storm flood risk map before the sale or lease of the property. the legislation would also require d.b.i. to include a statement that the property is located on the flood risk map. so we realized there may be some concerns from property owners that maybe considering selling their property in the future. and so sfpuc has done extensive outreach. some efforts were to hold a public hearing to adopt the 100-year flood risk map and s.f. p.u.c. sent mailings to the owners and asked them to review their parcel be listed on this map. en addition to the hearings supervisor yee has held with s.f. p.u.c. and d.b.i. have head

several meetings and have been supportive of this legislation. thank you for your time. >> commissioner: thank you. from the san francisco public utilities commission as opposed the state public utilities commission, mrs. minnick. >> thank you for the introduction and it's great coverage of the content and i'll give additional details for your consideration. the legislation is concerning the 100-year storm flood risk disclosure process and ordinance. i want to make clear what the map and purpose is. it identifies parcels in san francisco likely to be subject to flood risk and the policy driver is we'd like people to be informed if their property sin that area to make decisions either about their everyday

lives such as where they're storing items or about potential changes they might make to their property. this map is also being used to increase flood resilience in the city. for transparency we want to share how the map was created so everyone is aware of that. the p.u.c. has a hydro logic model to simulate the extend of flooding in various storms and we modelled a 100 year design storm and we have infrastructure, ground surface data, etcetera. we then lair -- layer that spacially with the map and determine the variables and deep is greater than 6 inches and contiguous is later than half a block and those the variables

that generate the flood risk map you see here and helped identify the parcels you see in purpose. -- in purple. we made this information available to the public following approval by our commission at sfwater.org where anyone can zoom in and understand flood risk in their area and we have resources online to help people understand the map and sent notification letters to all property owners indicated on the map as well as having put on information sessions. we have an faq online for those interested and have a direct phone line for this initiative so people can get specific information and all can be found at our rain ready website at

sfwater.org. here i'm reemphasizing about the technical sessions where folks have access to staff to answer specific questions. we did five presentations and five outreach sessions in addition to sending a letter. we did institute a public parcel review process which is also described in our website acknowledging that there could be times when a property owner may have information that was not in the model. the two variables would allow someone to request to be removed from the map would be if the ground elevation is actually entirely above the flood 100-year storm elevation or if there was a barrier or structure on the parcel diverting storm water from the entire parcel determined through the parcel

review process which is outlined here. applicants can submit a request online and staff will review it and make a determination based on technical analysis on whether or not that parcel should remain on the map or be removed. and we do want people to have that opportunity in the event that it's appropriate. and we have a housing could to require the three r report now include question amongst the other hazard questions indicating whether or not the property is in the flood risk zone.

and there was a formulation and we had suggestions how to improve it which are now reflected. we woul work on updates. we know this is an additional piece of work to be done and our goal is to minimize that burden on d.b.i.'s staff by preparing this information. i'll be happy to take any questions if have you them. >> this is approximately how many separate assessor parcel numbers? >> just under 4,000.

>> there was a concern of some of the parties and some of us have probably gotten e-mails from some of them. i think it's important the disclosures be made between a seller and buyer but what is the end game here? >> to get information about their purchase and the life of the property. >> commissioner: let me ask you a couple questions as to why i'm asking that question. one, is this in any way done to protect against liability for the public utilities commission or does the p.u.c. have no

liability or relative defenses with flooding? >> they're separate in that this storm which is the 100 year storm is outside the purview of the p.u.c. in terms of what our is able to manage. our level of service storm is a three-hour storm a much smaller storm and like all utilities across the country we're not able to accommodate a 100-year storm. however, we recognize with colleagues across the city family, we have this information and so it should be made public. this storm is like an active nature storm. it's not something the p.u.c. would be liable for anyway. >> commissioner: okay. if they're doing their due diligence and informed a parcel

in areas that probably should have never have been developed to start with because they're all in flood planes and river corridors and what have you. and let's follow this to its logical conclusion and the million dollar house will now have a half a million dollar house and will still have someone living in it with that level of risk or do we want to do what other cities have done and say, hey, maybe over time we should buy people out. what's the long-term gain? >> one thing being done at a

watershed level is building above the 100 year flood elevation in the first place. that's something the map can support and aside from land values, the things people can do are decide whether or not to purchase insurance. this ordinance does not and cannot require the purchase of insurance but somebody may decide to purchase insurance. i would also bring to everybody's attention the analogy with the seismic efforts in terms of prrcht -- property value, we don't know at the p.u.c. what will happen because of this disclosure ordinance and with the seismic example we're all living here in the real estate market we have. we feel the public policy benefits of disclosure are probably the driving force for this particular. >> commissioner: it's a laudable

