>> good afternoon everyone. this meeting will come to order. welcome to march 25, 2024 regular meeting of the land use transportation committee of the san francisco board of surprisers. i'm supervisor melgar joined by supervisor president aaron peskin and vice president dean preston. the committee clerk today is mr. john carroll and i like to acknowledge and thank matthew at sfgovtv for staffing this meeting. mr. clerk, do you have announcements? >> thank you madam chair. please silence cell phones and

electronic devices. if you have documents to include as part of the file, you should submit them to me. public comment will be taken on each item. when your item comes up please line up to speak along the right hand side of the room. you may submit public comment in writing. you may e-mail me at john.carroll@sfgov.org or send via u.s. postal service in the clerk's office room 244 city hall address is 1 dr. carlton b goodlett place, san francisco california 94102. if you submit public comment in writing i'll forward and include as part of the official file you are commenting. finally madam chair, items acted upon today are expected to appear on the agenda of april 2, 2024, unless otherwise stated. >> thank you mr. clerk.

please call item number 1. >> item 1, ordinance amending the planning code to facilitate city wide expansion of commercial restaurant and retail uses. >> thank you. we have carrie here from the office of small business. you don't want to make a presentation? you are here just for questions. we heard this before. i will turn it over to my colleague president peskin because he just circulated amendments that he wants to introduce and i want to thank you so much president peskin for working on this language and work wg the department. >> thank you supervisor melgar. i think we all came to consensus last week, but left it for the city attorney to massage some language which is set forth at page 10 and is now internally consistent in subsection d relative to use

sizes that set forth-i'll read it, in rh rm1 or rm2, comply with the use size limitations of a neighborhood commercial district or special use district located within 1 quarter mile of the use of maximum of 1200 square feet of occupied floor area of commercial area in any rm3 or rm4 district. comply with the use size limitation of the neighborhood commercial district or special use disrict located within a quarter mile of the use up to maex mm of 2500 square feet of commercial use and repeats that language with regard to the 1200 square foot of occupied floor area in a commercial rto, or in a rh, rm1, rm2 district if the use is more then a quarter mile from a ncd or sud

and no more then 2500 square feet of commercial use in rm3 or rm4 if the use is a quarter mile from a ncd or sud. that is the language that seems to work for everyone and i think there were also planning department cleanup on page 6 under outdoor activities and i think said p located in the front of the building, np if elsewhere. do i have that right? yes. mr. star is nodding his head, so and i believe those amendments are not substantive.

>> sorry. just reading the last amendment. p if located in front of the building, np if elsewhere. >> i think that somebody brought up something and maybe--i this can the way it was written was-this isn't my language, this was a suggestion from planning. i think it said not at front of building and i think that everybody decided that it would be clearer if it said, elsewhere. >> planning department staff, that is correct. it will make it consistent to state elsewhere, similar to the other code sections and it is to clarify instead of the wordy phrase of not at the front, just state elsewhere. >> okay. >> but there is no change in the allowances or implementation. >> okay, thank you so much. okay. works for me.

thank you very much president peskin for working on the language. let's go to public comment on this. >> thank you madam chair. if you are here to give public comment on item 1, related to city wide expansion of allowable commercial restaurants and retail uses, please come forward to the lectern. appears we have no speakers. >> with that, public comment is closed. president peskin did you want to make a motion? >> i move to amend the item as stated and send the amended file to the full board with a positive recommendation. >> on the motion offered by member peskin that the ordinance be amended and recommended as amended to the board of supervisor, preston aye. member peskin, aye. chair melgar, aye. madam chair, there are three ayes. >> thank you, the motion passes. let's go to item 2, please mr. clerk. >> item 2 is ordinance amending the planning code to prohibtd north of market special use district and lower polk street

neighborhood commercial district tobacco paraphernalia establishments where any tobacco paraphernalia is sold, delivered, distributed, furnished, or marketed, and to establish that after 180 days of non-use a legal non-conforming tobacco paraphernalia establishment in the sud or ncd will be deemed abandoned, preventing its restoration; and affirming the planning department's determination under the california environmental quality act, making findings of consistency with the general plan and the eight priority policies of planning code, section 101.1, and making findings of public necessity, convenience, and welfare pursuant to planning code, section 302. this is amended as a committee clerk and may be sent to board tomorrow. >> thank you. we continued the item from last week. vice chair preston did you have further comment snz >> no, we talked about at length last week. make a motion after public comment. >> great. let's go to public comment. >> thank you madam chair. does anybody have public comment on item 2?

if so, please come forward. appears we have no speakers. >> okay. public comment is now closed. vice chair preston. >> thank you chair melgar and president peskin for your cosponsorship. i like to move with recommendation to full board as a committee report. >> on the motion offered by vice chair preston the ordinance recommended as a committee report, vice chair preston, aye. member peskin, aye. chair melgar, aye. madam chair, there are three ayes. >> thank you, the motion passes. let's going to item 3. >> item number 3, ordinance amending the zoning map of the planning code to rezone assessor's parcel block no. 3144b, lot nos. 027a and 036a, known as 68 nantucket avenue, from public (p) district to residential-house, one family (rh-1) district; affirming the planning department's determination under the california environmental quality act; making

findings of consistency with the general plan, and the eight priority policies of planning code, section 101.1; and making public necessity, convenience, and general welfare findings under planning code, section 302. >> okay, welcome. please tell us what we are doing and why. >> good afternoon supervisors. the item before you today is request for zoning map amendment to sectional map zn11 to rezone two parcels, block 3144b, lot 27a and 36a, also known as 68 nantucket from public to rh1 zoning district. the subject parcels are two irregular lots located on the bay area transit exterior rail line from glen park to balboa park station.

