any properties previously designated to the california register or local register or properties previously evaluated in area of plan surveys. it would include planning department, staff and interns, a survey advisory group, the historic preservation commission, obviously, as well as technical support from the gety conservation institute and graphics and, of course, the public. so for our survey advisory group, we're envisioning two components, which would be that one we would have a core group of six to eight members that would meet on a regular basis and would be established for the duration, essentially, of the

survey process, including the commissioners that were identified here as liaisons to the survey. , consultants from the preservation field and we would have a rotating membership that would change as we move from phase to phase and neighborhood to neighborhood. furthenose membersthose would bn neighborhoods that were this that survey phase or historical societies or communit stakeholdr however it maybes sense as they move along. so some of the rotating members aren't going to want to be involved for the duration, which we'll talk about in the future here. and then for some of the public outreach and what we're anticipating from the public.

so as onwe would hope there woue some members from the focus groups that may feed into these advisory groups or otherwise provide further information to the survey process methodology or just information in general. and then, also, neighborhood groups and organizations. we look to those groups to focus a lot of outreach and using them as a conduit from the department to those groups, to their membership to really identify rotating members more the

advisory group, to invite us to do presentations about the survey and distribute fryers, postcards, faqs, et cetera. and then we also are going to be setting up a survey website where the members of the public can actually go in and make entries related to things they would like us to know or survey and that will contain status updates. we also envision again, once this cultural heritage methodology is together that certainly parts of our outreach to the public will change based on that methodology. any questions? i think this may be the longest

time i've ever stood up here in front of you. so phasing. so we've looked at at a numberf variables for phasing, establishing physical ha has ph, how this might serve as a development tool and age of building stock in general. some of outreach in discussing these variables as we're putting together our phasing, particularly phase one to the city family. we've talked to the port as well as office of resilience. choosing those groups in particular, one, because the port as you'll see is in proposed phase one. they have a lot of historic properties and we wanted to know what kind of resources or information they might want to share and the office of

resilience because we are using physical hazards as a variable and we wanted to make sure that whatever we were considering hazards or important to be looking at and figuring out what we would survey first and when are the same thing that they are looking at. and so, a couple of the things we learned from outreach -- so from the port, we learned that they actually have properties that they would love for us to veer, thasurvey, even though tht have been covered before. when you look at maps from earlier, it looks like that has been addressed. that's not necessarily the case. so we will be working with them to get sort of more information about what properties remain to be survey and would include those in the survey. from the office of resilience, they identified in addition to physical hazards, a building

type that they have noted as particularly prone to damage from earthquakes, which are the non-ducktile concrete and so we're looking at identifying those properties and including them in phase one. and then we just wanted to meet to figure out, sharing of resources and data points and to figure out things we could include and address in our survey that might provide data points that they would use in the future. so this map shows age of the building stock and this is also a map that we had never previously created within the department. and it's my personal favorite. the agech distribution play agea

role as how we would phase the overall survey. this depicts parcels noted in the legend. so as we would expect, the oldest buildings, pre-1906, are mostly located near the center of the city but scattered throughout and that post earthquake and fire properties are concentrated again, in the northeast quadrant of the city and in neighborhoods immediately south and east of downtown. and then subsequent development periods generally are out to the south and west as the city was built out. so shaking intensity zones and

sea level rise. the map on the lower left shows zones with high perspectiv poter liqui stones and then potential shaking to what you feel as opposed to the magnitude of the event and the faults at the top and san andreas at the bottom with red are the most intense. >> the sea level rise, where does that data come from and is it current or projected three-feet rise we'll be encountering in the next couple of decades? >> i believe it's the 50-year. i might need to ask.

