not know the answer. >> nothing personal just expressing my views. >> commissioners, this matter is submitted. >> this case more than ever, i mean we did approve the last one on the fact that, i mean, this is a complete different case, but i think if you look at how this permit was issued whether the director has discretion or not, i think that this is not an underserved market plus the challenge with the parking. >> they are saying issues of congestion. >> thank you for correcting my thought mr. fung. >> pine and california? >> yes. >> there is no issues with

california. the issues are with pine. >> yes. the thing is as the appellant mentioned is there are three food trucks on that block, so we are making it worse for either location. >> we don't know that because notification went out to both sides and nothing coming back. if you are going to go that way then i think the permit holder should listen to what was suggested and he should pursue 250.

they are saying 250 pine is available. >> okay, do you mind if i make a ? >> no. >> i would grant the appeal and condition it that the location on pine be removed due to safety and congestion concerns. >> i would suggest that because it's within 75 feet of an existing mff permit. >> that is what i said. >> one of the factors that the director can considerate the meeting. >> then issue the permit for 400 california? >> correct. >> so we have a motion from commissioner honda to grant the appeal and issue the permit on the condition that it be revis

revised. require the permit for 332 pine street location on the basis that it within 75 feet of an existing mobile food truck, and to grant the issuance of the permit with respect to 400 california street. on that motion,. [roll call] that motion passes 4-0. you understand you have the 400 california street location and you will have to reapply for the 250. >> the meeting is now adjourned. .

>> motion to continue items 1, 2, and 7, 8 and b and 16 to the date specified. >> president hillis: okay, we have a motion from commissioner koppel and a second from johnson. we'll take roll. vice president melgar. and commissioner fong. commissioner johnson. commissioner koppel. commissioner moore and commissioner richards. great. that item passes. item number 2 on your calendar. i should say calendar three, comments and questions.

>> commissioner richards. >> commissioner richards: two things first. on roosevelt way it was a section 3, 17 demo -- demolition in my neighborhood and we as a commission had asked -- we approved the demolition and i got a card in the mail that it's being sold now so back to the commission for getting the additional unit in my neighborhood. i didn't want to tell you what the price is. i probably can't afford it. interestingly, on the way here i grabbed a copy of... and there was an article that i have yet to finish because i was too depressed to finish reading it called "busted: the horrors of the recession to come" and this morning i thought that it was a while since our economist ted eagan has come and given us a briefing on where he thinks that the city is going and i'd like to ask the president and the v.p. to have mr. eagan come again and let us know about the

state of the economy in san francisco. anyways, an interesting article if you want to read it. >> commissioner moore. >> commissioner moore: i had the opportunity to meet with the representative of the german government the other day and this was on behalf of planning. a person was asking about our experiences with the evictions and affordable units, etc. and one of the questions that came up in the discussion was the issue of units staying vacant. and i reported to him that, unfortunately, we have a large number of units that are vacant, however, we have not been able to formulate laws which we can really establish a position of what weigh should do with this large resource of vacant units. what he actually described to me as an interesting example for what's happening in germany where there's a similar

situation with evictions and affordable housing, etc., is that when it comes to vacant units they have a provision that a unit that stays vacant longer than basically a change in use designation. and after three months as it has changed use from occupied to empty it is basically seen as a serious detriment to warn pursuing that path. i just pass this on. and this particular gentleman promised to send me the legislation when he returns back to germany which is in a month or so and i would be interested to share that information with whoever is interested. >> thank you. sorry, rich, i'm having technical difficulties and the screen that i have doesn't enable me to acknowledge speakers, it's not the chairs' screen so i'm not sure what to

do about it except to just do it by contact. >> so maybe once we speak we can cancel to speak. >> yeah, thank you, guys. yes, commissioner richards. >> commissioner richards: just one more thing, to commissioner moore's point, that's something that the housing affordability strategy could consider in their toll box to be able to actually deal with vacant units. one other thing that i forgot to mention, i had the pleasure -- and i say that very, very emphatically to sit down with addie negorosh who is the new spur san francisco person who took over for commissioner christine johnson. a refreshing discussion around san francisco and where it's going and around denseification and urban design and any other commissioners, i would encourage you to sit down with him and he reached out to me and that was a

