Electronic devices. If you have documents to include as part of the file, you should submit them to me. Public comment will be taken on each item. When your item comes up please line up to speak along the right hand side of the room. You may submit Public Comment in writing. You may email me at john. Carroll sfgov. Org or send via u. S. Postal service in the Clerks Office room 244 city hall address is 1 dr. Carlton b goodlett place, San Francisco california 94102. If you submit Public Comment in writing ill forward and include as part of the official file you are commenting. Finally madam chair, items acted upon today are expected to appear on the agenda of april 2, 2024, unless otherwise stated. Thank you mr. Clerk. Please call item number 1. Item 1, ordinance amending the planning code to facilitate city wide expansion of commercial restaurant and retail uses. Thank you. We have carrie here from the office of Small Business. You dont want to make a presentation . You are here just for questions. We heard this before. I will turn it over to my colleague president peskin because he just circulated amendments that he wants to introduce and i want to thank you so much president peskin for working on this language and work wg the department. Thank you supervisor melgar. I think we all came to consensus last week, but left it for the City Attorney to massage some language which is set forth at page 10 and is now internally consistent in subsection d relative to use sizes that set forthill read it, in rh rm1 or rm2, comply with the use size limitations of a neighborhood commercial district or special use district located within 1 quarter mile of the use of maximum of 1200 square feet of occupied floor area of Commercial Area in any rm3 or rm4 district. Comply with the use size limitation of the neighborhood commercial district or special use disrict located within a quarter mile of the use up to maex mm of 2500 square feet of commercial use and repeats that language with regard to the 1200 square foot of occupied floor area in a commercial rto, or in a rh, rm1, rm2 district if the use is more then a quarter mile from a ncd or sud and no more then 2500 square feet of commercial use in rm3 or rm4 if the use is a quarter mile from a ncd or sud. That is the language that seems to work for everyone and i think there were also Planning Department cleanup on page 6 under Outdoor Activities and i think said p located in the front of the building, np if elsewhere. Do i have that right . Yes. Mr. Star is nodding his head, so and i believe those amendments are not substantive. Sorry. Just reading the last amendment. P if located in front of the building, np if elsewhere. I think that somebody brought up something and maybei this can the way it was written wasthis isnt my language, this was a suggestion from planning. I think it said not at front of building and i think that everybody decided that it would be clearer if it said, elsewhere. Planning department staff, that is correct. It will make it consistent to state elsewhere, similar to the other code sections and it is to clarify instead of the wordy phrase of not at the front, just state elsewhere. Okay. But there is no change in the allowances or implementation. Okay, thank you so much. Okay. Works for me. Thank you very much president peskin for working on the language. Lets go to Public Comment on this. Thank you madam chair. If you are here to give Public Comment on item 1, related to city wide expansion of allowable commercial restaurants and retail uses, please come forward to the lectern. Appears we have no speakers. With that, Public Comment is closed. President peskin did you want to make a motion . I move to amend the item as stated and send the amended file to the full board with a positive recommendation. On the motion offered by member peskin that the ordinance be amended and recommended as amended to the board of supervisor, preston aye. Member peskin, aye. Chair melgar, aye. Madam chair, there are three ayes. Thank you, the motion passes. Lets go to item 2, please mr. Clerk. Item 2 is ordinance amending the planning code to prohibtd north of market special use district and lower polk street neighborhood commercial district tobacco paraphernalia establishments where any tobacco paraphernalia is sold, delivered, distributed, furnished, or marketed, and to establish that after 180 days of nonuse a legal nonconforming tobacco paraphernalia establishment in the sud or ncd will be deemed abandoned, preventing its restoration; and affirming the Planning Departments determination under the California Environmental quality act, making findings of consistency with the general plan and the eight priority policies of planning code, section 101. 1, and making findings of public necessity, convenience, and welfare pursuant to planning code, section 302. This is amended as a Committee Clerk and may be sent to board tomorrow. Thank you. We continued the item from last week. Vice chair preston did you have further comment snz no, we talked about at length last week. Make a motion after Public Comment. Great. Lets go to Public Comment. Thank you madam chair. Does anybody have Public Comment on item 2 . If so, please come forward. Appears we have no speakers. Okay. Public comment is now closed. Vice chair preston. Thank you chair melgar and president peskin for your cosponsorship. I like to move with recommendation to full board as a committee report. On the motion offered by vice chair preston the ordinance recommended as a committee report, vice chair preston, aye. Member peskin, aye. Chair melgar, aye. Madam chair, there are three ayes. Thank you, the motion passes. Lets going to item 3. Item number 3, ordinance amending the zoning map of the planning code to rezone assessors parcel block no. 3144b, lot nos. 027a and 036a, known as 68 nantucket avenue, from public p district to residentialhouse, one family rh1 district; affirming the Planning Departments determination under the California Environmental quality act; making findings of consistency with the general plan, and the eight priority policies of planning code, section 101. 