of supervisors. thank you. commissioner koppell, also welcome, commissioner williams. i think we're getting our way back to a full seven up here, which i think is very important. and i'm also in full support of, commissioner moore's idea. thank you. vice president moore, i would ask, secretary qanon, what would be the best form for us to acknowledge? i don't think it requires a motion. how is this best done by the city attorney? you know, i think, i mean, we could agendize

it on the, next week's agenda, and then you could simply take a vote to endorse the resolution. acceptable yeah. it is. i'm happy to do that with that. add additional weight to the comments that were just done right now. well, i would imagine so, it would be recorded in the minutes that way you could take a vote. and this conversation is not recorded in the in the minutes. it is actually, the commission comments and questions, we do actually, transcribe your comments. yeah. so i mean, i'm fine. agendizing it for an endorsement if you all would like to do that. i don't know that it's required, but if

it's, let me see. i see, commissioner williams. thank you. commissioner, i just want to lend my voice. i know this is my first day, but i am absolutely, in favor, of this resolution here. given that the shortage of affordable housing that we're facing as a city, this is, you know, devastating, and for us. and so. yeah, definitely in favor of this. okay. thank you. director hylis, i just wanted to give you. i mean, i think it's fine, too. it's already the city's. i mean, because the board voted on it, it is the city's policy, but i don't think it hurts to take it up as well. i just want to. i mean, we all know prop eight passed, which is great. and part of what we talked about in the

report you heard was in, i think, commissioner williams, you brought this up in your, your nomination hearing. like, we need more resources to fund affordable housing. so good news that prop eight passed. obviously, the state cuts, you know, as a city, we're urging them to restore those, but just so you know, too, the regional bond is being considered by abag in mtc to put on the ballot for november. i sit on a bag, as well as some of the, a couple of the members of the board of supervisors. so that's coming up as well. and i think it, you know, hopefully it will get on the ballot and pass. but that's a, i think $1.9 billion. that would be voted on by the by the or. it's more than that. i think that's the city gets about 1.2 million is estimated. so that's a significant, funding source too. that's underway. but none of these get us to the to the numbers we need to get to build the 40,000 units of affordable housing. so, mr. aiona, and i think it would be helpful if we agendized an item that called

for endorsement of the board of supervisors resolution. okay seeing no further requests to speak from commissioners, we can move on to department matters. item nine directors announcements, no. just welcome commissioner williams. i don't he didn't mention, but we had the pleasure as a staff of working with you. i think a decade ago or maybe a little more on the excelsior strategies, which i was on the commission when we heard them. i think. commissioner moore, you were here, but it was a great collaborative community process. so thank you for your work there, and we're looking forward to working with you in the future here on the commission. so welcome. thank you. thank you. item ten review of past events at the board of supervisors. and the board of appeals. the historic preservation commission did not meet yesterday. good afternoon. commissioners veronica flores filling in for aaron starr, the manager of legislative affairs,

welcome commissioner williams, the land use committee heard two items this past monday. the first item was the amendments to the state mandated accessory dwelling unit, or adu controls. as reported last week, this item was amended and continued for one week. because the amendments were considered substantive this week, there were no public comments and no questions or comments from the committee members. the committee voted to forward the item as a committee report to the full board with a positive recommendation. the next item considered was the planning commission sponsored ordinance entitled exceptions and extensions for existing uses , also known as the oops ordinance around the planning department. tonight, this ordinance amended the planning code to modify offset requirements for heights in the bernal heights wsud permit. large movie theater signage in the japantown neighborhood commercial district. allow

medical cannabis dispensaries to continue operating as temporary cannabis retail uses until december 31st of this year, and also clarify eligibility for reduction in permitted work by the planning department and correct errors in the code. during the committee hearing, there was again no public comments and no comments from the committee members. this item was also forwarded to the full board with a positive recommendation, and the land use hearing concluded after about eight minutes. i think that might be a record for the committee moving on to the full board. this past tuesday, the full board passed four items on their second read. this included the housing production ordinance sponsored by the mayor, parcel delivery services sponsored by supervisor chan, the family and senior housing opportunity

special use district, sponsored by supervisor engardio, and the potrero yard special use district, sponsored by supervisor ronen. the full board also passed three items on their first read. the first item was the landmark designation for the sacred heart parish complex. also, the conditional use authorization for removal of unauthorized units and the state mandated adu controls was also passed on their first read. lastly, the full board adopted the presidential appointment for our new commissioner, who is able to join us today. this concludes the board report. thank you. good afternoon. president diamond commissioners corey teague, zoning administrator. welcome, commissioner williams. the board of appeals did meet last night, and they took action on one item of interest to the planning commission, again, this is the golden gate highway. excuse me.

great highway pilot program. the closure on fridays and weekends, planning commission approved the coastal permit for that pilot project back in november. that was appealed. three separate appellants to the board of appeals. and that was heard in february, ultimately, the board voted to deny those appeals of that coastal permit. however the same three appellants also filed rehearing requests to the board of appeals, which is, a process through the board where if, kind of new information that could have changed the outcome is presented, or if there's the possibility of kind of manifest injustice, the board can choose to hold a new hearing on the appeal. so, all of the arguments from the appellants, for the rehearing, save for one, were dismissed. the one issue that was, kind of considered by many of the commissioners was information within the san

francisco estuary institute's report and kind of best management practices for the for the beach area and the dune system, even though that report was out and available at the time of the appeal hearing and was referenced, a couple of the commissioners had concerns with the way it had been discussed and the lack of information that had been provided. to grant a rehearing request. it requires four of the five commissioners to vote for that, and ultimately, upon a motion to grant the rehearing request that only received three votes. and so that vote failed. and the rehearing requests were all denied. so that matter is completely settled at the board of appeals. and that coastal permit for the pilot program is officially approved. thank you. if there are no questions, commissioners, we can move on to general public comment at this time, members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that

are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission, except to agenda items with respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. when the number of speakers exceed the 15 minute limit, general public comment may be moved to the end of the agenda. hi, george, good afternoon, i was going to welcome officially welcome, commissioner williams, but he had to leave. that's okay, as everybody knows, i've been talking about the democracy for a long time. and today i want to talk about a particular project that had its permit issued in october of 2017, with the cfc issued in march of 2021, and. but it needed a revision to the demo calcs in september 2019 because it did not account for the removal of the roof. and so i went and checked out the calcs if i could have the overhead, please. they weren't published on the pym, so i went to dbi. so there was the original. they said they took off 13ft!s.

they're adding two floors. it was a two story vertical expansion going up. and so when they changed it, the vertical became, excuse me, the horizontal of the two vertical expansions became 81, the reason i'm talking about is because this project was back on the market again. and it to me, it symbolizes the instability that these extreme remodels had, which is why noe valley was declared the epicenter of de facto demolition by the staff, it's first sold after the cfc for $7.6 million in september 2021. so that's during the pandemic, but it recently returned to the market, as i said, at $9 million. but it was. the listing has since been removed. i don't know if it's sold or if they just decided that they couldn't sell it. there's several others in the neighborhood priced in that range, some that even had their, their, their listings removed. there's one up on dolores heights that's been sort of sitting around for a couple of

months. and my point with this is the instability that this creates in the market. and i really, really, really, really worry about this in the priority equity geographies, so let me just show you the pictures of the, the, the thing, just so you know. so there it is, the original house there. and then we're going to take off the barrel front and by the door. and then here it is during the construction you can see the two floors that were added. and then here's a close up of it. you can see the side there. they said they just took off a little bit of the side but i don't know. and then here is the project when it was almost done. you see there's sort of the original and there's the two. so i guess my point is that i think the demo still matter, the mayor's legislation says prevent potential displacement and adverse racial and social equity impacts of zoning changes and

planning processes. and certainly section 317 is a planning process. these for the demo calcs and it's still in effect. so i just add that to the list. thank you very much. okay. seeing no other member of the public in the chambers coming forward, we'll go to our reasonable accommodations. requester good afternoon, nipsu hester. i would really request the planning commission request a hearing, a presentation at some point in the very near future on the change that is coming fast and furious, both in amendments to the planning code that are voted on by the planning commission and the board of supervisors, and amendments that are coming from the state. what is the scope of your work? it is being shrunk.