fantastic gesture and i look forward to working with him on things to come. >> thank you, commissioner. moving on to directors announcements. >> no new announcements. >> president hillis: item five, the board of repeals and historic commission. >> aaron star with legislative affairs. on the land-use agenda this week to consider the ordinance to exempt certain retail uses from neighborhood mostification in district 4 and 11. commissioners you have heard this item on july 12th and voted to support the ordinance with modifications. those modifications include allowing arts activity uses in the main commercial district, so in district 4. and to prevent some institutional uses in the outer mission street and c.d. and include a reporting requirement to track the impacts

of this ordinance and reconcile this ordinance with the streamlining ordinance. and at the hearing there was no public comment and supervisor tang and safai talked about how this ordinance would accomplish that. and they suspected the modifications except for the one that has institutional uses on mission street and c.d. and they voted to continue the item for one week due to amendments. and next on the agenda was supervisor safai's ordinance to allow catering to limited restaurants. commissioners, you heard this item on june 21st and recommended approval with modifications. the modification was to make the new accessory provisions apply city-wide. and the land-use hearing there was one speaker on the item who spoke in favor. and supervisor safai made a motion to include the planning commissionary recommendation and then amended the motion to continue that for one week due to the amendment and both passed unanimously. and next on the agenda the

committee considered the landmark designation of the arthur h. coleman medical center at 6301 third street. the building is significant for its association with dr. arthur h. coleman, a nationally prominent african american lawyer and physician. as well as the influential health care and a civil rights advocate. he was a pioneer in the community health center movement that began in the 1960s. he worked tirelessly to achieve racial equity and within the health care system and the medical profession. and advocated for the needs of the bayview's african american community. at the hearing patricia coleman, the daughter of dr. coleman, and the staff member of the hunters point clinic and the small business commission were in favor of the nomination. it was moved forward with a positive recommendation. and next the committee considered the ordinance sponsored by supervisor peskin

for medical cannibas dispensaries in the three chinatown mixed use districts. commissioners you heard this item on june 14th and voted to disapprove the ordinance. there was no public comment at the hearing and after some remarks pie supervisor peskin about the need for the ordinance the committee moved the item to a full board with a positive recommendation. and last on the agenda was the sweep of ordinance for the central soma plan. there were about 25 public commenters and the scope of the comments included support for strengthening the good jobs provision of the plan through trailing legislation. requests for additional exceptions for key sites. possible amendments to the use it or lose it progress requirements in the housing sustainability district. and calls for a more anti-displacement policies and funding. and support to allow the proposed hotel at 816fulsom street to proceed in the zoning. supervisor kim introduced 48 amendments and declared her intent to add additional amendments at next week's

land-use hearing on july 23rd and this is followed by a referral to the planning commission to look at the substantive amendments. and a few highlights include modifying zones on some parcels to limit hotel, commercial development and housing. and exceptions to key individual sites allowing other lower rent uses to occupy p.d.r. replacement spaces such as community facilities. and adding language to enact the mela reduce tax this item comes back in the coming weeks and you'll have an opportunity to review all of the amendments to date. the full board this week, the zoning map for partials on burnett avenue that are being sought pursuant to legal agreements by supervisor mandelman was continued to july 21st. and the planning code amendment for the enforcement fund to july 24th. and next is the ordinance to have the dwelling program sponsored by supervisor tang. the full board supervisor tang

introduced a few additional amendments which included requiring a preapplication meeting with adjacent neighbors when filing under the requirements. and having dormers on free-standing structures if the property is within an article 10 or 11 district, and adu expansions within the envelope cannot exceed the exiting building height, and, finally, the removal of the cap on the number of units that can be legalized per lot was taken out the ordinance. as a result only one unit per lot continuing to be eligible for the legalization program. with these amendments it passed at first read at the board. and next was the three-tiered program for homeless s.f. that lasts to december 31, 2019. at the meeting supervisor tang announced that she would introduce the new amendment to have a 36-month it or lose it or lose it meant, and the amendment states that entitlements granted by the planning commission for a

