departments. thank you. >> president buell: thank you. >> secretary: is there any other general public comment? being none, this item is closed. we are now on item 14. closed session. i believe we have one card and that is kevin sullivan. and again, as a reminder, you have three minutes. >> public: good morning, i'm kevin sullivan. i'm the director at pg&e. i've spent my whole career looking at impacted sides and trying to figure out how to best reuse them and manage them and clean them up. i'm here to address the questions about the east harbor marina. what i really want to reaffirm for you is our commitment to the environment, our commitment to doing the right thing out there.

your commission and pg&e, we have a lot of common interests. park and rec need to dredge the site to keep it operating as a marina. we have an interest in that there's historical facts from gas plants that operated about a hundred years ago that are underneath the harbor. we've been trying to figure out a way forward. we have designs for a large dredge project out there. the more our team looked at this, the more i think people just said this does not feel like the right answer. it's a heavy-handed approach. it has a lot of impacts of the actual construction. some kind of questionable environmental benefits and importantly, very high costs. we're talking tens of millions of dollars here. our team went back to the drawing boards and said what's the best thing to do for the environment and can we look at this through a different lens? can we come up with something that might be for attractive to

the citizens and to the parties involved? what we came up with, i handed out earlier a one-page sheet. an alternate propor sal that would -- proposal that involve a gradual modification of the use of the marina to a more open public access habitat creating space on the waterfront. it's a very conceptional design but we see a lot of benefits we would like to commission to look at. reduced impacts around construction. we see much more public access and we think that's something that the commission would be interested in rather than access for a small number of boaters. depending on how this design ultimately worked. we could open that part of the waterfront for much greater access to a larger swath of the public. we think this design could be more climate change resilient

and it could save tens of millions of dollars for both the city and for pg&e. we would like to engage in a dialogue around this. we would like to explore the ideas with you and your safai to see if there might be kind of a win/win option out here that ultimately would benefit the citizens and be more environmentally friendly in the long run. thanks for hearing me out. >> president buell: thank you very much. >> secretary: is there anyone else who would like to maybe public comment? being none, public comment is closed. commissioners, we need a motion and a second to vote whether to hold closed session to confer with league counsel. >> president buell: moved and seconded. all in favor. [all ayed. >> president buell: from a procedural standpoint we will take the second item up first because we're going of some staff presentation and that will facilitate our being able to deliberate in closed session

following that. go ahead. >> secretary: i was just going to say we need to ask everyone to please leave. and unless phil has asked you as a staff person to stay, we need to ask >> secretary: okay, we've now reconvened to open session. so, we have two items. possible report on actions taken in closed session. we need a motion whether to do a report on actions taken in

closed session or not. >> president buell: move to not release. >> second. >> president buell: moved and second not to. all in favor. [all ayed] >> secretary: and then vote to elect whether or not to disclose any or all discussions held in closed session. >> president buell: move to not release. >> second. >> president buell: moved and second t to not reveal discussions. -- seconded not the reveal discussions. >> this eye them is designed to allow commissioners to raise issues they believe that commission should address. there will be no discussion of these items at this time. commissioners, are there any items? >> president buell: commissioner anderson. >> secretary: could i get you to speak into the mic. >> commissioner anderson: i had a question based on ms. wild's presentation about those two parcels in the 1100-block of mission. is that something we need to

follow up on? it's sort of new to me. i apologize. what do we do about that? >> secretary: we can't have a discussion. >> president buell: maybe staff can respond. >> secretary: is there any other? >> president buell: see none. >> secretary: any public comment? >> president buell: seeing none. >> secretary: this item is closed. item 16 new business agenda setting. is there any public comment? being none, this item is closed. communications. public comment? >> president buell: seeing none. >> secretary: this item is closed. 18 is aadjournment. >> president buell: moved to adjourn. >> secretary: thank you commissioners. ne of you

so very much. this is such an honor and it comes with such a surprise to me, because i didn't knee anybody -- anybody knew who he i was. mr. president, thank you for your kind words and support. you were the best. we wouldn't have what we have today if it hadn't been for you. [applause] i'm honored to be here. i'm honored to be here with all of you today and i'm also among friends. so many of you were here at the forefront of the a.i.d.s. epidemic here in san francisco. in 1985, and i was in hot springs arkansas, a single mom,

hair as big as my dreams of getting in the junior league. one day i was at the hospital visiting a friend when i saw

