>> good afternoon. welcome to the land use and transportation committee of the san francisco board of supervisors for february 4, 2019 i'm aaron peskin joined by council member safai and matthew haney and joined for the first item by supervisor fewerer and -- fewer, do you have announcements? >> clerk: silence electronic devices an items acted upon today will appear on the february 12th, february 4th

agenda unless other wise stated. >> read the first item? >> clerk: item one is for annual registration fees at the time of registration require annual inspections and affirming appropriate findings. >> commissioner: thank you. we are also joined by supervisor walton. welcome back to the city and county of san francisco. as to the first item i note every board member is a co-sponsor. supervisor fewer, the floor is yours. >> commissioner: thank you. colleagues i'm proud to be moving forward with the legislation to address our problem with vacant storefronts. when i held a hearing last year, i was told by the department of building inspection there were no vacant storefronts registered to my district. you don't have to spend more than five minutes walking down clement corridor to see four or

five vacant storefronts on the block and it's worse in other parts of the city. shortly after the hearing my office worked with the residents to identify vacancies and they were able to count 156 have a -- vacant storefronts after identifying vacancies my office began to explore legislation to fix this problem. as part of a broader strategy to reduce the number of vacant storefronts city wide, the purpose of the legislation is to increase the accuracy and effectiveness of the existing vacant storefronts and making sure they're promptly identified, registered and monitored to remain safe and avoid hazards and nuisances resulting from being vacant or abandoned. this ordinance will accomplish these goals by doing the following. ensuring all vacant storefronts are promptly identified and registered regardless if the

property is available for lease or sale and requiring an annual registration fee at the time of registration. clarifying the enforcement process and penalties for failing to register and requiring annual inspections of vacant storefronts to ensure they remain safe and do not pose a hazard. i'd like to thank the commissions for their positive recommendation on the ordinance and all 10 of my colleagues for unanimously co-sponsoring the ordinance. i'll announcing two administrative amendments which came from the recommendations from the code advisory committee they're highlighted on page 4 and drafted for you. the first clarifies the owner of a vacant storefront who rents their storefront prior to the renewal date will be refunded up to half of the registration fee as oppose to a prorated amount.

the second change is to allow a third-party licensed professional rather than d.b.i. to conduct the annual inspections and require the owner to provide a report to comply with the maintenance of the storefront interior and exterior yo -- to reduce the administrative burden known department. i want to thank d.b.i. for working closely with my staff and on the details to ensure this is sound public policy that would give them the tools they ned to enforce our vacancy ordinance. bill straun is here and available to answer any questions. thank you all and i look forward to having your support on these amendments today. >> commissioner: thank you. there was a third recommendation by the depend of building and inspections by the commission with regard to shutting off utilities that you did not make

amounts to. are there questions from committee members? nis is your chance? >> thank you, supervisor. yes, as you alluded to the item is already covered in the building code and i think it would be superfluous to add it and the department was pleased to work with the supervisor and many supervisors have made comments about trying to address what is a complicated issue. we're enthusiastic in looking forward to the new version to see if it gets us closer to what we need. >> thank you, mr. straun. the building registry in combination way potential vacancy tax and i know supervisor haney is excited and

may help do the trick. are there any members of the public? >> i'll do it after public comment. >> commissioner: are there any members of the public that would like to testify on item number one. please come forward. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is daniel bergerac and my part-time gig is representing 320 merchants in the castro upper market neighborhood. this appears to be no nonsense legislation and the laws of supply and demand work everywhere exempt for retail space in san francisco which doesn't seem to make sense to me and what also doesn't make sense to me is how nothing is better than something. we have landlords getting nothing for that property and you would think lowering that my only suggestion would be it

should be based on linear square footage. and the mima should be playing more for their street front and than a small retail unit. thank you. >> commissioner: are there any other members of the public? >> teresa flandrik to support this. north beach is truly affected by a large number of vacancies and also here to ask we have a housing registry to say we need to know what is vacant and what exists and as we are trying to mail out information about tenant rights in terms of seismic retrofit, which say great program, a database does not exist so we cannot access the exact addresses of where

people might be living in buildings. there's a list of buildings which is very good however, we have tried to reach out to various organizations, departments and the answer is there is not a database that actually has the unit numbers. there are 4,000 buildings that are to be completed by 2020. and the idea of us going out and standing in front of the building and counting off une uts and dropping off mailers is not going to work. so i urge not only a vacancy on special unit registry but also a housing registry please. thank you so much. >> thank you. >> i'm here to speak in favor of the legislation. thank you, supervisors for putting it forward. thank you, sandra.

