the attempt only men we meet it. in the next report we'll be further advanced and more green than red. >> i think we're doing our report cards. it would be interesting in half a year where we can come to the quarter and that will show we're on our way as ache network and you're making use of the data. and as you add them all into the epic system, we should be able to see that we're going to make use of this system not just put it in and then build it but as we start the use of epic, it

will then able to move us forward on the journey we're going on. i'd like to ask your staff to get this far and we're looking forward to the next report. >> thank you. >> any further questions? was there any public comment? >> no public comment. >> we wan move on to the next item. >> item 10 is sfdph fy2018-19 scoreboard quarter revenue and expenditure projection report.

greg wagner. i'll go through this quickly this is the quarterly report. we normally would have done this at the prior march meeting so we're a little behind schedule but we're presenting it today. the current year projection has us projected with a surplus of $31.1 million. so that is overall good news. there's a number of moving parts in projections and you had some of the detailed notes and the written document presented in your commission pact. -- packet.

zuckerberg san francisco is our variance. the sfg predicted a surplus. the bulk of that comes from our g.p.p. prime program. those the reimbursement programs under the waiver and there's a few things happening there. we've exceeded some of our targets but we also did project in the budget some reduction from the scheduled reductions to the dish funding that did not come to pass in the prior year. so we have some good news there. we have modest good news in our capitation revenues. you'll note we have projected over spending in our salary and fringe benefits. it goes to those at j.c.c. have seen for some time now we're operating at high census.

that means additional staffing to meet those ratios. in the budget approved by the commission and adopted by the board for this current year, we had set aside a fund of $6.6 million that would be available to cover at least that much cost if we went over our budget at ken sus and have applied -- census and we applied those to be $3.2 million. that's an extension on our hospital side and it's active on monitoring salary expenditures and trying to manage those costs bit there's continuing pressure. at laguna honda hospital. $14.4 million service projected. the bulk is on patient revenue due to the fact each year we make an assumption about what the increase in our medical per

diem rate is going to be and we got a more favorable projection. that's good news on our rate. there's some salary fringe shortfall at laguna hospital and the hospital is on top of working on that expenditure. in primary care, we have a short fall in our capitation revenue due to enrollment below projection. behavioral health. the two largest are shortfalls due to the delivery system i think you heard about last month and the program has ramped up more slowly than we projected and budgeted.

there's an amendment that was approved and this has been in the process going back eight or nine years. it was approved and we budgeted the revenue this year. we received it at the end of last physical year and there was a timing miss match. the shortfalls on the current year income and we did that because we knew they were disabiliti disabilities. we put dollars in the contingency and we can work with the controller's office to cover she shortfalls. we have some modest contract savings in health network that is primarily driven by payments to providers under the healthy

san francisco program. again, we've seen a reduction in the program and there's surpluses in the payments going out to the providers. and the public health division, there are some salary and fringe benefit savings projected. a lot of those are due to delays in hiring in environmental health division and in new positions we budgeted for ems and other programs over the last few years. we're still working to catch up on the speed of hiring for those. public health administration. we have modest surpluses in our medical administrative activities and our salary and fringe benefit costs for $1.8 million surplus. so just a couple of notes on this in perspective. as always, the controller's office at the six-month time

frame or a little bit we come to you with this projection they do a city wide projection and include these various projections we're showing to you in our report and balance the ups and downs across the city for the general fund. the balance projected here the $31 million is folded into larger city wide balance and it's used to offset the projected deficit for the coming two years. the city sees the benefits from that surplus but we also see the benefit because we're the city's largest general fund department and when there's a city wide deficit we bear a large share of the burden to help do our responsibility to close that. on expenditures. the hospitals in particular there are some pressures on our expenditures. we're still within projected to be within our expenditure budget

but it's projected to be very close as a percentage of our total expenditures. so that's one of the areas we're watching very carefully. we don't want to get ourselves in a situation where we over spend our appropriation and need appropriation authority. we put in a number of processes in place to clamp down a little bit on hiring on expenditures that are going out the door and have additional reviews so that we're holding that tighter given we're so close to our appropriation. the management reserve established under the budget ordinance has a balance of $80.8 million. that's the current balance in that reserve.

