also, it is convenient space for people. public transportation, parking can be a problem, but people work it out. it is close to the highway. iit is a convenient area and may other businesses are impacted by this. the store guss alone would feel the impact. i am asking you to please hold this for 10 years. i am a transplant from baltimore maryland i am an ambassador to the city. i supplement my income with a tour guide. i love the city so much i stepped up as president of the san francisco tour guide guild. i, like my other colleagues are ambassadors to san francisco. we want to stay here. please keep us here and let us be able to enrich the rest of san francisco. thank you very much for your time.

>> thank you. any other public comment on this item? with that public comment is closed. commissioner richards. >> a question for staff. i get the need to balance to keep the community intact and facilitating a move where they can land versus creating pbr space is what we need as well. in context, this building's conveyor footage in terms of the pdr space available in the city, what percent is it? >> i do not know the answer. >> it is one building. i have no idea. >> the closest i can come to is the map on page three of the executive summary showing the complaints for the illegal conversion through 2017. the orange dots show you spaces that were pdr. if they are corrected is a

different story. within the active space building, there are 287 units, not all are occupied. they vary in square feet. >> 30,000 square feet? >> i can get that for you. >> one of the interesting things contextually as well as when i started. 333 sixth street. we said one floor pdr and one floor office we split it in two. i don't think that is resolved yet? has that been resolved? has the office moved out and pdr back in? >> zoning administrator. i haven't checked on that one in a while. my recollection is the office isvo indicated. i -- vacated.

i don't know if there is a new tent. >> i would love an update on that. that has been going on forever. 30,000 square foot building in context of a million square feet of pdr or two million square feet? it seems kind of small. i am not sure the balance needing to keep that pdr space added to the large amount of space is necessary given the extraordinary circumstances of this space in particular. i am kind of thinking along the miles of nicole yancey, i think we should have lifetime amnesty and rezone this space and keep this community intact. we are killing one kind of community over time to facilitate another kind of community and that doesn't sit well with me. i support lifetime every zoning. >> the building i is 22700 squae

feet. >> not very big it is extraordinary and unique. >> i want to thank the tenants of active space for coming out, e-mails, your personal stories how you contribute to the community and added the context to the issue. i am sorry you have all kinds of been caught in this issue. i am sure it has caused stress to you. i want you to know that we know and emphasize with you about that. this highlights a larger neat for micro office spaces for a loser or a new nuance definition of creative and artist spaces

and uses that are actually contributing to the fabric of our city. i think we have that type of definition around an issue that has been before the commission several times around nonprofit displacement and there are funds and other types of support services to support those types of businesses. when we think about the other types of services, therapy, speech pathology, body work, that are crucial services for folks we don't have the same supports for those types of businesses. i just want a name that i recognize the challenge of the department around not wanting to reward bad behavior by the active space entity, and then also recognizing this was zones for a particular type of use and we need to protect that use.

the comments in the staff packet around private businesses and being able to afford other uses, not all businesses are created equal. there are a number of nonprofit businesses that have reached out to us that would be challenged by having to move. actually, i completely agree with commissioner richards. i have a really tough time thinking, one, just understanding we are making this in the context of. two, i have a difficult time displacing 200 plus businesses that are community serving to try to make space for another use. thanks. >> thank you. commissioner fong. >> i have multiple questions for

staff. if we could address each one separately, it would probably help my own memory. can you describe the context of actions by the department and this commission on pdr enforcement cases in general? >> sure. i probably invite corey to come since he is the zoning administrator. we have had specified concentrated enforcement action trying to prevent further prelivation of p dr spaces to other uses that started with the tech boom and other spaces you think of but it also goes to the smaller level. i will let cory take over.

>> enforcement on pdr issues is procedurally the same as any other enforcement. a couple years ago we did have an 18 month period with a high number of complaints filed for illegal conversions that we had to dedicate two staff to work on that issue. that has since died down. we still get the complaints but they are assigned to all of our enforcement staff. it is an issue. it is not always converse from pdr to office, sometimes it is to other uses. sometimes the complaint is not valid. it is an issue we have had to deal with with some volume over the last several years, and if you will allow me on this specific project, it actually began initially with the complaint, i believe for illegal massage. that blossomed. there was a dph issue because