>> they tend to come up here and drive right up to the vehicle and in and out of their car and into the victim's vehicle, i

would say from 10-15 seconds is all it takes to break into a car and they're gone. yeah, we get a lot of break-ins in the area. we try to -- >> i just want to say goodbye. thank you. >> sometimes that's all it takes. >> i never leave anything in my car. >> we let them know there's been a lot of vehicle break-ins in this area specifically, they target this area, rental cars or vehicles with visible items. >> this is just warning about vehicle break-ins. take a look at it. >> if we can get them to take it with them, take it out of the cars, it helps. [gavel sounds] calling this hearing to order. good afternoon and welcome to the historic preservation commission hearing for wednesday, january 17, 2018.

this is our first hearing so happy new year and welcome back, commissioners. >> happy new year. >> i'd like to take roll at this time. [roll call] unfortunately commissioner johns notified us that he is out ill today. i will remind members of the public that the commission does not told rate any disruption or out bursts of any kind and to please sigh elevens your mobile devices that may sound off during these proceedings. 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 of the commission except agenda items. the opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. each member of the public may address the commission for up to three minutes. i have no speaker cards. >> yes. please come forward. >> good afternoon, commissioners. david silverman. thank you for the opportunity

to address the commission today. i was here on december 20 representing 420 eureka. the purpose of the hearing was to take the h.p.c.'s comment on the draft d.i.r. most of the discussion that the hearing focused on a mitigation measure that i believe was taken from another project and did not belong in that e.i.r. it had to do with a walking tour and i addressed the commission on that point and raised the issue that a walking tour for a four-unit project was, perhaps, not appropriate. and my takeaway from that hearing was that a better mitigation measure would be assigned in front of the church. and i believe that was the commission's sentiment.

after the hearing, i communicated with the staff and their response was, of course there's going to be a walking tour. so, i would like the -- to ask the commission to ask the staff to report back at a future meeting on that particular mitigation measure or to place this on the future agenda for further hearing. thank you. >> thank you. any other member of the public wish to comment on a nonagendaized item? if so, please come forward. seeing and hearing none, we'll close general public comment. >> commissioners that places us under department matters. item one, director's announcements. >> there's no director's announcement today. >> item two, planning commission staff report and announcements. >> i believe we don't haves that either. [laughter] >> very good. moving right along. commission matters. item three, president's report and announcement.

>> i have no report announcement today. >> item four, consideration of adoption draft minutes for for a.r.c. september 20, 2017 hearing and draft minutes for h.p.c., december 6, 2017 hearing. december 20 took some time because we lost the audio, unfortunately, to that and so it took time for staff to put together -- >> oh, ok. our brains don't go back that far. [laughter] any comments on the draft minutes? no? does any member of the public wish to comment on our draft minutes for december 6 and december 20? seeing and hearing none, we'll close public comment. a motion to adopt the minutes? so moved. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners. on that motion to adopt the minutes for september 20, a.r.c. and december 6 regular hearing -- [roll call] so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously

5-0. and places us on item five, commission comments and questions. >> i think i would like to follow up on the public comment that the speaker made so we could get a report on that project on the -- >> 150 -- >> here we go. >> i will certainly relay that to staff. >> any other comments or questions? >> no, different topic. >> ok. i was hoping mr. frye was here. i sent an i.f. to jonas to send around an article that was in the chronicle about the historic houses, a number of houses that were illegally torn down and it's a very interesting problem because, you know, so often we hear these stories and it's so far out of the hands of the architect, the engineers, the planning staff, because it is, you know, an owner, typically a

developer who takes it upon themselves to make some decisions in the field. and i know that the finds often are, you know, not commensurate with the problem. i was just wondering if, you know, especially when it is a historic building, you know, if we could have a further conversation, if it's something we can schedule a conversation about. how to address this. i don't know if the staff is specifically already looking at -- thank you. >> sorry, this isn't technically on your agenda, but the planning commission has raised that exact same issue and we're looking at more robust ways to make sure there is, number one, better communication between us and d. by. -- d.b.i. on these issues and, number two, what we can do to try to address the particular players involved in some of these decisions where this has, frankly, happened repeatedly. >> yeah. >> so, we're working with the