1; and making public necessity, convenience, and general welfare findings under planning code, section 302. Okay, welcome. Please tell us what we are doing and why. Good afternoon supervisors. The item before you today is request for zoning map amendment to sectional map zn11 to rezone two parcels, block 3144b, lot 27a and 36a, also known as 68 nantucket from public to rh1 zoning district. The subject parcels are two irregular lots located on the bay area transit exterior rail line from glen park to balboa park station. Until 2017, the parcel approximately 1900 square feet combined were owned by bart, since then bart subdivided the parcels to follow the existing paved road and topography of the site. The parcels were purchased by the current Property Owner at 6826 nantucket and undeveloped. The subject parcels are located within the Outer Mission neighborhood when predominantly residential neighborhood and immediate neighborhood includes 2 and 3 story Residential Development and it is within the rh1 as well. This concludes staffs presentation and available for any questions. I have questions. So, i looked at the map, so were the Property Owner project developer lives is not rh1, isnt it nct . No, he is immediately to theif you are looking at the parcel to the right and still within rh1. Why are we zoning it for rh1 . So, the site is not very conducive to a lot of development. The small one, but there are two, right . Correct. Yeah. So both of them are being rezoned to rh1. Okay. Im justwhat we have been doing everywhere is trying to get more Housing Units and so, im just puzzled why have this opportunity to take land that is notunderutilized and instead of aggregateing to the parcel and making it something else, we are just doingit just doesnt make sense to me, but okay, thats what you want . So, the sitethe little smallit is two different sites, there is a tiny triangle shape lot we see people park on. Correct. You cant do much, but if you at added to the lot next to it, which i thought was the owners lot, dont they live right next to the little sliver . Yeah. Here, probably best if i do this. This isnt my district by the way. It isnt likeim just questioning the logic of why the department is asking for this. Can we get the overhead . So, what is outlined is red is the two lots. There is a tiny one here you can kind of just barely see and thats approximately 300 square feet, and then theres this bigger lot here thats approximately 1600, and so they are both owned by same Property Owner, but his actually site where his house is the adjacent. That what i had understood. So combined those are only 1900 square feet in size. The two parcels that belong to bart . Correct. Okay. Im not going to belabor the point. What i was thinking is there is already a existing property, so all combined you would have a lot that could support multifamily housing but we are asking just to have this be zoned rh1. You were thinking rezoning his current home i realize that would take another action, because it isnt part of the project but we are inviting it to stay because we are zoning as rh1. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Lets go to Public Comment on this item, please. Thank you madam chair. If you have Public Comment on itedm 3 related to 68 nantucket avenue, please come forward to the lectern. It appears we have no speakers, madam chair. Okay. Public comment on this item is now closed. I would like to make a motion that we forward this to the full board with positive recommendation. On the motion offered by the chair be sent to board with recommendation. Preston aye. Peskin, aye. Melgar, aye. Madam chair, there are three ayes. Okay. That motion passes. Thank you. Lets go then to item number 4. Item 4 is, hearing to receive an informational presentation on the United States u. S. army corps of engineers San Francisco sf waterfront coastal flood study draft integrated feasibility report and Environmental Impact statement; and requesting the port, Planning Department, and army corps of engineers to report. Okay, we havethis is your district president peskin. Did you want to have opening remarks . Thank you chair melgar. It is all our districts and i want to thank and acknowledge the port of San Francisco and assistant port director, Michael Martin who is here and also thank the army corp of engineers and brian harper who has flown across the country for this presentation and just to put it in a little bit of context, it is nothing new to any of us. We are surrounded by water on three sides. We are living even though maybe donald trump denies it in a era of unprecedented Climate Change and Sea Level Rise we are grappling with as a city, as a state, as a country, as a world, and we need to prepare as we are slowly boiling and San Francisco actually has been at the forefront that in many ways at the Public Utilities commission, at our port from the