past year, ended paints a good picture of why this is so important. if you have not read it, i would encourage you to read it. it really speaks well, and you will hear me stay over and over again, the importance of foot patrol officers and foot beats. >> thank you all very much. [applause]

the mac happy new year and welcome back. i would like to remind members of the public that the commission does not tolerate any outbursts of any kind. police please silence of mobile devices that may sound off backward speaking before the commission, you can state your name for the record. [roll call] first on your agenda , is general public comment. at this time, members of the public may address items of the commission on matters that are of this trip subject jurisdiction with respect to agenda items, your time to address the committee will win those will be when the item is addressed in the meeting. >> does any member of the public wish to speak for a nonagenda item? we will close general public comment. >> item one, under department

matters, director's announcements. >> good afternoon. i am with department staff. it appears the director does not have any announcements. >> i think the audience does -- [laughter] >> i am happy to answer any questions you may have. >> item two is a review of past events and announcements. >> good afternoon, commissioners happy new year and welcome back. just one item to share with you. your landmark designation quarterly report would normally be scheduled for today's hearing has been moved to february 6th , and that is so we can present a proposed program for you before you make a decision on your recommendations for the 1920 budget. you will have that at your next hearing. that concludes my report. >> any questions? >> see no questions, commission matter, item three, present's report and announcements. >> i have a little announcement. many of you know i will not be

seeking another term. this will be my final time as president here. i thought it would be a good time to reflect on the accomplishments of the last ten years that i've been on the commission. in addition to many permits and certificates of appropriateness and review of the e.i.r., we have had a few major achievements including the development of a robust landmarks work program and the designation of many landmarks and some districts. and the development of a cultural heritage program and the legacy business program. our plaque program for historic -- identifying historic properties, work on façade retention, and development of e.i.r. alternative guidelines. this is some of the many things we have accomplished. i really enjoyed working closely with the director and the audience here with the preservation officer, with our city attorney, and with all the preservation staff and planning staff who have really helped

this commission do its work. lastly i want to say it has been a real honor to serve with my fellow commissioners on the commission. i would like to thank you for your dedication to preservation, your thoughtfulness, your creativity, your ingenuity, it has been a real honor to serve with you. >> thank you. [applause] >> if there is nothing further,, item four, consideration of it draft minutes of the regular hearing of december 19th, 2018 >> commissioners, any comments on the minutes? act as any member of the public wish to comment on the draft minutes, seeing and hearing none , we have closed public comment. do i have a motion to adopt the minutes? >> so moved. [roll call]

>> so moved. that motion passes unanimously 7 -0. item five is commission comments and questions. >> commissioner highland while. >> i have one comment to follow up to an announcement i made a few weeks ago about senator weiner's state legislation on affordable housing, and we asked staff to arrange with senator weiner to come to our commission so we could have a dialogue. i will send these dates with you , but i wanted to get this on our calendars so we don't forget it, or it does not get past us. the legislation will be going into committee in march some time, so we would like to have our hearing prior to that. it is a either february 6th, february 20th, or march 6, and if not, then march 20th would be the last one.

i can e-mail those to you, but those are the dates that we want to coordinate with his staff. >> if there is nothing further, we can move on to item six. >> jonas, i forgot to thank you in my little speech. [laughter] >> you're one of the most important people here. >> thank you, commission president, but you not going anywhere. [laughter] >> item six is the election of officers in the corridors of the rules and regulations of the historic preservation commission , the president and vice president be elected at the first regular meeting held after the first day of january each year, or any subsequent meeting, the date of which is fixed by the historic preservation commission at its first regular meeting. >> commissioner john? >> since all good things must come to an end to, and they have , by the way i found your comments interesting but

deficient in one particular regard, and it was perhaps out of modesty that you didn't mention that you have,, during your term as president, been extremely steady hand. you seem to have developed an ability to draw from the commissioner's things that each could contribute, and i thank you have established some traditions for our meetings,, which have been extremely beneficial, and i am sure will continue. i just cannot thank you enough for the service that you have put in. rs four -- that is the past, and as for the future, i would nominate to be vice president, and to be president, commissioner highland. >> second. >> at this time we will take public comment on the nomination

or election of officers. but any member of the public wish to comment on this item? hearing none, we will close public comment. >> seeing nothing further, there is a motion that nominates commissioner highland for president, and commissioner matsuda as vice president. [roll call] [laughter] >> very good. that motion passes unanimously 7 -0. congratulations to you. >> big shoes to fill. >> indeed. >> do you want to switch? >> effective immediately. [laughter]