city attorney's office and planning commission and happy to work with you as well on future discussions about how to best address this, as this has become an issue that a number of people have asked us to start working on, more robustly. >> maybe we can have it as a staff report in a subsequent hearing. >> happy to. >> no know what's going on. >> and we can ask questions about it. >> absolutely. >> ok. yeah. because the 840 chestnut was an interesting one. that is the willis polk house where they came back and said the house was so deteriorated. that should have come up in a historic report. you know, that it was -- that it deteriorated and could have been discussed as to whether that was appropriate to them, do more work or less work relative to that. so, thank you. i appreciate that t.s i do have one other thing. i'm giving a talk on february 2 to the alliance of monterey-area preservationists in pacific grove. on generally what we're doing here in san francisco for

preservation and then more specifically about the hibernia bank building. if anyone's down in the area, please join us. it's on -- i can give you more information -- >> actually, i can add to that t. i'm going to be on a c.p.s. panel next friday about -- it's about ceqa review and the commission's perspective. historic preservation commission's perspective on the ceqa and how we're involved with it. next friday at pier one. >> very good. >> any other comments? we can move on. >> see nothing other comments, commissioners, we can move on to item six, election of officers. in accordance with the rules and regulations of the san francisco historic preservation commission, the president and vice president of the commission should be elected at the first regular meeting of the historic preservation commission held after the first day of january each year or at a subsequent meeting, the date of which is fixed by the historic preservation commission at the first regular meeting. >> so, i was going to suggest

and commissioner johns is not here, that we wait until the next hearing so we have the opportunity for his input in that. everybody ok with that? >> yes. >> public comment. >> yes. >> any member of the public wish to comment on this item? seeing and hearing none, we'll close public comment. we don't need a motion to -- >> we do need a motion. >> ok. we have a motion to -- >> move to continue this to the next meeting. >> all right. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners. on that motion then to continue this matter to february 7. [roll call] so move, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 5-0 and places us under your regular calendar for item seven. case number 2017crv. this is the 2020 department

budget and work programme. that is the informational presentation. >> good afternoon, commissioners. for example, john ram, departments staff. i'm struck by this phenomenon that the older i get, the quicker time seems to fly by. this is my 10th budget preparation and presentation to you and the planning commission so i'm -- it is amaying. i thought we were just here a few months ago and here we are again. i'll have deborah landis our deputy director of add nointion give you the presentation today. but just to tell you that we are, after several years of sometimes double-digit growth since 2010, the budget we are showing you today is a budget that is essentially a kind of stay the course budget. we are -- our revenues have essentially leveled off over the last 18 months or so. we were seeing substantial growth, as you know, after the recession and the last two years, or roughly two years, we're seeing a leveling off of those revenues. mind you, leveling off at a

high level. we're not dropping, we're still seeing a record number of projects and application come in. but we're not continuing to see the substantial growth that we saw in recent years. that leveling off combined with increased cost in which inevitably happens with our budget every year means that we have to be a little more cautious than we have in years past about take on initial tiffs. the budget and work plan you'll see today is a pretty much stay the course budget. the good news is that we don't really have to make any substantial cuts. the bad news is we really can't grow any substantial way and take on major, new initiatives. with that, i'll introduce deborah landis, the deputy director of administration and i'm joined by tom desanto who's our chief administrative officer, as you know, and jeff jocelyn and tim frye here to answer questions and the work plan. thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. deborah landis.

i will try to make this brief and as painless as possible. as john just mentioned, the budget is not going to be changing very much in the upcoming years so i will walk you through the projections for the current year, which is what we based our future years on in great part and then the revenues, the expenditures and then some of the bigger changes that we wanted to point out to you today. one thing i do want to note is that the budget system itself has only just opened and so when we come back in a few weeks the numbers will be slightly different. the general idea of what we're proposing will be exactly the same. but because we have to come up with all of these estimates and projections without the budget system, there will be differences slightly when we come back. ok. so, let's see. and we will be back on the 7th for your recommendation to the planning commission for approval. so the agenda here, i just ran