until 2017, the parcel approximately 1900 square feet combined were owned by bart, since then bart subdivided the parcels to follow the existing paved road and topography of the site. the parcels were purchased by the current property owner at 6826 nantucket and undeveloped. the subject parcels are located within the outer mission neighborhood when predominantly residential neighborhood and immediate neighborhood includes 2 and 3 story residential development and it is within the rh1 as well. this concludes staff's presentation and available for any questions. >> i have questions. so, i looked at the map, so were the property owner project developer lives is not rh1, isn't it nct? >> no, he is immediately to the-if you are looking at the

parcel to the right and still within rh1. >> why are we zoning it for rh1? >> so, the site is not very conducive to a lot of development. >> the small one, but there are two, right? >> correct. yeah. so both of them are being rezoned to rh1. >> okay. i'm just-what we have been doing everywhere is trying to get more housing units and so, i'm just puzzled why have this opportunity to take land that is not-under-utilized and instead of aggregateing to the parcel and making it something else, we are just doing-it just doesn't make sense to me, but okay, that's what you want? >> so, the site-the little small-it is two different sites, there is a tiny triangle shape lot- >> we see people park on. >> correct. >> you can't do much, but if

you at added to the lot next to it, which i thought was the owners lot, dont they live right next to the little sliver? >> yeah. here, probably best if i do this. >> this isn't my district by the way. it isn't like--i'm just questioning the logic of why the department is asking for this. >> can we get the overhead? so, what is outlined is red is the two lots. there is a tiny one here you can kind of just barely see and that's approximately 300 square feet, and then there's this bigger lot here that's approximately 1600, and so they are both owned by same property owner, but his actually site where his house is the adjacent. >> that what i had understood.

>> so combined those are only 1900 square feet in size. >> the two parcels that belong to bart? >> correct. okay. i'm not going to belabor the point. what i was thinking is there is already a existing property, so all combined you would have a lot that could support multi-family housing but we are asking just to have this be zoned rh1. >> you were thinking rezoning his current home- >> i realize that would take another action, because it isn't part of the project but we are inviting it to stay because we are zoning as rh1. >> yes. >> okay. thank you. let's go to public comment on this item, please. >> thank you madam chair. if you have public comment on itedm 3 related to 68 nantucket avenue, please come forward to the lectern.

it appears we have no speakers, madam chair. >> okay. public comment on this item is now closed. i would like to make a motion that we forward this to the full board with positive recommendation. >> on the motion offered by the chair be sent to board with recommendation. preston aye. peskin, aye. melgar, aye. madam chair, there are three ayes. >> okay. that motion passes. thank you. let's go then to item number 4. >> item 4 is, hearing to receive an informational presentation on the united states (u.s.) army corps of engineers san francisco (sf) waterfront coastal flood study draft integrated feasibility report and environmental impact statement; and requesting the port, planning department, and army corps of engineers to report. >> okay, we have--this is your district president peskin. did you want to have opening

remarks? >> thank you chair melgar. it is all our districts and i want to thank and acknowledge the port of san francisco and assistant port director, michael martin who is here and also thank the army corp of engineers and brian harper who has flown across the country for this presentation and just to put it in a little bit of context, it is nothing new to any of us. we are surrounded by water on three sides. we are living even though maybe donald trump denies it in a era of unprecedented climate change and sea level rise we are grappling with as a city, as a state, as a country, as a world, and we need to prepare as we are slowly boiling and san francisco actually has been at the forefront that in many

ways at the public utilities commission, at our port from the great highway to the northern and southern waterfronts and the port of san francisco that is responsible for 7 miles that waterfront has been working for some time under the leadership of brad benson and the good news, but it is daunting is that we have gotten this far and it is a project i liken to the buildings of the pyramids of great cathedrals of europe that will happen under many generations of governmental leadership and this is a opportunity for us to get our heads around it. this is a very high level document. there is going to be a lot more planning. i think we need to see this not only in terms of the 2018 bond that the voters of san francisco passed by some 80

percent relative to the reinforcement and rebuilding of our sea wall, which is really a down payment on coastal defenses, but we should see this as an opportunity for unparalleled public participation and inclusion, knowing this is going to be highly disruptive for a very very long period of time. that we actually have choices that we can make. i think we would benefit from a highly informed public as to what those choices are, and i think we also need to look at the future relative to what we want the waterfront to be like and who we want it to be for and this is an opportunity to not just talk the talk, but walk the walk around equity and inclusion in areas that really have been off-limits to many. i think this is a really big conversation and i welcome at

this early point and michael and the team will tell us where there are opportunities for public input, but one of those opportunities is right now and we actually got a long letter today that is part of your file that i thought was really helpful and instructive and asked for more ongoing public participation and with that, it is madam chair my pleasure to hand it over to michael martin. >> thank you president peskin. welcome, mr. martin. >> thank you very much. good afternoon. assistant port director mike martin. -leadership brought through the multiyear efforts with the u.s. army corp of engineers. really appreciate being here before you chair melger--this is i think really challenging to take this all in.

i think president peskin's comments were right on point. this work over several years has gone to try to detail how we can protect 7 and a half miles of waterfront from flood risks in the seismically active place like san francisco. we think about our waterfront as being somewhat immutable but knows it formed over millenia by nature and also by 1850 by acts of man to create a new shoreline when people got here and trying to put together a concerted effort through engineering analysis to say how can we protect this and define the edge of san francisco for the next century and hopefully the next century of prosperity and this being the kind of city we are proud to live and work in. we tried to boil this presentation down to help understand what the draft plan is at this point and what it is not. because this is a mega project

and delivered over decades, it has to be something where we sort of have a very gradual narrowing of the funnel of deciding what it is that we are going to build, but at the same time, i think we absolutely need these opportunities for stakeholder engagement to inform the public this is moving forward and this is a slow motion challenge that is pulling towards trying to find a solution, but at the same time, trying to find ways to also engage with stakeholders to bring things into the project that we know san francisco is going to demand in the waterfront of the future. i think we benefited from a few things in our work with the army corp of engineers. one of the biggest things is that we benefited from the comprehensive benefit approach. they moved away from in other situations where they have taken a strict look at cost benefit in making determinations how to address potential risks. here we have been able to bring in other things we heard from