>> you will have to get your own gavel. >> thank you. >> so we do have some committee and appointment announcements. do we do this now. >> item five, commission comments and questions. >> so we have a few ongoing committees and appointments. our liaison with the historic preservation fund committee is bob turney, and i'm assuming i haven't confirmed that we would continue with that and bob representing us on the fun committee. the architectural review commission, committee, commissioner junk has been great on that. now we have commissioner black on the committee and we have thought that we would do a handoff. thank you for your time with us

on the a.r.c., for the a.r.c. it would be commissioner perlman, myself, and commissioner black. >> who would be the alternate? >> alan, would you be able to be our alternate. >> yes. >> okay. last, we have the cultural heritage assets committee, and we have done a lot of thinking about how to improve the dialogue and the process and what i would like to do is fold that committee back into the full commission and appoint a liaison to work with staff on cultural heritage issues, in that liaison would be diane, commissioner matsuda, and commissioner john has interest in working with that. we would agenda eyes the agendas from the ch a.c. as part of the

full commission. a lot of those who would duplicate it, under the committee we would bring two liaisons to staff. >> we have identified commissioner matsuda and commissioner john as an alternate. >> understood. >> and then lastly, staff has requested a couple liaisons for the citywide survey and i would like to appoint commissioner black as one, myself as another, and if -- do we need an alternate to that? >> it would be myself -- >> very good. >> okay and then we do need one further agenda item that we skipped over, and that is the future meetings and agendas. >> that is folding in with the commission comments. >> we do need to talk a little

bit about the future hearing for the joint preservation and planning commission. >> as much as you would like to. we will be issuing the agenda tomorrow. >> we wanted to ask our commission is -- if there are any questions we want to pose to the planning commission ahead of our joint hearing. the purpose of the joint hearing is there will be two agenda items. one is to discuss how we can communicate better between two commissions, and then the second agenda item will be the update of all the various programs that our commission is doing, and the cultural heritage districts and tim? >> the second item will be more broadly, as president highland just mentioned, the first item would be around how the commissions can communicate more effectively specifically related to our review of the documents. the second item will be more

related to design review sort of outside of the context, in particular, we will be presenting a draft of the façade retention design guidelines at this commission has reviewed three previous times we think we finally got it right and we will share that with both commissions to see which direction would like to take especially with stakeholders and outreach. with that, naturally as you mentioned, we could broaden that to talk about other program areas if there is time. >> right. >> on the communication thing, broadly speaking, we advise the planning commission on things, and i have -- i would like to know what is it that they want from us, or in what form do they want it, and have the comments

that we have made over the past few years have those been helpful? have they missed the mark, and the planning commission was looking for some particular kind of information for some insight, or some way of it being presented to them which we have not done. since we are trying to help them out, i would really like them to advise us on what would be the most useful form for what we are going to give them. >> tim, would you collate some of these questions to prepare, or to help the planning commissioners prepare for the joint hearing? >> i certainly will. >> great. >> it is me. [laughter] >> just to cut follow-up on the

comments by commissioner john, maybe to think about in informal liaison or commissioner from our commission to the planning commission, and also to the arts commission so we could have a better flow -- not to say that you have not been a great messenger for us, but to maybe have some more direct dialogue, because there are often things that we can probably have prepared for with more time had we known before it hits the agenda, it is not like -- it is public knowledge, but to formally be part of a conversation would be very helpful. >> so you are taking questions now? okay. >> the goal is to help the planning commissioners and ourselves as well to prepare for the joint hearing. >> i thought about this for a long time. so we are asked to comment about

the adequacy of the preservation alternatives that are described in the document, and at the same time, we would like to express our views about the preference on those alternatives are why we think one alternative is better. and not just whether they are adequately described, for the preference with one over the other. the public wants that. that is the public testimony we get. we keep telling the public, go to the planning commission, we are listening to you, but your next best place to speak about preference is at a planning commission, so here again, this goes to your point, not only do we want to know what would be useful to them, but i would like to know how would they take a preference? are they listening to profess -- preferences in any of that