there were some massage establishments without health licenses. then when we went down the rabbit hole, so to speak, it was an understanding the building had been permitted through mandatory dr at the planning commission because it was going to be the buildings that were demolished. basically, i think after the building was built, i think only one building permit was ever obtained for a new use. it was for one of the tattoo parlors in the building. that is how we got here today. the enforcement process is going on in tandem with the legislative process. this legislative process is enforcement through legislation, designed to enforce the code and go back to what the code and planning commission originally decided was appropriate for this site but in a way sensitive to the fact that there are an

unusually large number of businesses here and some amount of time would be necessary to do that. >> the context this is different than the previous enforcement action. >> urge lea -- usually it is a single space. we let them know how long they have on the lease. if it is six months we can safinnish the lease then you have to vacate. this is a large number of units and it is not typical. >> what is the penalty for the developer? >> for any enforcement case, it is maximum when you are in violation and you are not taking steps to abate the violation it is up to $250 per day for each violation. that is the maximum that could

be penalized through the planning code. the city attorney has the ability to take additional enforcement actions. >> you recall a couple of the appeals of previous actions by this commission on pdr conversion spaces and the net result was the granting of, i believe, it was one year to unwind their leases. i think that occurred a couple times, right? >> that is referring back to the enforcement issue. a lot of times the zoning administrator and board of appeals has discretion to enforce the code. we try to provide a reasonable timeline for a use without a permit to find a new space and vacate. >> you have heard from everybody who presented here, they are all personal services, aren't they?

>> almost everyone is personal service. some are health service as well. >> what can they look forward to in this process? they are not a pdr. >> correct. the way the legislation is written at the moment, they have the ability after it is passed to file for establishment or change of use permit the same as any business would in the city, and from that point going forward they would be able to operate for an additional 10 years in the space after which they would need to find a new place to operate. >> except the staff is recommending three years. >> correct, staff recommends three years. if you take that today that program would be shortened to three years. >> just to add one additional piece of information there. the pdr1g does allow limited

amounts of nonpdr uses. for example health services up to 5,000 square feet of health services. for personal services in a very much larger bucket you can have 2500 square feet. up to 7500 square feet worth of uses and tenants that are not there could legalize this program. there is an amount there that some benefits -- some te tenents could benefit from today. others from that would be subject to this however, it is adopted. >> one last question. in staff's opinion, is the fact the neighborhood commercial districts have so many restrictions now what can or cannot do, has that impacted the

ability of these personal services to go into neighborhood commercial? >> it is something we considered for this legislation. we were truly looking at protecting pdr spaces. the original intent in 2004 in addition to the fact the property owner had been in violation knowing violation on this and other projects on the west coast that he managed in similar ways. truly what we are looking at is trying to bring the property back to compliance with the general plan protecting pdr and with the original conditions of approval. >> if i might add most of these types of services are permitted in the neighborhood commercial districts today. >> not necessarily on the ground floor? >> i don't know. >> iit depends on the neighborhood. >> given the rent structure it

would be the upper floors. >> the last comment since i am the newest one here, i am not so wired into the discussion of the commission and positions on pdr as has been historical. the question in my mind is whether we should prevent small business locally serving to be prohibited from a lot of spaces, and to me i don't see how especially pdrs uses which are not common, not eas easy to find them should take precise dense.

i am supportive of allowing small business in this place. >> commissioner hillis. >> thank you for coming just a follow-up question. i think we did hear a lot of folks who were personal service uses, besides the neighborhood commercial, where else are they permitted to go? i know it is broad. >> thank you. personal services are commonly permitted in almost all of our neighborhood commercial districts and mixed use districts. basically, they are generally restricted mostly in the pdr and residential districts. >> in an office or retail environment they have to complete with office or retail type uses unlike pdr?

in this case where there is allowance for personal service is that generally consistent with other pdr zoning? all of the categories where they sell personal services. >> yes, they generally allow a small amount of nonpdr services noncommercial in nature. personal or health services. all districts generally allow a small amount. >> i support this. i would support the 10 years, but also your recommendation to not permit the office use to participating legitimate. it would be great to look for a permanent solution. maybe re-zoning to just allow more personal services in the space to get at what commissioner richards is saying. first floor pdr and top two

floors personal services. there could be fees associated with that. that we typically get with conversions like that. i would support the ordinance with 10 years and staff recommendation not to permit office use. >> commissioner koppel. >> vice president joel koppel: i am leaning not allowing the office use. this is a survival versus profit. uncertainty can be taxing on people whether you are going to work for a business or run your own business. the uncertainty sometimes whether you have a job or not have a job or can operate or not operate your business. it is more than just the black and white numbers. it can take a toll on the person. i see this as just providing a lot of certainty for people just barely making it with a small