so 2050. >> so basically plus three feet from today. >> yes, and that's the same data that the office of resilience is using. back to the presentation. so taking all of those maps and variables, we've outlined that phase one would be the area that you see here. phase one would the area seen here in pink. because it includes areas of the city most at fris risk from hazs from flooding and liqui fashion and portions of the marina that has fairly old building stock and it also includes the bayview

which has a high level physical hazard as well as underrepresented community within our preservation program. and as i mentioned before, you know, this map is very much in a draft form and still proposal and subject to change based on your comments, as well as others. but we would likely amend it to include high risk building types such as the concrete buildings, city and port properties and any recommendations that we get from the survey advisory group as we start meeting with them and this commission and from the public. >> commissioner perlman? >> did the shape, especially in the northeast, did the shape, are these areas that have been surveyed are pulled out? because it's an odd shaped profile. >> it goes around the areas

already surveyed or designated, so that little pocket contains northeast waterfront, north beach, et cetera. >> got you. >> and then the break in between, those are the areas, even though you see they have high hazard in the liquifaction, those are the tonigh doesn't pln article 11 and eastern neighborhoods, those are where the survey areas are, generally. >> one more question. actually, you may answer it in the next slide. >> and then this next slide is what we're thinking about subsequent phases and the phasing would follow the development pattern and the numbers that are shown in the legend would identify how many parcels there are within each of

those colored phases. again, this is obviously subject to change, but it's sort of what we think makes sense. when you consider the variables and the age the building stock and trying to address as we move further away from the east side of the city, generally, the buildings get younger. >> so the gray area -- >> are the areas that have been surveyed in the past. >> mr. wolform. >> it looks like chinatown has not had a survey or a context statement. is that accurate? >> i thought it did. >> it looked like there was a hole in the one that you had that showed the context statements and looked like there was a hole around chinatown and i, too, think it'i don't thinky

because this looks like north beach and it doesn't look like the historic content statements either. >> chinatown has had a lot of previous evaluations done, different times, different approaches and how it's shown in the map may not be 100% accurate to what the data sources we have are, because some of those evaluations in the past have looked at it only for local designation. some of them have looked at it for national register designation or section 6 evaluations. it's definitely one of the neighborhoods that i would say has the most layers of previous

evaluation that are extremely confewinconfusing to pick apart. having worked on several projects there and try to explain what that -- what we already know versus what we think we already know because we know that there has been previous evaluation done. but there is a lot of existing documentation. whether that means that all of those properties within that neighborhood have actually been evaluated is a totally different issue. >> kind of looks like it might be in phase two, if i'm reading this right. >> yes. but that's another factor that will affect this phasing, is that we're trying to pick apart all of the the layers of what we already have, which is a pretty difficult thing in and of itself. >> one more nuanced question. this is great. so don't neighborin take these .

have you incorporated any understanding of potential districts that we already know are there that we want to get identified and listed so therefore get them up ahead. it looks like these are yes graphically based. >> so we haven't -- the simple answer to that is no, not really. i mean, one of the things we've been focusing on as we think about how this is phased is -- i think that is a separate variable that we haven't been thinking about, is how we would actually conduct this on the ground. and so bun o one of the reasonso have these chunks geographically linked is so that surveyors are not to run out to the western sunset and down to the bayview. but i think there's certainly the possibility that we will, as

we amend this further, that certain things will rise to a level either from public comment or from what we already know to be priorities that we'll need to slot in differently. >> so based on current existing, already completed context statements and ers, we could have an idea of some areas that we know are really going to be eligible? >> yes. >> and if they are, those are probably the quickest ones to get through the system and through the process to get listed. so we should look at that as well, i think. >> ok. >> back to the presentation, please. talking about scheduling and staffing, as i mentioned before, we believe that based on the

number crunching so far that we have between 80 and 100,000 properties remaining to survey. and we've tried to come up with an estimate of what we think that time spent per property and that is sort of feeding into these year estimates that you are seeing here. so with the understanding that we have these certain number of parcels or buildings, so what has been currently proposed in the fiscal year '19 budget for survey is that we would have 3.15 fte which would consider of staff as well as interns and that with those hours, we would be able to complete the survey of these up to 100,000 property within six years.

and then we have other options of staffing levels. always with the assumption we are doing this in-house, essentially, with staff and interns. and you know, you'll see that each one incrementally increases particularly staffing, primarily staff positions to a point where we get down to approximately two and a half years. but obviously as you increase staffing positions, you increase the costs associated with that staffing. although, on the other hand, it does -- i think there are efficiencies that you can gain from having permanent staff versus interns, because we have a lot of rules about how long interns can work and once that period is done, it means a fair amount of new -- it's great.

