>> you have been trading out old positions that are probably not used anymore. as i look at that, the one exception is there is about six positions that appear to be genuine new positions. they don't show up because you are transferring some folks out. it does appear to be new positions. my question is, given the low workload is decreasing and there are people we value and want to continue as it transitions, are there not opportunities or why are there not opportunities to do that kind of substitution and transfer instead of hiring new positions? >> good question. if we did not transfer 13

positions to another part of the organization, i would do that. i would substitute these positions, but it made sense that those people who have worked on it and have the knowledge and classifications already have, it paid better sense to move those over and the type of positions i'm asking for when you look at it is more administrative. we are requiring everyone to put information and construction management information system. we're having engineers spend a lot of time putting information into systems and so we want to supply them with adequate resources so that they can be more efficient and effective performing their core duties. >> that makes absolute sense.

when i saw those transfer positions coming in, i discounted them. my own arithmetic -- i did not count those because they are not really new hires. the other side of the coin is as they disappear, they shouldn't be coming to me. if there is the opportunity to recognize there is a shift in the workload and a decrease in one and increase in the other, if we could do that through substitution, it seems like it would be more appropriate. >> it's a challenge because on one hand, engineers, you can move into construction management and they have -- part of their scope is to do construction management. if you have a civil engineer and the mechanical engineer, you cannot shift them. if you need an environmental

manager, you cannot detect construct an inspector. -- you cannot get a construction inspector. we don't look at doing staffing plan by organization. we do by functional groups. >> you make a good point on that. what i would ask you to do is before you come back on the 14th, take a look at what would take to do that through substitution where you get rid of some vacant positions and use those to fund those. >> by be transferring the number of vacancies to reduce -- >> you would look really good. >> not a problem. >> any questions from commissioners? >> i have one on the budget as a

whole. we had a couple of resolutions from the citizens' advisory. one was supporting the action we took on power rates and that was appreciated. they also raised a question about the money we provide to city apartments for their services for work orders and it suggests a couple of things. one is we try not to let those increase in to the next budget and we establish a nexus between what we pay and what we get. one thing that would help in approaching that -- i'm not sure what the appropriate budget resolution would be but if we could have a listing of what those work orders are and what

they are projected to be in the next few years and a sentence that talks about what is at work, that would be very helpful. >> any other comments? >> yes. are we provided a one pager as to how much this budget is proposed to be cut? how many positions are not going to be hired so we have a macro view of the budget as opposed to individual departments? >> you have not been provided with that. at the next meeting, we can do that. you will find some much there are that many cuts. >> i think that is important, but it is also important, the various bureaus and departments,

what does it look like at the macro view so someone can say this is what is occurring and this is where the burden has increased on current employees. thank you. >> i was going to mention the work order summary. we will now see it again in two weeks. some minor points on infrastructure. i did not know we named it the hetch hetchy program said that it is more consistent and because the department of the environment has a home improvement program -- [inaudible]

on the staffing plan, i appreciate the updated slide and to it gets closer. i still have not fully reconciled the projected staffing level with the overall budget at the chart on page 3 which suggests 382 positions. if there is a way to throw up to all positions, whether they are direct or support so it all adds up.

i would note in the last several years we consolidated and they used to be separate and all got merged. all kinds of new things -- i do think they should have some flexibility to move things around. if there are positions that are not going to be filled and just sitting there as budget numbers, those positions ought to be axed. there is a tension there but staff can work through that. finally on local 21 and

contracting out as opposed to in house, where there is specialized peak workload, i support using other resources to make that happened to the extent there is an ongoing need -- to make that happen to the extent is an ongoing need and can be done in house. that's better to do for management and cost perspective. at a minimum, it doesn't matter with the contractor is, they are going to charge a much higher hourly rate plus their overhead. those are all management and tension issues that can be resolved. >> thank you very much. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i have a question about 525 golden gate.

in addition to the annual lease payment, there -- i did not see any positions associated with that. are there any positions associated with the clause and who is overseeing the function? >> it might be better to come back with a written report. there's a mix we're planning on using an outside contractor for cents is the first smart building we have and use it as a trading opportunity for our stationary engineers to use. we plan on using the sure if forced security for the work order and there are different ways we're doing at where we are not necessarily adding a lot of staff by taking carry of it and we can give you the details of that. -- taking care of it.