the reason is there was a repayment of significant amount of federal funds for multiple years worth of patients we received under sp1128 which help draw federal funds to pay on the laguna honda rebuild. there was recruitment of funds and there was guidance that turned out to be inaccurate guidance. we'll have to repay that. we've known about this for multiple years and have been planning for it. i think it's one of the reasons we can show this reserve that we have created is a great value to the department because it helps to weather these without creating a crises you have to manage over the course of the year. we've been able to cover circumstances like these though we are not happy about them.

we do not project 1991 state realignment funds in this report. the office does that centrally and they get allocated out to multiple departments and for that reason there's a slight variance in what we're showing you today and what will be included in the controller's six month report about $6.8 million in line with the allocations. that's the ends of my slides. overall there's good news to have a projected pros tif year-end balance and that helps our position in the current year and budget. we'll continue to watch on the expenditure side in particular since we are approaching our projected appropriation. >> any questions?

i think as we move toward our officer election i want to take credit. >> i'd like to thank the administration that created a way out of transparency in the expenditure report submission. i remember a number of years ago when before you had started being able to align and use a more une norm way and finally with the new system being able to separate properly administration from public health and other areas, it was not as clear the system didn't allow it and we've had all kinds of data coming in and of course

it didn't help we were running [indiscernible]. i think i can say the same thing to the future officers. i do want to say as we're looking backwards today and looking at our accomplishments, one of our other major accomplishments is really that your department has actually been able to provide the commission data we can look at in a detail, because we don't question you because it's there and if you start taking it out, we'll start asking. i think it gives our new director the foundation on which then he can continue to build

for the different areas and programs that we have. these are the best that we have certainly looked at over these years. really sound numbers and mr. wagner and the department has been able to build reserves, we've asked for for many years to avoid the ups and downs we experienced for many years when you were first here. those are the dramatic years of hours of hearings. we need to go through that if we actually use the business-like approach. you and the city having taken that approach to allow it is to be commended so we could without further question accept your second quarterly report for us. >> great. thank you. >> further comments?

>> i have not received public comment requests for the item. >> going to the next item. business. >> item 11 is the health commission officer elections. >> i have the privilege of being able to hold elections and i do want to take a moment to thank the commissioners for the opportunity for having served you as your president for the past five years and during that period of time as we've pre -- reflected today good work and the competent administration and as dr. sanchez says, it's really the crew who runs things. we merely watch the ship as it goes along and hope it stays on path. as we move forward, i'm pleased

to say i'm not eligible to run again nor would i accept if that were to happen again. it has been my privilege to serve one of the finest public health departments. i think dr. koufax will find that's true. there remains much work to be done and there's many challenges for all of us and i'm pleased we have such a fine group of commissioners who will help us strive for any even healthier san francisco. with that, i would accept nominations for president of the commission. commissioner chung. >> thank you, commissioner ciao. -- commissioner chow. >> i'd like to nominate

commissioner loyce. >> further nominations? seeing none, we'll proceed with the vote. for all those in favor of james loyce as president say aye. opposed? i'll complete the meeting and then hand the gavel over. is there a nomination for vice president? >> commissioner chow i'd like to nominate commissioner bernal as the new vice president. >> is there a second? are there further nominations? seeing none, we'll proceed with the emention all those in favor commissioner bernal as vice president say aye. congratulations and

congratulations to president loyce. >> i'd like to thank my colleagues for nominating and voting for me for this important role. in addition, i'd like to comment on commissioner chow and one thing i want to say about commissioner chow is he has held us accountable nor services we deliver to san francisco. he's asked us poignant and direct questions and they've improved the health of san francisco people and improved the policies of the health department and has pushed us to be successful in the ability to manage dollars and cents. thank you and i also want to make sure commissioner chow

knows i have his telephone number and will use it with great regularity. >> you're welcome. >> thank you. i wanted to thank commissioner chung for the confidence to serve as vice chair. dr. chow i've been a long admirer of your humor and the high standards you hold us to. i associate myself with the remarks of our new president loyce. sfdph staff to the facility staff and frontline clinicians inspire us and thank you for the work you do with the partner organizations in the community. again, i hope to able to serve following the example of dr.