we would be getting a lot of experienced interns, but it's just more training time and bringing everyone up to speed. >> so the hours are total or per year? >> per year. >> per year, ok. >> so based on that fte of who we would have and i can walk through a little of this. so what was proposed in the 1920 budget ithe '19-'20 budget, is o date and managing and coordinating and managing staffing half their time and two interns and obviously the store preservation officer oversight time. the option one, i presented the primary difference there would be another full-time planner, at the planner one level.

and then, two additional interns to what we already have now. and then the option two would actually be three additional planner ones and two additional interns. in addition to what we have now. >> so it would be compelling next to the six years, three and a half years, two and a half years, total hours, under 40,000 in six years, 47,000 in three and a half years and 30,000 in two and ha half. a half. it's efficiency and if we get it tighter, we can get it done with let's effort, so that's the compelling part of it. >> ideally, yes. >> in the option two, would you stay with the same phasing because it seems like faces are happening fast.

>> overlap. >> maybe fewer phases because in the first one, it's basically a year per phase, more or less. >> basically a year per phase and we haven't really adjusted the phasing to reflect other options since we're not sure -- the realistic nature of those other options. >> the first phase would probably take the longest because it would be the biggest learning curve. >> right. >> but there are a lot more similar properties, i think in the last phase. when you're in the sunset, it will be pretty. >> right. [ laughter ] >> depending on once we get to certain building types, you'll see more frequently and different periods of construction, the surveying can be a lot quicker when you're not on a block with 12 date development periods represented. >> when do you anticipate to

start? >> so moving on to the next slide, right now what we're doing and have been doing and continue to do is sort of reviewing legacy data and picking that apart and how to use it in the most efficient way possible, where we have gaps, configuring the arch's database to get back out in the field and be using it. obviously working on the draft methodology and doing outreach. and then summer of 2019, furth e looking at establishing the advisory group and hopefully starting on phase one, you kno,u mentioned, phase one would take the longest. it will have the biggest learning curve and so it's

likely we would even parcel phase one into subphases. so that is sort of what we would be thinking about. but ideally we would like to be out in the field in the summer in some portion of whatever we decide phase one is and obviously continue with outreach and the awful heritage survey ht step, some are similar to what i just mentioned. but we will be giving informational presentation to the planning commission on the 4th of april. we would again, like i said, hopefully spring 2019, summer be kicking off a survey ad advisory group and in the spring consultant selection and contracting and beginning work on methodology and then sort of next times you might see us here

would be april with an update as part of your overall program, a survey update as part of that and obviously and future work program update would be a component of those updates. and then fall of 20 2019 methodology and what we plan to do over the summer. january of 2020 looking at bringing the actual cultural survey methodology for your review and comment and then spring of 2020, you've seen the results of the phase one survey. and that is that. >> excellent. thank you very much. >> very food. good. >> any questions, comments? >> i'm sure we'll have extensive dialogue. but before that, i want to say you've done a great job and 30 plus years ago, southern

california was way behind us in historic preservation and in fact, they didn't even embrace it until they started realizing the loss of their midcentury properties. and they, in my opinion, have completely surpassed us. i'm not saying anything none of us already know bu, but this iso urgently need and we have to get this done asap because time is wasting. commissioner black? >> can we open it to the public? any member of the public wish to speak? are you ready? commissioner richard, welcome. >> this is my first bite at the apple. sp50 will probably pass in

sacramento this year and it mentions there is control to the housing ability act. in 50, it says there's an exception for the incentives and waivers for projects that actually have seqa. when you look at the other bills that actually all revolve around land use, the density bonus, the only thing protecting historic resource in the dentist be news thabonus,it can be contrary to r state law. that's the only thing i could pick up. i need an attorney to look at this. the senate bill 167, which is the housing accountability act, it's an opaque reference to seqa and i see 137 clayton on that and i'll talk about that in a minute and these lone wolves that have all of the levels of integrity but not a theme or

anything else that can guide whether or not it's significant. the adu legislation, it calls for the resourced to be listed on the california register, not eligible, listed. the permit streamlining act. it needs to be lifted. the government building education -- i'm sorry retrofitting has to be lifted. so there a menagerie on where these buildings need to be, identified in seqa, listed. what reform that's probably coming after this, which is in the cross-heirs of senator weiner and governor newsome, i recommend as fast as we can and completely as we can. we actually -- back when the martavia plan was happening, we said, wait, you can't do that.

