the commission does not tolerate disruption or outburst its or any kind. please silence your mobile devices and when speaking before the commission, if you care to, please state your name for the record. i'd like to take roll. [roll call] >> we are concerned however that we haven't received documents in response to our public records act and sunshine ordinance request and without those documents we will not be prepared for the hearing, and that is true to the master lease between the port authority and the park service which should have been released with the mitigated declaration to allow parties to analyze the significant effects of the project. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, i'm with holy trinity cathedral. i'm here about 1555 young street, we support the continuance to get more neighbors involved. >> thank you. >> jason mack, a neighbor, regarding 1555 union street, and just procedural point, attempted -- have made a number of attempts to file a letter of objection e-mailed on november 29, filed it in person at the november 30, when there was a continuance i again attempted by e-mail january 24th, i'd like to attempt to file this again today. it's a letter of objection. i notice that in the documentation that was on the agenda regarding this project for today, the developers appeared to be disregarding the letter of objection and i understand that i'm not the only neighbor whose attempts to file letters of objection have not been successful. >> i apologize for the interruption, but we're only accepting public testimony on the matter of the continuance. i will accept it and add it to the administrative record. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners, speaking on the matter of the continuance for 1555 union, we want to urge you to support the continuance for two reasons, one, the neighbors have expressed concerns about the project in terms of parking appropriateness and environmental review et cetera and believe their concerns would be alleviated by a continuance to see if there can be workup of issues and is there may be time to agree to build with union labor and fair process to join the union and continuance allows for more of an opportunity to accomplish this. we hope you will grant continuance for the 1555 union project. >> any additional comment on the items proposed for a continuance? seeing none, we close public comment. commissioner koppel? >> commissioner koppel: before i make the motion, did anyone want to mention about a timeline for number one? >> i'm comfortable keeping it at that timeline if obviously sunshine requests are on a different calendar, but there are set days when they have to be responded to, but i think when we hear the item, if there is issues, we can continue it again. >> ok, motion to continue items number 1, 2, 3, 12 a and 16 to the dates specified. >> second. >> president hillis: 4 also withdrawn, do we have to approve that? >> also including item number 4. there is a motion seconded to continue matters as proposed. commissioner koppel? aye hillis, aye. motion passes unanimously, 5-0. on the variance side, 12-b continuing indefinitely for 1555 union street. >> thank you, zoning administrator. commissioners place this under matter for item 5, draft minutes for december 14, 2017. >> any public comment on the draft minutes? >> hello, i want to comment on the draft minutes for the 21s of december general public comment, when i made those comments i didn't know that mr. sanchez, the zoning administrator had raised the number from 1.63 to 1.9. i don't know if you want to correct that in the minutes, but the single-family home value has been raised to 1.9. thank you for doing that. and then here i corrected the minutes myself, so -- >> those are the minutes that reflected your comments. >> i know, i apologize -- >> there is no correction. that needs to be made. >> the correction will come in the reflection of your comments here today. >> i made copies of that today, i didn't know it was raised because i made those comments on the 21st. thank you very much. >> thank you. we'll close public comments. commissioners? >> commissioner koppel: motion to accept draft minutes from december 14 and 21? >> second. >> thank you, commissioners, on that motion then to adopt minutes for december 14 and 21, commissioner koppel? >> commissioner koppel: aye. so moved. the motion passes, 5-0. in places of item 6, commission comments and questions. >> commissioner richards. >> commissioner richards: a couple of things, in this week's business times on page 4, there was an article about 1601 16th street which we approved probably a couple of years ago. what was interesting, the developer, they cut a floor off the development not because neighbors had blocked views or whatever, they cut the floor off because of construction costs. so for anybody thinking that construction costs aren't inhibiting maybe some projects getting under way, here we have one that is entitled, but is cutting units because of construction cost. the other thing i wanted to mention, i read this past sunday's chronicle in the insight section and the chronicle came out with sb 827, which if you take a look at some of the articles on the web, really affects pretty much every parcel in san francisco. it upzones every parcel to have no density even in rh 1, r h2 and 3 zones. doesn't have parking minimums and there are other things that go along with the sba 27. i would like to understand what the impact would be here in san francisco. the reason is, i think an informed public needs to understand exactly what this is. there is a lot of words being used but people aren't internalizing what is going to happen and i really want people to understand it. maybe