project would expire after 36 months unless the project sponsor has pulled a building or site. and it passed 11-0. and the aryx mend the legislation passed its first read. and finally the board continued the central soma plan to to december 4th of this year and that's all i have for you today. >> thank you. >> commissioners on behalf of the zoning administrator there was one item to report to you on. that item that was considered last night was the notice of violation and penalty for 660 third street. you heard this request of illegal office use in 2014. at that time they allowed the legalization of two of the four stories of the building as office. the decision was not appealed that the time so the department pursued enforcement action on the remaining office uses in the building. in 2016 the board of appeals heard the appeal of the n.o.v. and ultimately continued the

item and in part to see how the central soma plan may impact the uses. and at that time there was an agreement whereby the owner will bring it into compliance and the penalties will accrue at $150 a day from the date of the board's decision until the building is brought into compliance. if the building is not brought into compliance by that time the penalties will increase to $250 a day. so the board unanimously upheld the n.o.v. based on the terms of that agreement. that concludes my report, thanks. >> commissioners, finally, the historic commission held yesterday with the arts commission. the first time they've done this. and specifically to review the j.c. duco toilets that they're rolling out new designs for throughout the city. they were specifically looking at the toilets that would be placed within the landmark districts as well as arts commission while looking at the

whole program holistically. >> thank you. >> okay, so moving on to general public comments. at too them the members of the public may address on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except agenda items. with respect to agenda items your opportunity to address the commission with the item is when the item is reached in the meeting and each member may address the commission for up to three minutes. i have one speaker card. >> okay, we have a speaker card for georgia schutus but anyone else who wants to speak line up by the wall on my left. miss clark. >> laura clark, n.b. action. so one of the things that wasn't announced during the summary about activities at the board is that a.d.u.s and new construction was talked about but not included in this legislation. and you are the body that has seen the most opportunity for

a.d.u.s in new construction. you have seen large single family homes that you have noted repeatedly could benefit from an a.d.u. and you have struggled to figure out how to wedge the opportunity for an a.d.u. to be like after they build it and then put it in and sort of get around that prohibition. and i would recommend to you that you pursue actually leading the charge on, crafting the legislation that would create a.d.u.s in new construction. and maybe it will come as trailing legislation from the board, but since you have the most firsthand experience of the desire to get, you know, that two unit to a three unit to a four unit, for not wanting to see mega houses but instead wanting to see a couple apartments, you have the opportunity to really get it right. and if there are concerns about incentivizing teardowns you can

figure out how to make sure that the legislation takes that into account. and if we aren't inventicizing evicting people from single family homes that don't have rent control which i think is a valid concern, you can figure out how to craft an a.d.u. new policy that takes that into account. you have seen an example of basically everything firsthand that has come through here and you have the ability to direct the planning department to craft the perfect legislation that can get us as many a.d.u.s in new construction as possible. it will have the added benefit of brings us into compliance with state law because i would prefer for us not to do this via a lawsuit and i would prefer to do this via well-crafted legislation. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> is the clock reset? good afternoon, commissioners,

my name is james delsa and i was here last week to talk about some of the good things that development can bring. and this week i'm going to change my tone a little bit and talk about some of the bad things that development can bring when it's proposed. a lot of time when development is proposed residents come up and the architecture is contemporary and they say that it's ruining the fabric of san francisco and this is jarring compared to the traditional architecture that we do have. so i wanted to read actual quotes from projects that not only the city approved but we went on to build. and what the people had to say about them. project number one, they said that it was financially unsound, legally dubious and aesthetic blight and an engineering hazard, quote. and project two, the most pretentiously bad building in the building. and project three, a metallic snout in the heart of san francisco and a big shrine to the mass media. and project four, standoffish, and more fortress in enticing

people's palace. and project five, everything that is loud is in fashion and if the upper stories are not of red or blue they're painted into panels of yellow and brown. and in this city we approved all five and built all five and we're stuck with them for the next hundred years or more and the golden gate bridge, sutro tower, and the painted ladies. and, obviously, these have gone on despite being jarring at the time to become iconic icons of our state that people travel all across the world to see. and we have "amt man" and there was the sales force tower and the sales force park and construction in the middle of it. this is a block bust they're is showing from shanghai to pol land and it's landing on international eyes not as blight to the death of san france but as new -- san francisco but as symbols of growth and they'll come see these too. so as residents, whether your

teenager got an earring or your partner is trying out a new clothing style it's jarring to see physical changes to the people and the things that we love and we say, my gosh, this is change. (please stand by). i said it was an important project because it was one of