great highway to the northern and southern waterfronts and the port of San Francisco that is responsible for 7 miles that waterfront has been working for some time under the leadership of brad benson and the good news, but it is daunting is that we have gotten this far and it is a project i liken to the buildings of the pyramids of great cathedrals of europe that will happen under many generations of governmental leadership and this is a opportunity for us to get our heads around it. This is a very high level document. There is going to be a lot more planning. I think we need to see this not only in terms of the 2018 bond that the voters of San Francisco passed by some 80 percent relative to the reinforcement and rebuilding of our sea wall, which is really a down payment on coastal defenses, but we should see this as an opportunity for unparalleled Public Participation and inclusion, knowing this is going to be highly disruptive for a very very long period of time. That we actually have choices that we can make. I think we would benefit from a highly informed public as to what those choices are, and i think we also need to look at the future relative to what we want the waterfront to be like and who we want it to be for and this is an opportunity to not just talk the talk, but walk the walk around equity and inclusion in areas that really have been offlimits to many. I think this is a really Big Conversation and i welcome at this early point and michael and the team will tell us where there are opportunities for public input, but one of those opportunities is right now and we actually got a long letter today that is part of your file that i thought was really helpful and instructive and asked for more ongoing Public Participation and with that, it is madam chair my pleasure to hand it over to Michael Martin. Thank you president peskin. Welcome, mr. Martin. Thank you very much. Good afternoon. Assistant port director mike martin. Leadership brought through the multiyear efforts with the u. S. Army corp of engineers. Really appreciate being here before you chair melgerthis is i think really challenging to take this all in. I think president peskins comments were right on point. This work over several years has gone to try to detail how we can protect 7 and a half miles of waterfront from flood risks in the seismically active place like San Francisco. We think about our waterfront as being somewhat immutable but knows it formed over millenia by nature and also by 1850 by acts of man to create a new shoreline when people got here and trying to put together a concerted effort through engineering analysis to say how can we protect this and define the edge of San Francisco for the next century and hopefully the next century of prosperity and this being the kind of city we are proud to live and work in. We tried to boil this presentation down to help understand what the draft plan is at this point and what it is not. Because this is a mega project and delivered over decades, it has to be something where we sort of have a very gradual narrowing of the funnel of deciding what it is that we are going to build, but at the same time, i think we absolutely need these opportunities for Stakeholder Engagement to inform the public this is moving forward and this is a slow motion challenge that is pulling towards trying to find a solution, but at the same time, trying to find ways to also engage with stakeholders to bring things into the project that we know San Francisco is going to demand in the waterfront of the future. I think we benefited from a few things in our work with the army corp of engineers. One of the biggest things is that we benefited from the comprehensive benefit approach. They moved away from in other situations where they have taken a strict look at cost benefit in making determinations how to address potential risks. Here we have been able to bring in other things we heard from our Stakeholder Engagement about San Francisco and what it wants to see on the waterfront and we are hopeful those can be kept in the draftd plan and brought forward into design and realty as we execute the mega project down the road. I do think it has been notable that in the two months since the draft plan announced in january, despite the size and how unwieldy it is, we have gotten a number of useful comments we know we want to move forward on and work with the army corp of engineers to address, both between thou and when they take the plan to congress and hopefully get endorse mentd and beyond that when we get into Detailed Design where we figure what we want to see San Francisco have in terms of the connection to the bay, in terms of environmental enhancements and all the things we expect a mega project to have here. So, with that, ill do a quick overview of the actual presentation. As mentioned we are happy to have brian harper and brad benson, the port waterfront resilience director delivering the presentation on the draft plan itself. Also supported by Rachel Tanner the director of city wide planning, issues relating how the Planning Department views. We have other members of the port waterfront Resiliency Team and grateful for representatives from smta, puc and office of resilience and Capital Planning, Planning Department, public works and Transportation Authority to answer questions from the committee should you have them about our interdepartmental collaboration and critical city infrastructures implemented by the plan. Ill hand it off to mr. Harper. Good afternoon. Th