staff could do a quick memo on what it does and doesn't do and what it covers, that would be great, thank you. >> secretary: commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: we approved meeting minutes of december 21st where commissioner johnson resigned, and since that time, we are understanding there are reasons she needs to be here, but i think the public is asking -- i don't have an answer -- i asked the commission secretary and perhaps there could be clarification of what is going on so that we know ourselves of what to expect. >> indeed, we can formulate something. >> commissioner moore: thank you. >> but it's my understanding at least at this point, she's a member of the commission, has no pulled back that resignation -- >> commissioner moore: issuing meeting memos that say she has resigned and she said there could be intent to resign but not say she resigned, it's a typo, so we need to be clear. >> we'll get clarification on that. >> commissioner moore: definitely would like her to be here, but it needs to be clear to the public. >> commissioners, if there is nothing further item matters, director announcements. >> just two items i wanted to report today, one is the status of the permitting project tracking system, this has come up several times in light of the work with the department of building inspection. i'm pleased to tell you that the dbi is on schedule to go live this fall, september. just to get into the weeds a little bit, the initiation started about a year ago and the consultants have completed the analysis of dbi system requirements and the configuration. they're in stages 3 and 4 out of 5. which is actually building the system and then they go into testing and training. the build is projected to be completed by april. and then after that, the conversion will happen in testing and training and preparation for the go-live date which is in september as i said. when they go live, this will also allow the public access portal to go live as well, so there will be broader access. and hopefully, have better communication between the two departments which is one of the many goals of this system. so as you know, we went live in october 2014, and we are working with dbi and their consultants to make sure when they go live and join with the system, that's seamless as well. so we're happy to report that we're moving ahead on schedule for september launch. the second thing i wanted to report to you on, is really news from kevin guy the office of short-term rental director. there has been part of the settlement agreement with airbnb on the litigation, we have been in phases implementing the agreement that came about as a result of the litigation. the last phase was implemented last week at which point the agreement of course calls for anyone who is not registered to not have a posting on any of the websites. as of last week, 6,000 postings had been removed. not just from airbnb, but all the listing agencies. the really interesting news that kevin is working on, and his team, looking at units where they had had enforcement cases and some of those are appearing on the rental market. so he believes there has been an effect on making more units available in the market which is very good news. he's getting the data, but i wanted to let you know that information and publicly thank him and his team for the extraordinary work they've done to make this happen. thank you, that concludes my report. >> secretary: that is good news, thank you. commissioners item 8, review of past events. this week land use committee hearing was cancelled. the general plan amendment for the area plan passed the second read. the definition for gross florida area sponsored by this commission passed first read. and article 8 passed first read. the mission neighbor commercial district amendments passed its first read. and the supervisor safai interim control for personal uses, institutional uses and conversion to residential uses, those were adopted. that concludes my report. >> thank you, mr. star. >> the board of appeals did not meet last night. >> ok. if there are no questions, commissioners, we can move on to general public comment, members of the public may address the commission, on items that are within the subject matter jurisdiction, except agenda items. with respect to agenda items, that will be addressed during the meeting. i did have one speaker. >> president hillis: ok. i gave the amended minutes because i wanted to make a appointment. i think it's good that you did residential flat policy. i don't know if you saw in the paper, that fancy glossy section, three units, it was three, now it's one big $11 million unit. too bad. i know it's pacific heights, but you know, you could have three units in pacific height. ok. i think i mentioned the one on shotwell and one on duncan. there is one on duncan that is actually for sale and has nov on it. i mean, where do these people get this idea they can get away with this stuff? they say it's going be one unit, and it's two units now. it drives me crazy. when you get to your samples from mr. sanchez and star, 40% should have been demolition. that's a lot over the last few years. you could use your tools that you have to make the adjustments now, you could raise the number or the criteria that is on the zoning administration bulletin. and get rid of ands and make them ors. the first one doesn't require legislation. it's simple fixes. in the meantime we have stuff like this. 20th street. that's not a demolition. two units. look at that. that was the original house. you can see two entrances. look at that pretty little window. beautiful stained glass gone. why is this not a demolition? i don't understand. and then they're getting