our stakeholder engagement about san francisco and what it wants to see on the waterfront and we are hopeful those can be kept in the draftd plan and brought forward into design and realty as we execute the mega project down the road. i do think it has been notable that in the two months since the draft plan announced in january, despite the size and how unwieldy it is, we have gotten a number of useful comments we know we want to move forward on and work with the army corp of engineers to address, both between thou and when they take the plan to congress and hopefully get endorse mentd and beyond that when we get into detailed design where we figure what we want to see san francisco have in terms of the connection to the bay, in terms of environmental enhancements and all the things we expect a mega project to have here. so, with that, i'll do a quick overview of the actual presentation. as mentioned we are happy to have brian harper and brad

benson, the port waterfront resilience director delivering the presentation on the draft plan itself. also supported by rachel tanner the director of city wide planning, issues relating how the planning department views. we have other members of the port waterfront resiliency team and grateful for representatives from smta, puc and office of resilience and capital planning, planning department, public works and transportation authority to answer questions from the committee should you have them about our interdepartmental collaboration and critical city infrastructures implemented by the plan. i'll hand it off to mr. harper. >> good afternoon. thank you. appreciate you letting me participate today. i'll give you a little bit of perspective from the corp of

engineers before brad takes over and speaks to some of the elements of the plan that our team developed. the agenda, talk about floods, flood stud a, the risks enhancements and couple slides on process and then get into the draft plan. some of the details there as well as next step for the study process. to speak to the flood study, what is the flood study? this is a flood study looking at coastal flood risk and primarily driven by sea level rise. long-term. one thing about this study we are taking a hundred year perspective period of analysis is the lingo the corp of engineers uses. normally we do 50 0 year and this case we wanted a hundred year look because of the importance of the sea level rise over the hundred year period. the range of sea level rise we

are looking at is up to 7 feet of sea level rise end of century as much as 10 feet by 2140 so lot of indications and consequences and a reason why we are looking at the long period of analysis. the draft plan is here to help inform stages of funding and developing design in a iterative fashion. we developed a solution with estimate of 13 and a half billion dollars and if approvaled by congress the federal government would pay up to 65 percent that. this has been a close partnership between the corp and port working very well and want to keep moving forward. what is at risk, by 2100, as i are said, sea level rise could rise as-increase as much as 7 feet. as soon as 2050, up to 500

structures and assets, transportation assets, but by 2140 we see several thousand assets at risk and up to $23 billion in impacts monetary impacts not to mention all of the non monetized non quantitative consequences. these are the why of why we are looking at needed actions along the waterfront. while this is a flood study, because of the seismic risk in the area, whatever we do propose would also be design to withstand seismic events going forward. so, when our team received guidance from dc as we were getting underway with the study, we were told to pilot new ideas for the corp. there are elements that are different for the corp.

mike touched on some that with the comprehensive benefits, but the notion ofal resiliency it is a key piece. high priority to the administration, but that is a priority that will--it will cross administrations and the need to make sure we put in place infrastructure systems that can withstand changing global climate conditions at the local level. a key part of this plan is to plan now for what we can foresee, so while we might see 7 feet, 10 feet of sea level rise over the long time horizon, near term we are planning for foot and a half to 3 feet of sea level rise and what actions and monitor conditions both global climate and sea level conditions and conditions on the ground what

is happening development wise and with transportation systems but monitor the conditions around the system so that we can continue to take action and stay ahead of risks over the long-term. there would be subsequent actions beyond our first actions. we believe our most important decision here now in this feasibility report we are doing is to identify what those first actions should be, how big should they be, where should they be generally speaking and begin design process for those, while leaving the future flexibility to adapt to changing conditions and particularly to adapt to increasing risk over time. so, we conducted a cost benefit analysis that does include economic both at the national and regional level. the social effects including life/safety, social vulnerability; serving disadvantage populations and making sure we are equitable in the actions we are recommending.

all this together has produced the proposal that appeared in the draft plan that we sent out for review. where are we in the process? the study has been going on several years and still relatively early in the process. we are still in the feasibility study and wrapping the feasibility study up the end of 2025, so in 2026 our chief of engineers can report to congress, hear the recommendations from the corp of engineers and part hadners with the city and port and seek congressional authorization and funding in 2026. we expect to be in design from 26 to 2030. the soonest construction could initiate would be 2030, but we expect it to continue after that for several decades actually because of both of our need to manage impment lementation and adaptive to

changing conditions on the ground. we are early in the process. olot of design work in front of us. we still to complete the feasibility study. throughout the process there are opportunities for engagement so seeking public input through and agency input through the completion of the feasibility study, but also as part of the design phase we would expect to have supplemental environmental impact statements and updated documentation just to keep everyone abreast of the project as it develops and begins to come into focus. with that, i'll hand it over to brad to through the plan itself. >> thank you. >> thank you brian. so, i will give a high level overview of the draft plan and then conclude with a discussion about some of the key issues that we heard from the public

and some issues we are continuing to grapple with in terms of developing the plan going forward. so, what is in the draft plan? at this stage, we are looking at where to build coastal flood defenses. at the current shoreline, bayward or inland. how high to build the coastal flood defenses, and how much space to use. that space consideration goes to two things. one, the weak soil conditions shown on a prior slide. this will give us a opportunity to build solid foundation for coastal flood defenses and gain gradually towards the shoreline to maintain the city connection to the bay , and lastly how should the initial investment adapt to the future to the

higher water levels mr. harper spoke about. there is a lot not being decided today. the draft plan doesn't include detailed design of coastal flood defenses of streets near the water's edge, open space, utility infrastructure or the timing and sequencing of construction activities and we don't yet have a plan for the city's local match requirement that 35 percent. those things will all be developed in later stages of the effort with robust public input. this slide really summarizes what is in the draft plan. the yellow, orange band you see on the slide from heron's head park up to telegraph hill, shows where we propose to elevate the shoreline to address a foot and a half to 3 and a half feet of sea level