actual demolitions in noe valley. but i woke up in the middle of the night saying, no, no, there were eight. there were eight demolitions in rh-2. there were two administrative approvals in rh-1, but i will talk about rh-2. four of these were approved under the old mandatory d.r. and the other four with the c.u. three have been completed and occupied. three are under construction. one is awaiting approval from d.b.i. and one was approved last week by you, the clipper. 60% of those eight are speculative projects. two are occupied by the family that built and the other supposed to be occupied by the family that got the approval. and then i thought about everything else that happened in noe family. i made a little sheet, because i

wasn't at home, i went through my paper. 33% of what i would call the extreme operations in noe valley, horizontal and vertical expansions, 75% of those have been speculative projects and they are the price range of $4 million more plus. that includes the projects under the 317b7 where they absorb the second unit and make it one big, giant home. it doesn't include other neighborhoods where there are mission delores or glen park or the mission itself. back in 2015, we had the sample with the staff and commissioner richards. and the staff included a sample of five that 40% of those alterations should have been categorized as self-demolition.

i wanted to rocket the error, that i said i wouldn't, but did, that there were eight demolitions in noe valley in the last four years. here's for the minutes and i made a copy, but i want to add, that in the four years under section 317, removal of dwelling units and adjustment, for rh-1, mr. sanchez has raised the number three times. you as a commission have the right to make an adjustment. here's the three sheets. wish i had three hands. i don't know what will happen with any new demo legislation, but i suggest that maybe you think about it and could at least raise it three times. thank you very much. have a nice afternoon. i wrote your names on it. you don't have to get them out. they know who they are. >> clerk: thank you. any other public comment? with that, public comment is closed.

>> president hillis: we'll move on to regular calendar. item 6, 2017-014010crv, fees for certain permit and transportation analysis. >> good afternoon, commissioners. deborah landis, deputy director of administration with the planning department. you may recall in january and february we came to you with the budget for the fiscal year that just began a couple of weeks ago. as part of that budget, we had two pieces of hege -- legislation. one aaron starr mentioned is at the full board and went through. the second is this one here today. and it is back with you, not because anything has changed, but because the budget resolution did not have findings in it about ceqa and consistency with the master plan and general plan with the city. so we brought this back today with findings so that if you decide to approve it again, it will be able to continue through the legislative process.

as a reminder, this is a new fee for a lower cost. we have a transportation fee in the planning code. our fee schedule has only one and it's $25,000. this includes a site circulation review for just about $9,500 for smaller projects that require a lower level of review, so they wouldn't have to pay the higher fee. there is a little bit of cleanup in here to clarify existing language and this is what we brought to you in january and february. the only change is that this now has the findings as part of the resolution. i would be happy to answer any questions if there are any. and i would ask for your support once more. >> clerk: thank you, ms. landis. why don't we hear from the public, if anyone has comments on the proposed fees. seeing none, public comment is

now closed. commission commissioner koppel. >> president hillis: we have a motion on the floor and a second. we'll take roll. [roll call] item passes, 5-0. okay. we'll move on to the next item, item 8, 2015-005525cwp. sea level rise action plan, informational presentation. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm maggie wenger, citywide division. two years ago, you heard an informational briefing on the sea level rise action plan and

that was not a plan in the way we usually see it. it was a plan for how city agencies will work together to understand sea level rise impact and start making our city more resilience and we need that to be for public and private resources and quality of life. we're doing all this for the future of san francisco. that was published two years ago, two years and a couple of months. we've been working on related efforts to that. and our planning department and our partner agencies. one piece that you have likely heard of is the design challenge, that we're involved in kicking off and a fight in san francisco. that's complete the work continues. we have a western shoreline area plan that you voted on at the very beginning of this year and was approved by the state coastal commission in may and that's adopted and that implementation is moving forward through m.t.a. and public works. you heard about a grant last

week to do specific planning around the creek and transportation infrastructure through caltrans funding. thank you for voting for its approval. there's a port seawall program looking at seismic and flood risk on the northeast waterfront. the city is updating hazard mitigation plan to include climate change. and we're updating our climate action strategy, which is the climate mitigation/greenhouse gas reduction side of it. we want to be sure that our efforts work in parallel. so what we've been doing on the action plan in particular is, as we move around this circle, we've reviewed the science. a big part of climate change planning is understanding what we're likely to see and the science foreseeable is very good, especially in california. we have a lot of state revenue poured into this.