really appreciate this. we counted 90 vacant storefronts in the tenderloin and it may be higher. that's just our be in the not d6. somehow or another d.b.i. only registered 25 vacant storefronts is what the article said in 2015 or 2016. i'm trying to remember the number but it's in that ballpark. one of my questions is in this legislation or as we move forward, is there a piece of this that's going to require a city wide survey this and see if the list matching? clearly there's a bigger problem than what the city shows say

problem. i want to make sure we're getting good checks and balances on that and do strongly support moving forward on the vacancy tax as we go forward to really ensure we get better compliance and thank you for your time. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. steven cornell. this is a complicated issue. it's not that easy. i am in favor of trying to do something and i think the amount for the inspection doesn't need to be done and every commercial building needs to have their windows 60% clear up to four feet throughout the building.

why this can't be enforced i don't understand. one of the largest landlords is not following this and because a building on third street way restaurant and the double the rent. the restaurant moved out and it took two and a half years to get it refilled and the building is the garage on third street owned by the city. there's a landlord that does the same thing and if they can't rent them they put another city agency in. on stores that look vacant, when

i got off the streetcar today i went up vaness and there were windos blocked out. the city can't do it themselves, why make the rest of us do it? thank you. >> commissioner: good point, mr. cornell. next speaker, please. >> i'm felicia and a homeless advocate. i'm in support of this legislation because i'm one of the people who did the vasurvey poke street to mason street and counted more than 90 retail businesses empty. and if we have it filled there

won't be as much as crime around because there'll be more people so we need to get it taken care of. >> commissioner: thank you. are there any other members of the public that would like to testify on this? please come forward. >> good afternoon, my name is mel batle. there are many seniors afraid to go through the tenderloin. this effort is going to correct a number of the problems that we faced. we don't have to be afraid of being assaulted. on the sidewalk the stores are empty and no one's doing anything about it.

we are in support of this legislation and hope it gets acted on very fast. thank you. >> commissioner: seeing no other members of the public on this item we will close public comment. supervisor safai. >> thank you, chair and supervisor fewer for putting this legislation forward. part of the reason i'm in office is because many of people in my district were frustrate with the vacan vaccancies and empty storefronted. i'd like to echo the sentiment

there should be a base amount based on storefrontage. if you're a normal 25 x 100 lot you should pay the base amount you proposed but if you occupy a larger amount of square footage on the storefront it should go up based on percentage. that's fair. supervisor peskin. >> commissioner: i don't think you can do that as a matter of law. that would be a tax as opposed to a fee which is only approvable by the voters. a fee is a function of how much it costs the city to operate, maintain and inspect. supervisor am i give bad advice. >> deputy city attorney, john gibner. the fee has to be tiefd to the city -- tide to the city's cost of the program. i don't know if there would be

additional cost to the city in terms of inspecting larger properties with more vacant storefronts. that's something d.b.i. and the controller can look at. >> commissioner: i'd imagine the cost associated with administering the program wouldn't just be based on the actual number of places but there should be a cost associated with looking at the size of the property. i don't know if the sponsor was amenable maybe we can ask d.b.i. to look into that. that's one thing and this is something we heard on the land use and transportation committee for years but the issue of lighting, a lot of the storefron storefronts not only have they abandoned and unoccupied but don't have proper level of lighting. i wonder if there's a way we could look into having some of

this fee be associated with or maybe a small percentage of it abated based on lighting if lighting were provided. if the storefront owner did provide lighting though the storefront was inactive and shown to be a significant amount maybe that could be abated those are my two comments otherwise it's important. first, i'd like to know the exact number of empty storefronts in my district and what steps have been taken and the fees would go into a fund. that would help the city. thank you, mr. chair. >> thank you, chair peskin and