we had interim controls passed by the board of supervisors, championed by supervisor mercimi. we identified an eligible district that triangle as well as article 10 district. so what i'm, i guess, coming to you and saying with senate bill 50 passing and look at the map and the impact it will be, we really need to strategically actually figure out where to survey first. i know i'll run out of time, but i'll be available for questions. i know it makes conceptual sense to survey the pink area which the bayview but they get a pass for five years. so none of the concessions waivers will kick in. i think we need to be focused where the first impact will be when the bill takes effect.

(please stand by). good6hello.

hell good6hello. >> that there's a lot there, and it needs to be taken together, put together, and put into some form that can go forward. and there was something else that i wanted to say, but -- this was fascinating -- oh, there are lots more surveys out there that i'm not sure have been through you. so i think getting a list of all of those, making sure that we know all the ones that have been done in whatever form before you start would be a good thing. thank you. >> thank you. any other public comment? close public comment and go back to the commission. [inaudible] >> yeah. formalities.

commissioner black? >> this was just an incredibly exciting opportunity. it's a kcolossal project, and from a perspective -- staff r per -- perspective, it's huge. it's something we need to be moving quickly on. i do understand the budget versus staffing levels, but i hope we can move forward. it's a really exciting processing. you've done a really good job of laying the foundation for it. >> mr. frank? >> commissioners, i did want to also mention the fact that -- in response to commissioner richards' comments, we are

still actively working with a number of community groups like dtna that are interested in serving properties as quickly as they can. there is a glen park survey that's currently underway, and there's north bay survey underway. supervisor peskin issued the letter. miss lavalle didn't mention it, but as long as we have arches up and running, we're able to give direct benefit. hopefully through collaborations we will generate some efficiencies, as well. >> thank you. commissioner pearlman? >> yeah. in reference to that, mr. frye, you know, i'm just wondering in reference to staffing -- you

know, wie just heard about staffing levels, and they can't change now, and now we're faced with some urgency issues. i appreciate that neighborhood groups will help do the work of a number of those hours, but is there any way within the department that, you know, you can shift within the department and say well, you know, i know this is the biggest urgency today, and you know, we're going to fight this fire now so we can get one more staff person or two more staff persons in that two or three-year period to get it done? i don't know how -- >> commissioners, it's a great question. i do want to point out that we did shift some. we were able to add one additional f.t.e. by shifting away from some of your work program priorities, which you

blessed during the budget discussion and at your last quarterly report. that's an -- you know, that's probably another conversation we need to have is, again, looking at the -- your work program, are there ways we can divert some of those staff hours to citywide surveys and rely more on community sponsored designation to help us get more field time. >> yeah, can we go to the supervisors and -- each and every supervisor and ask them if there are neighborhood groups that might step up and create some sense of the urgency that's needed. commissioner richards really, you know, put a fine point on it. i mean, there were five or six different laws and things that are being debated and coming to force the next year or two that will affect us dramatically.

>> yeah. i think there's also the process efficiency evaluations that have been done so we can identify other resources that might be able to moved over to this. as we get more political will behind this, we really -- i want to say -- some of things i want to say, in addition to taking this to the planning commission, i think we need to take this to the board of supervisors and blow the whistle and get this moving. mr. joslyn, did you want to respond? >> yeah. this is the process we've continued to discuss with the board in past budgetary discussions. it's -- this budget year has been an anomaly. we've slowly built up the funding, ramped it up over really the last four -- four to five years as we've continued to mature and move towards this

moment where we're really ready to launch a more expansive program. we are intending to continue to advocate and being creative. >> and i think we will have some support from the supervisors to identify other funding that may be able to be carved out of the current budgeting cycle. >> commissioners, sorry to interrupt. but commissioner hyland, your point about getting in front of the board i think is well taken and important, and i'm wondering if the commission is amenable having our survey advisory group commissioners attend briefings with us or offer those briefings to the board members? if you could make yourselves available, that could be a great way to explain the urgency of this project. >> commissioner wolfram?