rise, and also include ground improvements or other improvements to stabilize the shoreline. in green you see areas where the plan proposes engineering with nature features as part of the adaptation plan. in red, we got a series of really gorgeous historic structures in the embarcadero historic district that straddle the shoreline that need to be adapted to the higher shoreline condition, and then up in the fisherman's wharf area i'll describe more of the strategy there. it isn't to elevate the shoreline, but instead flood proof buildings and piers. the final point is, when you raise the shoreline to deal with higher bay water levels, you have to think how the city manages storm water, so today our combined sewer system managing storm water in up to slightly higher average rain

fall event in more extreme rain fall events, water flows across the streets and find low point on the shoreline, so we would be creating a bit of bathtub effect with the higher shoreline. the plan includes funding and plans for storage, pumping and other treatment that storm water, so that we don't create a flooding problem. so, in the wharf area, the modeling shows a lot less in terms of coastal flood damages. the shoreline reaches higher elevations more quickly in this area of the waterfront. we have a number of break waters here that knock down waves. so, the strategy is looking at a lighter investment focused on flood proofing buildings and short flood walls around piers. we know there is earthquake risk in the wharf so we are looking to proposition a and some of the investments the port can make to buy down that

earthquake risk with projects like the wharf j9 project that will replace a failing wharf in this area. subsequent actions triggered by sea level rise monitoring would address higher water levels. in the embark cadero we are seeing consider- >> through the chair, there was discussion about adjusting the boundaries between reach 1 and reach 2. is this the right place to touch on that? >> we'll cover that a little bit later in the presentation. >> thanks. >> so, in the embarrow embarcadero we have more considerable flood risk. bart and muni underground as well as downtown, so the actions are much more robust. elevating the shoreline to address three and a half feet of sea level rise, improving the soil conditions for strong foundation, raising the ferry

building, rebuilding wharfs shown in red at a higher elevation. the piers themselves would stay at existing elevation with short flood walls around the piers. let me show you another look at what that looks like. this gives you the impression that we can gain elevation across the embarcadero, improve soils and get up to that higher wharf elevation. in south beach, mission bay, the plan proposes to elevate the shoreline to address a foot and a half of sea level rise. again, with the shoreline stabilization measures, including potential ground improvements. engineering with nature features in the creek along the mission bay shoreline and towards pier 70. in this area of the waterfront, the piers and wharfs remain at

current elevation, with short flood walls around the piers. and then we got a unique feature with the bridges over the creeks. essentially as we elevate the banks of the creeks we have to think about water potentially impacting the neighborhood by coming over the bridges, so the plan includes deployable gate closure structures on either sidef the privileges to protect the neighborhoods. this would result in some transit disruption, potentially once a year in the early implementation of the plan, but that could be quite disruptive when you think about muni light-rail. in the creek area, this includes the maritime facilities, light industrial uses including muni bus facilities in this area. the plan here is similar to the

approach in mission bay, elevating the shoreline to address a foot and a half of sea level rise. shoreline stabilization measures, engineering with nature in the creeks, and adjacent to the pier 94 wetlands. new wharfs at piers 90 and 92 and gate closure structures over the illinois street bridge. this slide gives you a sense where you have a more gradually sloping shoreline, you have a opportunity for more engineering with nature and potentially also new public access to the bay. now i like to talk about some of the issues we heard about from the public as we have been talking over the last couple months and issues that we think are not yelt resolved in the flood study from a local sponsor perspective. these are the categories that i'll speak about. concern about urban design.

comments about yosemite. very significant challenge related to inland drainage and combined sewer system. engineering with nature. the bridges over the creeks. environmental contamination and historic district. one thing to note about how the army corp will justify or evaluate potential changes to the plan is that, in order to be cost shared, these changes need to be justified by reduced costs, increased benefits or reduced environmental impacts, so if they dont meet that test, then the city might be able to pursue these changes through something called betterment, which is the responsibility of the city to pay. so, now i'll hand it off to my

colleague rachel tanner, from the planning department. >> thank you. good afternoon. >> think the first time you are presenting in this committee. >> it is. >> welcome. >> thank you very much madam chair, president peskin and supervisor preston and mandelman. thank you for let ting me be with you today and a mega project which is exciting and also can be a little overwhelming. it is quite large in scale. also i want to thank partners at the port and army corp for all the technical expertise that span many many years as you can see from today's presentation. the goal is defend the shores from rising seas and also thinking about the urban design. who is waterfront for, how do people enjoy it, what does it look like . we had this note here on urban design to recommend flexibility from moving bayward and constraind areas of the embarcadero to accommodate

waterfront access and public space and avoid impact to key infrastructure. i want to walk through the design here that is on the right. you can see the area mapping out the existing roadway of the embarcadero in gray and opportunity area highlighted in purple and then you can see the buildings there which is showing building moving out to the bay and up raised as well. here is a area in this rendering on this section of where we could think about what does it look and feel like to be at the waterfront in the future, versus how it looks and feels today. some of this is work we have to doas a city to imagine the future of the waterfront and a lot is connected to the work the army corp is doing as they go into next part of the design phase to understand a more specific level what it will be in place and where it will be and that gives understanding how it might effect city infrastructure. you see the seismic ground zone, there is transportation

infrastructure you can see the train, so if there are areas constrained do we need more space to preserve existing or future public infrastructure and space for folks to enjoy the waterfront. the next yosemit slough. this is a area vulnerable to sea level rise we are talking but not included in the hunter point shipyard planning or point and candle stick park plans. the planning department has a grant from the california office of planning and research to respond to concerns in the area about what will happen as sea level rise happens and what will occur here. this work is just starting this year so quite a bit behind the work going on right now, but we do hope to continue it to raise more funds and refine the plans and if it is appropriate and if

it is approved, at the point where we are ready to know what infrastructure might be appropriate here, it could join or be a campanion to the project but this is a gap now we are hoping to address in the long-term, even if not exactly lined up with the timing of the rest of the plan. with that, i believe i'll hand it back to brad. >> thank you rachel. so, i mentioned the need think about inland drainage in the context of this plan. really want to commend our colleagues at the san francisco public utilities commission and department of public works. they have been engaged in some pretty advanced modeling of the different alternatives in this study looking at those storm water issues, how this combined sewer system reacts to sea level rise. they will continue doing more analysis of the draft plan. we got some concerns about the amount of funding that is