what hearings are eliminated? specifically, the planning staff is told that they're supposed to be told this. i'm presuming they are told this by the supervisors that the planning department, the planning commission and the public the need to have the same presentation. and i was asked the planning commission to insist, because this whole reno world rh na regional housing needs assessment is changing the whole process because things are being eliminated. environmental review is being stripped down and a lot of cases can't come to the commission anymore. these exist. please insist on this kind of presentation. thank you very much. okay, last call for public comment. for general

public comment. seeing no additional requests to speak. commissioners general public comment is closed. and we can move on to your regular calendar for item 11, case number 2019 hyphen 004879 cw for the waterfront resilience program. this is an informational presentation. hello, commissioners and welcome, commissioner williams. my name is danielle. know and i'm a senior planner on resilience in the citywide division. thanks for having us here today for an informational on the san francisco coastal waterfront flood study, also known as the flood study. staff at planning have closely collaborated with the port for over six years. and so today, we're fortunate to host port staff in our chambers. soon

you'll hear from adam barrett, deputy program manager for planning for the waterfront resilience program. starting january 26th, the project launched a 60 day public comment period that ends on march 29th. so today's visit will share an overview of the draft report and environmental review. for your information and public comment. the comments received today will be combined into a city comment letter that will be submitted to the us army corps of engineers as part of this nepa comment period. and so, before i hand the mic over to adam, i wanted to emphasize that this public rollout of the draft plan is a significant milestone for the flood study, as well as the city. the planning department has worked closely with the port on amplifying issues like historic preservation, open space access, racial and social equity, and connectivity to the communities and economy beyond the project area. so there's more than a year ahead to refine

this draft plan into a final plan. and with that, we're laying the groundwork for an immense investment into the city's climate adaptation and experiences with our waterfront. so thanks for your attention and input today. i'll now pass the mic to adam. thank you. danielle. good afternoon, commissioners adam barrett from the port of san francisco, as danielle mentioned. and if i could have the screen, please go into. i'm here today to speak about the sf waterfront flood study, which is a project of the waterfront resilience program and a collaboration between the city of san francisco and the us army corps of engineers with the port as lead agency. but we've been working very closely with all of our partner agencies, including planning mta public works, puc office of resilience and capital planning and others,

so we've been working with the army corps over the last several years to develop, the coastal flood study, which is essentially analyzes the flood risk to san francisco from coastal flooding and future sea level rise along the san francisco waterfront for the seven and a half miles of the port jurisdiction taken from heron's head park in the south, all the way up to fisherman's wharf aquatic park in the north. and as danielle mentioned, we've just come to a major milestone in this plan, which is the release of the draft report and eis, which contains a draft plan proposal for how we propose with the army corps to address coastal flooding and sea level rise impacts and adapt the city's shoreline. and we've entered into a 60 day public comment period with a robust set of sort of public outreach and engagement activities, including hearings at numerous city boards and commissions, such as this one, the draft plan is a draft, and it is intended to, you know, be refined based on public comment. will will become a

final report and that will help inform kind of future phases of design and construction. at this point, we've identified an initial proposal that is estimated to cost of $13.5 billion. this is a very high level preliminary cost estimate, but it helps us to define what the federal interest is and if the federal government and congress acts to authorize the project, the federal government would pay up to 65% of this cost. so it could be a very significant investment in the resilience of san francisco's waterfront. so i'm going to talk a little bit about the risks and hazards that we face and see along the waterfront background on the flood study itself. and then i will go over the draft plan and talk about how we can make public comment. excuse me. so we're dealing with, a couple of major risks along the waterfront. first one is seismic risk. in 2018, san francisco voters passed proposition a, a general obligation bond of $425

million. that was a down payment into to addressing some of the seismic and flood risks along the waterfront. we see risks from ground shaking and liquefaction, often from a major earthquake such as the loma prieta or the great quake of 1906. we could also see lateral spreading along the embarcadero, where the land slopes off into the bay. that's what is shown in the image on the bottom right there, with the sort of crack running down the center of the embarcadero. that risk exists today, and we see the urgency to replace and shore up the city's shoreline and seawall. san francisco, as a coastal city and waterfront city, is also susceptible to flooding, as you know, much of san francisco's kind of eastern waterfront is built on fill and is not representative of the original shoreline of the city. this is areas are very low lying and susceptible to flooding from sea level rise and coastal flooding from storms and other factors.

that's generally represented by the area in blue that shows potential flooding from sea level rise areas that would potentially be flooded by the end of this century. and through the modeling that we've done with the army corps of engineers, the sort of economic cost and benefit modeling we've identified that by mid-century, we could see up to 500 structures and assets that could be vulnerable to flooding. and by the end of the study period in 2001 40, we could see up to $23 billion in damages in today's dollars. so it's a very significant risk and damage that that is before the city. and that justifies the potential for a major project that is needed, the sort of course, of no action is not really a feasible course, so this is showing the, the, the boundaries of the flood study, again, from heron's head park to aquatic park. and this map is also meant to show that this is not, encompassing the entirety of the city's shoreline. but

there are other efforts going on at ocean beach in the southern waterfront, such as the yosemite slew project that the planning department has a grant that we've worked with them on, and other places to address those gaps outside of this study area. but we're focused on, you know, the majority of the sort of eastern, urbanized and industrialized waterfront. so to go a little bit more into the background of the study, i spoke that we are in this sort of feasibility study and planning stage, and we've just released the draft plan. we will arrive at a final plan by the end of 2025. that would then be brought before congress, who could authorize the plan and appropriate funding in 2026 through the water resources development act. if congress acts to do that, we would enter into a plan, a detailed design phase called the planning. sorry preconstruction engineering and design, or ped phase, and then construction. and this is a huge project. likely this design and

construction will be happening in phases over kind of multiple decades. it's not, you know, sort of one project that happens all at once. but we are planning it right now, and then we'll be moving these pieces forward as, as we can at this stage in the process. we're at a very high level of planning and design. it's not really a design at all. we are really trying to answer questions such as, where do we build flood defenses either along the existing shoreline, building out into the bay, which can minimize kind of land side impacts but create impacts on the water side in the bay, or moving inland and retreating to allow flooding further into the city, we're also looking at how high to build flood defenses, what levels of sea level rise are we looking at? should we be building in one phase or through multiple adaptations? and you'll see that coming into play through the plan, and then how much space is needed for this project and to sort of grade back to the level of the city

grade. and obviously the more space we use, the more disruptive it has the potential to be. but at the same time, you can have a more gradual transition to the waterfront and not sort of cut off that access by building kind of steep terraces or walls that we really don't want to see in san francisco. what we're not doing at this phase is sort of detailed designs for these infrastructure pieces or detailed designs about sort of what goes on top. the streets, the open spaces, the utility infrastructure, etc. we have the opportunity to do that for the embarcadero historic district and for other parts of the waterfront over the next few years. to be able to build that, sense of what the city values are and what the city wants to see in terms of what goes back on top, to feed into that detailed design phase. but at this stage right now, we don't have that level of detail. we're really just focused on the sort of, you know, federal interest and how much investment is there going to be. so we have done, you know, over six years of public engagement, done a

detailed kind of cost and benefit analysis with the army corps of engineers, used all of that developed a number of sort of different draft alternatives or strategies that we released to the public in fall of 2022 and got feedback on and then refined those and built the draft plan from that work, to note, historically, the army corps of engineers has been focused primarily or entirely on, cost to benefit ratio using a sort of national economic interest, so if you, you know, if you, if you have a greater than one benefit to cost ratio, you're good to go, if it's in the federal interest, if you don't, then they don't see the value in doing a project. more recently, they have amended their guidance. and this is really a pilot for doing a more comprehensive benefit approach. so we've been looking in addition to the sort of national economic value at regional economic impacts, such as jobs and small businesses at

environmental benefits and quality, as well as social impacts such as health equity. we did a analysis of disproportionate impacts on vulnerable populations, and all of this is really new territory for the army corps of engineers, and we've sort of selected a plan based on this comprehensive benefits and not solely on the national economic development plan. so the plan i'm going to describe today has a series of initial actions that would be built from 2030 and beyond, that would defend our shoreline from one and a half to 3.5ft of sea level rise that could then be prioritized and phased in. but we see that this is a 100 year study, and we see the need for future adaptations, but we don't know exactly how fast these are going to rise. and so instead of defining those subsequent actions, we're going to include a sort of monitoring and adaptation plan. that's going to say, as you reach certain triggers of climate change or sea level rise, that's going to trigger the need to start designing and constructing further adaptations. it's not

something that ends with this project. as part of the plan, there's also a environmental impact statement as part of the national environmental policy act. this is something that the planning department has been reviewing and providing comment on, we've identified a couple of significant impacts from bay fill to subtidal habitat, as well as transportation and noise impacts from, construction. there's a very detailed. you know, analysis of over 50 types of resources. so i'm going to speak to the draft plan itself. this is an overview of the plan, proposal to elevate the shoreline, to adapt to the sea level rise. everything that you see in yellow using a variety of different measures from seawalls and flood walls to levees and berms and nature based features, we would be proposing to adapt the historic wharves and bulkhead buildings raising them up, including the ferry building