>> thank you. i guess a couple things is one, i think it would be helpful for the commission to have a briefing on some of these state bills that are coming forward and their impact on preservation. i know as they've been the drafted, changes have been made, and i think that would be extremely useful for the commission. >> i think commissioner richards is leading the charge on that and trying to get us to go along on a lot of these things. >> and then, the second -- >> you trying to schedule anything? >> i don't remember. >> with commission -- >> oh, for sb-50. >> yes. >> but we're trying to get our hands around sb-50. i know commissioner richards has done a lot of research, and that's how he's uncovered a lot of this information. sb-50 isn't really the issue. it's the potential threat to ceqa.

there's all kinds of other things where if it's not listed on the state register, then it's out of yoour hands and th state commission's hands. i don't know how best could we agendaize that? >> ask staff, and he'll make it happen. i'll work with the commission secretary. it sounds like some coordination with the planning commission is probably warranted. >> and staff is actually currently working on a memo for sb-50 for the planning commission due in a few weeks, and so we can certainly have that forwarded to this commission, as well. >> and then, the other thing i was going to say was i was thinking about whether it would make sense looking at the map of the phasing to think about areas that are particular -- under a particular development pressure and whether some of those might be moved forward.

there's sort of a two-sided approach to take that i think is important to take. one is looking at identifying and protecting historic resources, but the other is we're identifying what could happen. that would be a project that's going forward where that's already identifies is going to be a lot quicker and a lot easier. so i think it's really important for us to be -- identifying. i think it's kind of important to remember both as we make this pitch, especially if we're looking for more funding because there will be people that don't understand the surveys, that will be resistant to it, and it's trying to make more of the city historical, and in fact we're trying to do both things at the same time. >> but the politics now

probably would favor that. >> except that's shifted. >> a lot of the supervisors are more of the notion -- >> okay. so i have a few comments. >> yeah. no, i think it's important for us to be balanced for both because i think housing and history is a really important issue. >> that's a good point. during your 2.5 years, if we did it internally, i think what would be good is to put some dollars to this, so survey l.a. was a $10 million effort, i think $5 million by the getty, $5 million by the city. how does that relate to what we need? i think two years, 2.5 years total including -- it looks like it's going to take us a year to get this going, so

we're talking three years to get this going. it took survey l.a. a little bit longer to get this going. i was very involved in survey l.a., and i will tell you that the phase one set a lot of priorities and things in motion. and by the time they divided up the rest of the survey, all the preservation consultants were working together. so there's a huge amount of outside help that we can tack into if we can -- tap into if we can get the board to budget for that. we just missed it for this cycle, but maybe we can get some pilot studying for some funding that can be earmarked during the current budget. if we can get a $5 million budget tacked in 2020 -- i don't know. i'm just trying to get something tacked to this.

what raised the alarm for me is i had no idea it was only 25%. only 25% of this city has been surveyed. that should be a siren, and if it takes two years to evaluate a property, and we can get this done in two years, we could be building housing in two years without entitlements, so that's the magnitude that we need to be talking about. here we go. you've got our blood moving. >> thank you. >> anything else, commissioners? any other questions? we're adjourned. [gavel]

>> this is one place you can always count on to give you what you had before and remind you of what your san francisco history used to be. >> we hear that all the time,

people bring their kids here and their grandparents brought them here and down the line. >> even though people move away, whenever they come back to the city, they make it here. and they tell us that. >> you're going to get something made fresh, made by hand and made with quality products and something that's very, very good. ♪ >> the legacy bars and restaurants was something that was begun by san francisco simply to recognize and draw attention to the establishments. it really provides for san francisco's unique character. ♪ >> and that morphed into a request that we work with the city to develop a legacy business registration.

