asking them to present that to you and that will depend how we move forward on the landmark designation. the remaining designations are up to date in terms of their status. if you have any comments about them, i'm happy to address them at this time. >> commissioner pearlman? >> what is on 2 -henry adams, did that legislation pass that cohen initiated? >> it's at the call of the chair. if cohen's office is interested in moving it forward now that there is basically a code amendment that will not allow them to change the use as originally proposed, if cohen's office wanted to move it they will because

they have the recommendation. >> from our point of view because we've done all the work and the an historic landmark from the city, we should wait and be behind that and if we can contact cohen's office to find out if it's going to move forward and we can follow up that she moved the landmark designation forward. >> great suggestion. we'll contact cohen's office and get an update. >> commissioners, i see no other comments. i'm going to open to public comment and we'll finish it off. there is no member of the public. we'll close public comment. commissioners? >> commissioner highland? >> i don't know if i missed it. did you mention cal house? >> i did not. the report is

complete. mary is out of the office for an undeterminate period. unfortunately, we ideally wanted to bring it to you in november. that was postponed due to her absence. i will commence with her to see how far along she is and the report is almost complete. i would say out of anything on this list, that is the most likely next designation report that you would see. >> what about new era hall? >> i have done outreach to the property owners again. the property owners which are the crossroads training company, the last time i spoke to them they had a lot of questions about the designation for the swedish american hall being they were both historically hauls

and community related structures and both constructed by the same architect. after today's hearing i will check with them to see if they are still amenable. they were just apprehensive about the responsibilities of landmark designation. >> in response to your question about priorities, i would propose that the ones that have a lot of staff time already put into them that they get completed and that any other community initiated or owner initiated nominations that can get moved forward without that much staff support. >> i think that's a great idea. >> the one other that i would recommend then is the sailor's union. we have a lot of work completed. we have been talking to the property owner. they have known for some time of the city's interested in

designating this property. sailors union and then sunshine school. those would be the two others that would be at the top of the list. if you are in concurrence with that, we'll do our best to get them in front of you. >> just as we are on, with the sailors union, because i spoke to their attorney and sounds like they are ready to go. >> they are prepared for the discussion. there is still some debate about providing accessibility to the interior that we think there are some good solutions. if we are able to solve those, they will be much more amenable to an interior designation as well. >> lastly, the steel mill building on 17th street. someone during public comment came before us maybe a year ago and gave us a bunch of information on that? >> the core events.

>> does that need to come into this? >> what's the status? >> at that time the commission did not indicate pursuing interest in that. we have designated the property in the is survey, we found one brick building on the site was eligible under the california register. i don't believe the department would concur that it's eligible for local article 10 designation. the member of the public that came was trying to make a case that the entire site was eligible as an historical resource. we can bring it back to you if you like, but it didn't seem at the time that there was any interest from the commission to pursue it any further. >> i think it was a public comment. >> this has been a battle or

portrero hill for a long time and they are trying to save the building and gettis detonating as an historical resource. i don't think they were interested in landmarking it and they were trying to prevent demolition of the building. >> the brick building is being partially retained as part of the new proposal. i think there was some dispute as to whether or not the other structures on the site were also historical resources. >> commissioner johnck? >> yeah, i was interested while i agree with the criteria, with the priorities of the work that you have done a substantial amount on the community to initiating, i was wondering with where we are with the modernist category. for instance on page 12, the russel house, i

was interested in that. it says own notification case tracking. just curious when you notify the owner and i will just take the russel house, have you had any feedback at all or did they say no, we don't want it? >> in this case yes, we did have as part of an initial development of the program, the property owners did indicate that they were not amenable to landmark designation. however we left it as keeping the door open for future discussions knowing this were some other low hanging fruit that we can address now and possibly reach out to them in the if you the to see if they were open to something similar to designation. willsky house, our last contact with the property owners at 3655 clay street that they were amenable to landmark

designation but again with other priorities and the fact that willsky house will require a substantial amount of research, others came before that. >> commissioner wolfram? >> i would like to push the ones where there is a lot of staff time and it's also important to keep the list going. some of these houses in pacific heights will be important, these modern houses to move forward and another question was there was, i can't remember the name of the property in west portal that was the retirement home. >> was it called the university house? >> further out. >> the one with the local

residents signed. university mound. we've already forgotten. [ laughter ] that is one that we, i don't know whether there was another category where we have this main list and we prioritize them and there are these that will be back filled and we'll start moving forward. i think that's an important one to keep tracking. >> certainly. >> another question i had for you, there are some really big projects in the city moving forward in hunters point and treasure achltd each of those have resources there. have any been landmarked. like treasure island with the airport building and there are some that were planned to be kept. i didn't know what the status of those were and since those projects are now moving forward, the question of whether they were added to the list? >>