ciao as our president as well as dr. sanchez who left the commission today. i'm looking forward to working with you, president loyce. we worked together over the years and i'm excited for the opportunity. thank you. >> i'll finish. there being no other comments on this, we'll move it on the next item, please. >> clerk: item 12 is other business. >> commissioners, you might note the calendar and we will have additions if you all like and so please let us know. otherwise, let's move on to the next item. >> clerk: item 13 is a report back from the march 26, 2019jcc

meeting. >> so i'll make that brief also. we did review at the zsfg reviewed an open session with regulatory affairs and an update on the ahr readiness and received the report and human resources report and the medical staff report. we approved rules and regulations for ap -- ophthalmology and we looked at emergency medicine privileges were updated to add addiction medicine because it's now being practiced in the different departments as well as in the department of pediatrics and addiction medicine privileges. within closed session we approved the credentials report and the minutes. are there any questions on those? otherwise you will receive a set of minutes with more detail.

if there are no other questions, then president loyce has asked and i will then ask if there is a motion for adjournment? >> second. >> all in favor, please say aye. >> aye. >> this meeting is now adjourned.

>> everything is done in-house. i think it is done. i have always been passionate about gelato. every single slaver has its own recipe. we have our own -- we move on from there. so you have every time a unique experience because that slaver is the flavored we want to make. union street is unique because of the neighbors and the location itself. the people that live around here i love to see when the street is

full of people. it is a little bit of italy that is happening around you can walk around and enjoy shopping with gelato in your hand. this is the move we are happy to provide to the people. i always love union street because it's not like another commercial street where you have big chains. here you have the neighbors. there is a lot of stories and the neighborhoods are essential. people have -- they enjoy having their daily or weekly gelato. i love this street itself. >> we created a move of an area where we will be visiting. we want to make sure that the area has the gelato that you like. what we give back as a shop owner is creating an ambient lifestyle.

if you do it in your area and if you like it, then you can do it you like it, then you can do it on the streets you like. - working for the city and county of san francisco will immerse you in a vibrant and dynamic city that's on the forefront of economic growth, the arts, and social change. our city has always been on the edge of progress and innovation. after all, we're at the meeting of land and sea. - our city is famous for its iconic scenery, historic designs, and world-class style. it's the birthplace of blue jeans, and where "the rock" holds court over the largest natural harbor on the west coast. - our 28,000 city and county employees play an important role in making san francisco what it is today. - we provide residents and visitors

with a wide array of services, such as improving city streets and parks, keeping communities safe, and driving buses and cable cars. - our employees enjoy competitive salaries, as well as generous benefits programs. but most importantly, working for the city and county of san francisco gives employees an opportunity to contribute their ideas, energy, and commitment to shape the city's future. - thank you for considering a career with the city and county of san francisco.

>> good afternoon. welcome to the the land use and transportation committee of the san francisco board of supervisors for today, april fools' day, april 1st, 2019. i'm the chair of the committee, joined by the vice chair, and momentarily by committee member matt haney. our clerk is erica major. you would do you any announcements? >> make sure to silence also phones and electronic devices. completed speaker cars and copies of any documents to be

included as part of the file should be cooked submitted to the clerk. items acted upon today will appear on the board of supervisors agenda on april 16 th. >> thank you. could you please call the first item. >> item one is an ordinance to streamline small business permitting, and amending the health code, planning code and police code and affirming appropriate findings. >> thank you. this is a piece of legislation sponsored by the mayor and cosponsored by supervisor brown. i believe that ben van helton on behalf of the mayor from the department of economic and workforce development is here to present. >> yes, thank you. good afternoon. i'm here on behalf of the office of economic and workforce development. we are requesting a one-week continuance on this item so we can continue to fine-tune amendments with your office. >> okay.