first step though it will bum out 3800 parties. i guess what i'm encouraging also is using seismic analogy we now we require retrofits and have different building codes than 150 years ago. you mentioned your partner with d.b.i. and p.u.c., do we want to push for new construction in these zones that they be above elevated basements or not to bring up the hurricane sandy analogy but people rebuilding on piles and what have you. food for thought. >> absolutely. i think this map could be a basis for something like that. >> supervisor safai. >> my question is just looking at the map, i understand you had engineers put the map together but have you gone out and looked

out and seen if any of the properties are above the flood level? i can tell you looking at the ones that overlap in my district, some streets, some properties have huge retaining walls and sit on the sides of hills. i don't understand how they could be in your zone. the block and lot number does not make sense. >> well, i can't claim we have gone out and looked at every single parcel, for sure. that's why we needed to put together the parcel review process. this is a modelling effort and mapping effort combined with some site analysis. absolutely we do not visit every parcel. that being said, we have found through site visits and various ad hoc visits, there are many visits on slopes subject to flood risk in the flood. it depends on the relationship

between the street and the driver way and the surrounding properties. sometimes it's the first look may not reveal all the flood risk especially in a 100-year flood which is a much larger flood but we'd be happy to work with you and take a closer deep dive at some parcels. >> some here off the bat i know are absolutely where we have experienced over the last few years when the 100-year storms have come and the homes have the most impacted consistently. some of the ones i see on the other side of mission above the freeway and sit on the side of hills it would be interesting to see what your analysis is.

and was this done in multiple languages? >> yes. and to clarify the difference between the parcels and units, we sent out with 2,000 parcel on the map and because there's many multi-unit buildings, many more letters were sent out. i wanted to clarify that. and even for folks on the top floor of a condo on the parcel they would have also received a letter acknowledging common spaces would be impacted and we wanted to communicate that even in that situation. >> commissioner: okay. am i correct in seeing eight water sheds in the city of san francisco? >> yes. >> any public comment on this i

item? please come forward. >> my name is gina allen. i find it interesting as a commercial property owner i'm supposed to plan for 100-year storm. i just heard the p.u.c. can't guarantee adequate capacity for that same 100-year storm. i'm going inform my tenant the property is in the zone. and to me there's not flooding in that general area. i went to the informational meeting and i still don't fully understand why the property's included. i've purchased the insurance at the maximum amount i can get. it's costing me an additional $2200 a year and my tenant has

to get insurance to cover her contents. my policy will not cover her contents. so that's part of the reason i'm not opposed to this effort to inform tenant because i want her to take advantage of the preferred risk policy she can get through fema. this is not a fema map. if you put my property address in the fema map internet site it will come up as not being mapped but now i'm in it and it's a tremendous cost. i don't know what it does to my property value frankly. i just know it hasn't happened.

and there shouare significant c for me to deal with it. there's nothing i can do. >> commissioner: thank you for the comments. i take them seriously. next speaker, please. >> hi, i'm laura johnson. i did read the letter. i live on park side and i'm a homeowner, not really, i pay on i mortgage. i saved for 16 years to be able to buy a house in san francisco to raise our family and since then i at the time we bought it i did my due diligence. there was no zone for flooding at all. and i look at the map and my block has it and the block next to it doesn't and i don't understand. hence why i'm here. i left work.

my concerns are now i hear 4,000 families are impacted. that's a lot to put on families as far as if it's additional insurance. i don't know if i have to buy it how i go about it. my home owner's people said i didn't need it and wonder what will happen to the property value and why wasn't i told this when i bought the house. i know it's all about me but it's not. i am just irritate with the whole idea on this one. thank you. >> commissioner: thank you for your testimony. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i'm don lindsey. i live in mission terrace. i appreciate the public utilities for the due diligence and we got e-mails. the time is here to talk with

communities. my area was flooded in 2014 and 2015 and got e-mails that said stay tuned and then one said here's your day. i know we've had runoff as well as having three storm drain pumps with one in the area that backs up. that's a problem. i understand it. in 2004 flood there was a lawsuit the city paid out also another issue. they'll build a wall for 280 or cost $14 million and build a second pipe out to the bay for storm water costing $250 million. quick research on the internet this goes from my house, how prices being $1 million, sorry,