and we're really looking at aissing vulnerability and risk. it's about consequences. we're working with our infrastructure agencies, what does this mean for muni and public utilities commission, parks, and then, what does it mean if those systems face impacts. what does it mean for the people that live here, work here, come to visit. that will turn into the vulnerability and consequences assessment. this is, again, not yet the list of strategies, not saying, here's what we're moving forward to the capital program, but trying to get our arms around, what are we likely to see over the next decades, to 2100 and how can the city look at the impacts for the people. we have a seawall coordinating committee. port staff and planning have been co-chairs to date, but there are 15 public agencies, public health, office of economic and work force development, and many

perspectives coming together from the city, because this is a problem that crosses agencies. it's not all in anybody's, you know, authority or jurisdiction. and this work right now is funded by planning, the port, and office resilience and capital planning. so what does seawall rise action plan mean? what we're working with right now, by 2050, the sea level will rise between 11 and 24 inches. that means every day it will be that much higher. that doesn't take into account el nino cycles, storms, big waves, but you are rising the floor, the baseline tide. that range is pretty small. 12- to 13-inch range, you can work with it. getting to 2100, and the range is bigger.

it's a planning challenge. what is appropriate to plan for? the state encourages you to use a most likely number and a range to date. the city has registration -- not regulations, but guiding in place that understand the impacts of both of the levels open your project. plan for the most likely and tell us what you would do about the higher end number. what happens if we're in the world of looking at 66 inches? if you take that 66-inch number in 2100 and add a 1% coastal storm to it, which means a storm that is likely to happen on average once every 100 years, that is the sea overrise v vulnerability zone. this is big. it's 6% of our land area. it doesn't sound like a lot, but it's big. again, not all areas in this

zone are equally vulnerable. some are likely to see flooding impacts now in the next couple of decades, and some unlikely to see them until the end of the century, if then. but this is the geographic area we're talking about, when we talk about where you will potentially see sea level rise impacts over a period of time. the state updated the sea level guidance this spring and they change the the 2100 numbers. it's not a super simple story, because the story is, mid-range number got lower and high-end got much higher. [laughter] and so we're working now with -- there's a science sub committee of the coordinating committee from p.u.c. and planning and the port about what we do with these numbers. what is appropriate to do with these numbers? it's partially difference in science coming from antarctica. it is also that the state

selected a much more precautionary scenario from the high end. they went from the 95th percentile to 99th. so they changed their risk tolerance. it's partly the science. it's partly a policy decision from the ocean protection council. way need to do something with this. we're working on it. but it does show that, you know, especially as you get further out in time, there's potentially a much bigger range of impacts. so what we've been doing since 2016 is working with the infrastructure managing agencies and others to really understand the exposure, which is the mapping and data part. and then sensitivity in an ad t adaptive capacity. we will predict where water will go based on hydrology. if i managed embarcadero station

and i'm concerned about water, i have mechanical equipment and electrical equipment. it's important that muni and bart stay open. whereas things like ocean beach or less intensely developed areas, they're not as sensitive. there's more to do to protect the sites. if you have a flood event, it's less likely to have the impact. so we're moving through the exposure and infrastructure and just starting to work on, what does it mean for people, for the economy, and for the environment, because that's going to be really important for making decisions about where we invest and what we do to start protecting from the hazard. the exposure analysis, the maps are out, they're public. they don't tell the whole story, but it tells you where water is likely to go based on elevation. two caveats, it assumes we do nothing along the shoreline and

it assumes that land is not moving. so it kind of -- it has to sort of say, as of 2010, this is what the land looked like. what happens if you run water over that in a model. we have water layers, which is nice, because it shows, where are the tipping points? where is it very limited flooding -- there's some splash on embarcadero. sometimes they put out cones and close a lane, but it's not catastroph catastrophic. when does that change? how does it affect how people get around, businesses? all that. having that fine-grained information is really important. when we do that, we've run that against our public infrastructure data layers that we have. we can talk about how many streets and what size of streets and lane miles that are affected. it helps public works and m.t.a. think about their capital