>> i'm michael cirocco and the owner of an area bakery. ♪ the bakery started in 191. my grandfather came over from italy and opened it up then. it is a small operation. it's not big. so everything is kind of quality that way. so i see every piece and cut every piece that comes in and out of that oven. >> i'm leslie cirocco-mitchell, a fourth generation baker here with my family. ♪ so we get up pretty early in the morning. i usually start baking around 5:00. and then you just start doing rounds of dough. loaves. >> my mom and sister basically handle the front and then i have my nephew james helps and then my two daughters and my wife come in and we actually do the baking. after that, my mom and my

sister stay and sell the product, retail it. ♪ you know, i don't really think about it. but then when i -- sometimes when i go places and i look and see places put up, oh this is our 50th anniversary and everything and we've been over 100 and that is when it kind of hits me. you know, that geez, we've been here a long time. [applause] ♪ >> a lot of people might ask why our legacy business is important. we all have our own stories to tell about our ancestry. our lineage and i'll use one example of tommy's joint. tommy's joint is a place that my husband went to as a child and he's a fourth generation san franciscan. it's a place we can still go to today with our children or

grandchildren and share the stories of what was san francisco like back in the 1950s. >> i'm the general manager at tommy's joint. people mostly recognize tommy's joint for its murals on the outside of the building. very bright blue. you drive down and see what it is. they know the building. tommy's is a san francisco hoffa, which is a german-style presenting food. we have five different carved meats and we carve it by hand at the station. you prefer it to be carved whether you like your brisket fatty or want it lean. you want your pastrami to be very lean. you can say i want that piece of corn beef and want it cut, you know, very thick and i want

it with some sauerkraut. tell the guys how you want to prepare it and they will do it right in front of you. san francisco's a place that's changing restaurants, except for tommy's joint. tommy's joint has been the same since it opened and that is important. san francisco in general that we don't lose a grip of what san francisco's came from. tommy's is a place that you'll always recognize whenever you lock in the door. you'll see the same staff, the same bartender and have the same meal and that is great. that's important. ♪ >> the service that san francisco heritage offers to the legacy businesses is to help them with that application process, to make sure that they

really recognize about them what it is that makes them so special here in san francisco. ♪ so we'll help them with that application process if, in fact, the board of supervisors does recognize them as a legacy business, then that does entitle them to certain financial benefits from the city of san francisco. but i say really, more importantly, it really brings them public recognition that this is a business in san francisco that has history and that is unique to san francisco. >> it started in june of 1953. ♪ and we make everything from scratch. everything. we started a you -- we started

a off with 12 flavors and mango fruits from the philippines and then started trying them one by one and the family had a whole new clientele. the business really boomed after that. >> i think that the flavors we make reflect the diversity of san francisco. we were really surprised about the legacy project but we were thrilled to be a part of it. businesses come and go in the city. pretty tough for businesss to stay here because it is so expensive and there's so much competition. so for us who have been here all these years and still be popular and to be recognized by the city has been really a huge honor. >> we got a phone call from a woman who was 91 and she wanted

to know if the mitchells still owned it and she was so happy that we were still involved, still the owners. she was our customer in 1953. and she still comes in. but she was just making sure that we were still around and it just makes us feel, you know, very proud that we're carrying on our father's legacy. and that we mean so much to so many people. ♪ >> it provides a perspective. and i think if you only looked at it in the here and now, you're missing the context. for me, legacy businesses, legacy bars and restaurants are really about setting the context for how we come to be where we are today. >> i just think it's part of san francisco. people like to see familiar stuff. at least i know i do. >> in the 1950s, you could see a picture of tommy's joint and looks exactly the same.

we haven't change add thing. >> i remember one lady saying, you know, i've been eating this ice cream since before i was born. and i thought, wow! we have, too.

>> thank you. we love you always. good morning, everyone. the meeting will come to order. welcome to the march 4th, 2019 meeting of the rules committee.