and then flood proofing piers and certain buildings, particularly in fisherman's wharf. one other kind of major project component is the need to do significant inland drainage improvements because, as we are raising the shoreline, the water will have less capacity to exit out of the city and we don't want to create a bathtub effect. and so part of the army corps cost and study will be to make the changes to the inland drainage system so that we're not exacerbating kind of flooding inland flooding. as i mentioned, we've done a number of years of public outreach and really consistent. we see the same themes coming up, including during this round of outreach. we've been doing now a strong focus on protecting life, safety and emergency response, people really value the connection to the waterfront, the physical and the visual connections, prioritizing nature and habitat, as well as centering kind of racial and social equity in making sure that we're benefiting and not

disproportionately burdening populations of color and low income communities, especially in the southern waterfront. so i'm going to take the plan kind of reach by reach or area by area, the first area is fisherman's wharf area down to about pier 27. the cruise terminal in this area we see actually it was a higher ground and protected by a number of existing breakwaters. and so we actually see much less damage and exposure to flooding than in the other areas. so in this area we don't have a major sort of structural change. we have flood proofing of some specific buildings that are outlined there in blue, as well as flood proofing of piers, the ones that are more susceptible to damage. and what this looks like is kind of could be flood proofing of ground floors to keep water out when you get high tides or coastal storms, as well as kind of low flood walls around the pier edge, you know, maybe two feet in height to kind of extend

the useful life of those piers and keep them dry as tides continue to rise. moving south along the waterfront in the embarcadero region from about the cruise terminal down to the bay bridge, this is, of course, a very low lying area with a significant amount of assets. you know, the financial district, the historic district and all the buildings and ferry building and a major visitor center as well. and so in this area, we're proposing to elevate the shoreline to defend against up to 3.5ft of sea level rise. this is sort of enough to protect us against a sea level rise through the end of the century, using a higher sea level rise projection that the state uses. we would also be raising and elevating the wharves, the overwater structures that are parallel to the shore, and the buildings on top of those wharves, including the historic bulkhead buildings and the ferry building, and adding flood walls along the piers. and this image kind of

starts to show how that might look, there are the you would be rebuilding with seismically resilient structures, the seawall and adding sort of subsurface ground improvements and elevating that and then grading back through terraces and sort of gradual grading back to the existing level of the city. and we would also be elevating those wharf structures and the bulkhead buildings on top of them, and then transitioning down to the piers. the piers would receive those kind of short flood walls as well, but they would not be raised and adapted themselves. moving further south, the south beach and mission bay area here we would propose to elevate the shoreline, to defend against up to 1.5ft of sea level rise, using a combination of seawalls along the south beach and ball park areas and more kind of vegetated burm or levee structures along the banks of mission creek and the outer edge of mission bay along terry francois boulevard. this is an area where we see more space to

be able to adapt in, in multiple , multiple construction periods. so we would in the future, there would be subsequent actions to then raise that to 3.5ft when it became evident that we would need to. but in the initial action, it would be built to a lower elevation to minimize disruption and then could be built on top of that, burm. you can imagine a levee or a burm and then adding height in the future, one other feature of note here is proposal for closure structures along the bridges, the bridges here at third and fourth street are historic bridges. they're very low lying, and they would they would represent a sort of gap in the system where if the tides were high or there was otherwise flooding, water could get through into the neighborhoods and the closure structures could be deployed, we don't expect this to be frequent less than once a year over the next several decades. however as time

progresses and sea levels rise, you will start to see this happen more frequently. it's obviously hugely disruptive to the transportation system, including the muni light rail, and so ultimately the answer is going to be to need to elevate the bridges as well. rebuild the bridges at a higher elevation in , and finally moving to our southernmost reach in icu's creek, bayview area. this area we are also proposing to elevate the shoreline to defend against up to 1.5ft of sea level rise with a combination of flood walls along the port, cargo facilities there, and berms and levees along the areas where we see more, space and opportunity to, to raise the shoreline and have kind of more nature based features in those areas. one item to note here is that the third street bridge you may have heard about it, which the which the, the light rail goes over is our is currently under a project with the department of public works to elevate to rebuild that

bridge. and that bridge will be rebuilt at a higher elevation to adapt to sea level rise. the illinois street bridge, which has the freight rail and, bicycle pedestrian path over it, is low lying and would get the same treatment as the bridges over mission creek. this image is just showing kind of the opportunity of a vegetated burm to include kind of, nature based features, habitat, as well as recreational and open space features. we've been we've tried to we had a sort of engineering with nature committee looking working with experts around the bay and around the world to help us identify where we could, where we could incorporate kind of nature based features throughout the study area, from sort of living sea walls in the north to vegetated berms and wetland expansion for their south, where there's more space to be able to do that. a couple sort of key considerations. i mentioned that, you know, this is a massive project. it will be built in phases. we have not developed a phasing plan yet. we

will need to be doing that by the time we get to the final report next year, so this will be prioritized and built over time, and we're going to need to be looking at phasing, based on various characteristics such as equity level of risk, where we see damages soonest and opportunities to coordinate with major capital and development projects and things like that. so that's to come. there are a number of historic preservation issues. we've also presented to the historic preservation commission, there are two historic districts within this study area, the embarcadero historic district and the union ironworks historic district. we've convened a group of historic preservation experts to provide feedback on the plan. and there and there is a need to comply with section 106 of the national historic preservation act, which includes developing a programmatic agreement for how you deal with historic resources, in the study area, there are a couple of areas. i mean, for one thing, there's a

lot of benefits because we would be preserving and adapting a number of the historic assets in the historic district. there are a couple of impacts. one that we're trying to address, which is the demolition of a couple historic buildings in the pier 70 area. and we're trying to work with the army corps to adjust how the how the line of defense was drawn so that we can avoid demolishing those buildings. and finally, as part of the draft report, the city, included something that was called the views of the nonfederal sponsor, where we identified a number of areas that, you know, while we while we generally support the plan, as it was written, we had a great collaborative process with the army corps. there are items that that we felt as a city, we want to advocate to get into the final plan. some of them are listed here. one is really thinking about a robust sort of waterfront vision and future for urban design. some of this may happen, you know, through other,

other planning efforts outside of the outside of the flood study, but then inform the detailed technical design when we get to that phase, contamination and contaminated sites is a major issue that we hear, particularly when we talk to southern waterfront communities. and so we need to be doing more investigation of contaminated sites. what is the nature of the contamination there? how does it relate to flooding and things like that? so that's a big issue that we're going to continue to have to pursue, one thing that we often hear is sort of impacts to tenants, to transportation, to land owners from construction. so the construction, phasing and sequencing is another, you know, kind of key concern and issue of the public that we've been hearing, and something that we want to continue to elevate, but we're obviously not at that level of detail yet, but it's a big public concern. and then lastly, this issue of stormwater management and inland drainage and really defining a scope, working with the puc and the army corps of engineers about

what the actual cost to the city and to the project would be to address the drainage concerns, along along with the shoreline adaptation, so that we don't end up with that interior flooding. lastly, we are as as miss noe mentioned, in the middle of a public comment period, we are gathering formal public comment. we've held four public workshops , walking tours, cbo conversations, webinars, and much more public outreach to try to generate comment on the plan. there are a number of ways to deliver that comment, we hear comments all the time, but if it wants to be considered formal, comment on this study for the army corps of engineers, it has to be delivered to them through one of these methods. the easiest way to do that is through the port's website sf port.com/wrp. there's a big button that says provide public comment that will direct you how to do it. obviously we will be

hearing your comment and taking that in the city will be providing its own comment letter, will be compiling that with the various city agency directors. and so it's important that we kind of get on record for the items that the city would like to see. and lastly, just to leave you with this thought that, you know, this is really a once in a century opportunity, the existing seawall was built over a century ago. it's aging. it has seismic and flood risks. this is our opportunity to protect the city, rebuild that seawall and our shoreline at a higher elevation. and also think about what is the what is the waterfront of the future that we want to have. and when we put it back, what can we put back that's better? that works for the people and the values of san francisco. so thank you. i'm available for any questions. okay. commissioners. with that we should open up public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this informational item. how