budgets. we've looked at open space, city-owned, rec and park and the port or federal and state open space on the shoreline. public land and schools and other community facilities, because it gives a sense, again, we're having to say, as of right now, what's fair? it can be different in 2100 for all kinds of reasons, but gives you a scale of the impact. and then when you lay that exposure on to what we know about individual facilities, it helps you to get to that vulnerability. why does it matter if something floods? what happens to it? if you think about, this is fisherman's wharf and north beach, we have historic resources there and historic resources are more sensitive because of their construction type and may be less adaptive because you are constrained in what you can do. we also have, you know, sort of city serving infrastructure that happens to be located on the short line. here's the muni kirkland yard. as you go further south, you will see major infrastructure.

if you good to the ferry building area, huge commercial areas, the embarcadero historic district, and major both city and regional transportation infrastructure from bart, muni and the ferry. mission creek has extensive flooding. this is an area -- this map does not show it as well. it is flooding in smaller areas. there are places that you can go in and do relatively minor interventions and solve a fair amount of your flooding, not forever, but for decades, you can really reduce your risk. and this is an area that has, both, a lot of private industrial lands and public infrastructure industries. so the muni facilities. many public works yards. and port facilities that are at

risk. and it was a similar project area to what the design team looked at for those of you that have followed that process. on the west side, where the mapping is different, because the waves are different, but we've done similar things, in some ways, ocean beach is ahead, because we have this erosion problem. the policy we brought to you is kind of a half step ahead of the city, because we know what our problem is there and public agencies are already working on implementing projects to pull roadways out of erosion zones and work on restoring the beach so the beach can adapt itself over time. these are 2018 photos of the beach. this is p.u.c., part of their reporting on what they're doing for sand removing. so what are we doing next? the vulnerability and consequence assessment is under way. we expect to have an inner-agency sort of cascading consequences workshop. so rather than saying, sfmta,

what are your issues, p.u.c., what are your issues? how do they relate to each other? where do these overlap? we expect and draft report next spring. mobility structure is moving forward, funded by can trans. and then we'll move into adaptation planning. that may mean policy changes, which would come here. it may mean capital projects through our agencies. and public engagement will be a bigger part of that effort. a lot of the data work to date has focused on, what do we know about our infrastructure systems and the climate hazards. when you think about what you want to do, that's a more important public conversation with neighborhoods as city as a whole. it ties back to the seawall program, the hazardous area

programs. i'm here to take questions. >> thank you so much for a really great presentation if any member of the public wants to comment on this, please come up. >> sea level rise and infrastructure is a thing that a lot of people use, i would say, to be like, this is why we can't build housing, because the sea will get us and the earthquake will get us and lack of water will get us and infrastructure is old and decrepit and they're a little right, but one of the main sources of funding because we have as a state been unwilling to roll back prop 13, which is another argument, one of the main funding sources is the new housing. that's one of the main ways that we see infrastructure improvements both in our streets

and also earthquake prevention and a lot of the seawall stuff. a lot of our old housing is built in such a way that it is at risk for the coming changes in the environment and a lot of the new housing can be built with those safety things in mind and also the impact fees that we levy on our new, big, mega projects. in the conversations that we're having with the people that come out that get upset about the coming ocean, are the kind of people that probably need to hear the message that the thing that's going to keep the ocean from getting them is new housing. they need that message that unless they want a parcel tax, we're going to have to rely on new funding from housing. so the conversation about the opportunity that new housing can be in the neighborhoods can be folded into this seawall

conversation. >> vice president melgar: thank you. any other public comment? with that, public comments is closed. >> president hillis: i wanteded to thank megy for her work on this. we've had the pleasure of co-chairing this with the port for three years now. i appreciated mayor lee's work because land use is a critical part of this. in some ways, it's hap helpful. maggie has been doing a great job on this work. some of the numbers are, you know, big ranges in there. and there's a tendency to think of sea level rises so far in the future that it's hard to get people's attention, but in fact, we're seeing evidence of it now. and one of the figures that i heard was that by 2030 there are some places in the city that will likely see routine flooding

in only 12 years from now. so i think it's important for us to think of these things. in some ways, we have time to get it right and set aside the funding, but on the other hand, there are things that be happening in the short term that we really have to start thinking about. it's not something we can put off to the next generation. i want to thank maggie and the work that the city staff has been doing on this. >> thank you, director. >> commissioner richards: wondering how loud, the first mention of climate change and sea level rise was 1988. we had the mission bay plan going on since i've been here in the early'90s. and then neighborhood plans going on. rhetorical question is, if we knew the stark numbers, that were sobering back then, and we have development in vulnerable areas, i think it's a question that people are wondering, and we still are.