is there any public comment on this item? seeing no public comment, public comment is closed. what i would suggest, colleagues that insofar as the week is short and we haven't seen amendments there have been a number of e-mails from meta- and haight-ashbury and others over the last couple of days that why not we continue this to the call of the chair? if we have amendments and we are all good to go, we can schedule it, and if not, we will schedule it appropriately. i move we continued this to the call of the chair. if there is no objection, that will be the order. next item, please. >> item two is an ordinance amending the environment code to require owners of certain buildings to annually measure and disclose energy performance and to require the department of the environment to make public his but -- statistics and

affirming appropriate findings. >> thank you. this ordinance is sponsored by supervisor brown and cosponsored by myself and supervisor mar, and is obviously a change to the environment code. here on behalf of the department of the environment is director raphael. >> thank you, chair peskin. thank you committee members for hearing this today. i want to thank supervisor brown and her leadership as a sponsor and cosponsor, supervisor peskin and mar. before you today is a very straightforward adjustment to current law, and what i want to do is give a little bit of context as to why we need to do it now, and what the benefit of this law has been, and end with where we have to go from here. >> i'm going to nitpick a few definitions which i can do as a cosponsor because the way

building is defined in residential and nonresidential is defined and has -- and is a little confusing, and specifically, and i was reading this last night, there is -- why don't you make the presentation and i will tell you where. i can see our city attorney just left, but he will be back. okay. >> wonderful. any improvements for clarity purposes, as well as policy are always welcome. i have with me today mr. reagan who is involved with ample mentation and crafting of this ordinance. if there any reasons for that, this definition is that he can shed light on, we can talk about that as well. so yes, existing buildings energy performance ordinance, catchy that it is, appoints a really challenging place in the greenhouse gas reduction for us and other cities. today, 44% of the city's

emissions come from existing buildings. we have wonderful ways of looking at new construction, upping the energy code, the requirements under construction, the challenge has always been for us and other cities, how do we tackle the existing building stock? how do we bring down the energy use and the omissions that are coming down from those buildings so as people say, what gets measured gets managed, and the challenge they have in the past as we didn't have a way of enforcing or requiring building owners to take a look at their energy use, and then giving that energy information to us. so in 2011, the city and san francisco became the first city in san francisco and one of the first and the nations to require commercial buildings over 50,000 square feet, actually over 10,000 square feet, we went to very small buildings, to measure their energy consumption, and then report it to the department of the environments. this became important for two

reasons. number 1, you gave a signal to the building owner whether energy use was other buildings, equally as important, he gave the department of environment that information, we could focus our limited resources and energy efficiency on buildings that really needed it. this was a very forward looking idea back in 2011, and we are focusing just on commercial buildings at that point in time. so how does it matter it turns out, this is a graph that is rough in terms of the nuance of it, but what's important here is the trends, what you can see looking at the blue line is employment in san francisco, and the ratline is the energy use, at a buildings effect very closely and benchmarking. the trend is exactly how you want it. as employment goes up, the energy of buildings is going down.

this is attributed to many factors, that we would have no idea that this was the case. we did not have the energy benchmarking ordinance in place. so what starts in san francisco shouldn't stay in san francisco, and it certainly didn't, so now this model is going throughout the country. you are seeing cities across the country take this on. the reason california is solid is because the entire state of california decided if it's good for san francisco, we should be doing this beyond our borders. and so in 2015, the state of california passed a law, it benchmarking law. it is some very important things from our perspective. the first one was in 2017, it required utilities to actually give us this information. before this law was put in place , between 2011 and 2017, it was an incredible pain for the department of the environment to get this information from building owners because we had to go tenant by tenant and ask for permission.

now that pg and e. is required to give whole building data to us, we can give -- get this information so much more easily and it is more reliable. in 2017, state law required utilities share the information. in 2018, they rolled out to the commercial sector, 50,000 square feet or greater, and this year they're rolling out to the residential sector, 50,000 square feet or greater. that is about 40 unit buildings for san francisco. so now we have a disconnect between our ordinance i was only for commercial, and a statewide ordinance that is for commercial and residential. and the challenge of that has to do with confusion and reporting. if we don't update our ordinance the way it will work right now, is that commercial buildings will report to the department of the environment and we will report to the state, residential buildings have to report to the state, and that's just -- there's so many bad policy reasons for that so that is why we are coming today to amend ordinance.