much time please. it says 20 minutes. well, you won't get 20 minutes. no, i don't watch 20 minutes. how about how about three? three. pretty good. thank you. georgia i just caught my attention because of the article in. excuse me, saturday's chronicle, march 8th about the contamination down in, hunters point. and what i thought about was with the groundwater, i thought, well, are we still mixing hetch hetchy water with groundwater? and that happened during the drought. and i don't know if that's not necessarily germane to this, but it's all related because there is issues of contamination. so i don't know if that's that's something anybody wants to think about. the other thing that struck me in this very fine presentation and powerpoint presentation is the number of the amount that's needed from the feds, if you need 65% of eight, 13.5 billion, that's 8 billion. and i was

thinking about that compared to what's needed from based on the affordable housing study from that group, that that special group that met for months, that just released their report and they had some huge number, i can't remember. it was like, i think it was 8,000,000,002, or maybe it was more for in producing affordable housing in san francisco. so that's just you know, are the feds going to give us all that money? i guess that's a question. but maybe that's not germane to this report. and my last point after reading this is i know it doesn't cover the northeast waterfront specifically. at least it didn't seem to. but just outside the financial district, i'm looking at some of those blue markings on the this map here. i guess i'll point it on the overhead. i have the overhead, please. s.f. cove. so i guess like right around there just north of the financial district, you know, there's been all that stuff in the paper about those high rises down there and the state density bonus. you know, people get

upset when they talk about paying for people's beach homes in north carolina. do we should we be considering paying for high rises that haven't been even built yet and maybe shouldn't be built? thank you. may i respond to the groundwater question? i just to clarify the, for the groundwater that we're talking about at issue and is subject to that report about hunters point is shallow groundwater. so as sea levels rise, it will push up the shallow groundwater, the groundwater that, puc mixes with hetch hetchy is deep well groundwater. so they're different. they're they're they're not connected at all. they're separated by bedrock. i believe. yeah. that's good to know. okay. last call for public comment on this item. seeing no additional requests to speak, i take that back. we'll go to our

reasonable accommodations. requester sue astor again, i am thankful for the presentation by mr. barrett. the planning commission. the planning department has a lot of effort. that's taken by the port that is not to be underestimated. they have done an enormous job, and they have enormous budget as well. so there's a lot of people working on it. but san francisco is surrounded by water on three sides. and so when you go out to the ocean beach, it's your responsibility, mostly because there's not the infrastructure that there is dealing with downtown on the waterfront, which has been process of being developed for 150 years. so basically you are doing major rezoning right now in the

western part of the city. and i'm asking you to have a presentation about what is the sea level rise on the ocean side . and that's relevant because on the eastern side of the city, it's rock and so analysis that is done for years and for planning studies for buildings in that side basically take into account the different composition of the soil. and that's why all these high rise buildings are in the waterfront on the eastern part of the city, basically housing and office buildings. but when you rezone the western part of the city, the houses are built on sand. there's a very different implication for what construction should be done on those sites. for apartment buildings or very tall

buildings. so i'm asking the planning commission to ask please, for a hearing on the presentation of what we've already done in terms of years and what analysis was done for what height, buildings and what are the assumptions for traffic. you had a presentation at the beginning of the hearing from the zoning administrator. he talked about the great highway that is one of the issues that comes up when you're dealing with the western part of the city. so please, i'm asking the planning commission take on the responsibility of having a presentation on the western part of the city. right now, there's a lot of rezoning studies being done to change the zoning and change the height of buildings in the western part of the city.

and you need that information on the years that have already been done and which parts need be done. okay. last call for public comment on this item. seeing no additional requests to speak. public comment is closed and this informational item is now before you commissioners. thank you, i'll start us off here, first i want to thank staff, both from planning and from the port for an incredibly effective , presentation. it's such a complicated subject, that needs to be undertake, and it's somewhat daunting. it's not only the fact that there are, you know, we're a city surrounded by water on three sides and requires effective planning on all three. and this is just one of those efforts, but it's the number of agencies that are involved, and they need to be coordinated. the amount of development that is in the area

is already where, which could be affected by, sea rise. it's the cost of the project, the design issues, and you need to hold all of this, as we're trying to figure out how to come up with a pathway forward. so i just really want to compliment you on the work done to date, to try to manage all of this and get it into, you know, one presentation that raises all of those issues but moves us forward. so with that, i just want to comment on a couple of aspects and perhaps ask the question. i thought the page that summarized the city feedback on the plan was really helpful, as i was reading through the plan, a number of the issues that occurred to me were exactly the same as, the city raised in its feedback, you know, particularly referencing the design work that needs to be done and what the experience will be like when you're actually a pedestrian there or

someone who works there or you're driving by there, which it's hard to visualize at this point, i know that work is coming later, but that strikes me as an incredibly important subject, as you know, combined with the issue you raised. but staff has raised about the potential for contamination, and how that's going to be addressed , and then, the impact on current and future property owners and tenants and when i think about all of those issues combined together, they all, boil down to sort of an interaction in my mind between process and cost, at the moment you are anticipating that it's going to be $13.5 billion of which you hope the federal government or have some reason to believe that the federal government may fund two thirds. so my questions around cost, which i wouldn't mind if you would come up and just sort of give me your thoughts on these.

just a few of them are is, how realistic is it to assume that we're going to get the federal government share and where are you in discussions locally and on the state side with getting that share of it? that's one question. second is i think we have all been reading for years about how the cost for high speed rail, which seems, you know, actually not even of the same scale in terms of what you're talking about, but have ballooned beyond the initial estimates. and so what happens if this project, as it gets underway, turns out to be, you know, multiple acts of what we anticipate and originally, what gets done, what doesn't get done. have you reserved within the plan in the ability to move to alternatives without going back to ground zero? if the cost of what you're anticipating turns out to not be something that we can find money to fund.

and then related to that is as you work through the design issues, if it turns out that, the implications of the design change the city so dramatically and in ways that the public or the staff or the local officials don't find to be workable, have we reserved the ability to do different alternatives or do we have to go back? what's the process for then revisiting what the nature of the improvements are? so if you could just sort of i know they're big picture, but it's the interplay between, you know, not of course not being able to work everything out right now. this is, you know, 100 year project. but the interplay between process and cost, as you go down the pathway is something i'd be interested in hearing more from you on. sure and i think, that was a lot of, a lot of really good and complicated questions. and i'll try to maybe walk through the process and maybe that will hopefully answer as many

questions as we can answer at this stage, which is not all of them. i think, to start, you know, what is the certainty that that that it will be approved by congress? i don't i'm not sure i can answer that. there is a bi annual bill, the water resources development act. we are trying to get into the 2026 water bill and get funding through that. that would you have to have two steps. you have to authorize the project. congress has to authorize the project. then they have to appropriate funding. they can appropriate funding in phases. they can appropriate for design and for construction. it will likely not all come at once. it will come in various phases. but that is kind of to be determined at this stage, then there's also the local share. so obviously, you know, two thirds federal is a big investment, but that leaves a huge investment that is much greater than our ability as a city. and city's capital plan to pay for. and when i say local, i mean nonfederal all. so that can include state, local, private, other, other nonfederal sources. so we are kind of in the early

stages of putting together just sort of a very high level finance strategy. there was a seawall finance working group that was convened in 2016 or 17. i think that identified a number of potential finance strategies, that ultimately led to the proposal and passage of the proposition, a seawall bond, so we're kind of digging that up, working with like, the city's capital planning director and city administrator and port capital folks and others bring that to the other agencies. so we're a little bit early in the stages of identifying kind of where the local financing piece can come from in terms of the cost estimate. you know, i think at this stage, it's not i wouldn't get too married to that number, it's very high level, you know, it's supposed to be what's called a class five cost estimate, which is based on a certain level of engineering design. i think our engineers at the port don't feel that it's even at that level. it's going to change a lot. they think it's

probably in the right range, but if you start digging into details, you can't put a lot of fidelity to those details. as we get into more and more design, you do more and more detailed cost estimates and that will get a little more accurate with each one. so by the time we get to a congressional action, we'll have a more detailed but still very high level cost estimate, in terms of the process and what if there are changes? i think there are. so i think where we are at right now is releasing the draft plan, getting public comment. we also get comment from various army corps sources, technical reviewers, policy reviewers, legal reviewers. all of that goes into kind of making refinements to the plan, to you get to the final plan. excuse me, and i think what we've sort of recognized is that there are changes that, that we may want to get into the plan. now we want to make now more the more that you can get in to the plan, the earlier the better in some

ways, because then you're not doing more changes later and changing expectations. on the flip side, if we change it too much, we risk having to recirculate the document, the draft report, the nepa analysis, and you even might have to go back to the draft plan. milestone recirculate that because you've changed it enough for the public. so we're trying to kind of thread that needle a little bit where we don't have to recirculate, but we can get as much into the plan. now, some items we may, you know, be working on to get in through the, the, the preconstruction engineering and design phase. and that's where a lot of the detailed design happens. and you can change the design during that phase. and the sort of the guideline from the army corps of engineers is that it can change up to 20. your cost can change up to 20% plus inflation. if it's more than that, then you do end up going back to the study phase. so i think we're trying to stay on this linear path, identify where we can get the changes in so that we don't have to then go back. you know, miss that miss that, were to, you