>> if the commission is interested in learning more about those projects and whether or not there are any properties at those sites that are worthy of decision -- designation we can bring in staff to give you an overview of those properties. similar to what we did with the transit center plan what we brought to you a collection about 27 buildings to designate article 11, we are going to be doing the same thing as part of the central soma plan. we are trying to incorporator at least package more designation to work with area plans as they move forward and other large projects. say it fits better when we are doing an area plan. if there are these large development sites are also interest we should have a conversation about those and which ones you are more interested in and we can see what

opportunities there are. >> we saw at the landmarks preservation board a long time ago and there's the glass building and there was a couple out there but we never land marked and we just commented on the alterations. that came even after this other meeting, right? >> >> since i have been there there has never been a discussion about treasure island. there are some great buildings there. >> along the lines, this project, i know this commission was interested in getting a review on this project. there is a category 1, 11 building on preservation. it maybe worth looking the entire project and it's influence on that building early in the process rather than later. >> commissioner highland? >> i was just wondering if any of the projects or the buildings

are at risk and if they are, is there any benefit in prioritizing them. they still have ceqa protection. especially in this mid-century modern projects throughout the city, actually. that might be a way to, i don't know how long it would take if we identify the projects that exist that we can protect it further? >> the only one that comes to mind aside from perhaps buildings at risk for development within the pacific heights neighborhood as commissioner wolfram mentioned is the mother's building because it's in such disrepair and we are glad the park is whether or not to preserve

the building. other than that, the buildings that i would say have some risk associated with them that are around the transit center plan, the plantars hotel, the union fire building, pages 15 and 16 of the report or of your program , all of these buildings were also designated as article 11 under the transit center plan so they have already some protection but these were the cream of the crop that warrant landmark designation. i wouldn't say they are immediately at risk because any would have to come to you as parliament -- part of a building to alter. >> i think the houses are a great challenge. if someone owns it for 50

years and never does anything and someone bias it and it's doesn't have some kind of protection. >> what i would suggest if the residential property is on the list if it fits within that category, we haven't done outreach to the property owners in a while. i would suggest we do an initial or another round of outreach to them before the end of the year just 120 to see where they are and let them know we are still thinking about them and let them go from there. >> i think that's good. >> good idea. >> yeah. so we have a good list of notes? >> i believe so. what we'll

do is at the next quarrel -- quarterly report we'll reflect the next comments of this meetings and we'll revise, if you recall the last quarterly report we are going to revise that based on these comments as well. >> seeing no other comments on this we'll close the item and with that close the meeting. [ meeting is adjourned ] >> >>

good afternoon, everyone welcome to the budget & finance meeting a special meeting for november 2015 i'm supervisor farrell i'll be joined that i supervisor mar and supervisor avalos thank you for the committee clerk linda wong as well as the members of sfgovtv keeping covering this jonathan madam clerk please silence all electronic devices. all files and documents to be submitted to the clerk. items acted upon today will appear on the full board to the committee report for consideration on not that i know of 18, 2014 >> thank you, very much. call items one and two.

>> amending the planning code for the operation of formula retail establishment including the employers who offer additional hours of work to temporary part-time employees for 90 diaz days and item 2 a an ordinance amending the police code to provide employees with two weeks notice of schedule and compensation for schedule changes on less than 7 days notice and on call notice and permeate for the access to time off and eligibilities for promotion for full-time employees. >> thank you madam clerk i know this was heard last week while i was not no time but won't have a spell meeting today i'm going to turn it over to supervisor mar. >> and i wanted to mention that

i believe that samantha rajas will be hopefully here to answer questions i want to thank supervisor farrell for allowing us to have the budget meeting last week and pleased he's here to continue our conversation in the last in our meeting on wednesday there were a number of amendments made and i wanted to thank the many members of the public members of the community from the retailer workers themselves to small businesses and on that testified and also the businesses and on that testified as well and wanted to thank the director of our office of small business and director of our labor enforcement dan for weighing in on that important legislation and our retailer workers bill of rights has been given through many, many meetings and now hearings and

we're almost over the finish line i wanted to say for today's hearing we have a number of people that we are continuing the public comment period supervisor farrell but i'll do my best to listen to the public comment but my attention in speaking with president chiu over the phone this morning and others i'll be making a motion it's critical i think to keep within any part of the legislation to eliminate an amendment that was made last week proposed 2 hundred thresholds employee for the retention policy and for me keeping the legislation has strong as possible and the co-sponsors have supervisor chiu and supervisor avalos and supervisor campos for this section and that amendment that was made they're not a strong rational for it i think it sits and persistent to create a

loophole where thousands of workers will be impacted i'll move we eliminate that threshold of 2 hundred employees i think in looking at other examples i think it was given at the meeting i don't think it will be there's a persistent for example, in the hospitality square footage there's a sliding scale threshold and in the 0 grocery store worker retention there's is a square footage threshold and then there's no threshold in the scombrarl cud kidal ordinance we need to keep the ordinance strong from the retailer workers to keep this as strong as possible this will that is not one i can agree it so i'll be making that motion