>> any other comments? mr. president, i turn the meeting over to you. >> the next item is to have a motion to continue the budget consideration until our next regularly scheduled meeting. >> >> the motion passes. item 23 is other new business. do we have any other new business? thank you very much. this meeting stands adjourned.

here. commissioner lee: here. commissioner hyde: here. commissioner joseph: here. commissioner tan i believe is on his way. >> item one is discussion and possible action to send recommendation to the planning commission and the board of supervisors regarding entertainment and community planning. before i call on commissioner

hyde to address us, i want to make a couple of points. neither myself nor this commission is discrediting the process of the plan. we respect the process, we just know that it isn't finished yet. we feel like it is fair to keep on talking about it. things have been referred to as an entertainment zone. we find that language to be inflammatory. it serves no purpose and is not factual. our input, by the way, is simply recommendations. it is for those bodies that actually make the final decision. no decision made here today reflects the plan, it is just our recommendation to them.

land use is a very long-term decision. when you make a land use decision, it goes out into the future. it requires as much discussion as possible. we are taking it seriously and we feel that we can continue to talk about it. there are issues that still need to be talked about. we realize it has taken a long time for this plan to be formulated. issues are different now, and there are folks that still want to have some input. after this presentation is made, it is to form a subcommittee to further discuss this issue i imagine any -- many of you out here are to speak on the subject and the request that everyone be civil and respectful during public comment.

commissioner hyde: i wanted to thank everyone that came out tonight because it is this kind of input that i have been trying to open the doors for for several months now. my idea was not to rush ahead without community input or concerns. i think it is very important to note that since june, i have been trying to open this for discussion for issues that were brought to me by members of the commission and concerns from the news as well as small business owners and people who work with these small businesses. the plan is very comprehensive, and we are proud that we have a

community plan that takes a lot of the better parts of the plan, such as the stabilization policy or the idea of more bike lanes and being more like friendly, creating better transit, these are things that i acknowledge are good for this plan there is a discussion around alternatives that they feel like they have not been heard. i am not saying that they are the only voices, i am not saying they are the only ones i have done out reached 2 or intent to do outreach to. i was glad to hear that we are

moving this forward, because this discussion needs to be open and effective. the reason it was being pushed through, i was told how, as were other people on the plan, february is when the eir would come out. that is the environmental review that would start implementing this plan. people were saying that all this time has come, we need to do something and we need to act fast. i was placed in the position of trying to come up with language as to what these would look like at trying to get someone to discuss them with me. that was a very difficult process to get someone to discuss them with me. i did the best that i could invoicing and common language what it would look like if we invested a little more and entertainment and took another look at how it fits into the western soma neighborhood of

fabric. i intend to also do more outreach to the neighbors. if you want to talk to me, i am extremely available. i love meetings, i love getting coffee, please contact me. i mean yeah. there are several people that have worked with me in the audience tonight, i am very open and willing to listen to your needs and concerns. i am not going to promise that i agree with everything you say, you will probably not agree with everything i say, but it is only through open dialogue that we can come to the best decisions and make sure that it is not just here say that we are reacting to. as to why this was brought to me, i was on the western soma planning task force that started with the arch representative making comments to me that he was looking for help looking

into entertainment ever since the former entertainment person have left the discussion. he felt that he was having trouble getting these points listened to. so i help him pursue this, and at every turn, we were told that we did not understand about to have this conversation. this conversation could not continue. and when you start telling me know and the small businesses starting yes, we would like to continue this, i feel that it is my duty to continue on. and check out what people have asked me to check out. i am not doing this to get anyone or do anything other than open up a conversation. i am just going to say that one more time. i would like to move forward in

a positive way where my back is not against the wall to come up with planning speak that i don't know. i am hoping that we have a full board at the entertainment commission, which could have a full and vetted discussion about entertainment that is not in the purvey, unnecessarily, of the actual taskforce since i was unable to get that discussion there. that is really all i have to say except that i am really glad you came out. i am not looking to extend entertainment throughout all of soma under everyone's roof. it is about some of the entertainment uses that have looked as far as the zoning end the conversation would continue from there. please contact me because now as when the work starts.