know, cycle all have to go to the next one, etc. so that's sort of the goal. so you know what? we can get into the plan now we will in order to not have to recirculate what we can get in later in, in the design phase , we will we will do that. that's when we do a lot of the detailed design and some items may need to be outside of the flood study altogether, for example, like a pier redevelopment or adaptation project may just be a totally separate project that's related but doesn't actually end up being part of this study. so i don't know if that answered most of your questions, but i'm, i'm feeling a lot like the comments agreeing with the comments from mr. and miss hester, which is, we could have a very, very long discussion about any one of these issues. i i want to turn to the other commissioners, but i want before i do that, i want to say, in light of what you just said, i would encourage you

to have as many conversations with planning now as you can about the design aspects. so if it really does head in a direction, you're not anticipating that we're accommodating that early enough on that. we're not facing a recirculation risk, and then, same would hold true on the environmental remediation, if it turns out the cost of that is just way beyond what you're thinking about. we need to know that sooner rather than later. i, again, just want to compliment you, on how you're approaching this incredibly complex process. yes. and thank you for your work. and with that, i will turn to vice president moore. one when one is tasked with as complicated was mr. barrett is, presenting today. i think the most important thing is to thank you. i thought this presentation 3 or 4 times by now and use is absolutely outstanding. it's the depth by which many of my

questions, which i couldn't quite voice in previous presentations, is really fully encompasses what you're really working on. i like to comment on the feeling of gratitude i have about the core shift and emphasis, and you as a benefactor of that. i myself, with the use of worked on other projects where it was much more difficult to talk about all of those factors which, particularly in san francisco, matter. and there are six areas that you presented in this wheel of fortune, that all matter each and every aspect is important, the picking up on some of the other things that you were saying, i like to add a few comments about engineering nature booms, wetlands, extensions. i think one of the strengths of san francisco waterfront is that we have been doing that all along in, in connection with the bay trail and other elements, the bay itself, with bccdc's overlay, has a protection that will be

extremely difficult and challenging to uphold and find solutions which even with sea level rise, resonate that attitude. it presents opportunities also presents constraints because maintaining that feeling with with the strategies that you were describing will be very difficult, particularly the physical aspect of connecting the entire city to the waterfront, which i think the city has done in a remarkable way with the urban design plan, will be one of the biggest challenges ever. the question that comes for me out of that observation is the following. kansas city hand in hand, immediately start to respond with any building approval that falls ultimately within the realm of sea level rise control route to maintain a larger city vision that maintains the city's openness to the waterfront. is

that possible? where do we build? how do we build? i'm not necessarily asking looking for an answer. i like to pose that as a question because as we are by by the fact of sea level rise will separate ourselves a little bit further from the direct aspect to the waterfront. how do we maintain view corridors? how do we maintain open, open space connections, which always take us where land meets water, that is, i think for me, one of the biggest challenges in order to maintain gain social and racial equity, the city so far from a city planning point of view, has been extremely successful, shifting on to the regional scale, how will we able to compete with every other community with any other city which has its buildings and facilities along the waterfront? and as we look at the state of california, we have one of the

longest shorelines with the ocean. then, on the west coast. how do we compete with other cities? who will be asking for the same type of funding support from the army corps of engineers ? so are you looking for an answer on that one? i like some guidance. yes, please. yeah. i think this study is the first sort of mega study, federal mega study with the army corps on the west side. sorry, on the west coast, and so we are we are sort of out ahead, which is part of why we're really trying to get to congress by 2026. so that, you know, we can get early in line for federal funding. and i think the army corps sees this a bit as a model, both for that comprehensive benefit approach, also for how to address, kind of coastal flooding and sea level rise issues on the west coast. it's very different on the east coast or gulf coast, it's much more hurricane driven. whereas on the west coast the flood damages are really driven by sea

level rise into the future. and so whereas that is a sort of an increment often on the east coast. so i think for those reasons, there's a lot of eyes on this from the army corps, from the federal government. and so i think that puts us in a good position, but, you know, as you mentioned, the need is up and down the coast. we're not alone. there's a regional investment framework. the bay, you know, is obviously the largest estuary on the west coast. and, mtc and bcdc have put together a regional investment framework which has identified over $100 billion cost to kind of shoreline adaptation for the region as a whole. so you know, this is one project among many needs in the bay area and in the state, two more questions is pier 70 and potrero power station prepared to already in their own design and pursuit of implementation of their project, prepared to at least meet the one and a half to three and a half footstep, flood protection on their own. yeah,

those are those projects actually build up to five, 5.5ft of sea level rise. so they actually have even even more. same with the mission rock. that's good to hear, last part of my question, the step step one, one and a half to 3.5ft. is coinciding with san francisco's need to build affordable housing. and i think, president diamond touched on the cost of that effort, which coincides with asking for this large amount from the federal government. is there any way of having the state of california look at our housing implementation strategy with slightly different eyes, as we are met with two huge existential challenges, all at one point? i'm not sure i can answer for the state of california, but i'll leave that a good idea, director hylis can take that further. i think our success depends on support on

multiple levels. the one thing i would like leave my colleagues in the planning department, with is i think it requires everybody, planning, construction, all decision makers to roll up their sleeves yesterday to start thinking about what is ahead of you every day. i do not believe that we can continue to build and think about buildings and the way we have done from in the past. i think tomorrow starts today, and i strongly suggest that we find innovative interim strategies for us to address the challenges with the big challenges that lie ahead, but not to wait till the last minute when everything will be ten times more expensive and more difficult to do. that includes projects that have been proposed on port land. there are some housing projects that have been mentioned. i'm not sure whether exactly, but i think everybody needs to step up and

creatively think ahead of where we're going. thank you. commissioner braun, i mostly have some broad, broader comments, but also just want to open by saying, thank you so much for the presentation. i really appreciate all the complexity of this work and the simplicity of how well this was. presented, all the clarity behind it, you know, this does have really big land use and policy impacts going forward. and so i appreciate you coming to the planning commission with this, and it's not to some of the comments about the, the magnitude of this change, what's always stuck with me is just the map of how san francisco is addressing these risks, and the fact that this is one of many efforts to address the level rise just in san francisco. and to me, that really speaks to the enormity of the challenge that exists, this plan actually has my full support. i'm really excited to see this long terme big planning, getting out ahead as best we can on these big long terme issues, i do see that, you

know, the question has already been asked about local funding and also federal funding and how this will all come together. i certainly hope that we as a city, are able to do everything we can to pull together, our share to ensure that we can leverage the outside funding to address these needs, you know, and this is speaking to the design comments that have already been made. this is such a complex process in a place where we can't just build a seawall or a levee, we've seen in the news, i think in some places in the bay area, they are foster city comes to mind. you know, a seawall has been built as a means of addressing this. but that comes with its own visual challenges and the challenges mentioned about how we sort of interact with, with the bay, with the water and that asset that we have here. so again, i just think it speaks to the complexity of this entire process. and my admiration for it, you know, the thing that really stuck with me in the report is when i got to section es 5.6, getting all the way down to the end of the document that

we had. but that was the view of the local sponsor. and this has been mentioned already, but i'm i'm in full support of everything mentioned in there about what still needs to be worked on from the local perspective. and what really caught my attention is, first of all, preventing those negative impacts on our transit system. i'm glad that mta is involved and trying to work through this, and also our historic resources and the piers and doing as much as we can to preserve those, and then the other thing that really is very important to me is the idea of trying to do the best we can to have a build one strategy for all of this. and so, you know, that includes the seismic safety infrastructure upgrades and addressing contamination, all these things that have been mentioned, you know, to the extent it's possible to combine all these efforts and coordinate them. so we are not having to go back and, and redo something we've already done, you know, i know everyone's trying to do that and i hope that we can get that coordination and funding in place, and lastly, i just that

point also speaks to the challenge of, figuring out what level of sea level rise we need to address. and i don't remember exactly where it was in the report, but i recall that there were there were some content about sort of early stage work and the extent to which certain sea level rises being addressed in areas, and then also the possibility that there could be future phasing if sea level to address higher sea level rise projections. and so, that's a really tricky balance. we don't want to over build unnecessarily because of the cost of doing so. but, i think it would be even more expensive to get it wrong and have to go back again if our projections are off. so, but yes. yeah. thank you so much for presenting. commissioner williams. thank you for your presentation. this is on a different topic, but i just, was curious to see about the local