also there have discussion from the motion made and supervisor avalos to change the employer dimension too the 20 thresholds as proposed in the original legislation to one employee so in fiscal eliminating the 20 employee trerldz and in decisions with sf loma and the coalition and supervisor avalos i'll say that i don't know that in conversation with the planning department and from our own work on the formula retail ordinances that pass or undergoing going through the board that passed unanimously at a previous meeting many say a will that that will cover only a small number of employees and i think that this one is one where i can agree to the original language though i know that

supervisor avalos and sf loma feels strongly i'm convinced from the data it's a small enough will that i can feel comfortable along with president chiu to add that back in and i'll be casting a motion to add that back in to 20 i know that there will be decision on that item also i know we'll have discussion on the 6 months fiscal dates with the six months wrap up that president chiu proposed and strong feelings from the coalition i've been working that the way too long and 6 months effective date should be the compromises or the agreement and not to have a 6 month wrap up but i'll be listening to the testimony i feel strongly that we need sometime to extend the fiscal date from 3 to 6 months that

makes sense but i'm in agreement with our coalition is adding an additional 6 months is not necessary this is legislation that impacts up to 40 thousand retailer workers protecting go workers and larger immigrants and adding that 6 months means people won't have stronger rights as retailer workers i think the goal is to insure the protection of economic security of tens of thousands of retailer workers in the city i'll be listening to the testimony but my intention is to consider 6 month fiscal date but not 6 months with that i'm i'm going to turn it over to my colleagues. >> supervisor mar i will given i wasn't here i'll have questions but certainly we can

do public comment supervisor mar and testimony mr. egon you spoke last week is there anything else you want to add or speak about. >> good afternoon ted from the krerlz controller's office our office filed an environmental impact report and i'm sure the supervisors doesn't read it i'll i'm happy to answer questions. >> thank you supervisor mar. >> thank you, mr. egging on i think i should acknowledge we have we have a person regina and other colleague they made remarks at the last meeting i'll start with the list of speakers and call them up

(calling names) so if your name has been called you can come and speak when you. >> my name is see ms. cady i leave the work and family coalition i didn't speak in the last hearing i want to express my support for this legislation on the scheduling and workers bill of rights in our statewide coalition we represent parents who rely on childcare and this is very, very important legislation i'm happy to see the working together and the compromise we also have had the

opportunity to work closely with jobs of justice local 2 and s c i u and continuing to work with them on prevention that makes san francisco a leader on the issue that is impacting young children and young worker and we're hearing everyday about you know how important having a predict schedule is for the quality of life i'm encouraging everyone to you know work together to have the best legislation possible to move forward i'm excited about this thank you. >> good afternoon jim lazarus from the chamber of commerce thank you for your comments we continued to have as you are aware significant problems with this legislation we think they can be worked out with time i may not have the time but we

appreciate the 20 employee thresholds back in and the retention of 2 hundred is not major but how do this negotiates change that has over 15 thousand square feet that fenced hotels and major restaurant and catering companies it's unclear this supercedes i think it was passed a number of months ago regarding part-time employees we are concerned about the employers to if i vacancies and manage a workforce for full-time and part-time employees we rec recognize the needs and rights of employees to give the employers they want to work additional hours available but can't support anything that restricts the right of an employer to determine the hours

and workforce composition regarding the fixed work schedule issues notice requirements of 14 days redundantly were acceptable to us as well as changes in the threshold for changes and work schedules and other comments i'll make if you have the questions while deliberating the two pieces of legislation. >> thank you. next speaker. >> supervisors thank you for your time samantha golden gate restaurant association we would like to express our concern with the legislation we appreciate the amendment to remain to go back to the 20 limit employment for small businesses we have issues along with or along with the chamber of commerce we advocate for a posting that the employees have the right to

request additional hours as jim said limiting the employers ability to hire is detrimental we have issues with the 2 week schedules we worry about the changes that made within the 7 days in the ordinance can be harmful to the business has a whole so we would like to continue to work towards a better solution and lastly we would like to request that we continue to work on that legislation we feel it can be a very a great piece of legislation given the times we can work on it together thank you. >> thank you ma'am. >> thank you, supervisors hopefully utility had not to read the continues and letters on both items so one of the key directives and requests and

recommendations for the board of supervisors to continue to work with the business community to resolve their key issues want to extend you know my appreciation and the commissions appreciation to return the distinction back to 20 employees at the business center we facilitate and do franchisee businesses one foot their product and things of that is formula retail but how they operate their business is a small business they don't have the benefits of having someone from a counterpart office foresight location. >> and things like that and one of the key things as jim lazarus pointed out in supervisor mar's legislation regarding this additional work hours