discussion that we have here? >> commissioner perlman? >> part of my question has already been asked. it relates to the same thing. it is the other end of what commissioner john said. to get from them, what they want to hear -- how they want to interact with us, the example was one where i got upset because they were making decisions based on their perception of a historic house, and they never came to staff, and they never came to us. and what the implication was of all that. are there places where the planning commission can anticipate things that they can bring to us so that then we could inform them for items coming before them? thank you. >> i had one last point for question. are those that have unavoidable

impacts for historic resources, and the question is, how many projects have not come before us that had historic resources that were dealt with in a way that impacts were mitigated to less than significant, so i would like to know how many of those projects existed, and if there is a dozen of them were half a dozen of them, it is a simple quick list. my guess is it is very few. that is why i am asking the question. if it is two or three, it would be good to know. if it is longer, than it could be just a sampling. >> do we need to have any other public comment? >> no. >> that will place us under the consent calendar. the only matter listed here under constitutes a consent calendar is considered to be retained by the historic preservation commission, and maybe acted upon by single roll call vote.

there will be no separate discussion unless a member of the commission on the public or staff so requests. in that matter the consent -- it will be removed and considered as a separate item. a certificate of appropriateness at 1231 folsom street. >> would anyone like to take this off of consent? would any member of the public wish to take this off the consent calendar? >> seeing none and hearing none -- >> i make a motion to approve the consent calendar. >> second. >> thank you pick on that motion to approve item seven under the consent. [roll call] >> so moved. that motion passes unanimously 7

-0. that will place us under our regular calendar for fiscal year is 2019 through 2021 proposed department budget and work program. this is an informational presentation. >> afternoon, commissioners. happy new year. it is good to be back in front of you for what i think it is my 12th budget presentation. i am sure that the crowd behind me is here because they are just wasting for everybody back there today we will present the budget for the next -- as we know, we do a two-year budget every year. will be presenting the 1920 and 2021 fiscal year budget his. just a couple of comments before i turn it over to deborah. this year, as you know, most of our revenues are based on fees for proposed projects, and the current fiscal year has been dropping. we are proposing a decrease to our revenue projections for the next year which has effects across the department.

secondly, the mayor's office has asked us do not include any new positions in this phase of the project process until she has a chance to see all the department budgets. what you will see today is no new positions, and because of the revenue picture, it may not be possible. we simply don't know yet. what you will see today is a steady state budget from last year with some reductions moving forward because of the loss of revenues that we foresee continuing on. the picture is really unclear in terms of the economy. is unclear how much of this will stay the same and if revenues will continue to drop, if we are entering a recessionary period, we don't know yet. we are being cautious but not overly cautious. with that, i will turn it over to deborah as my deputy director who will go over the details with you, and will be here to answer questions as well. thank you.

>> good afternoon. on the deputy director of administration. i have hopefully a quick overview of the budget picked john has given you an introduction already. one other thing to note is it is not really changing much from the current year. you heard this last year, we are going to project to stay pretty much the same pick because we do come back and we open up the second year. last year is the first year. there are a few different items which are not set. probably the biggest when you will notice is that every out year of the two your budget, grants look like they're nothing that is because we are not sure yet. funding opportunities will be proposed as to two your terms now. we will expect some of these changes in the second year that we just don't know about now. we are not putting anything in quite yet.

i will briefly go over the budget instructions from the mayor's office, our volume, in revenue and expenditures, the work program, and historic preservation. tim fry will come and speak more specifically to the historic preservation pieces. i do have a calendar for the budget season at the end, and then questions throughout or after the presentation. so the budget instructions that we got from the mayor's office asked for us to focus on accountability and equitable outcome, as well as prioritizing any funding positions where possible. one of the top priorities of this administration is to build more housing and obviously the planning department is a piece of that very complicated puzzle. some of the other opportunities -- some of the other priorities

did not apply specifically to the planning department to, but it was listed a few where we thought they apply to our department as well. one thing that john mentioned as they were very clear on departments not to put any positions in our submissions to the mayor's office. and we were given a target general fund reduction. the general fund supports for the planning department, it is not a huge amount of the department's revenue and support , so we were able, or he will be able to make the reduction that they requested of us in the budget that we submit on the 21st. this is a slide that you have seen several years in a row now. the last two years we talked about how the volume was plateauing, and the revenue was plateauing. and this year we are projecting to be a little bit lower. so last year we had 16,000

applications, in and this year we are projecting 15,000 as the trends of the first six months continue. as john said, we don't know. there's a lot of uncertainty as to what will happen. it might end up higher than last year. we might end up the same care given the first six months, this is the projection of the straight line. if you take a look here, you can see that the overall number of budget is not changing. we are going from 53.42 53.8 million. generally a stable size of the budget for the department. the big change that john mentioned as the charges per services. we are expecting that to go down a little bit. we have reduced that number by a million dollars. the grants and special revenues, we have a variety of grant services.