community benefits, how how that's progressing. how how who's who's addressing that? and, and also the, the racial equity piece. i know you it's in there, but i'm just wondering specifically where you're at with those two things. yeah i think, there's a few ways to sort of answer that. i'll start with sort of equity piece. so we through this process, developed a sort of an equity evaluation framework to look at the different strategies and say, well, how are these benefiting or burdening different populations? and we did that together with an equity working group that we convened that included kind of equity practitioners from the different city agencies, as well as focus groups with kind of community based organizations on, you know, leadership. and so that was sort of a, you know, a framework for how can we evaluate it. and then there is the sort of wheel that commissioner moore pointed to

that, with the army corps of engineers and our consultant team, we developed it. you know, that wheel represents a much larger set of kind of metrics that go into that other social effects analysis that we're all sort of measured and considered, and then we kind of develop well, which ones are the sort of key equity drivers for each reach of the different study area and kind of factor that into the what we're thinking. of course, we also had in the draft plan, of course, we also had a very robust public engagement, effort particularly focused on the on the southeastern communities and, through that have heard a lot of, you know, similar comments, two of the major comments that we've heard is making sure that that, that, that the adaptation work goes all the way to the city's southern boundary, and we did work with planning department, which, which was successful in receiving a grant for the yosemite slough neighborhood adaptation plan, and so that was

that was one part of trying to address the gap that is south of where our study area ends. the other one relates to the contamination issue. and so we're continuing to explore, you know, kind of characterize is the contamination that is there and how will it be impacted by sea level rise as well as kind of shallow groundwater rise as well, and how that can impact, you know, what we do on the on the study and, and where we're, you know, where priorities for remediation and things like that. so that that's sort of ongoing work, i should say. i should note that the army corps will actually not pay for that, so that that any contamination and cleanup remediation is a 100% nonfederal cost to the project. so in, in, thank you for that. yeah in terms of local hire, and jobs and, and, you know, community, benefits again in that, in that regard. is

there someone that's working on that? we have a we have a program administrator, his name is carlos colon, who works on the program, and he works on all the contracting, lby you know, local hire. the port has a pretty robust, you know, contracting, workshop and kind of, you know, trying to get kind of local hire and local business enterprise engaged in our, our contracts. so at this stage, you know, this is a planning contract. but as we progress, there will be you know, design and construction contracts coming up. but we really haven't gotten to the, you know, the $13 billion yet. yeah. okay. so it sounds like, carlos colon is carlos would be the one point man for that. yes. okay. thank you. yeah commissioner imperial, again, thank you for the presentation. and this study has been done, these are, well, well

thought out, even if it's just a draft, i do have a question about facing and how is, in regards to the, i believe, the will of circle or the flood study, benefit categories, how is the facing going to be impacted based on that? if we're trying to prioritize equity and it looks like in the i believe it's on page 33 on the exhibit e , you know, when you're when we're talking about other social effects, you're talking about health and safety, economic vitality, social connectedness, community identity, and i would think that there will be a lot of impacts on that. but i'm assuming that we will not learn about the impacts of that until after the study, which will be published by next year. i believe, so how will that be put in into the prioritization of the facing? yeah. and the full

report does have a very detailed all of those, all of those, categories that you just mentioned. you know, we have a very detailed, sort of, you know, methodology of metrics and kind of measuring all of those items and saying, okay, these different strategies perform better for, you know, equity or, or whatever it is. and so that's that does all exist. it's all in the economics appendix of the main report, and, and i think that in terms of the phasing, i think, you know, we haven't gotten to that stage yet. we are going to have to sort of develop phasing principles and criteria to say, here's how we're going to make decisions about phasing, and then a sort of program of, you know, well which pieces need to move forward first. equity is going to be, you know, a prime consideration in that work without question, you know, risk. where are we seeing people at risk soonest? you know, like when does the risk happen is going to be another one opportunistic, like, oh, there's

a the city is putting in a, you know, new whatever here or there's a development project here and we can build on that. so, you know, we're going to be using those different factors and building phasing strategies, geographic equity. so it's not all focused on the northern waterfront or the southern waterfront but it's spread throughout. so i think we still have that work to do. but the equity will without question, be a key component of that. okay. i'm looking forward to see that. and also my other question is about the 13 billion cost, when we're talking about the dollar amount, are there any sub items as to, you know, i'm assuming a lot of it is about engineering in the design, but are there any aspects of like whether relocation money will be involved? if there are, let's say an identified, you know, during the or is that part of the budget or can you give us like what does the budget look like? yeah, i'm going to have to get look into that and ask our engineers whether relocation specifically was included. and,

there is more detail in that cost estimates, what i have heard from our engineering team is not a lot of sort of faith in the cost estimate at that greater level of detail. but you can see kind of what the line items were, as a, as a whole number. they feel like it's in the right range. but when you dive in, delve into the details, it might be more here or less here or whatnot. so they don't feel like it's very faithful there. but i think, and that will also be based on the phasing as well. right. so right now it's a cost estimate for the overall project as we get more detail and more detail on the on the actual cost of the project and design of the project and start doing phasing, then. yeah, it will get broken up into phases, but we haven't gotten there yet. thank you very much. that's mayor. thank you. so i actually do have a couple of follow up questions, and maybe the others do as well, to commissioner imperial's point about what's included and what's

not included. so beyond relocation, i'm curious about things like, loss of revenue, from tent claims from tenants about loss of revenue, because of relocation. so not just the costs of moving, but, you know, loss of a revenue stream. while the embarcadero is torn up for however many years it is, is that included loss of tax revenue to the city because, you know, sales that would otherwise result in tax revenue aren't happening. so it's all those, you know, indirect, costs as well, too. it would be really important to understand if the accounting is, going to cover those as well to the, the economics, sort of benefit calculations include a lot of items such as lost tax revenue, lost sort of land value, asset value, things like that, and damages transportation delay

costs, things like that. but i what i can do is follow up with our engineers and get back to you with the specifics that you're, that you're mentioning. well, i think it would be important to include that in the report. so we have a sense of how extensive the cost analysis was. and then you mentioned that the report says, and i read this with great concern that the federal government is saying environmental remediation is 100% not there responsibility. so a couple questions. if they caused the toxic waste, i'm assuming they're not saying this isn't our problem. i mean, yeah, i think that that that is yeah, it's the it's the army corps coming in and not wanting liability for it. i think that's what it is. so if it's, it's federal federally caused contamination or whatever, like hunter's point or whatever, they're they are an interested party. right. so that's what i'm okay. so the broad nature of that statement caused me some concern. and thank you for walking that back a bit. and then the second issue is, it can

take a long time to find the responsible party, and to figure out how much the cleanup is going to cost and who's going to pay for it, and making funds. and that time frame may be at odds with the time frame, that the army corps or the port has in terms of doing the improvements in that area, how do you plan to reconcile the fact that you may need to move forward with the improvements when nobody's stepped up to pay for the remediation, and that the improvements could exacerbate the problem? yeah, i'm not sure i can totally answer that question. i mean, we are we are starting to enter into kind of phase two site investigations, to identify what contamination is out there. and i think we'll go from there, but i think you're raising a key risk to the study in the project. okay. so i just want to conclude by saying i completely agree with your statement at the beginning that the no project alternative is not an option,

this is not a case where the no project alternative means everything stays the same, so i, very much, you know, support that philosophy that we have to do something and we have to find the funds to do something, and that we want to be as helpful to you as we can from the planning department and planning commission perspective. thank you. thank you. commissioner moore, i have one comment. i have one comment. that's a little bit more on the margin. i would like to have the state of california, the city of san francisco, track interaction with insurance companies. as we all know this, we have a major dip in insurability of buildings, particularly residential buildings, partially due to the large wildfires and cost of construction. i like to make sure that we're not falling into a big hole at the point when it comes to the point that

sea level rise will affect buildings and the insurability of buildings, since that is a national emergency, that's a national phenomenon. i would like us raising that question early. very good commissioners. if there's nothing further, we can move on to your discretionary review calendar for items 12 a and b, case numbers 2023 hyphen 004909 excuse me, drp and var for the property at 1336 shotwell street. you will consider the discretionary review while the zoning administrator will consider the request for variance. please note that on march 7th, after hearing and closing public comment, you continued this matter to march 14th, 2024, with direction from the commission by a vote of 4 to 1, with commission president dimond voting against. i'm not