i'm nervous. there's a neighbor there from the '70s and '80s. they'd have to pay more on their insurance, if they can get it. my question is why are the city problems suddenly going to be transferred to our backs because we could have paid for the abatement. this is a city planning. this wasn't us moving the river. thank you very much for your time. >> commissioner: thank you, for your testimony. any other members of the public that would like to testify if not we'll close public comment. ms. minnick, kind of a tough one. it's my understanding as to the comment made about fema which

generally is the agency that maps flood plains and high-risk areas. san francisco has never been fully assessed or studied by fema for flood risk. am i making this up? >> no. the status of the fema efforts and difference between that effort and this effort can be explained. so the fema map for san francisco is in draft form. when it is finalized it will cover flooding coastal and ravine. it will be on the edge condition of our city that the fema map will apply. this effort is about flooding caused by rain and storm water. as you referenced, many other cities are dealing with that in a memorial -- number of ways and the first step is always

disclosure. we want to inform the public just because you're not in a fema map doesn't mean you'll have flooding. this flood map shows flood risk from storms. that's outside the fema map areas. they're listed as zone x which is a plus in terms of insurance. to answer a couple questions, insurance for fema map areas is set at a national level. part of the reason for that is so these efforts don't drive up the cost of insurance. so being in zone x, families can access insurance at lower prices for flood insurance for residential and commercial. that's not to say it's not a burden as the woman pointed out, but it is available because of us being in zone x.

>> commissioner: out of curiosity, how can we be here in the year 2019 and not have a final fema map? >> good question. we have folks working with them for the map and efforts have slowed down, if anything. we have no prediction from the city perspective about when the federal effort would be complete. >> okay. i would have assumed something like this would have been done circa, 1950. next question and even way draft fema map, and yes, you're right about rivering and coastal flooding. it seems the vast majority of these parcels are actually in

the various areas and those are outliers but those are rivering. >> the reason fema doesn't cover them is they'd be rivering if the rivers were still there. >> commissioner: because they're underground rivers they don't count. >> because development has covered up almost all of san francisco's creeks and rivers, fema does not cover the low-lying areas where creeks once were but if you see the shape of the flood areas they align with low-lying areas which used to be creeks. >> commissioner: all right, colleagues. what is your thoughts. i'm generally all for disclosure, disclosure, disclosure.

do one of you gentleman have a motion for this chair? >> i have another comment before we do this because i know this is something that has impacted my district. i understand the frustration of home owners because often times they're purchasing or assuming properties and/or inheriting preside property or properties that may not have experienced this and we're asking why is the city not asking now or stepping up. particularly in the situation with the creek and then again the 280. unfortunately, things were done back 50, 60 years ago where there wasn't the level of environmental review everyone wants to always knock

environmental review and understand why things slowed down but they built essentially a retaining wall above a creek bed. when it floods, it stays within that retaining wall and the folks in mission terrace and that area bear the brunt of that flooding. our entire bond system we've done to upgrade our sewers in the city have been done to ensure we have at least a five-year storm capacity. we're talking about a 100-year storm capacity and i want to acknowledge the frustration of people who never experienced flooding and why i have been looking at the maps i can't even find parts of my direction though i see them on the city wide map. i know there's areas just by looking at them i'd be shocked to hear they experienced flooding. there's other parts i know have

consistently experienced flooding. even though it's been reported. one of home is next to 280 just sold for $1.5 million. it's not that the person wasn't aware but depend ong what side of cayuga determines it and we've had conversations with assisting home owners with upgrading their properties and i want to make sure if someone has redone their foundation with the city there's an easy mechanism they're no longer required. i know you said on a clear mechanism. if they're not and it's determined based on field

research they're not experiencing or situation like the public comment or in 60 years there's no record of flooding, how is it someone can easily not be impacted? that's one piece. the other piece is a prospective buyer and seller or renter should be made aware they're in an area that's going to potentially in a 100-year storm with changing climate change and environment as we've seen exceedingly over the last decade plus. it's an important conversation. homeowners want to make sure they're not bearing the brunt of this. >> agreed. to your question about the form, we do have what's called the parcel review form and it's very short. it's very easy to fill out. if a home owner believes their parcel should be removed from the map can fill it in and send it in to the p.u.c.

we will review it. we will go do a site visit if necessary and make sure that we understand in the physical environment not just the model what's going on with the property. we have a process to be removed because it is public and there's two that have been removed and we've had example of both and we tried to make the process as

expeditious and easy as possible. so that is available. the other point about individuals who haven't experienced flooding to date. we know it's frustrating to envision it could happen if it hasn't and think of the time frame between 1904 and 1989 our ecological memory is not set up the same way as the events happen. we have to go based on the data and not based on what eve experienced. so we do want people to be aware of that risk even if they feel like they are not at risk. >> and there's nothing in this ordinance, that requires anyone to go out and get additional insurance? >> correct.

