>> good afternoon, we'll call this meeting of the historic preservation meeting to order. >> this is the san francisco

historic preservation meeting to order. i will remind you we do not tolerant any outburst or disruption of any kind. please silence any mobile devices that may sound off and before speaking before the commission, if you care for, do state your name for the record. i'd like to take roll at this time. (roll call). >> commissioners, first on your agenda is general public comment. at this time members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction within the commission accept agenda items. with respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission will come when the item is reached. i do have one speaker card. >> thank you, richard roffin. go ahead. >> good afternoon, commissioners, my name is richard rothman and i wanted to speak about the wpa murals within our city. first the good news about coit tower, the rec and park and the art commission did a really great

job. rec and park and the zoo and the art commission applied for historic preservation grant and received the grant and the assessment is going to start soon and hopefully in a couple of years the building will be open again. those murals, unfortunately they are closed but they are absolutely beautiful. if you have access to facebook i have a facebook page called friends of the mothers buildings and you can see the murals there. but the not so good news is that there's some murals in the city that need to be recognized. one is 35 ogendaga this was a mural by mr. sackhiepl and i didn't know about it until a real estate department was going to sell the building. it was a former school -- a former public health building. part of it is, part of the mural is covered up because they didn't like what was on there. john

avalos' office is working with the real estate office to put conditions to preserve the mural but i think it would be great to be a city landmark. and also probably the second greatest collection of murals in the city is george washington high school. and i found out that is not even a city landmark and neither is roosevelt which has some murals. both were designed by

timothy fluger and eric mar supports that these be city landmarks and also john muir school. i hope that either a private group will do the landmark status or you will put it on, asset to be put on the work on the staff's work list to do. but the murals at george washington, the art commission is, thanks to funding from eric mar's office, is doing a study to help preserve the murals. but they are really fantastic, that timothy fluger had the insight to have murals put in the building there. so thank you very much for letting me speak. >> hello, good afternoon, my name is jason stein, you may remember me from the project, the mills act 201 bucchanan house. >> you may remember our case, it was 201bucchanan house, we entered into a mills act with the city. we discussed a form that we could use to report back our progress every year that would be required by planning. this is a form that we went back and forth with planning, several different departments had their eyes on these emails as did all

different parts of the contract. so we put the contract together, we started using the form that they had submitted to us that they asked for our input for, that we agreed to use. we sent it in the first year, 2 problem. this year we were requested the form again -- sorry, guys, wrong form. you are if breach, we are going to the city attorney's office. so i guess we are in breach now because of this. i don't know what kind of benefit a public scrutiny the new form had or any input from mills act owners, but any new obligation that comes to us passes along with the house so for the 10 year duration of the contract and our big concern is if new material keeps becoming a requirement for the home owner in a year or two we're going to have a totally different set of obligations. also if there's turn over in the city people looking at this contract with no idea of what had happened are not going to be able to figure out what we're obligated to do. i can send you all the chain

of emails showing how we arrived at this but, aupb eftdly, we don't want to go through this every year. we feel like we bent over backwards to get this house into the program. we were sort of a prototype because the laws had been changed and we've been so cooperative. we agreed to inspections, we have agreed to just about anything. but when i went into the planning department i was told that, no. 1, we're in breach, no. 2, they have no explanation from where the form came from there planning department they make hundreds of form. the previous form was a product of negotiation of all the parties. this is a bilateral contract. and then basically i was told by planning that they don't care one way or the other whether i signed it or not. so i hope some of you care what happens in this case. if you like we can make an updated agenda item so you can see the progress. we've presented here before. but honestly my real desire that we focus on the major issue of trying to get this done. for example, the tax

department lists our building in pacific heights on our tax bill and we're in the lower haight. so i think there are bigger problems and i would rather not be here every year. >> i'm sorry, could you finish at the mic? you'd rather not be --. >> i would rather not be here every year having to do this. this is something we did not anticipate. we thought we had put this to rest and it was a form we could continue using it and we would not have to open it up to negotiation again. >> thank you. actually we will because the mills act i think is very important to this xhi and to the department as well. >> yeah. >> i'll look into it. >> honestly, we're thinking about pulling out of it. >> i'll look into it and i'll contact you directly. thank you. any other member of the public wish to speak on an item not on our agenda? seeing none. >> commissioners, that will place you under department matters, item 1, director's announcements. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i want to call