sure if we should probably. i think we need to wait to see so he can confirm he's read the material so i can participate. request that he acknowledge on the record, so we'll pause for a moment and give commissioner williams an opportunity to return. should we take a five minute recess? yeah. as if we're going to take a five minute recess. okay. good afternoon and welcome back to the san francisco planning commission hearing for thursday, march 14th, 2024. commissioners we left off on your discretionary review calendar for items 12 a and b,

and i was, reminding everyone that on march 7th, 2024, after hearing and closing public comment, you continued this matter to march 14th, 2024 with direction from the commission by a vote of 4 to 1, with commission president dimond voting against it. commissioner williams, you were not yet with us. and so in order to participate with on this item today, you need to acknowledge on the record that you have reviewed the previous hearing and materials. yes, i have, thank you, as this is the second hearing with public comment closed, each party will receive three minutes to present. there will not be any rebuttal, but we will accept public comment for one minute each. can i say a few words? janice? thanks. so as i was waiting. very good. i didn't know. very good. thank you. david winslow, staff architect,

commissioners, you may remember as much as mentioned, the project was continued since last week with, direction from the commission to the project sponsor to explore, three things. the maintenance of the gabled roof at the rear within the, within the rear yard, and reduction of the roof deck to 125ft!s. the minimum code required open space for this property, as well as setting that as far away from the neighbors as possible. and i'll ux direction to explore alternatives to the current. the proposed stairway to that roof deck, my understanding, well, more than my understanding, we've received drawings from the project sponsor, as i think you have been forwarded, in response to that. so with that, i'll simply, let the project sponsor and dr. requester proceed. dr. requestors, you have a three

minute. thank you. could we have the overhead, please? thank you, thank you, commissioners, for your time today. i appreciate the thoughtful discussion from the last meeting, and the direction to look at other options. i also appreciate having been part of the last presentation. that was fascinating, since we last met, the only thing that the project sponsor has done is the absolute bare minimum, reducing the size of the roof deck to 125ft!s whie leaving the stair right up against my property line. he disregarded the outcome of the last meeting with no explanation as to why, showing a disregard for commissioner instruction and for neighbors, you can see on the overhead and option to move the stair off of my wall while achieving 110ft!s of deck space and minimal internal design changes, additionally, the project sponsor failed to

present an internal stair option , despite the commission's instruction, we anticipate that this would be the case. so we worked with jane, our architect, who's here today, to mock up an option that minimally intrudes on the size of the adu. the option is entirely feasible. it would allow for the creation of the adu address. neighbor concerns, give the owners access to outdoor space without impeding light or reducing the size of outdoor space, and most importantly, would not require a variance. mr. kirby is misstating state law. there is actually no requirement for private outdoor space for the proposed adu because it is a state law. adu, the two units can share existing rear yard space without a variance, mr. kirby has painted neighbors as being uncompromising, while in fact the project sponsor has made no meaningful design

changes until he was urged to do so by the commission. and even now he has not followed those instructions. the plans we received at the last minute still show the stairs against my property line with no internal stair study. at one point, mr. greenwood said no to one of our compromise suggestions, saying that it did not align with his vision for the project. quote in short, they are concerned about the best design for them without the considering the needs of every single neighbor on their property line. each one of those properties was represented at the last meeting, and all have letters on file. the project also presents problems with fire egress, mr. kirby cannot just say that the upstairs room is not a bedroom to avert fire code, and there will likely be a requirement for a bridge, which would require a variance, i want to thank you for your time today, jane, see our consulting architect is available to answer any commissioner questions about

the internal stair option or the fire code issues, as needed. thank you so much. project sponsor. you have three minutes. good afternoon. commissioners. my name is mason kirby, an architect, we prepared before you a full submittal to address the basic questions of reducing the deck area to 125ft!s. we alo studied very carefully whether or not we could accommodate an ascending stair from the existing level up to the roof deck, the current design of the existing stair is proposed. does work with the existing ascending descending stair going down to the lower level that wraps. it wraps around it, one of the features that is, curious for us to consider is the idea that

we're not proposing a penthouse or a bump out, and so we need to actually have a landing at the bottom of this stair. it is open to the sky, with the geometry that we have, the location of this particular stair while it is still on the property line is actually no closer than the stair that exists internal to the building adjacent to the property line on the first and second levels. we did study. i didn't get a chance to propose a . a have the overhead. i would note that, we did look at the ability to establish an exterior rear stair, as well as an interior rear stair, the interior rear stair compels in some respects, this rear yard open space to be common. and when it is common, the conditions change, you need to have a minimum distance in 15ft

in every direction, and we have ten. and the minimum area needs to be 300ft!s, as a condition of consideration, we do acknowledge . sorry, the, common standards suggest that there's a minimum distance of 15ft in every dimension. and the minimum area of 300ft!s. so the inclusion of an internal stair takes approximately 10 to 15% of the unit area away from the proposed adu. and it also, reduces the amount of common space by virtue of the fact that it's shared, i will pause my time if there's additional questions that you have. to answer. if that concludes your presentation, yes

. okay. we should open up public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission again through the chair. you will each have one minute. hi, george. i just want to understand what will trigger the checklist. having section 317 on it. i think a project like this where the roof is taken off, it's a vertical expansion, needs to have the horizontal dymocks and that's what's in, miss wong and miss berger's document overhead. please. real quick here. if the roof is being removed, which i think you have to do to put a deck on it, and it shows that from going from peak to flat, then they need to have some demographics. plus with what's going on with the front facade and on the rear just, it just seems like that's the processes and that's what i've been talking about in terms of the pegs, this isn't in the peg, but it's adjacent to the peg and i

want to understand what's going to trigger section 317 on that checklist. very extensive checklist for all the different parts of the planning code. and i think that this project should have had that, because i think that would be helpful to the neighbors. and may be helpful going forward. thank you very much. okay. last call for public comment. seeing none. public comment is closed. and this doctor is now before you commissioners. mr. teague thank you. i just wanted to clarify one of the issues that was raised by the project sponsor about the rear yard and the open space, because it is a little nuanced. he's correct that for common open space in a rear yard or a roof deck, if you're going to have a space be used by more than one unit, the minimum dimensions are 15 by 15. and it is true if they put a stair down to that rear yard for the upper

unit, both of those units would have access to it and it would be, in practice, common open space, but technically under the code, because that second unit that's being added on the ground floor is a state adu. it's not required to have any open space. and so we have interpreted that in the past where under the planning code, it's not common. open space is still just it has to meet the minimum private dimensions for that upper unit. having said that, and i expressed this at the last hearing, this is a small lot. so small yard. it's a small adu that really, some of its primary access to kind of, light and outdoors is at the rear. i think it's, preferred from a design perspective and a usability perspective that the two units have two different, areas for, for usable open space. i don't think that rear yard lends itself very well to have both units use it in a common in a common manner, so just on the

issue of the variance, again, we, continued this. the planning commission requested some very specific changes, which i think have been addressed, and i supported those as well in terms of reducing the area of the deck and removing the physical need for the variance by keeping the gabled roof and the required rear yard, from a variance perspective, there was nothing specific about the proposed stair to the roof deck that i felt hindered the variance at all, especially considering it's an open stair and there's no stair penthouse. there's no additional massing being added at the at the top. so, as proposed from the plans proposed by the project sponsor, all in all, i feel like have responded well to the concerns we have from the variance perspective at least, and would be something i would be willing to support. thank you. commissioner braun. yes, just, 1 or 2 questions. so

one question is, if it turns out that the modified design that the project sponsors brought forward does not meet egress requirements, would the potential change be so substantial that this would be redesigned in a way that would come back to us, or. i'm just trying to figure that part out? yeah, it's hard to answer a hypothetical like that in terms of, because it depends on like the nature and the context and how substantial that would be. i'm not sure if those issues exist specifically in terms of anything that would need to be addressed, if anything that's being proposed now wouldn't meet any egress requirements under. are you thinking specifically about the reference that was made to still needing the kind of bridge at the roof? the requester's comment about that? yeah. gotcha, and i think the distinction there was that if under the building and fire code, they could not consider

that room at the rear to be a bedroom or a sleeping room, could they label it as an office or a study or something else and negate that requirement? and i would defer to mr. winslow or the project sponsor on that. specifically, i can say that without knowing that answer myself, we definitely see that plenty of times where a room cannot be a sleeping room under the housing code for various reasons, and it is labeled as an office or a study or a library, and it's specifically called out as not being permitted as a sleeping room. but again, i would defer to others on that answer. specifically mike. mike thanks, what they were referring to was, a new a new alternative allowance for emergency egress and rescue opening access, where bedrooms are typically in the rear of landlocked buildings all throughout the city. and the