what we try to do is budget as optimistically as we can while still being realistic. we are hoping to be able to get about $2 million in the next fiscal year, that is for a whole variety of projects throughout the department. our development impact fee, one thing that is changing slightly is that we are going to be starting to support some of the administrative functions around the interagency plan implementation committee, the impact fees for the development area are administered through that group, and the impact fee is covering administrative costs the cost come to the planning department and then we will disperse those as appropriate. so the expenditure of recovery increase here, this is when we do work for other city departments and we recoup our costs. we are expecting increases from

the port for an army corps of engineers project and resiliency work, and from d.p.w. to support environmental review of a couple of large scale d.p.w. projects. we will see some increased recovery from the additional work we will be doing for those departments. and then general fund support increased from the current year to next budget year is all around salary and benefits increases. so once again, the personnel costs are the lion his share of the budget. the current year comprised of 67 % of the budget and we anticipate this to be 70 2% next year. we are the planning department and we know it will cost money. the overhead number essentially

calculated by the -- conserver's office. we will go with the one that is in the system at the moment. and then in a little bit of expenditure reduction, we will be reducing our contract budget by $300,000 from the current year to next year. the longest -- largest change will be in the hub and civic centre e.i.r. based on the projected scheduling of the civic center portion of the project. it will be a little bit later than we thought a couple of years ago when we started that contract. and then you do have a list of the contract for next year in your contract. the materials and supplies have increased next year to pay for new voice over i.p. telephones. we are moving. the 49 south of ns building will have internet phones. so we need to buy new equipment for everybody. right now we are keeping the second year of the material and supplies at the next year level,

and again, that is because we are not sure about some of the cost of the move, and we are projecting to move in at the very end of 1920 or the beginning of 2021. we will have a better idea next year and be able to address that number more accurately. and then capital and equipment for us is almost always, if not always around i.t. we are going to buy one printer next year. that is what the $10,000 is therefore. for the second year budget, because we will be in the new building and we expect a lot of the equipment to be installed as part of the construction of the building, at the moment, we not anticipating any large i.t. expenses in the second year. services of other departments, this is when we ask for work from other departments and they recoup their costs from us.

we are expecting those costs to decrease next year from reduction. the work program overview, we are not changing that. what you see is a slight change. it is related to attrition, step adjustments, premium play, template salaries, no change in the count of budgeted positions from year to year. and then what you really want to talk about is the historic preservation committee. for that i will let tim fry take over, and i will be here for any questions after that as well. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners i will unpack some of these numbers for you. if i can get the overhead again, or the powerpoint presentation. if you like to follow along in the pockets, i am in page 1 of

attachment two which breaks down the historic preservation activities under current planning. primarily what we were trying to do for the next fiscal year is to ramp up staffing on the citywide survey without impacting any of your other program areas. we looked at the numbers for several activities where we saw that there could be a savings achieved. in particular, you will see that a long item number f., g., and h. towards the bottom of the slide. essentially what those are our preservation specific legislation coordinations where our preservation staff works directly with the legislation team on any items that come before this commission for review and comment. we anticipated that that number of hours -- that we have allocated before us is not necessary for the upcoming fiscal years, in addition for

preservation specific project review meetings, where an applicant files for a project review to discuss with staff for about an hour on the benefits and responsibilities of owning or working with the historic resource. that also will go down based on our tracking data. for special projects, this is one of the more important aspects where our number goes down. right now the only grant or current special project we have on file that's external is in agreement with the historic preservation fund committee in -- and san francisco heritage to contribute stuff time towards the creation of a haight-ashbury article ten landmark district. that is where the half of an f.t.e. comes from, and that will be through our survey and designation team. we don't have any grants right now that are anticipated or allocated. for special projects, however,