through very quickly, in addition. we will have some detailed slides and information on historic preservation specifically. and then at the end, we'll go through the overall budget calendar, which has john mentioned, is fairly year round. two items to ♪ that we get instructions from the mayor's office every year. the set of instruction this is year included a 2.5% decrease in our general fund support. and as you know, most of our department is funded through revenues that are not general fund revenues, application review, building permit review, impact fees. work order recovery from providing services to other departments. so, the general fund reduction was about $95,000 in each year. we've been able to find that. so, we are able to comply with that instruction. they also asked all departments

that are mostly self-supporting to absorb cost increases and we've done that as well. and the mayor's office asked for no new positions. however, we do propose one rove gnu generating self-funded position related to accessory dwelling units, a.d.u.s, and that addition we expect will pay for itself with the additional a.d.u. application volume that we've been seeing and the increase we expect to continue into next year. of course, the context for all of this includes the mayoral directive around streamlining the approval and construction of housing for san francisco in general and despite the dollar amounts not changing very much, every division in the department is focused on the mayoral directive and how we can foe cushion on expanding the housing opportunity in san francisco. ok. getting to the current year,

which is again what we based most of next year on, in last year's budget we had assumed that we would recognize some deferred revenue, which is revenue that we got from projects that began in a prior fiscal year that will finish in the current fiscal year. so, we got the check last year, but we're actually recognizing it this year. and so we always anticipated that. when we look at the current year and we see that there is a shortfall, it's an expected shortfall. and we will be covering that with our deferred credit for current year ending up with an even net zero finish of revenue and expenditure at the end of the year. but what we like to focus on in putting together next year's projected revenues, what are the levels that we're seeing with our applications and building permit reviews that are coming in the door this current year.

so looking that the and looking at the volume that we've had, we are saying this year and the following year will be about even. there is a large increase over most of the last decade and the plateauing really began last year and continues in the current year. we expect that again in the upcoming two budget cycles. if you look at the revenue budget here, you can see that the charge for services line is where our application and permit review revenue comes in and we're showing a very, very slight decrease there. every year we're expecting c.p.i. adjustment based on our current year projections and

then we are seeing about a $300,000 decrease from this year when you take both of those into account. the current year projection and c. pi. adjustment. so, basically even. the big changes you'll notice here, we are expecting more grants, about double the grants next years than we're getting this year. and development impact fees, we had some one-time funding for the rail yard alignment project so that one-time money is '17-'18, it won't be in future years so there is a big decrease there which, of course, is on the expenditure side. so, we are showing overall that we're going to go from about 55.4 million -- excuse me, 55.4 million to $53.8 million and, again, mostly the same as what we've been seeing this current year.

there is a little bit more detail on grants on the next page for you. if you are interested, there's been one change since this was published which is now that we anticipate the california ocean protection council sea level grant application will be in the following fiscal year in 1920 instead of in '18-'19 and we're hopeful and optimistic action these sources. and if there are other grant opportunities that come up, we'll apply for those as well. that is all the money coming in. and what are we going to spend it on? mostly people. so, salaries and sfring just under 70% of our expenditures for the department. as john mentioned, our cost increase every year, every single employee is more

expenseives every year. so, that is going to be a cost increase in every budget that we bring to you as long as staffing remains the same. our overhead is put in, it's city wide. it's something that every department pays and so we don't have control over that number. as far as we know, that number is not going to change significantly. if it does, it will be a few months from now after we're done touching the budget. [coughing] for now, it is in the budget as far as we know even for the next couple of years. the nonpersonal services, that is in great part contracts and so we're decreasing our spending there to reflect some of our lower revenues that we're expecting in the future fiscal year. the materials and supplies, capital and equipment, those are mostly staying about even.

and then the change that you see there, again is mostly related to that one-time funding for the rab project because that was a big chunk of change so we're not going to be getting the money or paying for those expenses in next year. the services of other departments what we pay for other departments when we pay for rent or the city attorney and technology. so, those are our big ones. one of the things to note there is that in the out year in the 19-20 year, we have unknown costs right now where we put in estimates around moving to our new building at 49 south van ness. and we know that our rent will go up. we know that our technology costs will go up and we have put in place some placeholder there is and we don't know what those costs will be yet. and there is a decent chance we won't have any good clarity on that until next year's budget.