your attention to something that the on the written director's report. really for the benefit of the public and just as a reminder, since this has gotten a lot of media play in the last few weeks, the short term rental ordinance took effect this week and we are accepting applications and i just wanted to remind member s of the public that in order to rent their unit out on a short term basis they need to register with the planning department and get a registration number and show that they are in fact a resident of the unit. that's an important part of the legislation. for your information we have taken over 400 phone calls on this matter, over 300 people have requested an appointment, we have a number of staff lined up on phone time and to go through applications and assign registration numbers. we are hoping this initial glut will tail off just in terms of staff time, but this is actually a big deal for the department and we have 3 full-time people who

will be dedicated just to this program and the enforcement of this program. so just wanted to let you know and remind the public that this is in effect this week and that they should be calling the department to register to rent out their unit on short term. thank you. >> mr. director, i have a specific question on that. if a property owner owns a two unit, three unit, four unit, they live in there, it's separate addresses. >> the resident of the unit can do this. it's only available -- the whole point of the way the ordinance is organized is that it would be available to people that live in their units so that units are not being held off the market only being use the for this purpose. that is why the requirement is that the actual person renting the unit out on a short term basis is the resident, whether they own it or rent the unit, it's only the resident that can do this, this short term rental. >> are we because we're going to be burdened with 3 positions

for enforcement, now those three positions, and i guess maybe we'll take this up in our budget. maybe we should take it up in budget. >> this is a non-angendized item. >> commissioner johnck. >> i guess my question is how does this affect the staff dedicated to the histoof the historic preservation commission. >> the short answer is there are 3 new positions that will carry over to next year. these are brand new positions. >> it won't take away staff from the historic preservation. >> that's right. >> commissioners, any other questions, xhebts on director's report? seeing none we will move on. >> that will place you on item 2, planning commission staff report and announcements. >> commissioners, tim fry, department staff. there are no items to report from recent planning commission hearings but i did want to remind you of our national alliance preservation training on monday at the ferry building. an

agenda will be emailed to you i believe this afternoon. it starts, i think, check in starts at 8.30 am and it will end at 4.30 pm lunch will be served on site but if you have any questions about the training please feel free to contact me. thank you. >> commissioners, commission matters, president's report and announcements. >> i will take it up at our budget. >> item 4, consideration of adoption, draft minutes for january 21, 2015. mr. fry has submitted a small typo correction. >> commissioners, any other items before we take public comment? >> i just had one. >> commissioner wolfram. >> item 1, page 6 of 7 under the action about the van ness, the city hall crosswalk, it should say finding in the

action should finding of compliant recommendations proposed as recommended to include the mast. >> we will take public comment, any other member of the public wish to comment about the draft meeting minutes. >> move to adopt with the corrections noted. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners, on that motion to adopt the draft minutes as corrected, commissioner hyland, yes. commissioner johnck, yes. commissioner matsuda, yes. commissioner wolfram, yes. and commissioner president hasz, yes. that places you under item 5, commission comments and questions. >> commissioner pearlman. >> i had a question on the advance calendar. we had the projects in liberty -- on 20th

street, 37 51 20th street for the arc, i thought that was coming before us on our next meeting on the 20th of february and here it says the 18 *t of march. >> there was some movement around, based on the cac hearing schedule so that got pushed a little further out. the product sponsor is aware of that. that will be coming back before you on the cac and then the full hpc at a later day. >> no, i 92 you that. here it says the arc was march 18 *t. i thought it was february 18th. is that what pushed them out another month? >> commissioner pearlman, if i may, rich met with them and they are not ready to present to the arc so it was a combination of accommodating the subcommittee schedule as well as the project sponsor schedule. >> i just wanted to make sure they weren't getting pushed

back for no reason. >> commissioner hyland. >> several things. one is a disclosure i was contacted by the 20th street owner that we just spoke about. if the arc is meeting on the 3rd or 4th, the 4th of march, i won't be here. so we'll have to have president hasz attend in my absence. >> they are not going to like that. >> anyway, second thing is that we just had the acronym will be the cha, the cultural heritage assets committee had a fantastic presentation by dianna pons deleon from the mayor office of economic and work force development. she spoke about the invest in neighborhoods program and she

is leading two of the 25 districts, one is japan town and the other is 24th street. so she has made us a little handout. it was a very exciting and informative and engaging conversation. we'll bring more of that, report more of that back to you on future hearings. the last thing i had was that this past friday i think i mentioned it last hearing, the american institute of architects in san francisco held a place making summit, san francisco place making summit. it was a huge success, director ram was one of the speakers. we have over 100 attendees, it