space and not a huge budget. these are, you know, i have heard nothing but organic community serving businesses here. i am more than willing to let them stay. >> commissioner moore. >> commissioner moore: i am supportive of the legislation, but i am very much interested and supportive of the department with enforcement. this i think is a state of emergency where a small business of this scale in particular don't have any place to go. it is like an a.d.u. normal and commercial spaces are larger. they are 800 to 1,000 square feet much too large. they are not 24/7. they don't have the rest rooms and lounge. i think this aggravation of small business in this

particular space should really get our protection and the support of this legislation for 10 years at minimum if not in per duty. i don't think things in the city will get better where we have ample space for the businesses to take hold particularly as it affects the mission and personal support services for people who need services at a particular price point, i think, is more important legislation to support. i am a concerned about offices. they are offices that are part office pdr. my favor it type of office architectural office where you build models and all types of things. the definition of office i need

more inside on, but generally i think this building and current use needs protected. it has my support. >> thank you, commissioner moore. i want to support and protect these small businesses. i support 10 years that the soon per visor is suggest -- supervisor is suggesting. commenting on commissioner koppel's comments, you are right. nobody is making a killing at this in terms of the tenants but i think the landlord is. the going rate for pdr in mission is 250 per square foot. from the comments what you are pays is 660 per square foot, which is much more retail. that differential between what it costs them to develop this

building and what they are renting for is what is at issue for me. somebody sort of used the system that we have, broke the rules and is pocketing the differential. that is not going to you. i don't want to reward this landlord for breaking these rules, even though i understand it is providing a very valuable service to the tenants, a service that is needed and a service the community needs. i support the 10 years, not allowing the use of office space. i don't support forever unless there is a way to capture that money that the landlord has pocketed because they have gamed our little system here. perhaps that can go towards supporting artists in the mission or something. i would encourage the supervisor

to continue to work with these tenants and this property owner to come up with a more permanent solution beyond the 10 years. this is not going to get better. this is going to get worst. there does need to be a space for small business owners to thrive. what is so attractive about the building. it is affordable by design. they are very small places and as commissioner moore said there are bathrooms and infrastructure to support the wonderful community of businesses that has organically grown up to support each other. these are places to go for healing. i think that is great. i will support the 10 years, and i highly encourage the supervisor to come up with a permanent solution. i like the idea every zoning the

top two floors to allow for retail and personal services and something while preserving the bottom floor. also keep the enforcement action as the units become vacant that they go for pdr and what that goes for rather than retail. >> commissioner richards: that is a great avenue to go down. perhaps 10 years makes sense with the recommendation that the owner comes to an agreement with the city on what kind of zoning this should be but also to make sure they are not profiting off of doing something illegal. a couple of quotes. alan baits in the article in the wall street journal san francisco broke my heart. if you left i can't go get a

healer because there are no healers left. people can afford your services and you can provide those services. i think as san francisco is less welcoming to altruistic professions. you need each other to help heal each other. contextually i looked at the commerce and inventory for 2019. we have 980 million square feet of developable square feet in san francisco. the piechart says 6% is pdr. that is 59,280,000 square feet. they can legalize on what the zoning administrator said. that means .00033738. it is nothing.

i don't think this makes a lot of sense. we vote to knock down historic buildings in historic districts. we have done one in the tenderloin, one out of 400. there is three out of 1,000. the overriding consideration would be keep the community intact. >> commissioner fong. >> commissioner fong: can the cost for being legitimate being applied to the property owner? >> sir, to make sure that i clarify. any of the permit costs would be traditionally they are applied for and paid for by the applicant of the business, the

tenant. there is nothing stopping the property owner. one caution with enforcement is that we have no control over the controlling of the rent in this situation and so any penalties, things like that are passed to the property owner, there is nothing we have to prevent him from raising the rents on these tenants. we don't have a mechanism to compel the property owner to be the person to pay the permit fees, but we do have a mechanism to compel him to pay enforcement fees. we have no mechanism to prevent him from passing the cost. >> isn't it similar to an entitlement cost? >> no, this is base permit fees. we have a standard permit fee in the fee schedule that is in the code. if it is a type of permit

requiring more staff times, it is time and materials as well. that is not usually the case. >> commissioner johnson. >> commissioner johnson: i support the comments how we balance this difficult decision. i support the 10 years with the hope the supervisor can work with the interested parties on a permanent solution. i have an issue around office space. one, can you just remind us what the definition is for this space? >> there are definitions where they are like a russian doll. they start larger and there are other definitions in it. we have many types of office. usually it is an office space internal there for its own