so what will happen is that we will take this current situation , which is commercial coming to us, residential coming to the state, and we will amend the ordinance so that the residential look him to the department of the environment as well and we have authority to hand it off. the benefit to the sector are multiple. number 1, they've got us. we have been doing advanced notification to building owners to help them streamline the process. we have free technical assistance. we are already working with them on the apartment association and the chamber to let people know that this is coming down the pipe so that starting july 1st , we will get this data out rather than june 1st, then having to bring it to the state, and then we will take that information, inform our own work , and also give the state its information as well. in summary, what we need, this being april 1st, we know

climate change is no joke. we know that the city has a real opportunity to lead by example. we also know our existing building stock is toughest. it is important alignment to do today to pass this, and then it gives us an opportunity with that data to figure out what is next. so thank you. >> thank you. let me make sure that i understand what the scope of owners who need to report is. so i think what you intend is that residential buildings of 50,000 square feet or greater report. >> correct. >> and nonresidential buildings of 10,000 square feet or more report. >> correct. >> okay. so i think where we are having the problem is in the beginning of the ordinance under definitions, section 2001,

building, b. b., means a facility composed of any occupancy types and it sets them forth a be, m., which is industrial, are one, are two, are three, are four, which i residential, and then later on you define on page 5 in a nonresidential building with 10,000 square feet or more, at a residential building a 50,000 square feet or more, but then in section 203, subsection a, you say the owner of every building in the city shall annually file, and i don't thank you mean building, i thank you mean nonresidential as defined and residential as defined because the term building would encompass every single structure

under 10,000 and under 50,000, so i thank you want to change building in section 2003, on line seven to nine, two nonresidential, residential, and noncapital. i think that's what you intend to. >> you've got it. >> the way it's written, we don't want every building to have that requirement. i could see where we thought where we were clear, and a can see where we weren't. >> deputy city attorney, do you agree? >> i agree with what you said. i also have the experience of finding what we think are errors on the floor, amending, and getting to the full board and realizing that it is actually more complicated. what i would recommend to the committee is if you intend to send it out today, send it out today, and we can make the amendment to the definition of

section 203 on tuesday. >> happy to have you guys fix it , however you see fit, as long as it actually does what we are all in agreement that we are attempting to do. is there any public comment on item number 2? don't all rush up. seen none, public comment is closed. supervisor safai? >> i have some questions through the chair. >> go for it. >> first, i just want to go to supervisor peskin's point. on page 4 you define what a building is. and isn't that what they referencing going point -- going forward? so they defined building, so once they defined it, once they rereference at, that is what they're referencing. >> yes, because it is a b., it is a defined term. >> they listed out what they want here. see worse and what they have

listed out is not... i think it might be helpful to clarify. >> what they're trying to capture relative to compliance and reporting is the universe of nonresidential about 10,000 square feet, and residential about 50,000 square feet, but building as defined in the ordinance is every single building, including single-family homes and two unit buildings that are under 50,000 square feet, and pfeffer unit buildings under 50,000 square feet, and i don't think they intend for those two reports. the way it is written,. >> you might just want to clarify. >> okay. >> my other question is, so you separate out to nonresidential buildings on square footage, director raphael, and i see that there's different types of audits for each one. can you talk a little bit about that, one gets a walk-through auditing get one gets a copy hands of audit, and i want to understand why you are differentiating and what the

necessity for that is. >> in terms of the audits, you bring up an interesting point here. the requirement for an audit is only -- was existing, pre-existing, and it has on the commercial. when we added added line, we did not require residential do an audit, and so that audit language that was in there in 2011 is understanding that buildings of different sizes -- because the ordinance goes down to 10,000 square feet, which is a very small commercial building as opposed to the state looking at 50,000 square feet and above, we thought that the kind of audit can get a very expensive if you've got certain levels of audits -- they surgeon levels of audits cost more. we wanted to acknowledge that smaller buildings do not have the same burden of an audit is larger buildings. that will not apply to the residential sector because we not requiring an audit on the residential sector. >> i did not see any audits for the residential. so it is about the size and the scale and the impact that it has