currently budgeted in the plan for that future inland drainage system, so there is more work ahead with the army corp to look at sizing that. we also heard some concerns from the local community about ground water rise,b which could occur with sea level rise influencing the ground water table in the near shore area and how that might mobilize contamination. i'll take about that more on the next slide. we do think that there is a new provision in the army corp guidance enacted by congress in 2022 and there may be a opportunity to get the assistant secretary of the army to approve a more comprehensive look at combined flood risk that is not a given, but that is a set of conversations we want to have with both the army corp and assistant secretary of the army. we think that that is work that would continue into the design

phase after congressional authorization. we heard broadly a desire for more engineering with nature, more nature based features on the human made shoreline. i want to commend the team to date. they worked really hard to identify features that can work on a very steep shoreline like we have in san francisco. the team has direction to add engineering with nature futures everywhere it won't conflict with current maritime operations. this work is going to continue in the study period and in the design phase of the project. i mentioned earlier, the date closure structures over the bridges. our colleagues at sfmta are quite concerned about how those structures would impact access to muni metro east for approximately 60 percent of the

light-rail vehicle that we have in the city, and also access to the bayview community. so, there is a request to look at instead of the gate closure structures, is there a opportunity to elevate those bridges or replace those bridges. we think that is analysis that should happen in the design phase of the project and look to our army corp colleagues to help us evaluate the cost benefits and impacts that move as well as opportunities for other federal funding. a lot of kench in the bayview about environmental contamination and how sea level rise can mobilize contamination. we have done instenseive work investigating contamination along the uplands of the port. the public utility commission

are getting ready to look at contamination in both creeks so there is a lot of work ahead characterizing the problem and figuring out a complicated issue of mobilization of contamination. we need help from the regulatory agencies on this, epa, department of public health, the regional water quality control board and department of toxic substances control. and then, board president peskin, you mentioned the issue about extending the treatment in reach to north into reach 1. this is a area where we have the most intact segment of the embarcadero historic district, and we are a bit concerned about elevating wharfs for half that segment and think that treatment should continue on up to pier 35, where coastal flood defenses could also defend the north point wet weather plant and infrastructure that

connects that plant to the bay. again, we look to army corp colleagues to exam the cost benefit and impact that approach. and i'll conclude with our public engagement, and board president peskin was right. we are in a current public comment period that extends through march 29. the slide shows where people can write comment on the plan. there is a obigation to respond to all of the comments that we received. i want to also commend the port, city and consultant team on the outreach to date over the past couple of months. you see all the efforts on the left side of this slide. we had extraordinary public engage ment, hundreds of folks showing up at community workshops, including in language opportunities and we

are looking forward to as much public feedback on the plan as possible so we develop a plan that supports all of san francisco. so, with that, i'll conclude my remarks and looking forward to a policy conversation with the committee. thank you. >> mr. benson, through the chair, i believe that last deck of slides is not included in the file and so if you can include that, that would help spread the word. >> absolutely. >> okay. i'll go if no one else has anything on the roster because i have a lot of policy questions and concerns. we got a letter earlier yesterday from the mta from their planning folks who were concerned about our overall underestimate of costs, when you look at the transportation system and the fact most is underground downtown in this

area. when we spoke earlier with the staff at the port, i had brought up the issue of coordination, just because it is human thing. when everybody is in charge nobody is in charge and climate adaptation will effect every aspect of our lives, transportation, infrastructure, building, rec park, schools. pretty much everything. i'm wondering who is coordinating all this? who is making sure that every agency is at the table and is bringing forward--i think this is a stellar plan and it addresses part of what we are doing, and i as a representative from the west side know that the ocean is also rising and we have all

sorts of other issues there. we have rec and park land up and down the entire western border and then we have the wastewater facility that is also doing climate adaptation, a big climate adaptation project there, so i'm just wondering, where does this all go and if we are going to get federal help, which we need like every city in the county will need, how do we make sure that everything is included that every agency is keeping up with the planning and proactively putting it on the table? okay-- >>ile it begins having a idea on the table. any level of government not sure how well we do communicating across agencies. more importantly then

communicating but aligning our program efforts. are we budgeting for the right things to happen at the right time. having the plan on the table helps with that. i can't say that we have the solution to facilitating that cross agency engagement, but that is specifically a item our leadership challenged us to pilot or test for with this project. as we look at other--with the infrastructure and jobs act, one thing that piece of legislation did is every federal agency with a hand in some type of infrastructure development or management or funding added language around climate resiliency but didn't spell out how the agencies do it, so we don't know, i don't know what other agencies will do to support local partners for other infrastructure systems. all we can do is say hey, we

think this is a great plan going forward, what do we need to do to work together to make sure that things are happening on the ground are integrated so there are not conflicts in space on the ground, but maybe more importantly, how we align the resources, because we all--all need to-there is no one source of funding that will cover all this so we need to have many sources as we can. >> let me just state unequivocally i'm grateful for your technical assistance, expertise, help, support, everything, very grateful. it was more a question for us here in terms of-i imagine any effort that you help us with is going to be competitive, because miami is dealing with climate crisis, new orleans.