purpose. it is there to benefit itself, not providing services to customers directly or off site. obviously, the main example for a general office use is like a tech company. you are there to do your business or back of house office for bank. >> we have architects or attorneys, people who are licensed professionals. the environment is office like around a desk. the purpose of the space to provide general services to the general public or community. when we talk about office space here we talk about general office as opposed to service based office uses. >> my one concern continues a number of folks write us who are running non-profits who have

talked about the challenge in being considered office space. to me that type of business is a community serving service. i want to make sure we protect those because that is a city priority to protect nonprofits from displacement. >> the challenge for us with the use of the space may be similar, we don't regulate ownership truck sturin terms of distinctions -- distinctions. there are some that may be considered better than others. the fact it is a nonprofit is a challenge. we have other definitions where it is a nonprofit and they are providing social services they could fall into another definition. those are generally limited even if it is not an office use.

we have distinctions there but not as many as maybe needed. >> do you have any suggestions for what we can do in this specific circumstance? >> well, there is nothing no front of you today proposed to change any land use definitions. if this moves forward and the amnesty program takes effect. the next process will be te tenants. this is what would do, what are we? we have to determine what you are and that will inform which path you may go down. if you are an office use we would not move it forward. if it is a seemings that there -- determination there is another use they could know through the amnesty process.

>> i don't feel comfortable with this given the reality of the tenants in this space. >> i want to add some context. i understand the concern here. the department and the commission has had a long standing policy trying to preserve as much pdr space as possible. we are now where there are more pdr jobs in the city than there was 10 years ago. the vacancy rate is 5%. the issue is cost. the city is losing artists every day because they can't afford $. i am not suggesting -- i think we all agree we need to maintain this community of people and that you understand that. i don't hear you saying we

should stop pdr conversion. yes, we should. >> that is the artist space. it is some of the most challenging space to find when it comes to cost. >> commissioner moore: thank you for explaining the subtleties. i believe it has sufficient support. i move to approve not with modifications. >> second. >> commissioner hillis. >> commissioner hillis: i want to clarify if that including the recommendation to exclude office. we don' don't know who is in tht knowledge. there could be a law form or a

practicing own. we are a land use body. we judge the uses. i say office is okay. they tend to command higher represents. we don't have the suite. there has been numerous e-mails. they are all on the personal category. i think it sets us up for a permanent solution. >> staff, can you answer that, please? how many office spaces are there in this building right now. >> through the enforcement right now. we did a door-to-door survey. between knocking on every door with enforcement staff and

submisubsubmittal from the propy owner's attorney. combining those two pieces of information you will see on -- it is an exhibit n your case packet. >> exhibited the. it is an es- -- i can put this n the overhead for everybody else. again, that is just our estimation after knocking on doors. i can tell you the people i talked to that day i have received e-mails from nonprofits and architects, web designners,

graphic designers. it is a lot more of that in the type of specific business. >> commissioner richards then commissioner moore. >> can the zoning administrator or staff limit it to nonpro non? is there a way to narrow it. >> is it a 501 c-3? >> political parties are nonprofit. that world is quite large. that is the only criteria if they are available. >> thank you, i do feel office is okay then.

>> commissioner moore: i had assumed in this process the department would look case-by-case into which category an office application would fall, assuming that the top of nonprofit we are trying to protect service oriented offices listed. they would be? and other others would not. >> you know, i think 10 years would give you time to figure this out. to commissioner moore's point, the definition of what an artist is also, you know, as wide as what is an office. to me a web designner, graphic designer, architect is an artist. they do produce an artistic product.

it is like the manufacturing of today in thi this ways, where tt line falls between a tech office and the guy producing the graphic designing to cater to small businesses. i understand that is a tricky line. i am leaning more towards supporting what is on the legislation until we figure out what is an office space is and how we derm it. >> commissioner richards: can we limit it to philanthropic? >> you have thible to make recommendations about the program and which uses you might want to include. one additional piece of information that is helpful. you may have noticed in the draft legislation now. it does allow office use to use

the program but only through a mandatory discretionary review for the permit. part of the reason is the original building permit had a region of approval that said no office. now if the program was adopted to go office to go through that program the permit to establish the office would still have to come back to the planning commission to get specific. >> mr. star, then commissioner hillis. >> i want to point out social service and philanthropic is one that provides a service is allowed in pdr districts, similar to retail or special services with a cap on the totally. >> a nonprofit would be able to

legalize. i would be cautious about office coming to you and making a decision on for or not profit. >> commissioner hillis. >> commissioner hillis: i think that the issues you brought up, there are office users that are there annan profits i agree with generally they are services so they can make the argument and make the case to mr. tieg. we are the decider of what is okay. one of the reasons this space is affordable. people are not legal. once we start to legalize it.