>> correct. >> but the information will be similar. that goes to my second question because i did not see it spelled out, but the actual building owner pays for the audit themselves? >> that is correct. >> does it talk and here -- it says what the qualification of the auditor is. you have a list of qualified energy efficiency auditors? that you will work with and provide to the building owners if they don't have them. >> yes. all of our auditor qualifications and list of auditors are on our website and listed. >> do you ask them as part of the process to ensure -- i see the qualifications, but do you then look and see that the person -- do you ask them who performs their audit? >> yes, through our audit template were recollect all of our information. they list their credentials and i.d. and we verify that online. >> okay. what is the difference between a comprehensive audit, the cost, versus a walk-through audit?

>> the cost varies, it also depends on the size of the building. for smaller buildings, or a level one audit, it is usually and arrange -- it also ranges per company, but it is in the low thousands, and stan 1,000 to about 5,000, and a more comprehensive audit, level two can be more than that. >> i will say that when this first past, the building that my personal office in north beach is in, the landlord went through an audit and was proudly reported to me a couple years later that he is saving a lot of money every year because it was a great investment, and he was actually quite pleased. >> that is a great story. >> because of the audit? >> yes. a building that was built by his

grandfather, it is ground floor commercial and office on the second story. >> so that -- >> he ended up changing the way the building is heated and he has saved money every year since >> it every year he keeps saving >> right. >> how often is the audit required? >> every five years. >> so where is that spelled out? >> do you want to find the page? he is looking for the page. >> okay. , that is five years, and that was the last point. good point, supervisor peskin. once the audit is performed, you make the adjustments, and you have ongoing savings. i guess while you are looking that up, can we ask them when they are doing the audit, can we ask them to report or disclose the type of energy? i mean we have the information now for who is using clean power s.f., who is not, was opting out , who is opting in, can

capture that information too when the audits are performed? that will also inform us on the type of energy that is being used for the building, not just the performance of the building but the source of the energy. >> we are not asking at this point. >> can be immense that into the legislation, potentially, since we are gathering information in audit form. >> i don't know if there is a law around that but i think it is an interesting idea. >> presumably, the public utilities commission has that data. >> correct. >> it would be an interesting thing for you all to know, but the data might actually be accessible between department -- departments subject to the confidentiality provisions that are set forth. so my point is, if you are having this and you're are collecting this data, either the auditor or you all should be able to determine so we can determine who's not just being efficient, but who is also being

conscious of the source of energy in terms of the environment. >> yeah,. i think to supervisor peskin's point, i know that data does exist because clean power s.f. does know who is their customer and two is not and the size of the buildings that those accounts are, so it is a question of how do we weave that together and for what ends. is it because we want to require something different, or to give them accolades? >> i think we are doing -- i guess part of what i understand this amendment to be is you want people to disclose their energy performance. >> correct. >> but as part of the energy performance, you want them to be more efficient. >> yes. to use less energy. >> so then the next step would be not only just being less energy, but what type of energy are they using, because that then becomes, i guess i go back to the hall that a lot of the

buildings put platinum and energy efficient, and as a -- all this other stuff, but it is all still coal-based and all still environmentally -- >> the department of the environment and p.u.c. have been in a lot of conversations in the last three or four weeks about how to step up super green enrolment, and how we can, as a department of the environment with our great communications team help them get the word out for increasing that enrolment, and these data sets will help us targets the recipients of that information as well, and they also, as i said, help us target where we are doing our energy efficiency work, especially in the residential sector where that savings can go right to the tenants in terms of decreased utility cost. this kind of information will be super helpful for us in our energy efficiency work. >> it seems like something we could add into as part of the data collection that would be simple. >> the word simple, i don't know , but we can look into it.