entitlements, there it is $4 million. here it is under construction. here it is before what it was. it's not a demolition. and then you're selling them, 55 homestead. that's being sold. it's the highest price per square foot in the valley. in the meantime, they get their entitlements and rev up the number. this went from below a million to 4.3. i have another one here, but i'm too emotional and still too sick to talk. but 276 duncan. i don't know what is going to happen there, but they're selling for over $2 million. please do something. please. you can do it. maybe just adjust the numbers so it's harder to do demolition, but get rid of the ands. that would be so simple. i don't understand. but thank you for doing the flat policy. that was really great. and i could tell you about the one for the entitlements, but the one of on casher. this one on state street -- >> ms. -- >> i know, i'm done, i'll stop, i'm ranting and raving. >> president hillis: thank you. mr. david? good afternoon. i'm here to talk about, i'm pretty sure i brought up a handful of times in the past, it's starting to have effect in our mayor's race. so this is the inconsistent reporting of the rina numbers by the planning department as to the state of california. so as you can clearly see on this sheet that is provided the planning department, it shows that our above moderate rina number, we're at 217%, that means that we're planning to build a . the other thing is rhna numbers are supposed to be the minimums not maximums. we're just reaching the minimum. i want to point that out. the san francisco planning department says that we're at 217%. i want to remind you the numbers are done by the state of california, they're not done by the planning department. here's the state of california rhna number. above moderate number is 109%. not 217. 109%. not 217. i'm sorry? that was the wrong page. here we go. everyone see that? that is 109%, not 217. that was for the years between 2007-2014. now the other rhna number that i have here is for the current stage between 2015 and 2023, the market rate number is 20%. not 217%. so, what is happening is there are mayoral questionnaires going out saying given that we're building 217% of our market rate units, don't you think we shouldn't be building anymore? that is misinformation. london breed the other day was in front of the community alliance and said we're building 200% of our market rate units and people said, no, we're not, said, the planning department said we are. this is a problem. these numbers are incorrect. the other thing -- i'm sorry can i a have a couple more seconds? no. >> president hillis: but thank you for the information and you can submit e-mails to us. good afternoon, i'm catherine pet, i supported the appeal for the chestnut lombard in december. you will recall that project resulted in the intentional illegal demolition by a speculative developer of a significant willis polk designed building. it was an example of the first bay tradition and one of only two examples of the city designs in san francisco. the project under construction near completion highlights the errors in the city permitting process, oversight and policies, flawed remedies addressing the demolition after the fact. it illustrates the practice of unlawful demolition by serial permitting, submittal of plans, et cetera, et cetera, as we just saw from many examples. 841 chestnut is one of the most egregious in terms of the importance of the loss of the building, the level of intervention and audacity of the demolition, this development illustrates incentives for developers to do illegal work for great financial gain at little risk of penalty. you may recall that the property was purchased in 2012 for $4.5 million and was appraised at a value of $30.2 million in 2016. finally, i'll mention that we believe there is a historic cottage on this site, but in what condition we don't know. i believe that -- and supporters are trying to have an inspection organized -- we ask that the commission take action to better protect its city's historic buildings and welcome your comments on how the department intends to do that, thank you. >> president hillis: thank you, next speaker, please. >> good afternoon president hillis, members of the commission, i'm an architect here in the city. i would like to further address our concerns regarding 841 chestnut. how to end this loss of housing and how to prevent the land. as this project began, the neighbors made two complaints. they questioned the extent of the demolition and lack of shoring of the front walls at 841 chestnut. the two complaints were turned into one. the two issues in the complaint interpreted by dbi became only about shoring. the other half of the complaint left uninvestigated. the house had been gutted and the front wall was unsupported so neighbors were alerting the city to extent of the demolition on the site at that time. a request that fell on deaf ears at dbi when the complaint was responded to, planning review to see the extent of the demo proposed at that time was lost. subsequent permit applications should have planning review, but dbi didn't route it. dbi kept planning from doing their portion of the review on the permit, intentionally in my opinion. why didn't that complaint result in the review? well, the chief building inspector said we don't send shoring permits to planning. so if they don't send shoring permits to planning and planning has interest in historic build how can planning know when serial permits are changing the original scope of work? the one certified local government department is the planning department, only they can make alterations to category a historic buildings. an experienced team of architects and