for us to be competitive it seems we need to do it all together and coordinate it. not looking to the port to do it, just because you are super stars doesn't mean weed sh give you the whole job. you are a important part of it, but it seems this is a policy conversation we should be having in terms of the structure of the efforts going forward. >> let me respond to the two parts of your question. one was about costs and the other was about governance and a city wide approach. so, on the cost question, the estimates we have in hand now are very high level and there are questions about them within the corp. we need to do more work advancing design to ultimately get more certainty about costs. right now the cost estimates have very large contingencies in them to deal with the uncertainties that sfmta is

concerned about, and we got a lot of work ahead of us to get more certainty about the overall cost of this effort. on the governance question, the port has been very grateful to have the climate sf structure established by mayor breed, so this is under the office of the city administrator, the office of resilience and capital planning, planning department, public works, sfpuc are all at the table and so we meet at a staff level, at a climate deputy level, at a climate director level in order to talk through all the issues and we have been trying to take stock of what happened with other large infrastructure projects in the city's recently history, thinking early planning coordination to make sure that we got all the departments interest represented at the table. both the office of resilience

and capital planning and the planning department have taken a leadership role in terms of some of the city wide look at things, so the office of resilience and capital planning manage the hazard and climate resilience plan. the planning department conducted the sea level rise vulnerability assessment and the-i'm getting the name that wrong, but-and sea level rise action plan that took a look at how to examine coastal flood risk around the entire peninsula. the other thing to be mindful of, the state of california required cities and counties to develop for review by bcdc, sort of countywide plans. those are due to bcdc by 2034. bcdc is now in the process of developing guidance for development of those plans. that will be out in 2025 and so

the city will have to drive towards a unified plan for the whole peninsula. >> that is great. with that, we also-our conversation touched on that. does that require that we coordinate with others? the question that i had asked port staff is, if we have you know, if we raise the sea wall and save this valley or bayview, does that effect the brisbane bay land and as part that development does it effect us and is there a coordinating effort to make sure that we are all working together, because you push water, you push water. it always will go to lowest point. >> this is a question about induced flooding. like what we do along the port waterfront does that make flooding worse for others and i will hand it off to mr. harper to talk about the analsis we are required to do.

>> we are required to assess that. when we put a barrier and we want to know where and how does that attenuate as it moved in other places. that assessment is our first task. then working to avoid it or mitigate it by preventing-where we see the water going is there something we can do to prevent it causing harm and are there areas we can accept water and what is there is not a bad thing. can we accommodate or tolerate the water? those are things we will be looking to do. where we find we are going to have harmful effects then we do mitigate for that and determine what is the mitigation action for that. what would we invest in in some cases it would be non-structural where we flood proof things that might see more water or putting up additional barriers, stuff like that. we work our way incrementally through the problem to better

understand it as we develop the design, but it is a requirement that we have as well and our attorney is making sure we are not doing anything that rise to a level of a taking especially and not causing harm to others. >> thank you. that is a lot. okay. are there any other comments or questions colleagues? let's then go to public comment on this item. >> thank you madam chair. if anyone here in the chamber has public comment on item 4 related to the hearing on the sf waterfront draft plan, please come forward at this time. >> good afternoon committee. my name is [indiscernible] san francisco parks forward. san francisco advocate for parks and public spaces. our northern waterfront received a lot of attention as part of this plan. our southern waterfront deserves the same level of

investment and ambition. as the waterfront resilience program shows, the creek scr surrounding areas in reach 3 are at risk for sea level rise and flooding in the future. we encourage the land use transportation committee to support the implementation of this plan and maximize the incorporation of nature based solutions and green infrastructure when possible. land uses in this area have been dominated by pdr use and marine industry for over a century. we are not advocating for the removal of these critical industries as they are foundational to the city working class job centers. however, for far too long, this area has been engineering against nature. it is time we make a charge and start engineering with nature. for the city long-term health and prosperity. considering historic undpr investment in the neighborhood along the southern waterfront we advocate for the restoration of the channel and wholesale

reinvestment of the wetlands to connect and protect surrounding communities. thank you. >> thank you for sharing your comments. do we have anyone else with public comment on item 4? madam chair. >> okay. thank you. public comment on this item is now closed. president peskin did you want to make a motion? >> i will make a motion to file the item and if we need to have further discussions i'll introduce a new item in the future and thank you mr. harper for coming across the country and for $9 billion in the years ahead. [laughter] to be continued. by which i mean, i make a motion to file the item. >> on the motion to file offered by member peskin, pres preston aye. peskin, aye. melgar, aye. madam chair, there are three ayes. >> thank you, the motion

passes. item number 5, please. >> item 5, ordinance amending the building code to extend the deadlines for existing buildings with a place of public accommodation to comply with the requirement to have all primary entries and paths of travel into the building accessible to persons with disabilities or to receive a city determination of equivalent facilitation, technical infeasibility, or unreasonable hardship; to extend the period for granting extensions from those deadlines; and to extend the time for the department of building inspection's report to the board of supervisors regarding the disability access improvement program. >> thank you mr. clerk. we are now joined by supervisor representing district 8, rafael mandelman, the sponsor of the legislation. >> thank you madam chair. colleagues i think this will be simple and fast. the ordinance before you would extend not for the first time and suspect not the last, the deadline for small businesses to comply with the city

accessible business entrance program. by way of backgrounds, the board passed the ordinance in 2016. the ordinance requires property owner tuesday have entrance to the building inspected by a licensed architect, engineer or certified access specialist who fills out a check list to determine if the entrance meets ada requirements. if it is not in compliance required to make modification which typically rifers permits. they are subject to building enforcement penaltiess and provides exemptions if physical changes are found to be technically infeasible or cause unreasonable financial hardship for the businesses. the legislation was well intentioned and lead to some good and i know there are many businesses that have been able to bring their entrances into

compliance with ada and in so doing reduce the likelihood of a potentially disastious ada lawsuit, but for many many businesses and property owners, the legislation has been very challenging. the ordinance places onus of making the accessibility improvements on property owners, and i i suspect you as well heard from many tenants who had costs passed to them. we also know that of course many small business owners are struggling to make ends meet as we recover from the pandemic. the horror stories around trying to comply with the ab program are legion. i heard of examples of owners having to shell thousands of dollars to hire a inspector to tolds they are in compliance or infeasible to make modifications. there are stories businesses having to pay 10 to $30

thousand to tear up and regrade sidewalks to sfaul automatic door openers and there is supposed to be a pathway for business owners to request exemption due to physical hardship to make the request they have to get the case heard before the access appeals commission and as i understand the access appeals commission has only met three times in the past two years making it very difficult for those who trying to make these appeals to attend a hearing. there are many thousands of businesses that are still not in compliance with the accessible business entrance ordinance and i suspect that this is going to continue to be the case for some time. i introduced this legislation back in september with sort of a immediate goal of just pushing off the deadline a little bit and the legislation before you would do that. it would push it until june of