prices are going on. i am uncomfortable allowing office or going through a hearing to determine if your office is worthy enough to be in this building or not. >> you did not finish the sentence why you had second thoughts. could youlaborate more why it is individual to youth would be too difficult. >> it would be based on dr for two reasons. one, we are not equipped to regulate land use by who operates it. there are spaces for non-profits. once you approve the dr anal allow that. it is not for one particular business. any business that leaves.

if they leave another massage can come in. >> thank you. commissioner richards. >> commissioner richards: can we allow the office to go through the dr process but prohibit new offices added when the space is available. >> if i understand you correctly you permit the use porch the th- for that current b-10nant -- for that current tenant. that is challenging from the fact we are regulating the land use. we would be basically creating abandonment based on the

vacation by the current tenant, and is it possible legally? we can defer to the city attorney for advice. it would be challenging for a 10 year period. >> commissioner hillis: i -- >> commissioner hillis: i move to approve with staff's recommendation not to permit office use. >> can you clarify. >> i am moving to approve as written by the supervisor but disallowing office from participating in the program. >> there are two modifications to the proposed legislation. one decrease the time period from 10 to three years. >> keep it at 10 years. the way i understand it, the first motion is to approval resolution without any of

staff's modifications. >> i thought that was withdrawn. >> withdrawing thesem con. i support commissioner hillis' motion. >> second. >> very good there is a motion seconded. shall i call the question. commissioners to approve with modification -- only with the second proposed modification from staff regarding the office legitimate program. >> was there with the seeking a more permanent solution a recommendation? >> yes. >> just clarifying that your motion then disallows all of the

48 units that are right now using the office use from being legalized now. >> that is staff guess at what it is? it is educated. they can come and petition those uses. >> on that motion. one clarification on this office thing. can a current office be participating in the amnesty program or are we throwing them all in the street? >> under the motion made? >> no office would participate in amnesty in the motion you made. >> no way to figure out the office we want and don't want? >> it is tough. it is not regulating by land use. >> i will swallow hard. >> one potential solution is

allow office participate with three year limitation. give the other uses the 10 year limitation. it is only the office with the three years. >> let's vote. >> the motion stands. >> very good. there is a motion seconded to approve with modifications. the only modification being that office uses would not be able to participate in the legit mat program on that motion. (roll call). >> that motion passes 4-3 with commissioners johnson ric richas and melgar voting against. >> there seems to be interested

in three year for office and 10 year. let's rescind that vote and take the vote on the second one. >> i thought it was clear. >> on the office it would have to go through mandatory dr if you decide to allow or not. >> i heard a motion to resend by the maker of the previous motion. on that motion t motion to preve to rescind. (roll call). >> that motion passes unanimously 7-0. >> commissioner hillis. >> the alternative motion is approve with modifications and the modifications are that we allow office use to participate

in the legit mat program but decrease the time for that use to three years. >> second. >> for everyone else 10 years. >> commissioner moore. >> commissioner moore: it is unusual that there is no office applicant here today speaking for themselves. that makes me a little uneasy. everybody else has passionately spoken in support of each other except as a huge nothing regarding office. >> commissioner richards. >> we will hear from those on the 48 or so drs coming our way. >> commissioner johnson. >> commissioner johnson: i want to remind it is accessibility. not everybody can leave the office in the middle of the

afternoon but we have received e-mails speaking to that concern. >> have good there is a motion to approve with modifications and allowing the offices to participate up to three years. on that motion commissioner fong. >> commissioner fong: aye. (roll call). >> so moved that motion passes unanimously 7-0. >> that will place us on item 11 sea level vulnerable and

consequences assessment. >> good afternoon, the city wide planning division. i am here to update on the sea level rise adaptation work. specifically the consequences assessment. i am joined by memberses our team including i don't know if bryan is here. brine strong chief officer along with henry rogers. steven, consultant chris may who can help with answering technical questions. i am going to go through project background and key findings. from the report and the next steps. to put this report in context. sea level rise adaptation is part of the climate program.