commissioner joseph: please note commissioenner tan is present. >> i will call for public comment, but before doing so, i would like to form this subcommittee that will have no less than three meetings that will engage the public in dialogue on this issue. on the subcommittee, i appoint a commissioner tan, commissioner hyde and myself. a three-member sub-committee. you will all get a copy of that agenda, and we will see you then. i look forward to public comment on this issue. i have some speaker cards. forgive me if i mispronounce your name.

>> i have lived within the western soma community plan area for over 10 years. i have a vested interest in the betterment of my community. i am here to ask you to stop this attempt to overrule the western plan. please respect the community plan as it is, there have been 66 community meetings discussing entertainment with input from all interested stakeholders. please do not ignore our well thought out and well the plan. show my neighborhood some respect and leave the plan alone. i suggest you start your own plan. thank you. >> next speaker, jeremy pulled. -- paul. >> my name is jeremy paul, i

am a permit consultant and diocese people with projects going through the permit process. this plan has been very -- a lot of hard work has gone into it. there is so much quality in this document. i don't want to see a this, the quality of the essential core element of this document be threatened by a weak entertainment element. it really falls upon the entertainment division and the community that created its to support entertainment uses in the western soma. i have worked there for about 60 years and spent most of my days there. i feel very strongly that this plan as it now stands is very

weak in how it supports entertainment uses and how it enables a entertainment uses to thrive and continue. many elements of this plan are accepted in a defacto sort of way but the planning department as it reviews upcoming projects and the district. there is a preemptory review of the upcoming projects under the draft plan, the i don't think you can waste any time at all in getting serious about presenting alternative proposals as far as the entertainment uses in this district. >> [reading names] and anybody else that wants to speak on this issue, please line up on that side of the room.

>> i live in the south of market district. my partner lives in the western soma planning area so i feel affected by any decisions in that area. i will ask that you stop trying to hijack and spoil a well thought out and well vetted community plan. if sfgovtv would please show was on the overhead? i guess i could read it. you're starting a subcommittee with three members. how many mailings to zero residents are you going to do? the planning task force held all 7000 residents and other affected parties three times. 21,000 pieces of mail. you have the budget to send out 7000 mailings at least once?

twice? three times? i guess no. you're starting a process, and a totally different process here. so far this commission has had one public meeting prior to tonight. between 2006 and present, they have discussed entertainment and how it fits in in a balanced way with the rest of the other stakeholders and interests in the community. how many times is the subcommittee going to meet? we say it is just eleventh street, but if you attack eleventh street, your attacking all south of market residents. finally, and there really was the overhead was working right now, the entertainment division,

we are setting up the three- member subcommittee. there are six members of the entire commission. there are 26 members of the task force appointed by the board of supervisors. i will read the different members to you. honda president representative, one recent representative, when entertainment activities rep. a nonprofit developer, a for- profit developer, the san francisco transportation authority, a planning department representative which is very important. if the subcommittee doesn't have a planning person, what are you doing talking about planning?

please back off. thank you. >> the evening, commissioners. the neighborhood contains some of the most important entertainment venues in the city. these small businesses contribute to the san francisco economy and the city of the vibrant culture. we all of knowledge that they often conflict with residential uses and we don't oppose housing entirely because there are already neighbors that lived adjacent to these venues. some of them moved into the neighborhood because of the thriving nightlife. encouraging more housing in this neighborhood is asking for trouble. we support reforms that will improve the relationship between the nightlife and the community.

if new housing is built in the neighborhood, it should be designed to take into consideration what is already there. like new construction that will protect residents from allies. we also favor making entertainment a permanent use. making entertainment a permanent use will help ensure the viability of the businesses for years to come. it is a delicate negotiation and it is important to hear from the stakeholders' involved and we thank you for undertaking this process. people move to san francisco because of the vibrant culture. the economy has been hard on entertainment businesses. it is important to the city makes easier and not harder for these businesses to thrive.