this year, but i also used the intervening time to have a lot of conversations with our director of the office of small business, katy tang and patrick reardon and dbi and public works and nicole bon mayor office of disability and i think that it would make sense and if anyone here has thoughts on this, i think it might make some sense and i'm going to try to explore with stakeholders the possibility of getting our department building inspection out of the business enforcing these requirements. i think we want of course for our businesses to be in compliance with ada, they need to be to be protected from potentially business killing lawsuits. i think we want to do everything we possibly can to

have dbi and the education business and providing information to small businesses and property owners about their obigation under ada. i had conversations with directors things we can do potentially getting rid of some of the fees associated with the most basic work that is sort of standard and has to be done all most always for-to make entrances accessible, but i am planning and hoping to come back to the board ideally some time before june with legislation that looks at trying to get dbi out of this business. we have lots of things for dbi to do. they got housing to get approved and other projects and i think that having them of course we want them to continue doing the education, but having being enforcement arm for federal law which we do not have to have them in that role

i think not particularly helpful. so, that's a foreshadowing. for today what i hope the committee will do is pass the-forward the ordinance in front of you to full board with positive recommendation if so inclined. i'm also hoping and city attorney can figure which order these things need to get done, but i think we ought to also probably send back to building inspection commission another version of this that extends the deadline at least to the end of this year, so probably involves or i suggest the committee if open to it, that you duplicate the file and make the amendment to the duplicated file to change the date which is june 30, 2024 and duplicated file to december 31, 2024 in the duplicated file and that you all send that off to building inspection commission for them to consider so it can come back here and do the

further extension as soon it gets back and i'll be working diligently on another piece of legislation that i just described. >> what are we doing with the original file? >> forward to full board with positive rem recommendation. >> let's make it so, duplicate the file. let's go to vice chair preston. >> thank you chair melgar. thank you supervisor mandelman. i had a couple questions. one i'm curious since you mentioned it and maybe the answer is wait and see for your legislation, but if you were to get dbi out of the business enforcing these laws, would it be transferring that to another department? is there a vision for how they would be enforced or are we just leaving it to the private and lawsuits? >> in some way they self-enforce through the private bar, which is certainly instilling the fear of god or

should be in lots of small businesses. there was no need or obigation in 2016 for san francisco to take on this kind of function and you know, if we had limitless resources and could provide the support to small businesses that need that support, maybe it would make sense, but i think this is a requirement that we keep having to push off, that will take up-is taking up time, will take up dbi time and puts our local city government in the business of going to the small businesses and telling them or that they cannot continue or cannot-that it makes us the enforcers and i'm not sure i want our department of building inspection to be if in that role. happy to talk more. you will i'm sure we have lot of work to do with the disability community in

particular i think on this, but not sure we are getting the bang for our buck in terms of those dbi enforcement resources, so happy to have the conversation or continue it, but if we look at try ing to have dbi doing fewer things and do them better, this would be with a thing i think they can stop doing and again, we want education. we want everybody trying to pull a permit to know, you have this obigation. you need to do this and i think we again want to be changing all the rules. right now we require a annual payment of a fee for the people who come to do this work, but lots of people are just not even contemplating doing any of the work because they know they can't afford it. the prospect of going through the city appeal process is murky. we are not running a great appeal process to grant hardship wavers t. is sort of a mess and think we are not doing it well and rather continue doing this poorly, i rather

have us not do it. but, that's subject to the body can talk about it. >> thank you and yeah, i would be interested to hear and discuss further and hear from advocates for the disabled community around their perspective on it as well, but that part is not before us today. i am curious, you mentioned-i just curious if mayor office of disability and disability advocates like sda have weighed in? i didn't see anything in the file from anyone so curious if they have been part of the discussion? >> mayor office of disability has been part of the conversations and this is not their proposal, this is my proposal. the extension i think we talked to everyone about. i don't think anyone has a particular problem with the extension. i think the further piece- >> thank you. through the chair, i should have clarified.

i was asking what is before us, not the further proposals. thank you. >> okay. with that, let's go to public comment. >> thank you madam chair. does anyone have public comment on item 5? if so come forward at this time. madam chair. >> okay. public comment on thisitesm item is now closed. so, i would-we duplicated the file. i would like to make a motion that we amend the duplicated file to change the date to december 31, 2024. >> for clarity, this is the date in the table for the compliance check-list? >> correct. >> all the places where there is [indiscernible] >> on the motion offered by chair melgar to make that amendment to the duplicate file, preston, aye.

peskin, aye. melgar, aye. madam chair, there are three ayes. >> we send that forward to dbi and then on the original file, i make a motion that we send it to the full board with positive recommendation. >> before we record a vote on that, i want to make sure for total clarity, that was just the motion to amend the duplicate file, so if want to continue that one to call of chair we do that with a separate motion. >> sorry, let's deal with the duplicated file first. let's continue that to the call of the chair. >> on the motion to continue the duplicated file as a-minded to the call of the chair, preston, aye. peskin, aye. melgar, aye. madam chair, three ayes once again. >> thank you. the original file, we sent to full board with positive recommendation. >> on the motion by the chair to recommend the original file to the board of supervisors,

preston, aye. peskin, aye. melgar, aye. madam chair, three ayes once again. >> great. motion passes. congratulations supervisor mandelman. do we have anything else on our calendar mr. clerk? >> there is no further business. >> we are adjourned. thank you. [meeting adjourned]

>> [music] you are watching golden gate inventions with michael. this is episode exploring the excelsior. >> hi i'm michael you are watching golden gate inventions highlighting urban out doors we are in the excelsior. pickleball. let's play pickleball! pickleball is an incredited low popular sport growing nationwide. pickleball combines tennis, bad

mitton and ping pong. playod a bad mitton sized court with paddle and i plasticic ball. starting out is easy. you can pick up paddle and balls for 20 buck and it is suitable for everyone in all skill levels you see here. the gim is played by 2 or 4 players. the ball must be served diagnoty and other rules theory easy to pick up. the game ends when i player or team reaches a set score 11 or 21 point bunkham win bright 2 pickleball courts are available across the city some are and others require booking ahead and a fee. information about the courts found at sf recpark. org if you are interested in playing.