supervisor fewer for your leadership and one we're concerned about since we have 10 co-sponsors. i want to thank the folks that came in from my community in the tenderloin and district 6 to speak out on this. as you haireard this has consequences for the city of san francisco and parts of district 6 and tenderloin and market it has a close relationship to public safety. when we have blocks that have numerous vaccancies it can create environments where there's more drug dealing and problems that come with that. i'm excited about what this can do for economic vitality of our city and commercial corridors and for the impact of public safety. i have a question which is something i've been exploring in my office and i wonder if it is

in some way covered by this legislation at least in part. there's the issue of commercial storefronts. we through district 6 have a challenge of essentially vacant land. vacant parcels that are sitting there either under utilized or not used at all. in some cases we looked into a few where they've been that way for a long period of time and boarded up. there's particular uses for those parcels but they're not happening. for example, we have in the tenderloin designated for a parking lot but no cars ever park there. it's essentially a vacant commercial property in that way. i wonder if as part of that registry, we also are looking at other types of vacant or under

utilized or abandoned lots that may not exactly be storefronts or is that something would not be covered by this and we would need some additional legislative solutions where we have a registry but not registered storefront. >> commissioner: supervisor fewer, would you like to respond? >> thank you. that is something we should look to that because it didn't allow the commercial corridors they're on to make their full potential. i'd like to quote from an e-mail we received from d.b.i. february 1. it called looking at our most recent quarterly update a total

of 507 on the list with 64 registered and 3 of the 64 that did so as a self-registration. the overwhelming majority of vacant storefront owners still do not registered even when post with a notice of violation and only a tiny fraction of those registered did so without our current complaint-driven process. so i am thrilled my colleagues have signed on. i think it will make a difference. it's needed at this time. this complements the mayor's legislation introduced with supervisor brown as it helps with flexibility to rent out commercial spaces but also to have expedite some of the permitting processes. so this i guess we can sort of classify as the stick and the mayor is looking at incentives.

thank you, colleagues. i look forward to your continued support. we also would like to have a hearing after this to make sure what the results are and whether or not more money needs to be allocated to d.b.i. after all these people are now registering their vacant storefront and maybe the fee would go up. thank you. >> commissioner: the definition here does not include a vacant lot only vacant or abandoned commercial storefront but i'd refer you to the blight ordinance on the books as well as to oakland's recent passage of a vacancy act aimed at incentivizing people to develop on vacant parcels. have that conversation with you

offline. with that is there an amendment to move supervisor fewer's moves. >> so moved. >> commissioner: we can take that without objection. i assume they're substantial amendments given it's shifting it out of d.b.i. and to the property owner and would require a one-week continuance? >> the amendment substantive and believe they require more than a one-week continuance to allow the clerk to issue a new notice. >> commissioner: madame clerk major. >> clerk: are the fees being increased or new fees? >> the fee is being changed in a way that imposes a potentially higher fee on property owners because the automatic refund is being capped. >> clerk: okay. the earliest it can be heard is february 25th. >> commissioner: you need a

10-day fee notice? >> clerk: yes. >> commissioner: if did you that february 11, there's no meeting on the 18th. >> clerk: that's right. >> commissioner: that take us to february 25. is that what you just said? >> clerk: yes. >> commissioner: already. is there a motion to continue this item as amended to the land use committee meeting of february 25 made by supervisor safai and without objection. adam clerk. >> clerk: item 2 requires sellers or landlords of real property in san francisco to disclose to buyers or tenants the property is located within the flood risk zone delineated then san francisco public utility commission's storm map aamending the housing code that the report of residential building record include a disclosure statement and amengd appropriate findings. >> commissioner: this is the legislation of our colleague, supervisor yee.

i see this from his office a representative. do you want to present the item before we turn it over to staff from the p.u.c.? >> good afternoon, supervisors. darlene choi. the legislation is particularly relevant given it is the rainy season and there's many neighborhoods city wide that experience serious flooding due to their topography. supervisor yeee has held many hearing and worked closely with the p.u.c. and there's district 8, 9, 11 and the purpose of this legislation before you today is really to protect consumers and inform them whether the property they are purchased is in a designated flood risk area. this legislation would require

property owners to disclose to prospective buyers or tenants whether their property is located on the p.u.c.100 year 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.

>> thayo