we will apply for a grant to help support the citywide survey and that money would be allocated separately than in the special project field. the big message here is at the top with the preservation survey program. what we are able to do is shift some of the current designations and survey team members to several days of survey work only what that does is help us capture an additional half f.t.e. in meeting the goals, when we talked to you at your next hearing on the sixth, we will give you a better indication of where we think your work program can go while balancing the aggressive landmark designation work program and completing a citywide survey within a reasonable amount of time. when you look at those numbers overall, you see there has been a modest change, but where you

see this shift, it is helping support the survey, and we don't believe it will impact any of your other program areas. we are still able to commit the full f.t.e. to your landmark designation work program, and the .15 f.t.e. for community sponsored designations. and again, supporting the additional work towards a survey that concludes my overview of this slide. in case you have any questions, i will hand it back over to deborah. >> this talks a little bit more about those grants they mentioned before. in the past, we have always had a small amount reserved for any time sensitive related work. we are not proposing that in this year's fiscal budget, but we may do that in 2021.

we are always looking for a little bit of money set aside for technical contracts related to the getty foundation and using their software developer to help us navigate arches and improve our data collection efforts, so that continues to carry over from 18-19 to 2020. to spend -- depending on how far along we get, we maybe asking for more or less in 2021. as i mentioned earlier, we will apply for a grant. the maximum is $45,000. we anticipate it will likely go toward surveying, or the citywide survey, and we received a $1,200 grant for our preservation library, which is a great resource for staff and for the public, and that is from the friends of city planning. and now i will handed over. >> i have a quick question.

the c. lg grant of $45,000, as that incorporated into the larger two million-dollar grant item that they represented earlier, or is that separate and apart from that. >> i believe it is separate. >> it is included. >> how much of that 2 million is segregated for historic preservation, besides the $45,000 while. >> it was the first slide, i don't know, the line item on grants, and indicated that $2 million was available, or will be available. >> so the grants that we were anticipating to apply for are the c. lg. it is $46,200. >> and the rest are allocated -- are they reserved for other things, or can those funds also

be used for historic preservation purposes? >> it is possible, i would have to, mac into the specifics of the funding restrictions. it is up to the grantor, and the kind of projects that we propose >> are these government grants or private grants? >> almost everything that we do is government. >> federal or state. >> okay. >> and then we have the friends of city planning, and at the moment it is the only nonfederal >> can i ask one more question? >> we do get additional money, but it could be possibly use for historic preservation purposes. >> if there was a specific reason -- >> if there is a project that we propose with any funder's guideline, grants are across all areas of planning public health,

>> under 2 million, that is a budget number. how much of that to be anticipate, and from where? >> 45,000. >> what about the rest of the 1.9 million, or whatever the number is. >> our bigger funders are caltrain, there are a few different senate bills with different numbers that have money that is allocated to different parts of the state based on formulas like population or something like that, a few of the senate bills are in their for a few hundred thousand each. >> so we do know what comprises the 2 million. >> yes. >> at the same ability and housing are the two big areas that we are seeking funding, are hoping to seek funding. >> to have a specific point person who goes out and reach her sister his research is what

funding maybe available for the planning department? >> we do. in fact we have somebody who has -- we had someone who had been doing it for eight years, and we have a new person who has just stepped into the role maybe a month ago or so, she is bringing a whole new perspective about where we can look and ideas. if you have any day -- any known funders that you think we should be considering, please, absolutely, we will always take money from other people. [laughter] >> if you do have any organizations that you think would be interested in funding historic preservation activities , pass them along. >> i am just thinking, our historic preservation fund is sinking. for good reason because we are doing good stuff. so we would need to figure out ways to replenish that so we could continue to do studies and historic reports. i just had one more question for you. i think it was one of the first two slides that you shared with

us. it was the colour-coded areas where it showed how monies were obtained through different types of things, and there was a purple area of enforcement, i just noticed that that enforcement was a lot bigger and it is kind of shrinking. >> i believe there are two years in particular. that relates to short-term rentals. so there was a settlement with the office of short-term rentals and the city and county of san francisco with the short-term rental providers about registering hosts. so after that went into effect, the level of enforcement that we need to do is much lower because the platform host.