the other question is, are there any impact fees that are assessed on development in these vulnerable areas to help pay for these things that will protect that very development? >> not through us, not through you. the port on some of their leases for mission rock and pier 70 have established a small financing mechanism that over time small amounts add up, but that's something that is a very -- this morning with the regional workshop on financing the future, exactly this, how do you pay for these things? and that's a big part of it. how do you make sure that development is protecting itself. treasure island development project has a financing mechanism that goes along with it to support what they assume their infrastructure needs will be. >> commissioner richards: when i got a mortgage, one of the thousands of pages of document that i remember going through was a floodplain assessment,

where it was -- a report was, am i in a floodplain or not? if i was, i wouldn't get insurance or i would have to pay more or bank wouldn't give me a mortgage. have we seen any buildings not get financing or go forward because they're in vulnerable areas? >> san francisco does not have an adopted fema floodplain, which is a lot what those mortgage documents are. that doesn't forecast climate risk. it's about, are you in a current floodplain. >> if i could add to the answer, in addition, the central soma c.f.d. that was passed on to the board of supervisors, allows for some finance district funding to be put toward sustainability, which we would imagine includes sea level rise. also you've seen different development agreements come before this body, that would also address climate change.

>> commissioner richards: is there any change in the way we construct things, especially in vulnerable areas, to help withstand these areas? >> not code changes yet, although we have broad flood resilience language in our general plan, but you look at mission rock and their plans for pier 70 and shoreline adaptation and using natural site elevation or constructed site elevation. it's a big part of the projects. it's hidden, right? you see the final design, but it's graded up and concentrated more development in higher areas. >> commissioner richards: makes sense, thanks. >> commissioner koppel: thank you for the great report. i appreciate the thoroughness. i take this topic pretty seriously and think when looking at topics like this, it's good to be -- to have healthy pessimism and skepticism because

i feel better knowing that even though some of the numbers doubled that we're on top of the fact that that are doubling and think we may need to take it a step further and have a plan if it triples or quadruples just to be safe. things take time to materialize, but sometimes they materialize faster than we think they would. and i always think it's in our best interests to be equipped and planned for the worst-case scenario. i'm glad to see we're keeping tabs on this and want to hear more later. thanks. >> commissioner johnson: thanks for the report. it was eye opening, in a time when we get depressing news, seeing, one, that our city is on emission goals. we'll be reducing our emissions by 40% in 2025 and 80% by 2050, that's really exciting. yea, san francisco. and then also that we're being visionary and forward-thinking.

i hadn't really thought of the horizon of 2100. you often think 40 to 50 years in advance. thinking about the fact that i will not be around, but want to make sure that we don't pass the buck to the next generation, just lit the fire underneath to understand the issues more and to consider them as items that come before the planning commission. i'm thankful for your comments on the fact that we are going to see districts that get repeated flooding and other issues over the next even as soon as 12 years. that was one question that came up for me. it's something to be in conversation with you and others about those districts and instead of waiting even a year from now for the research to come back in, how he can with, if we have a sense, begin to think about the districts now and we found mitigation efforts.

thank you for this report. >> commissioner moore: thank you for the report. it's interesting to periodically revisit this subject. for the last 15 years, all major projects have already prepared with sea level rise strategies. the major effort was treasure island that took a two- or three-step approach. it was raising land to an ultimate, predicted level, but incrementally providing for land as it comes to development to be raised. this goes on to projects in the jurisdiction from the refurbishing of the agricultural buildings south of the ferry building to everything marching down the southern waterfront to pier 70 to india basin, which is