we tried to anticipate conservatively so that, if anything, we can adjust our expenses down, wasn't we get a more solid estimate from those departments providing services. one thing that everybody likes to talk about is, ok, so people cost a lot of money. where are the people? what are they doing? these numbers will change slightly. the points that we thought you would want to know about are that we're shifting four employees from current preservation to environmenttal division and so they are working on ceqa-related preservation activities. still the same work and it's just a -- [coughing] revision they are housed in in the budget. so overall it doesn't change the f.t.e. count, but changes

between current planning and environmental planning. and there is that one new position that we are propose, for the a.d.u.s and that we begin in '18-'19 and we are proposing to repurpose one position and that one is also for current planning. so, lots of charts and a couple of graphs. here are some of the major changes we're looking at here. the four ceqa positions. the r.d.u. position are the big staffing changes. the grants, as i mentioned, the portfolio is just about doubling, we expect, in the next fiscal year. and the impact fee funding is changing because of big decrease in one-time funding for the rab project and we expect to get impact fees to

fund the nexus study, which needs to be done every five years and related impact fee study. >> one quick question. from 17-18 to 18-19, you're moving people to environmental planning and you say you were adding one current planner but the number of current planners went up. quite a bit, enough by plus 7. >> so, we -- >> because it is now 76 and 73, but it should be 73 minus four would be 69 plus -- >> we also have shifted three people from city-wide into current. and believe there was a position last years or maybe two that have annualized so there is always physician that created, always at .77. the following year there is a .s 23. this always gets a little bit convoluted, mrarsly around the staffing because there are also attrition calculations and some

of those are automatically calculated and some of those are manually changed and so it's in flux. the main staffing changes are around the ceqa positions and the new a.d.u. positions. >> thank you. >> sure. and then the fourth item that we wanted to point out is about the new building. so april 2020 is our move-in date. and so we are looking at moving cost as well as i mentioned increased rent and one-time costs such as new telephones that are internet phones because we're not going to have land lines in the building. so, a lot of one-time cost and then some potentially significant ongoing costs relating to the services of other departments. the work programme for the department you have in detail in the memo that it was in your packets.

we wanted to go over just this higher level overview here and then dig into the historic preservation component a little bit more. if you have questions about what was in your packets in anymore detail, i would be happy to answer them and come back with responses. as you see, it's generally remaining stable. we're looking at about 243. this is slightly different from the budgeted f.t., again relating mostly to attrition and then we had previously gotten a lot of funding for backlog positions, which have positioning that are off budget. so, the budgeted position count and the head count are always slightly different. but the idea here is to give you a sense of where the resources of the department are going and what projects we're working on and what level of

effort goes to each of those. so, getting into -- [bell ringing] historic preservation, which is what i imagine you have most of your questions on. i'm going to pass the microphone on to tim or -- on to tim. >> good afternoon, commissioners. tim frye, department staff. i'll start first with staffing, if i could get the slide back up. just to give you a sort of broad understanding of sort of where we are today. but also the work that and encouragement that this commission has given the department. we now currently have a compliance preservation staff member on the enforcement team. our first cultural heritage specialist working city-wide. we also have a full-time pick preservation planner and then we have two presentation

floaters that help with work all over the city. we have our environmental planning, preservation planners which, as deborah mentioned, have administratively moved over to e.p., but are still functioning as part of the preservation team. so from the outside, there really isn't any change in sort of how those planners interact with the public. it's morse of a budgeting and a management shift. and then we have our full-time survey team working on designations, city-wide survey and then the only -- we are fully staffed right now, save one position, which ms. lavalle is in as the acting senior preservation planner. she's now wearing sort of two hats as survey coordinator and senior preservation planner. so as we figure out what is going to happen with those positions, we'll be back to you

to give you an update on that. but overall, we don't see a major shift or increase or decrease in staffing. so, i think the good news at least for us is based on your urging and your recommendations to the board of supervisors, we've been able to create new positions and fully staff the department based on various levels of expertise and subject matter interest to fully address the concerns and interests of this commission and the department. so, with that, we know that for city-wide survey in particular, this commission would like a full briefing on where we are with the city-wide survey. we're planning to have that hearing in the next month or two. so, we'll certainly get into more detail about it then. about the methodology and where we are right now with the getty foundation, our conservation institute. but happy to answer any questions at this time about that. so, you'll see up at the top of