engineers could have removed rotted members and treated the house for mold. dbi has shown itself over decades not to be reliable when it comes to citizens complaints. we would like to make requests. we would like planning to build into the budget for the coming year an fte structural engineer on staff trained in historic preservation as well and stop passing on checking structural drawings for historical buildings that come through the department. all category a and b buildings should have planning review. and finally, all building department complaints should be shared with the planning department. thank you very much. at the bic we brought up the issues, they were looking forward to a meeting with you in june. we think that's too far out and would appreciate you expediting that. >> president hillis: thank you, any additional general public comments? seeing none? >> commissioner richards: one question i have, we just had an update on the excela, how it's going in dbi, would something like an 814 chestnut be caught in that one, would somebody know who pushed that button not to route it? >> do you have thoughts on the discrepancies that mr. david showed? >> i just got that information today as well. i think there might be two discrepancies, one that the state data is old. and the state data is showing -- we are showing units completed. >> president hillis: that should be more for them, for the state. >> yeah. we'll look at that and see where the discrepancy comes from, but we'll clarify that for you next week. >> president hillis: we're in the process of scheduling a joint dbi hearing, we're meeting with the officers, so hopefully that could be sooner than june. your comments here are always welcome and insightful. do you go to dbi commission and present these? not to demand more of your time, but that information would be helpful also for them to hear? >> i've been there, but i'm waiting for that joint hearing. here's for the minutes and the correct. and if you could hand them, the thing i gave them. >> president hillis: we got it. >> thank you for the suggestion. >> president hillis: yep. >> secretary: if there is nothing further, we can move onto the regular calendar. 9. proposed department budget and work program. this is an informational presentation. >> good afternoon, john ram, we are here to present our annual initial hearing on the budget. it's hard to believe we're there again, budget season is now lasting practically the entire year. but initial hearing and then we'll come back to you in a few weeks to ask for your recommendations to go for the department budget to go to the mayor's budget. i will ask deborah lan disto make the presentation and tell you that as with last year's budget we are at a steady state. the budget is not growing or decreasing. we have seen over many years significant increases in our revenue based on project applications, but the last two years we've seen though levelling off, albeit at a high level. they're levelling off at record levels but not growing at this point. so with somewhat increased costs and no increased revenues, we are trying to be a little bit cautious in the budget proposal, so you'll see not much change. you'll see a little bit of reorganization in the work plan, but other than that, not much plan to the work plan or the budget itself, certainly not with the numbers and meeting the mayor's request in terms of budget numbers. with that, i'll ask deborah to come up and make the presentation. thank you. >> good afternoon, deborah landist. i will try to make this fast and painless. as director ram said there is not much that is changing from the current year to the proposed year. we will go over today just general updates, the projections for the current year including volume and the financial projections. we use that create the proposed budget, we'll go over the revenues and expenditures and then work program staffing and the calendar of what the next few months hold for us. so, every year the mayor's office releases budget instructions beginning of december to all of the departments. this year, they requested a 2.5% reduction in general fund support for each fiscal year, no new positions and for departments that are self-supporting to absorb all cost increases. we are self-supporting so that last one does affect us. we were able to get the 2.5 in each year, but our general fund support number is not all that large, so it came out to $95,000 in each year for a reduction from general fund support. there was a request for no new positions, however given the accessory dwelling unit, adu work we've been seeing this year and the revenues that have been accompanying it, we are proposing to add one new position for adus which will be covered by the increased revenue that is coming in with those applications. again, the mayor directive that came out in december is all about getting more housing into san francisco and so that is what is driving the work that we are proposing to do in the current year and the budget year. as director ram mentioned, we are plateauing and levelling off with volume and revenues that are coming in. this year, the volume over the last several years, this goes back to 2001, you can see the big dip there in the fiscal 08-09 year and the massive increase over the next several years, starting about a year and a half ago. we're seeing a plateauing that matches other revenues in the city. so for the current year we're going to end the year a little bit under what we had budgeted for revenue and we're going to make up for that in expenditure savings. so we're going to have a little bit of savings we think in the salaries and fringe area, and then we're going to hold back a little bit for some different