was sold out, we had 31 people on the wait list and more that wanted to come. the sessions ranged from how san francisco can engage in the international place making movement to how we can use city government to support the use of our public spaces and it ended on a high note of talking about innovation and how we can drive that innovation down into the communities. so there will be further follow-up, the recordings are available or will be available shortly and i think we're doing, we're going to do a little synopsis video of the day. so thank you. >> commissioner johns. >> the last weekend in february, last day of february, first day of march is the san francisco museum and historical society's annual history expo over that two day period at which we will gather approximately 50 organizations concerned with san francisco history at the old mint. we

anticipate having around 4,000 people come through so i recommend that anyone who is remotely interested in the city where they live or they work should show up at least one of those two days. you will have a lot of fun. i believe that the planning department is having a booth again this year. >> that is correct. >> mr. frie. >> i was just going to reiterate that the department will have a booth and if any commissioners would like to join us and see our schedule when we'll be there, happy to share that and forward that along to you. >> commissioner johnck. >> i just wanted to clarify with commissioner hyland that i was one of the parties that couldn't get in. i even went there thinking that you, know, somebody have been release a spot but no. so congratulations on a successful event. my understanding is that for those of us that signed up but were on the wait list that we will be getting some of the

information and material. i think that's what they mentioned to me. >> that's correct, the powerpoints are available and it was recorded. >> thank you. >> commissioners, anybody else has a comment, we'll move on. >> commissioners item 6, election of officers. >> well, the names have -- the renominated commissioners have been submitted to the board of supervisors. the rules committee is meeting on the 12th at 11:00 to consider them. so for the same reasons that i suggested last meeting we postpone the election, i again suggest that we do so that we know who is actually on the historic preservation commission. so let me say we should know on the 12th whether

anything is controversial or whether it's going to go on to the board of supervisors, whether it will be hearing, what they are going to do. so i suggest we continue this again perhaps till the first meeting in march. >> then if i might, commissioner hyland already said he's going to be missing that first meeting in march, so maybe we do the second meeting in march. >> second meeting in march will be fine. >> it will take a couple weeks to calendar in rules, whether controversial or not to go forward with a yea or nay. >> i move we continue the matter until the second meeting of march. >> all the commissioners will be here for that second meeting that we know of now. >> second. >> commissioners, there is a motion and a second to continue the election of officers to march 18th, 2015. on that motion, commissioner hyland, yes. commissioner johns, yes. commissioner johnck.

commissioner wolfram, yes. and commission president hasz. that passes unanimously 7-0 and places you on items for continuance, item 7,, 978-98guerro street is moved for continuance. >> seeing none, open for public comment. any member of the public wish to speak on this item? seeing none, we will bring if back to commission. >> i move to continue. >> second. >> on the motion to continue

as proposed, commissioner hyland, yes. commissioner johnck, yes. commissioner johns. commissioner matsuda, commission president hasz, so moved, that passes unanimously 7-0 and places you on item 8, twais 2015-000747crv, proposed department budget and work program. this is an action item today. >> good afternoon again, john ram with the department. just brief intro durxes, we are here today to ask for your support in reming approval of the budget to the planning commission. as a reminder we reviewed this with you a few weeks ago. there are some slight changes from what you saw two weeks ago, primarily due to the, when we first sent you the memo two weeks ago we had thought we would be moving forward this year with a supplemental budget appropriation for this current fiscal year. we are no longer doing that and so we are asking that the positions that we had

proposed for the supplemental be granted us in terms of temporary staff for the current fiscal year but the new budget for next year would then make those permanent positions and that's what's in the budget today. as a reminder that does include a position, the temporary position for this current fiscal year and that would become permanent next year is a position for the city-wide survey that you had been asking for. we are proposing to put that in the budget, we had made that request to the mayor's budget office and we are processing that as we speak and hopefully that will get approved shortly so we can get that going as soon as possible. with that i will turn that over to kati demartini who will go over the budget with you. >> good afternoon, my name is keith demartini, it is my pleasure to present the 15-16 budget. today as director ram mepbsed we will be asking for your approval. i will be highlighting the changes made in the proposed budget from the last time i presented the budget to you two weeks ago today. this pie chart represents the full-time equivalent or fte

allocation of our staffing across the 5 main dwr*ition divisions in the department. you will see staffing levels are expected to increase by 15.4 fte the total fte count will increase slightly to 223.78 fte's in fiscal year 17-18 and that assumes the annualization of the new positions we request in 15-16 and 16-17.