>> i would ask the city attorney if we can potentially make that amendment, if it is a friendly amendment, and i would like to be added as a cosponsor. >> great. >> it will be part of my amendment to the legislation. i don't have any other questions , but great work. >> anything else? >> if you and the p.u.c. can get with council and see if we can craft anything in the next 24 hours, if it turns out to be too complicated, or should be another vehicle, we will look at that tomorrow, next week -- not tomorrow, next week. >> thank you so much. >> we asked for public comment and there was no public comment so we will send this to the full board with a recommendation to be amended next week. without objection. magic clerk, next item, please. >> item three is an ordinance amending the landmark designation for landmark number 2049 '06 broadway under article ten of the planning code.

confirmed exterior of -- exterior features should be preserved or replaced and affirming appropriate findings. >> thank you. colleagues, by way of background , 906 broadway is our lady of guadalupe church in the hearts of the northeast corner of san francisco, district three , which i represent. it has an interesting -- many interesting stories. one of which is that it was landmarked in 1993 before, and a former mayor brown is lessening, before then speaker brown passed assembly bill i think it was 133 at the behest of the archdiocese of the state of california, which prevented local governments from lands marking

religious structures, and interestingly enough, the city and county of san francisco, on the theory that it was a violation of church and state, took that case all the way up to the united states supreme court and ultimately did not prevail, but this was landmarked prior to the passage of that preentry piece of legislation. it hails from a date in time when there was a large latino community in the northeast corner of san francisco. for those that do not know, there is a plaque on columbus avenue regaling the history of little chile, believe it or not, and every year on december 12th , for many, many years, the latino community from the mission would come on the day of

our lady of guadalupe a and marriott she bands would wind through chinatown and north beach. it was a sight to behold. in 1996, i believe it was, or maybe it was 94, i think it was 94, the san francisco archdiocese closed number of parish churches, including our lady of guadalupe a, and for a number of years, would reopen it one day a year on december 12th , to allow that community to come and celebrate. subsequently, it was sold off, interestingly enough, when i was reelected in 2015, for a brief moment, it was the potential site for a navigation centre, but subsequently was sold to the current owners, who have agreed to lands marking. the case reported believe was

prepared by paige turnbull, and they received a certificate of appropriateness for some internal changes, and i want to thank the project sponsor for accommodating the communicating staircase in an appropriate location, and think staff for bringing the interior lands marking of some character defining features pursuant to article ten of the planning code , and with that, miss smith, the floor is yours. >> thank you. >> i will say one thing, i was first elected in a runoff on december 12th, of the year 2,000, and i started that morning in a rainy morning on a runoff election in the senate kristi of that church. i am a jewish guy, but when this little shaft of light lit up that incredible stained-glass window and some old latina woman

said to me, you are going to win , i knew i was going to have a good day that day, so i have very special association with that church. >> thank you. good afternoon, supervisors. i'm from the planning department staff and i'm here today to present the proposed amendment to the landmark designation for 906 broadway, historically known as our lady of guadalupe eight located in north beach. 906 broadway was designated as landmark number 204 in 1993. at the time a designation, only the exterior features of the building were designated. following the sale of the property with the archdiocese in 2016, they added to their landmark designation work program. on december 19th, 2019, the historic preservation commission recommended the land might designation be amended to include the building's interior, including the sanctuary, murals,

another significant interior features. to briefly summarize, the property a significant force association with the development of the san francisco latino and spanish-speaking communities from the late 19th to the mid- 20th century, as well as the geographical and spiritual heart of the latino and spanish-speaking enclave that existed in north beach until the 1950s. it is also architecturally significant of the work of master architects at chez and locke west and an exceptional example of an early 20th century mission revival church with a highly ornate interior displaying renaissance and baroque ornamentation, including its interior murals painted by a master artist. the department has received two letters in support of the designation amendment and has shared a draft of the designation report with the property owner who has testified in support of the designation amendment and is also present

today. there is no known public or neighborhood opposition to the amendment. the department believes the building's interior meets the established eligibility requirements and that amendment for the landmark designation is warranted. this concludes my presentation and i'm happy to answer any questions. >> thank you miss smith and thank you to staff of the planning department and historic preservation commission. is there any public comment on this item? seeing then, public comment is closed. madame clerk, i would like to add my name is a sponsor, and if there is no objection, we will forward this to the full board with recommendation. that will be the order, and we are adjourned.

>> good evening, ladies and gentlemen. the chair has called the meeting to order. if you can stand for the pledge of allegiance. >> good evening, chair, i'll like to call the meeting to order by calling roll. president commissioner