the slide here, preservation survey doesn't really change in terms of staffing and budget p. on the preservation related ceqa case work, which again if you have questions about how that's functioning right now and how it may be difference on the inside, we're happy to answer those questions but that is where the major shifter decrease. there's still preservation staff for all intentses and purposes. our preservation applications are essentially the c of as, permits to alter that we with review under this body and through your delegation. that's going to remain constant. your h.p.c. landmark designation work programme remains at the full f.t.e., community sponsored designations remains at the .s 15. i will just point out that your one f.t.e. heavily subsidizes this .15 which we've been able

to see through the quarterly report that the susan parks has created. but, again, it is something that we think is manageable under these two f.t.e.s so y see any -- or we don't see any reason to increase those at this time. preservation specific legislation coordination, again, sort of on an as needed basis when this commission is involved in reviewing legislation. this usually is handled by quadrant-based staff depending on where that shesing occurring in the city or sometimes me working directly with pillar and the legislative -- our legislative team in the office. preservation project reviews, which is embedded in part of current planning when a preservation planner is asked to attend a project review meeting. special projects and to give you a sense of what this includes where you see there is a slight decrease, i will have to double check this number.

the one thing i did want to mention was special pronltzes does include grants. we do currently have a c.l.g. grant for the chinese-american experience, historic context statement. we are currently under contract. we do intend on applying for another c.l.g. grant next year. our civil rights underrepresented community grant is winding down so that is not reflected here, which is one of the reasons for the decrease. the one thing that may not be reflected here, as you're aware, the national trust will have its conference heres in november. we are working with the trust and discussing with san francisco heritage to be a partner in that -- in that dofrns really help guide the intangible heritage tracks and the community involvement in the overall conference. there may be some financial

commitment that the city is willing to provide to make sure that happens. so we'll make sure these numbers are adjusted to reflect that. if they are different. it won't be a huge change, though, from what you see here. and then finally, the legacy business programme and cultural heritage initiatives, which as you recall from last year, creating that position, now we have a full f.t. devoted to that. >> quick question for you. about the pick. is that reflected in this or is that -- you said that the pick is being increased from the part-time position to a full-time position, is that correct? >> that occurred last year. michelle langley is now our full-time preservation pick person. there may have been, as deborah was mentioning, there may have been some attrition, depending on when she was hired and when she has been here just under a year. once she is here a full year, next year's blunt fully reflect that position. but that is currently listed. i'm not sure if it's listed

under the preservation team, f.t.e., or maybe it is embedded in pick. do you know? ok. we'll double check for you. >> thank you. >> so, for the next slide, just to give you a sense of proposed fundings in comparison with previous years. no anticipated funding for the 1920 fiscal year for ceqa review, but we are proposing for the following year $100,000. this is usually for on-call consult tanlts to provide us support when we have priority projects or city funded projects that may need an extra boost in meeting their aggressive timelines if they're associated with federal funding or some other important deadline. additional survey contracts. this is some seed money that we're going to keep.

on record so we can continue to negotiate and work with the getty conservation institute to demonstrate that we're committed to finishing the city-wide survey in a timely manner and they will, in turn, give us access to their software developer, who we worked with in the past and currently working with, that created the arches programme that is the interface for survey. the c.l.g. grant, as mentioned before, is shown there in all three years. our friends of city planning preservation grant, library grant, $1200 every year to support the purchase of books and other subscriptions for the use of staff, but also the public. as we mentioned, the african american c.s.er grant is winding down and is not reflected. and we have an ask to the

historic preservation fund committee for $50,000 to augment the $20,000 the city is putting forward to complete the cultural heritage strategy for the lgbtq community that's currently under way. and with that, i will turn it back over to deborah. unless you have any questions. >> none at this moment. thank you. >> thank you. ok. so, our final slide here is the calendar to let you know what the next few months hold. we will be going to the planning commission with our informational initial presentation next shurz. -- thursday. we will be back here february 7 and going to the planning commission february 8 and we need to submit the department's budget to the mayor's office by february 21. and following that, the mayor's office has a budget until june 1, at which point they give it to the board of supervisors.

their hearing is in june and the final, final adopted budget actually comes in and out july, even though the fiscal year starts july 1. this is a very long process. the next few weeks we will take the feedback from this commission, from the planning commission, incorporate it and have a final package for you by february 7. >> thank you. >> ok. thank you. >> commissioner, any questions before we go to public comment? >> i do. >> just a few. >> there are more questions of curiosity than anything. thank you very much for the presentation. it was very clear. on the expenditure budget page, fy18-20, you mentioned contracts. what kind of contracts? personnel contracts?