>> similar to seismic it's what the person wants to do. >> i wanted to be clear. i'll make a motion to send this to the full board. positive recommendation? >> supervisor heaney? that will be the order of this committee. thank you for the public comment and thank you for i think a thorough hearing on this matter. madame clerk, next item, please. >> clerk: item 3 is a resolution granting permission to 650 indiana street llc the property owner to occupy a portion of 19th street public right-of-way between indiana street and interstate highway 280 accepting an offer of improvements and dedicating those to public use

and appropriate findings >> commissioner: thank you, ms. major. thank you for waiting patiently [speaking french] supervisor walton and the legislation is offered by supervisor breed and walton. supervisor, the floor is yours as to this major revocable encroachment permit. >> thank you, chair peskin. i don't really have anything to say on the item just want to let the committee and colleagues know we're in favor of this dogpatch community sin favor of this and want to be see how it moves forward in the committee. >> commissioner: thank you. who do we have here from public works that would like to regale this committee with this project? because i have all kinds of fun questions. >> good afternoon, chair. board members.

i'm from the bureau of public use and mapping. the improvements are prepared for developer 650 indiana street llc via major encroachment permit wants the purpose of an art focussed plaza including planters and storm water infrastructure, landscaping and lighting and concrete bleachers and they'll get the improvements from the city and the developer will maintain it for the life of the encroachment planning. and we have members here to answer technical questions an the developer is here to provide more detail and give a presentation. >> commissioner: all right. let's get that presentation. ms. o'brien. >> good afternoon. i want to thank the mayor's office and supervisor walton to helping sponsor the major encroachment project.

the dogpatch plaza was con ve d veefd -- conceived of a plan for additional open space to be used by all and as part of the project on indiana street we decided to dedicate the in-kind improvements to build the public plaza. we had a series of meetings with different members including the dogpatch association starting in 2014 and worked over the years to make sure we had input from community members to make sure the plaza is something that could be well utilized by the neighborhood. at this point in time we're affording the encroachment portion and with that i'll turn it over to a colleague to talk you briefly through the plan. >> thank you for your support.

>> sf gov tv, we these the laptop, please. >> thank you. dogpatch art plaza has been a community effort with residential residents and businesses within the area. there's over 15 different businesses and owners of properties on the friends of dogpatch art plaza non-profit board. as well as the plaza is within the newly-formed dogpatch green benefit district created in 2015. this shows the end of 19th street prior to the development

of the plaza. it's become a huge success. this is what it looks like during the day. normal day activities can continue while community members are and there's activated events in the space. to the left is the cresco company can access their parking lot and the noon cafe is available during activation. we can open up the space and allow for community meetings, various events and art displays, etcetera. it's been a great deal for community event. there's been the dogpatch art plaza block party and san francisco streets numerous times have been located within the dogpatches art plaza. the plaza is within the northwe northwest hill. and it uses an annual assessment

on property and the funding sources are used for maintenance, capital improvements, transparency and operations. along with the friends of dogpatch art plaza, san francisco parks alliance and the green benefit district there's also the plaza program. we are the non-profit and the park's alliance with the dogpatch art plaza to promote streamline permitting for events an enhanced coordination for community programming and connecting the community with open spaces in the area. if there's anything further the public wants to know we have a website. thank you very much. >> commissioner: the $23,790 the city engineer came up with an annual cost, how is that

derived? >> commissioner: that's paid for by indiana llc, correct? >> we did an assessment working with various people telling us what their thoughts were to keep the plaza maintained and 650 end in street is currently keeping the plaza maintenance ongoing. >> commissioner: so this will not go to the financial detriment of the green benefit district? >> correct. it's just an added layer within the larger neighborhood. it's responsible for maintenance by 650 end -- indiana llc. >> commissioner: it escalates over time? >> yes. >> commissioner: why isn't the

subject instrument before us say that? i'll ask the city deputy city attorney. >> the idea behind the annual maintenance costs and having the engineer certify it is in case at some future point is the permittee is not living up to the obligations of the encroachment permit, we can require that the permittee come out of pocket two years' worth of annual maintenance cost and depos it that with the city and as long as they continue to do the work afterwards, we'll refund the money. if not we may be in a position where we have to hold on to it and use it for maintenance. i do not believe we have explicitly included a clause.