now i know why people are playing pickleball. it is so much fun you play all ages. all skill levels and pop on a court and you are red to g. a lot of fun i'm glad i did it. all right. let's go! time for a hike! there is i ton of hike nothing excelsior. 312 acres mc clarin the second largest p in san francisco. there are 7 miles of tris including the there was fer's way this spreads over foresxeft field and prosecute voids hill side views of the city. and well is a meditative quiet place in mc clarin p you will siendz labyrinth made of rock:now we are at glen eagle golf course special try out disk

golf >> now disk golf! so disk golf is like traditional golf but with noticing disks. credit as the sport's pioneer establishing the disk ballsorption and the first standardized target the disk ball hole. the game involves throwing from key areas toward i metal basket. players use different disks for long distances driver, immediateerate. mid range and precise shot, putters. players begin at the t area. throw disks toward the basket and prosecute seed down the fare way. player with the lowest number of throws the end wins the game. disk golf at glen eagle cost 14

dollars if you pay at the clubhouse. there is an 18 hole course this is free. du see that shot? i won! am i was not very good now i have a huge respect for disk ball player its is difficult but fun. thank you for joining me in the excelsior this is goldenate adventures.

>> bring up person that [laughter]. for me it was we had neighbors growing up that were fold my dad he is raising me wrong for having me pursue the things that are not traditionally female roles. and i think the biggest barrier to anyone in general is when you have cultural norms that make you feel like you can't do something that make you doubt yourself and make you feel you should not be there i don't belong. those other big efbarriers i think that is the thing to focus on the most is belong everyone should belong here. [music]

>> wishing we trained women grow in production. and recording arts and so we have everything from girls night classes for middle and high school girls. we have certification academy program. that would be women and gender [inaudible] adid you tell us. progress in the internship frm program where they are working in the studios. they are helping to mentor the youth in the youth programs and the job place am component. most of the time we hire interns instructors in our programs and engineer in our studios here. we have conferences we do all overnight country and we have concerts that we feature bay area women and gender artists.

[music] [music] >> an education forward organization. and so advocacy organization. dedicated to closing the gender gap and the audio and production industries. >> started out of the lead answer, why is there a critical gender gap in this industry that started at city college. why are there so few in this

class i was ashamed i did not have the answer being a feminist. why have i never thought of this i have been in the industry for decades and why have i accept

today of all people. it was out of that and unraffling it. actually started the infernship last fall and just fell in love with all the things about women's oshg mission because we are diverse and so many aspects of audio i did not know and i feel like eyes opened up and i gained a lot of confidence in myself and other fells and queer people in the industry i felt there was more connection and community. ironically my time in the industry is all pretty good. i think what happened is i was raised by a father who is an engineer. i was comfortable being strounlded by men all the time in his lab i was used to technology. when i got in industry my mentors were men and i saw i had a unique importance that got mow in the place i could be fluent and navigate something difficult and it was the norm for me. what if it was not woman was createed provide it for everybody. have this environment you are surrounded by technology and people that are going to support you and get you in this industry in a good way. i have been interested in audio i was never trained in music took piano when i was a kid. i never pursued it because not a lot of women doing that. and my family is not musically inclined. when i want to davis the first time i took a music class there were few females in the class. like a rodey for my dayed was load you will the mixers and monitors and the giant speakers and gigs and help run out the

cables and take things down and set up mics i did all of that growing up and never occurred to mow that that was a field they could at all. and then one i could pursue i didn't nobody else was doing temperature my dad and then i go with him to studios and see -- the men in the studio. dj for 5 years now and comments you get like wow you are a girl dj that is crazy. that is wild. and i have great moments where it does not happen. and they treat me like easy. telling mow what to do they correct mow in ways that make me feel less i sprjs the opposite and i notice hand's on like you don't know what you are doing rather than asking me. not consistent times it happens.

it is like when i talk to other females they are like say the same things it is like funny i know that nice men don't experience tht main thing triggers me when i experience different treatment and that happens a lot in the audio world. industry is changing slowly. there is still that issue making the places that are places belonging for everybody. i don't think so. having a studio where it is not all run by white men like most studios. the studios are only in the word built and run by women. it has been super normalize thered are opportunity for girls and nonbinary people. you go in school and middle and

high schoolers know that this is a field. this is a thing there are many jobs you can have in this field. some producing pod casts to setting up live shows. there are so many things you can do >> wee go in and teach the audio skills and give them equipment. i pads and then teach them how to make music and they get to come in here and will getting the tools to people who don't have t. that is really important to me. that's why i was like wow. i want to be there for other fell and queer people who don't have the opportunity and also to be a mentor for them to really push them to experiment and not going to break it. does not matter if it sounds bad that is the point to try it. i think it is the goal to see confidence what they are doing and passionate and asking for hymn and excite body learning and excited about making music

and it changed my life to realize i'm callented in the field i can make music without being trained to it it is amazing to be able to be part of that process and -- ushering women to the field. we can entirely transform how -- the technology part of what you hear every day. we can put xhg something in women's points of view in this every time. it affects the store and he messaging. think our best example is how we transformed an entire city. place that major artists on tour one of the men looks likeip don't get it there are woman every where i go and the person was like you are in san francisco. you like oh , you are right it is here. most venues have graduates we

are grateful to the city for that reason because than i supported us at the beginning. following your curiosity and interest and don't let anybody get in the way what is presented to you, go for t. no matter what! we are here for a reason. find what it is. don't let somebody else tell you what it is. you are the oldsmobile one that have been can know when you are supposed to do. go do it.

>> celebration (clapping.) wow. >> people will forget when you said, people that forget with you did. but people will never ever forget how you made them feel. >> those, of course, were the words of the phenomenal mayor the first female operator of san francisco's cable cars. and the 5 women we're honoring do i have an uncanny knack to make everyone they encounter feel herding and seen but worst any and valued.