>> not hiring people for staff use. so, personnel is our staff that is really -- that is the topline here in the expenditures. so, the contracts that we're talking about, a lot of the studies, so we have right now some really large ones for e.i.r.s, for example. the civic centre, public realm, that is a big one. in the additional resources for historic preservation, we have money set aside related to those grants to hire contractors to do some of the work there and we -- oh, gosh. we have a few dozen contracts right now that are on call. so for example, if we have an archeological-specific need, then we can hire a contractor for something that's very limited scope and very specific area. >> so, there are contracts for

a specific purpose for a particular project. >> yes. >> ok. thank you. just another question. i know it was mentioned several times by you and also by tim about this shift of the four f.t.e.s going from ceqa historic review to the environmental-related e.p. team. they're going to be doing the exact same work? >> yes. >> yes. >> ok. and then one last question. from this document. i read, i think it was on page 10 where you list the nonpersonnel expenditure contracts and talks about the ethnic themed historic context statement that relates to what is listed here in the back on page -- in the attachment. i'm sorry. i was just trying to make sense of -- >> yeah. so, the grant for the $45,000,

which i believe is c.l.g., page four. the $45,000 contract. >> all right. that is all i wanted to know. thank you. >> thank you. i guess we'll take public comments at this time. any member of the public wish to speak to this item? if so, come forward. seeing and hearing none, we'll close public comment bring it back to the commissioners. any comments? commissioner johnck? >> my questions are related to the grants budget on the sea level rise action plan. yep. deborah. on the grants, is that -- is that going to new positions or will the existing planners be working on being funded out of those grants on the action plan? >> yeah. so, if we're able to secure that funding, which again we're optimistic and hopeful that we can secure all the grants that we're applying with here, we'll put most of it toward

consultant support to help the existing staff. >> oh, it would be consult tanlts. all right. ok. thank you. and then this is for pillar or jim. listen to me. tim. [laughter] ok. new year. just getting back into the swing! [laughter] >> you look like a jim. >> yeah. anyway, i am a little -- i'm more interested in this switch from the historic to environmental planning. and i think -- i mean, if i can give you my perspective where i'm coming from, i would like to encourage, and i'll have some more statements maybe later at the next meeting that when the e.i.r.s come before us, that the folks who were asked to comment on -- provide comment on the adequacy of the e.i.r.s that not enough has been focused on immediately on

historic preservation versus just the promise, per se and appears -- my experience has been -- it appears as if the historic preservation -- the solutions come later and i want to push more emphasis to recommend that everyone that comes before us with a project takes on historic preservation equally or first before they get to the final project. so, that's sort of my overall thought. about the process. so, my thought would be to make sure the department is fully focused, that all -- there's 14, right? 14 staff people doing historic preservation -- >> team? >> per se. and so i just want to make sure that that group is still has the resources, is still functioning as best that it can.

and i know the point was made, oh it's just budget tear. but this doesn't feel that way. ok? so maybe you could explain a little more. just give me some more insight into how this is going to work. [laughter] with a switch. >> the switch. right. so, i think that, yes. s in terms of what we do on a daily basis and our roles within the preservation team, within the department, really nothing has changed. i mean, literally like physically nothing has changed. we with still sit where we always sat and -- and our responsibilities are the same. the decision to shift the sort of management responsibilities from current planning, taking those four positions from current planning and moving them to environmental planning had to do very much with the

focus of those positions specifically on ceqa. so, those positions, because they -- while they -- those planners do other things within the preservation team, there's responsibilities in their work product are ceqa-specific. so they're issuing, you know, catexes or largerment dos that are issued and signed by the environmental review officer so it felt like there was a sort of disconnect between that environmental review officer responsibility and signing off on those ceqa documents and the fact that those preservation planners working specifically on those were housed in current planning. so, that's sort of where that -- the motivation for that shift. >> all right. >> but i think to your, you