>> commissioner: if this is supposed to go on for the life of the encroachment and insofar as everything gets more expensive every year, it's not the only one i think we have another one but if it's going on 75 years i guarantee it will be twice that much in 2090 or whatever. >> we can certainly add that to our template and have that included in the two before you today and all future ones. >> >> commissioner: maybe this is to the deputy city attorney malumet but if, god forbid,

indiana street llc or their successor in interest, fails to maintain and it becomes a blight the revocation procedure those intersection 786 of the public works codes we amended last year? >> yes. the revocation process is spelled out in public works code section 786. >> commissioner: okay. all right. any public comment on item number 3? don't all rush up at once. okay, public comment is closed. deputy city attorney gibner can we forward this to the full board subject to an amendment i know you don't want to prepare on the fly we can introduce next

tuesday the next board meeting? >> yes, or we may not need an amendment at all. we can just change the document. >> commissioner: change the encroachment draft agreement? >> correct. taking your direction. the department and office can change the agreement. >> >> that will work. is there a motion to send item three to the full board with recommendation? >> so moved. >> commissioner: moved by supervisor heaney. i'll take that without objection. congratulations, supervisor walton. i know they built it at risk. next item, please. >> clerk: item 4 the resolution granting permission to 1532 harrison street and the property owner of 1532 harrison street to

occupy a portion of 12th street right-of-way conditionally accept offer of public improvements an dedicating them to public use and pending appropriate finding. >> commissioner: this is brought to us by the mayor and supervisor haney and mandelman. >> thank you to my co-sponsor for their leadership. this is an exciting opportunity we have with eagle plaza for any number of reasons. it's an area of the city where we are lacking open space and this is going to be bring critical space to the west soma neighborhood. we have a plaza that will be thriving and serve the residents as well as the broader community. it's also exciting to further

the work done to pay homage to the lgbt leather community in west soma. the men and women of the leatherman community have played a critical role in the area in san francisco. this will help further the work we with the creation of the lgbtq leather cultural district. i'm anticipating what it will mean for the community and west soma neighborhood and thank you to the many community members and business owners and others who have gotten us to this point to be able to present this to the board. >> >> thank you. ms. lutske.

>> thank you. these improvements are proposed by the developers, 1532 harrison, llc the major encroachment as well. the developer is seeking to occupy with the public pedestrian plaza on the two-lane roadway known as eagle plaza and will have improvements with land skyping and roadway three alignment from three lanes to two lanes with parking and crossing, lighting, a pole and electrical outlets. the developer will maintain the facilities for the life of the major incroachment and it's part of the plan commission in kind agreement and the developer has a presentation related to this project. >> commissioner: all right. let's see the presentation. >> good afternoon.

i'm a project sponsor. thank you to the mayor's office and supervisor mandelman for helping and this came from the western soma community plan. the neighborhood has a large need for more open space for the neighborhood and so we felt like this location would be a great area to provide open space and provide a gathering space for the community. we started working and reaching out to neighbors in particular the eagle bar across the street and got together over multiple community meetings starting in 2014 meeting with neighbors and community members and felt it would be a great location to commemorate the lgbtq and leather district and it will be

a gathering spot for the neighborhood and i'll turn it offer to a colleague to explain the details of the plaza. >> thank you very much. san francisco park and land. >> you can see on the map eagle plaza and sits in the entry way for the lgbtq and leather district the mayor recently made.

through the community effort it has created a commemorative plaza. this shows the leather flag with the activated space. this is looking east down 12th street and the aerial view of the space being activated during a closed event. this is the design from the community on what they'd like to see for activation and seating. there's been great group members that have helped create the non-profit for the plaza. there'll be in charge of the

maintenance and activation of the plaza. we've had numerous outreach events and going to multiple meetings and cultural meetings and friends of eagle plaza meetings spreading the word about the project at up your alley, folsom street fair and doyle alley for the past years. eagle plaza will spearhead the coordination and permitting process from the city. thank you for your support. >> commissioner: thank you. is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. sorry, come forward.