if i had a listing, i must also be registered. if i am not registered, my listing is taken down. we have a lot less to. >> a lot less revenue from that particular area. >> i'm sorry, i had one more question. this is my last question. i notice that the cultural district was not mentioned i thought we are talking about having some kind of communication or just some type of relationship with the cultural districts to make sure that we were all on the same page and could all support each other on the cultural district. >> thank you for reminding me. is on page 5 of the attachment. it is the last item.

there is some overlap there. it will maintain current levels. we are also looking at staff accountabilities to bolster that and provide additional support as new cultural districts are nominated through the new program, so that is something i think we will have to keep an eye on because we are still trying to get a sense of what is the workload that the departments will have to take on because there has been, throughout other initiatives, overlap with long-range citywide divisions, and we have been coordinating well together and with the passing of the proposition to allow for additional funding, there may still be some opportunities to get additional staff.

>> i'm just thinking about -- >> it's cal train. >> i was wondering about that impact and how it's looking at the historic neighborhood. that is kind of a thing. >> this is the cal train station, as you know, that station was kind of an afterthought and needs help of help. we have a grant to take a fresh look at that station. >> absolutely. thank you. >> commissioner black. >> these are just comments.

are we ready? great. i'm reminded of and really impressed by the scope of work that the department actually does. this budget brought to mind activities that we never see that never come to this commission. planning the council hit in the budget is pretty notable. the 2% required reduction coupled with the anticipated decrease in planning applications. so, i was particularly impressed by some of the actions that are in the budget. including the follow the streamlining last year that already have created improvements. the use of e.i.r.s in central soma, that cost tremendously and benefits the developers. it shortens their timeline and we get projects sooner -- built

sooner. new tools like the updated transportation impact analysis guidelines. i was unaware of them before. it's another example that there are others in the budget for members of the public. it all reduces staff time and gets projects built faster. reduces the budget. so, i'm encouraged to see these activities. it was impressive. >> thank you. those are the goals. >> great. thank you. any other questions from commissioners? we're going to take public comment. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> any members of the public wish to speak on this agenda item? >> seeing and hearing none. closed. bring it back to the commissioner for one last. >> we are on case number 9. 920 north point street. certificate of appropriateness.

>> i need the request to be recused for this item. >> can i have a motion for that. >> you be recused for this one. >> second. [roll call] >> so moved, that motion passes 7-0. commissioner wolf, you are here by recused. >> good afternoon, commissioners, planning staff. before you is a request for a certificate of appropriateness for alterations to 920 north point street, located on the north side of north point street between polk and lar kikin stre. the proposed scope of work consists of the enkind replacement of the character

defining giradell square. the rooftop sign was initially constructed in 1915 and restored in 1964. the 19-foot tall painted sheet metal sign would be replaced with a new metal sign matching the dimensions, appearance and alum enation of the existing sign. the new sign will be installed on the existing steel. staff finds the work will be in conformance from article 10 and the secretary of the interior standards for rehabilitation. while the proposed project involves the replacement of the character defining rooftop sign, the conditions assessment report prepared for the existing sign indicate that the individual letters of the sign have received numerous repairs over the years and that further repair would temporarily pro long its service life. because the construction methods used for the historic sign are

not distinctive, it will be possible for the new sign to be fab ra rated in a way that approximate rates the appearance of the existing sign. the most notable difference between the existing sign and the replacement sign, is that the replacement sign has l.e.d. lighting with a slightly different bulb shape than the existing sign with the ability to change the illumination color. although it's different than the existing method of' loom enation, the sign will be maintained. the proposed project will require condition at use authorization from the planning commission to designate that sign as a vintage sign and the existing sign does not have with 607 of the planning code. staff's recommendation is for approval with conditions. staff recommended two conditions of approval to require that the project sponsor provide a third documentation package for the existing sign and for the project sponsor to prepare a mock up of the signage

illumination. no public comments have been received. this concludes my presentation ask unless there are questions. the project sponsor will give a brief presentation about the project. >> great. >> should we just go to the project sponsor presentation? this is five minutes sufficient? >> good afternoon, i'm josh callahan with jamestown. over the past five years, we've worked tirelessly and spent heavily to revitalize giradell square. we want to thank you for helping us reach another milestone in that rebirth and thank you for your support of our work. lisa will present the details of our proposed project.