know, your earlier point, you know, we are still -- i think we still feel like we have those resources to still do that work and we're still making every effort to -- when we bring in the larger documents to make it clear that yourself focus here is to discuss the alternatives and how the project has, or has not addressed the preservation impacts. >> all right. well, i guess my reaction to what you're saying, too, and i'm with you, is this is going to improve the overall functioning of the department and performance and the needed reviews and all that. that sounds right. yeah. >> if i could just jump in. i praoernlt that question because it looks -- and i realised just now that we should -- those four people should still show up on that preservation slide that shows the 14 positions, it still

should be 14. but the reason that we made the shift, i think pillarts explained it very well. but it is to make sure that there's better coordination. i have 30-some people, or i forget the number, doing environmental reviews who are responsible for ceqa. but our previous structure was that four of them were in a different place and that didn't make a whole lot of sense to us, that we should have those four people make sure that the preservation work under ceqa is coordinated with all the rest of the ceqa work and that is the purpose of that. >> i'm with you. i'm with you now. thank you. >> great. any other questions or comment on the budget? nope? thank you very much for your presentation. i think there's no action on this item, so we'll move on. >> very good. that will place us on item eight for 554 fillmore street, 730 south street and 660 oak street. this is a landmark designation.

i do understand there was a request for continue wants from the project sponsor. >> yes, there was. >> do we know the date? good afternoon, commissioners. we dids request a continue wants, just for some background. for those of you that aren't on the a.r.c., we just received written comments from the a.r.c. hearing that was held back in the fall. and we have a meeting -- i'm representing the owner of the project sponsor and we have a meeting set with preservation staff later this month to go over those comment and talk about a refined programming that would address some of the comments that the a.r.c. had and so we just want to make sure that the landmarking of this building is done more in tandem with an adaptive reuse that makes sense for the future of this building. i can answer any other

questions. thank you. >> did you have a date in which you are requesting the continuance to? >> this is the second or third time that we've had to go through this exercise. i would suggest leaving it up to the discretion of department staff for when department staff thinks it would be appropriate to come back for a hearing. >> thank you. ms. ferguson, do you want to speak to that potential date? >> commissioners, if i could just chime in. i feel at this point it is really up to the commission to decide on when you all would like to hear the item. you know, we're certainly committed to making sure that the project sponsor has a project that they're comfortable with and that the community can be really proud of. but at this point, we don't think the character defining features or the history that is outlined in the very thorough case report that's in front of you is going to change. so, it really is up to you all.

and then if you feel that it's worth postponing one more time or, you know, scheduling further out several months out to give us an opportunity to work with their newark tekt -- new architect so we can work come prehencively, we're in support of either approach but we would defer to you. >> thank you. >> i have a question. >> commissioner pearlman. >> mr. frye. i understand there is a new architect so they will be coming up with a completely new approach. would that be something that would then come back to the a.r.c.? >> that would be our intents, yes. >> i don't know if we want to wait until then to sort of see what they're planning. and i agree. i mean, i don't anticipate there's any new information relative to the report. the case report. i don't know if we want to suggest two meetings out, three meetings out. >> the first one in march, the first hearing in march.

>> commissioner highland? >> i think that the designation and the proposed project are two separate processes. and out of courtesy, i wouldn't be opposed to continuing this for a hearing or two. but as we talked about on the peace pagoda, the landmark designation will provide a lot of guidance for the new team and the design. so waiting for that project shouldn't be syncked up, in my opinion, with the designation. >> maybe march then? >> march 7 or the 21st are your options. >> march 21. >> 7th. >> 21st. [laughter] >> hands up. >> i suggest the 21st of march. well at this time, we need to take public comment on this item. does a member of the public wish to speak to this matter? if so, please come forward.

>> hello, commissioners. my name is meryl easton. i want to remind the commission and the public that there is a great deal of public support for the landmarking of this property and there is a number of us that show up at every continuance. >> thank you. and thank you for coming can. any other member of the public wish to speak to this item? seeing and hearing none, we'll close public comment. do not close it yet. >> good afternoon, commission. my name is robert pritchard, one of the parishioners at sacred heart and also the vice president of the sacred heart gospel choir and with the save our sacred heart preservation. there is a large contingent that is very much in agreement for historic preservation and landmarking. we're not all here because this continue wants keeps happening and people haven't been able to show up. be