building department has been forced to find alternative means of accomplishing that which typically is served by fire personnel, emergency personnel going down side yards, putting a ladder up to a window and getting somebody out of a bedroom, and one of those alternative methods is to come up over a roof and down a fire escape like contraption in which went into effect about two months ago. and concurrently, the zoning administrator issued a interpretation on where those would be acceptable with or without a variance. and i think you can elaborate on that. but the other fundamental part of that is when and where by where the threshold that dbe requires, that is it. when and i'm not sure. is it more substantial, 50% or more of a building being expanded, etc. and so, i don't know, maybe the architect has delved into that threshold a

little bit more and can answer that question, but that's, what we know about the emergency rescue. and just to speak on that before the architect does, i mean, and feel free to come on up. but in my understanding, this would be a if it was required, it'd be a minimum necessary bridge along the ridge of the peak of the slope to essentially a, you know, a ladder, fire escape type of feature. i can say from the variance perspective, if even after the fact, based on the plans are in front of us, that was required to be added, that wouldn't change my decision. i'm sure the planning commission, if there was some concern about that potentially being a requirement down the road, could add conditions to their decision to, think about that ahead of time as well. go ahead, if i may, there are levels of pre-planning that we're considering in light of the rules and how they've been developed. i would tell you that we do not have the 25 foot rear yard that allows that specific new information sheet to come into effect for a new sleeping

room in that instance. so one half of the strategy in satisfies these new rules involves escape. the portion that we're talking about here is rescue. and the idea of having a flat roof of pitch of no less than no more than 412, was a solution that we were looking to improve the condition or improve the circumstance, since we have pulled the flattening of the roof back further out of the rear yard by a couple of feet, first point of consideration is we're just going to assume that that room is existing unaltered, unmodified. it is literally the room that it was before. so it's existing. no changes, so if it was a bedroom before, great. it's a bedroom now, so we would consider it to be existing. an existing condition. so i offer you that point of consideration. when we had, a lever point with

regard to pulling the squaring off away from the backyard. that's one of the opportunities that we sort of see. thank you for just a sorry just to drill down on that when i think i heard you say, is that what was proposed before, like the kind of the bridge and the escape ladder simply will not be required anymore, we are prepared to satisfy the requester and the comments of the commission in a manner that does not require us to square it off, or doesn't require us to have a bridge or a ladder and plans that have been submitted for this hearing today. the revisions would not require. correct. thank you. so yeah, the revisions that you have before you contemplate that specifically. okay. well thank you. thank you. the to the project sponsor for, exploring what we asked you to explore, and in particular for, not including the expansion into the required rear yard and for bringing the size of the deck

down to the minimum, you know, in looking at the project now, as it has been proposed, there's no expansion in the rear yard. there's a roof deck which we have roof decks all over the city. we approved them regularly , it seems to fit within the residential design guidelines and planning code, the positioning of the stairs, the property line is not an unusual, exceptional or extraordinary circumstance, and so, with that, with the modified design, i'm prepared to say that this does not pose exceptional, extraordinary circumstances. it's my perspective. and so i will make a motion at this time to i believe it has to be to take discretionary review and approve the plans that have been the follow up plans that have been submitted. is that correct? do we need to take doctor to approve the modified plan, or is the modified plan now the project we need to take doctor to approve the modified plan? i mean, i think taking doctor and

acknowledging the modified plans , because they weren't the original and they were part of this process, that reflects the commission's direction to them would probably be the best action. okay. second. vice president moore comment, i am in support with the modification that we see today. they reflect, modifications to roof decks that we have undertaken in many, many other like, projects. i do understand your sensitivity, given the history of what you had experienced before. the only thing i'd like to suggest is san francisco has a noise ordinance. that noise after 10:00 at night, indeed is addressed to the proper channels. in addition to that, i think a conversation with one's neighbors talking about that is probably even more

productive than having to call some authority to, to mitigate noise, that would be my suggestion to steer itself. i believe that two properties separated and constructed in the proper way, taking care of some form of noise attenuation in just the way walls property walls are constructed should give the typical protection that i do not hear my neighbor stomping up and down the stairs and opening the door, because the stairs are very quickly he turns into the deck, should be something that i do not believe would rise to a level of additional noise that is not, more than unusual than what you expect living in the city. i live near a cable car, and even at 12:00 at night, i still hear him ding ding ding. going down the street. but that is just, unfortunately, the way it is, and so i'm not trying to ridicule your concerns, but i

like to suggest that there are indeed a negotiated neighborhood and neighborliness with each other to be aware of particular sensitivities. that includes not having, like, a barbecue thing up there by which you are vegetarian. you're offended by the smell. it just a sensitizing with each other, with each other under change. so i would suggest that what's in front of us meets, at least from my perspective, the ask that we had made to the project applicant, and i am in support of what's in front of me. if there's nothing further commissioners, there is a motion that has been seconded to take dr. and approve the project as has been amended in the most recently submitted plans dated march 11th, 2024. on that motion, commissioner williams. yes, commissioner braun i commissioner imperial i commissioner coppell i commissioner moore i and commission president diamond i

so move commissioners that motion passes unanimously 6 to 0 and concludes your hearing for today jonas i will. oh, yeah. that's fine. that's okay. just a little bit of housekeeping. i will i will close the public hearing once again on the variance and intend to grant pursuant to the revised plan dated march 11th. thank you book

you. >> (music). >> my name is orlando i'm the owner and operator of sf pizza. >> pizza is my expansion growing up i loved pizza and loved to cook and been in corporate banking jobs my that whole life wanted to own a pizza or and moved to san francisco 45 years ago and couldn't find pizza i like so one day of saving and trying to figure out what i would like to do to fulfill my dream and to literally must be that i went out on my own toes an interesting things skills i again have to working on the

slight changes to find the right product and came up with something i enjoy and continue it. so the positive important thing in years and years and years of trying to get it where i like it is for the sauce i use a unique sauce to bring out the flavors have to mats and capital improvement plan any and using use a high quality of cheese the products work together more important to me have a high quality of pizza and made with love and what i try to keep it to be a comfortable foods or food and that's what i try to over and offers so having a really bus illegal day in the community and rile appeal to me

and that's what i was trying to accomplish i have thought when i got into pizza the main thing if i can, make a great cheese pizza he can do anything like growing up that's what i brought to to and now called san francisco >> who doesn't love cable cars? charging emissions and we're free which we're proud of you know, it's not much free left in the world anymore so we managed to do that through donations and through our gift shops. you got a real look and real appreciation of what early transit systems are like. this was the transit of the day from

about 1875 to about 1893 or later, you know. cable car museum is free, come on in. take a day. come down. rediscover the city. you can spend as time you want and you don't have to make reservations and it's important to be free because we want them to develop a love for cable cars so they do continue to support whether they live here or other places and people come in and say, yes, i have passed by and heard of this and never come in and they always enjoy themselves. people love cable cars and there's none left in the world so if you want to ride a cable car, you've got to come to san francisco. that what makes the city. without the cable cars, you lose part of that, you know, because people who come here and they love it and they love the history ask they can ride a cable car that has been running since 1888 or 1889. wow! that's something. can't do that with other historical museums. rarely, have i run into anybody from outside who didn't come in and didn't feel better from knowing

something about the city. it's a true experience you'll remember. i hope they walk away with a greater appreciation for the history, with the mechanics with people are fascinated by the winding machine and i hope the appreciation, which is a part of our mission and these young kids will appreciate cable cars and the ones who live here and other places, they can make sure there will always be cable cars in san francisco because once they are gone, they are gone. it's the heartbeat of san francisco that founded the cable and the slot and without the cable cars, yeah, we would lose something in san francisco. we would lose part of its heart and soul. it wouldn't be san francisco without cable cars. [bell ringing]

[music] since the opening on third and mission in 2010 the grove is a epicenter. tis is part of the community. we bring tourist, we bring convention ears and have a huge group of locers who live here. we are their living room and love to see them on a regular basis and seek newcomers to the city of san francisco and serve them a good dose of san francisco hospitality. we make everything in house from scratch every dape we vahand carved [indiscernible] the chicken pot pie we serve probably a hundred thousand if not more. roasted chicken, prime rib, salad[indiscernible] coffee cake and [indiscernible] all the pies are fresh baked. the home made cookies are done,

once, twice a day, depending how fast they go. we believe in goold old fashion home cooked food. we want to be a welcoming, warm hospitable place for everyone to come and hang out. respond time with friends and family, meet new people. have important conversation. relax and enjoy, rejuvenate, get restored, enjoy one another and the at mus sphere the growth. the grove is over 730 to 830, 7 days a week, breakfast, lunch and dinner.