>> can we get this -- is this working? >> it's on. >> sorry about that. >> good afternoon, commissioners, my name is lisa skaggs and -- >> it's very hard to hear you. >> is this better? >> perfect. thank you.

>> good afternoon, commissioners, my name is alicia skaggs and i have a preservation architect for this project. in february, 2016, we reached out to the planning department to make them aware that the design team was considering replacing the ladders of the giradella roof type sign. the planning department requested the team conduct an assessment of the condition of the signs. ger.

>> there was our survey in the fall of 2016 and arrow sign company followed up with their own survey in december of that same year. as part of the plan department review process, they requested that we combine the assessments in preparation of this hearing. the package that you received consisted the compiled assessment, the following slides consist of the foot documentation that was conducted as part of the survey. the survey did survey every single letter. the lower portion of the letters exhibited the worse conditions with areas where the corrosion has eaten through the metal. the team also noted the seams of the letters have failed

providing additional areas of water infiltration. and the survey noted many of the lights are burned out and are missing. this slide shows the pack of the letter "h" where one with see patches of evidence of previous and numerous repairs. patches are typical condition of the letters. this slide shows the deterioration as a letter where corrosion has eaten away the letter as well as the dot. here you see evidence of light bulbs that are also missing. and this slide shows images of the letter "r" where we see metal separation and where portions of the letter have rusted away. several of the lights have lost their glass diffusers. the letter "d," again, there are areas where the metal is completed rusted away. the letter "e" has holes as well

as corrosion at the seams. these are the "l"s and they have portions that are also rusted away where corrosion is at the face metal meets the edge of the letter. this photo shows the letters g, h and i all together. they have portions that have rusted through. >> you can take another minute if you need to. >> reporter: the ghiradelli roof-top sign is a san francisco icon we're all proud of. it's a feature that jamestown wants to kept replacing this sign has been done elsewhere, namely the hollywood sign-in los angeles. as i noted earlier, this sign has been scanned, laser scanned and we will be able to meet standard fix for the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a feature, they will match the old in design color, texture and where

possible, materials. we have documented this sign with photographs and again i have also have a laser scan of the sign. the sign will be constructed of painted aluminum and match the existing in color, design, height, depth and shape. it will be similar in shape and size. the number and placement of the lights will match the existing and we are prepared to meet plannings conditions of approval and we'll work with the mock up they've requested in the staff report. we also have charlie stroud from arrow sign-i sign in case we hae questions from him. >> any open public comment? any member of the public wish to speak on this agenda item? seeing none and hearing none. close public comment. bring it back to the commissioner. any thoughts? >> wil move this be approved wih conditions. >> second.

>> i have a question. you addressed it. the color temperature and brightness will be adjustable. will it be adjustable to the point where it matches and then that position locked in place? >> yes. we can adjust the color and the temperature. the brightness and lock it into that place. >> so it's not adjustable in the future. >> ok, that's it. >> ok. >> not inadvertently. >> blue and purple. [laughter] >> seeing nothing further, commissioners, there's a motion that's been seconded to approve this matters. [roll call] >> that motion passed unanimously 6-0. it will place us on item 10 for case 2018 at 2051 to 2861

24th street. this is a initiation of a landmark destination. >> good afternoon, commissioners, desire smith, planning department staff. i'm here today to present the department's recommendation regarding initiation of the landmark designation process for

4851-2861 24th street known as studio 24 building located in the mission district. before i begin my presentation, supervisor ronen's office and i want today give her the opportunity to speak. >> good afternoon. thank you for allowing me a couple of minutes. i'm here representing supervisor ronen to share a couple words about gallery delarosa and this request for this evaluation to see if this is a property that should be assigned a landmark designation. since its founded in 1970, they have seen the epi center of the missions proud and historic legacy of latino saturdays and the chicano civil rights movement. for nearly 50 years, gallery has dedicated itself to showcasing

the excellence of our local artist and after a world-renowned champion in the preservation and promotion of our proud latino culture, and strengthen the deep bonds of our community. it's been a space for gathering, for bringing people together, for fighting for civil rights for the community in a true beacon for 24th street mission latino community. as the country watches real estate market skyrocket out of control, it's been really difficult to see the changes on 24th street and the changes and the rapid displacement in our community. it's very important that as we see all these changes, which we understand pretty well because you are in the business of historic pres preservation we be it's important to evaluate our assets in the mission district, especially given the g