that resolves how we mitigate the impact to climate change and adapt to the climate change and where we can find synergy between the two. winterizing the building can help reduce the emissions. on the adaptation we are thinking about a wide range of habits from flooding to air quality, extreme heat and drought and more. we are working to develop a integrated program housed in capital planning. it would develop shared strategies. so in 2015, we convened departments around sea level rise committee. the committee brought together agencies to work on or have vulnerable assets within the sea level rise exposure zone

including those here. they worked to create the sea level rise action plan released in 2016. it called on departments to work together to understand the impacts of rising sea levels and develop strategies for the shoreline and assets to make san francisco more resilient by taking measures to protect and enhance public and private assets and natural resources and quality and life. the assessment which i am presenting today is fulfilling that vision. this is based on the rising tides for the sea level rise planning and shows the steps to adapt and implement a sea level rise adaptation. we started reviewing and understanding the relevant sea level rise science and this

completes two steps which is assessing vulnerable and risks and consequences. we move to adaptation planning and implementation and monitoring. at the same time that we are doing this increasing understanding we start to plan for adaptation where we know there are challenges and risks we need to address. first step in that previous chart was understanding that the relevant sea level rise science and projections. these show a range of scenarios through the end of the century. past mid century, the range is wider because less is known about the pace of climate change. sea level rise occurs faster or slower depending how the earth responds. we are study the wide range of

impacts to adjust as we know more. these come from the 201 2012 guidance. for our scenarios we added 42 inches for storm surge and high tides bringing up to 2800. there is more state guidance to encourage ride range of potential futures with a high end number there. it doesn't significantly affect our maps because the city starts sloping up at this point. you can see this is the map based on that 108-inch line showing the sea level rise vulnerability zone. everything outside of the blue line is in that zone. what this map shows is 2100 without any adaptation action by the city. we are starting to make adaptations. this gets wet if we do nothing

over the next 80 years. i should mention there are oranges circles are development projects that are building and sea level rise strategies to the programs and site plans. for the assessment we studied 10 different scenarios in the zone representing various mid and long-term. this shows what would be affected to understand the magnitude of the issue without any sort of adaptation action by the city. this is a simple accounting of the zone. we looked in more depth of city assets and what would be affected at a asset level so we understand what is there, not just a building, what does it house, what uses does it have, how adaptive is it?

the first step is exposure with mapping assets within the flood zone. [please stand by]

>> whether it is localized to the specific asset or if it has neighborhood wider citywide, or regional consequences. and then finally we looked at cascading consequences, which is a second level consequence of the loss of a particular asset, which is important because these challenges are crosscutting, they require multi- collaboration, an example of this would be the earlier this year we had a combination of a high tide and immoderate storm, which affected the ability to storm water infrastructure to drain, and flooding the munimobile facility. that is an example were some of these sectors come together to have cascading consequences. for the analysis, we looked at different types of instruct -- infrastructure systems, utilities, transportation,

public safety infrastructure, open space, new development and port facilities. we also developed a series of neighborhood profiles where you can see how these systems interact with each other at -- on a given, neighborhood scale. we did those for all of the neighborhoods that porter on the bay or the ocean. so some of the key findings from the report, significant impact to propose local and regional transportation systems from rising sea levels including part , munimobile, and they are addressing vulnerabilities that will require regional collaboration. is not something you can think about in itself when he think about the stations, for example. it is not a san francisco specific problem. the second one there is also significant impacts to shoreline parks and open spaces along the

bay shoreline, it maybe damaged and inundated as sea levels rise there is a benefit to that with sloping open spaces and it can take up that sea level rise as it comes into the city. at the same time, these resources are valuable assets to communities, particularly on the eastern side of the city where there isn't as much open space, and losing significant portions of these that have a big impact on the community. new development and waterfront neighborhoods, as i mentioned, has been developing our sight plans to adopt the sealevel rise over time. but as our projections change, we will need to make sure they continue to be able to adapt and bring resources and pursue additional measures if needed. the last two are more technical findings, but they are quite important in terms of how it affects the city. there is a risk from combined

range dripping in coastal flooding, which could create flooding risks in low-lying areas such as mission creek. we already see this today. if you think about how water drains, the strategy here is we will have to keep the water from the coast out while allowing the water from the land out. so the that presents a complex ethical challenge to think about as we design strategies for these areas. finally, we need to continue to understand the impacts of rising groundwater from sealevel rise. they also raise groundwater inland, and sometimes it can bubble up to the surface. particularly in areas, and this could have impacts relating to contamination and to liquefaction in earthquakes, and this is not fully known right now. this is an area of more study, but it is something we understand