public comment is open. >> hello, everybody, thank you for having us and for the mayor supporting this initiate. i'm from san francisco eagle, alex motijo and we've worked with members of the community trying to make the space available for everybody. we have a lot of plans for the activation and commemoration of the leather community. it would be great to have your support. thank you. >> commissioner: thank you, next speaker, please. >> i'm john taylor. i worked on the project from the beginning and i am one of the

landlords of the next street over. we don't have an area in our area to go quietly. we have two playgrounds five or six blocks away so it hit would be -- this would be the only area in the vicinity where people could have an open space and we'll have not only the financing we proposed, we will have that coming also. we've worked on this many years and i take care of the other flags so this is another historic thing we'd like to do. thank you. >> thank you. good afternoon. i'm rachel sullivan. i've been involved with the

project since 2014. i've been an active member on the leather alliance board and a liaison for the leather and lgbtq cultural district and this project i've been on since 2014. with my background and being a single mother this is exciting because as a little girl in the filipino community we used to hang out in the area so to have a place with green space would be great and for other organizations involved i have reached out to the urban players and other family-oriented organizations. this hub is open for everyone.

it's exciting to have green space in south market. thank you again for your time. >> commissioner: thank you. seeing no other members of the public, we'll close public comment and i think the questions i asked on the last item would have been the questions i asked on this item but they were asked and answered so supervisor haney, do you have a motion? >> a positive recommendation. >> commissioner: without objection, that's an order. >> commissioner: madame clerk, next and last item. >> clerk: an ordinance amending the planning code to allow medical cannabis dispensaries with approval from the planning department for medical cannabis dispensary as of january 25, 2015 for uses under the same

condition and converting all other uses from applicable use thorse -- authorization programs allowing applications pending at the planning department to convert to medical retail uses with a minimum radius requirements. >> commissioner: this was at the full board and supervisor safai duplicated the file and referred this back with the conforming amendment. supervisor safai. >> quickly, as a full body we made amendments in the public health code that allowed more of a transition period. and we missed this particular language putting it in the land use code. we're making a simple agreement to bring parity to the public

health code and planning code on page 4 and 5. we change the date from january 1, 2019 to december 1, 2019 so there's parallel nature in public health and planning code. >> commissioner: is there any public comment on the item? >> good afternoon. supervisor i'm arlen tren and activist in visitation valley. on behalf of our neighborhoods i'm here to oppose the use when two bayshore has been in operation only 65 feet away. from the begin there's been many

barriers to properties for the residents. the state proposition 624 clearly shows the visitation was to empty these in the largely residential zone and where there are children and youth programs nearby. i even played the visitation fee but never received information. thanks to supervisor walton's letter i'll hand to you that also opposes the use as the m.t.d. since the brutal attack of grandma wong, supervisor walton has identified a temporary police location at 66 raymond. i have a text message from the victim's granddaughter to allocate it as a permanent police substation and provide more basic programs our residents need such as e.s.l.

programs we haven't had the last 10 years. if i may, i'll read you the letter >> may i finish? there have been residents almost 40 years and want to use it as the permanent police substation. we want to add more services that meet the real needs of our diverse residents and hope you'll grant this wish in the year of the pig. thank you. >> commissioner: i will have someone get the letters. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is rob yost and i live at 355 first street in district 6. i'm here to voice comments in opposition to this amendment on behalf of myself and concerned

home owners and residents in the particular condominium complex. specifically the opposition has target the minimum radius requirement for certain pending applicants and the statute as written and established in 2017 was clear on its face and prohibit as a parcel containing cannabis retail use from operating within 600 feet from another said establishment. it's a well written piece of legislation and unclear to 43 through the process why the rule needs to be amended or changed? i think it's reflect itch of all inputs and interest. back in 2017 as i understand from a news article i read the

board of supervisors considered seven hours of testimony from members of the public. when that ordinance was passed, the board of supervisors could have exempts parties from the rule and the opposition is specific to the buffer rule and ask you request you reject it on that basis. thank you. >> commissioner: thank you. seeing no other members of the public on this item we will close public comment. public comment is closed. so around the two issues you raised, that's not what is before us today. this is a technical amendment to

conform two pieces of the code that other piece of legislation went to the full board and received a vote. which you object to which i respect but the thing we're dealing with today is merely changing one date to conformity with another date in another section of law. with that supervisor safai, do you have a motion as to changing january to december. >> motion to accept the amendment as proposed from january 1 to december 31, 2019. >> commissioner: supervisor haney, without objection we'll send that to the full board way positive recommendation and we are adjourned. that's a substantive state that needs to be continued to our meeting one week hence. thank you. that will be continued to our meeting of february 11.