this table represents the high level fte trend in each of the 5 divisions from current fiscal year adopted budget to the upcoming two fiscal year proposed budget. the only changes we made to the fte allocation among the divisions includes the extension of 3 limited term positions in the city-wide planning and in the environmental planning divisions in fiscal year 15-16 and 16-17 for continued work on various projects and the inclusion of multiple position requests in fiscal year 15-16 and 16-17 budget going forward that were previously planned to be included in the supplemental appropriation in the current fiscal year and director ram already mentioned that. so those are the only changes that we made to the fte allocations. the memo before you today goes into much greater detail about some of the volume and workload trends that the department has been experienced over the past few years. in response to many

of the questions that were raised by the historic preservation and the planning commissions during the prior budget hearings. at this time we are still assuming the continued high volume of planning cases and building permits that are requiring staff review into the upcoming two budget cycles. moving on to the department's revenue summary, the only changes that were made to the department's revenue summary increase the charges for services line by approximately 1.1 million dollars in fiscal year 15-16 due to the planned recognition of the revenue surplus that we're currently experiencing to fund those priority projects in fiscal year 15-16. that's in response to the decision not to move forward with the supplemental appropriation in the current fiscal year and appropriating that money in fiscal year 15-16. also just to mention the planning and administrative codes require that all of our fees index by consumer price index, or cpi, that cpi rate assumption decreased slightly from 2.84 percent down to 2.6 percent and down to 2.17 percent in 16-17. that rate assumption had an insignificant

impact on the revenue assumption. moving on to the expenditure budget, there were a few changes that were made on the expenditure side. no. 1, we included the 4 positions that are being proposed in the fiscal year 15 as of 16 and 16-17 budget that were originally assumed in the supplemental appropriation in the current fiscal year. we also are extending the term of the 3 existing staff positions for continued work on priority projects through fiscal year 16-17 so the cost of those position extensions are included in the budget. we also increased our professional service contracts budget to include two contracts, one for the rail yards alternatives and interstate 280 boulevard feasibility study and the civic center urban design framework plan, both of which we were anticipating funding through the supplemental appropriation and now we will be funding them through the 15-16 budget. and then we also increased the

projects budget, the projects line, to include funding to implement electronic document review, or edr, which would fully integrate with our new permit and project tracking system and then also funding to digitize our historical records. so moving on to our new positions table, the proposed budget includes the addition of 13.09 new full-time equivalent positions in fiscal year 15-16 that annualized to 17fte's in fiscal year 16-17 to implement the various department initiatives shown above. the only changes made from again the prior slide was all of these are now being proposed in fiscal year 16-17 budget as opposed to requesting a number of them through the supplemental appropriation in the current fiscal year. in appendix a on the work program detail you will see all these positions included in there.

this slide shows our grant budget proposal. we did not make any changes to our grants budget from the prior budget hearing. moving on to the capital projects proposals, this table lists the capital projects that were requested and submitted to the city's capital planning committee on january 16th. the only changes that were made to this list include two requests that we actually made during last year's budget cycle for fiscal year 16-16 for the payment to parks program and the street tree plantings program and you will see a brief description of those two projects in your memo before you today. finally the budget calendar. tomorrow i will deliver this same presentation to the planning commission. i'll then go back to the planning commission on february 12 and ask for their approval of the department's proposed budget so that we can submit the budget to the mayor on february 23rd.

i will highlight to you attachment 3 today includes a comment letter from the historic preservation commission which i will then provide to the planning commission so that they can read and know what your comments have been during the proposed budget hearings. so at this time i respectfully request your recommendation of approval of the department's fiscal year 15-16 and 16-17 budget. be happy to answer any questions you may have. thank you very much. >> commissioner wolfram. >> i guess i'm still a little bit confused about the 8 fte's because it says on page 9 in the department's 14-15 a one-time allocation of 3 million was approved to fund 8 fte's one time funding has been removed from the proposed 15-16 budget moving forward. so what happened to the 8 fte's. >> in our current fiscal year

of 14-15, the board approved a one-time appropriation of about 3 million dollars. that funded 8 limited term positions and it w