coming up next week, moving down to shipyard, candlestick, all of these projects have major strategies built into the development itself, not just on the shore side, but how they deal with buildings sitting on elevated lands and dealing with incremental change in sea level rise. we'll hear more about that particularly when there's a focus on that subject, i think, next week, looking at india basin, will see some strategy that explains your questions, commissioner richards. >> commissioner fong: i wanted to lend my general support and maggie's work and the port of san francisco and planning department. like commissioner moore mentioned, we've been watching this for quite a while. and it's something that is difficult to get excited about, though it's terribly important and i do want to excite the public about this and it's one of those slow-burn items. but if we think it's expensive now, it will only be more expensive later, physically and

monetarily. so lending that support and thank you for that work and i know that -- i think you were there when venice, italy -- were you at that -- venice, italy, spoke about venice and what they had been doing to prevent sea level rise and their best practice scenarios. maybe smaller scale, but exploratory held that forum and that was good. it's a global problem. we'll tackle it creatively and locally. >> commissioner richards: is there a rule of thumb, the more you get close to effectiveness, the more the expediture? money is not endless. so to take it from 122 inches to 200 inches, that's nearly double. is the amount we have to spend, is it double, triple, 10 times? that plays into the discussion,

but i like being fool-proof, but how much does it cost? >> that's something that the city has wrestled with on capital projects and to the development agreements. we're trying to think about, what are the pathways to 2100 that you could be on and where are the triggers, like, in 2050, we'll know if we're in the 6-foot world or 12-foot world, or we'll have of a better idea than we have now. we'll know about carbon emissions and antarctica. an example is a levy. if you give yourself more horizontal space, you can go higher late when you need to. if you build in that capacity, it will take more money later, but you have the foundation and space to do it. >> commissioner richards: you can iterate.

we don't have to make the decision now. great. thanks. >> vice president melgar: thank you. commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: i hate to do that, but i think we need to remind ourselves that at this moment the discussion about sea level rise falls on deaf ears in washington and i think that's to the detriment of the rest of the country really helping to address this as a countrywide question. we have sea level rise on the east coast. we have the entire louisiana coast. the problems are far, far larger than us thinking here about our own vulnerability, but to repeat with deaf ear in washington, i think we are pressed to speak loud and clearly of what the issues are. >> vice president melgar: thank you.

>> president hillis: okay. so next item. item 9, 2015-010013env, draft environmental impact report at 30 otis street. >> good afternoon, commission members. i'm julie moore, senior environmental planner and e.i.r. coordinator for the 30 otis street project. i'm joined by my colleague. is the court reporter starting? okay. good. members of the consultant team and project sponsor team are also present. the item before you is reviewing comment on the 30 otis street draft environmental impact report, or draft e.i.r.

the purpose of the hearing is to take public comment on the adequacy, completeness of the draft e.i.r., pursuant to ceqa and san francisco's local procedures for implementing ceqa. no approval action on this document is requested at this time. the public approval time began july 30 and will continue until july 27, 2018. i will provide a brief overview. it's developed with five buildings from one to three stories in height. the project would demolish the five buildings, merge the five lots to one lot and construct a residential bulling with ground fall retail and arts use. it will include a 10-story podium across the site and 27-story single tower near otis and 12th street. it would range from 85 to 250

feet in height and be approximately 485,000 square feet. the building would include 423 residential units, three ground floor retail spaces. and a new studio and performance base for city ballet. 14 to 18 otis building is eligible for the reggie doing registry for architecture. other impacts to historical architectural resources were found to be less than significant or less than significant with mitigation. the draft e.i.r. found that project construction would result in interference with pedestrian, bicycle or vehicle circulation and accessibility to adjoining areas and delays to transit due to the demolition,

relocation and delay of a key feature of the muni forward transit project and location of a staging area with the transit lane across otis for a two-year period. construction of the proposed project may overlap with the construction of other nearby projects. with mitigation, it was determined to be significant, unaffordable, project-level and cumulative transportation impact. finally, the draft e.i.r. found that wind impacts would be less significant. with the projects, wind impacts would be significant. while design measures could reduce wind impacts, it was determined to be significant and unavoidable. a hearing to receive historic preservation commission comments was june 20, 2018. i provided you with a copy of

the h.p.c.'s letter. they concluded that it would be a is aisignaturis ainsignifican recommended adoption of the project due to overriding considerations. they also agreed to expand the scope of the document asianat n asianationatiasianation -- documentation to include the block. for members of the public who wish to speak, please state your name for the record. please speak slowly and clearly so the court reporter can make an accurate transcript of today's