contracts and various expenses so we'll end the year balanced. this does anticipate that we will use some deferred credit. that is from projects that were begun in a prior fiscal year, where we got the check last year, june 30th say and the work is done in the current year. so we recognize that revenue in the current year. so we use the current year revenue and expenditures to -- and the volume trends to predict what we think we're going to see in the next couple of years. what you see here is there is not a whole lot that is changing. in the proposed budget as opposed to 17-18 adopted budget, our revenues anticipated to decrease slightly so that is based on the current year projections and the consumer price index adjustment which is a number that we should be getting, if it's going to change, we should be getting that information within the next two weeks, so we would be able to bring that back to you. if it does change, it should be a slight change. we are hopefully going to see a lot more grants in the next year, than we have, so $2.5 million of grants we're hopeful and anticipate we will be able to bring into the department. the revenue that we get from ocii is its own line because they're a quasi city agency, so they get their own special accounting line there. that amount is not huge, probably going to be the same or relatively similar in the next couple of years. the development impact fees is go way down because we had some funding for the rail yard alignment project of $3.8 million and that was onetime funding, so that is not in the future years for the impact fees. we are putting in for a couple of projects with impact fees. the nexus study, is next year. you'll see the numbers go down. the expenditure recovery is where we are doing work for other departments in the city, we expect to be doing a lot more work, particularly for the airport. and for the port. so that is why that number is going up. anticipated projects for those projects where they would pay us for our time. and then the general fund support number is automatically generated from the budget system based on base budget and then cost increases around salary and fringe and so that number gets spit out to us and we have taken the 95,000 reduction in each year for that. going to a little bit more detail on the grants budget. we have the grants that we plan to apply for and expect to receive. there is one change that i know of already, the ocean protection council, we're going to be applying for that in 19-20, rather than 18-19. and so that one is number 7. so we are anticipating still significant amount of grant funding for sea level rise work in the 18-19 year. and we're also asking for capital funding for sea level rise work as well. so that request is in. and although we hopefully will get it, there are always more capital requests than there are capital dollars to give out to the departments, so we'll see how much we're able to get from that request. that's all the money coming in. that money will support our expenditures here. the changes that you'll see salaries and fringe, we're more expensive every year. so that number goes up every single year. the overhead is the county-wide allocation plan, so that is assigned to us. we don't anticipate it changing very much. if it does, we'll let you know in a couple of weeks and hopefully we'll have the number by then. it's possible the number will be put into the budget after we're through commission and after we submitted to the mayor's office. for the nonpersonal services we're reducing our contract spending. this is really to keep in line with making sure we have a balanced budget because some of the other expenses, salaries and fringe, are increasing. this is with the revenue staying even, this is one of the areas we were able to balance so we can come out to a balanced budget at the end of the year. not any real big changes in materials and supplies or capital and equipment. one thing to note, we're requesting a vehicle for code enforcement and that would be from code enforcement funding, so that will take us a few months to find out if it's approved, but it's in there, scott. and then the project expenditure, you can see the big changes here also relate to some of that onetime funding where we had the funding in the current year, we're not going to have it in the budget year, so we're not going to have the expenses associated with it either. services in other departments, that is mostly where we pay rent, we pay city attorney, we pay the department of technology. those costs and we do anticipate that they will go up somewhat. usually those numbers are finalized later in the budget process, unfortunately, after we've been finished with our piece of it. one thing to note though, in 19-20, we're going to be moving to 49 south van ness and there will be rent increase at the end of the fiscal year and then ongoing from there. we don't know what the rent will be. so we put in a place holder now of $500,000 for that last quarter. it's going to be a hefty increase in rent. the new building will have some onetime costs associated with it and that will be an ongoing cost we're going to have to figure out how to absorb. objecting, so looking at the changes from the base budget to the proposed budget, really you're going see that it changes by .77 which is the adu position. when we request new positions in the budget they're never put in as full, because we wouldn't be able to hire somebody on july 1. the budget is not finalized until the end of july. so it would be .77 in 18-19 if we get it and then additional .23 the following year to make it a whole position. other than that you might notice shifts between the divisions that director ram mentioned. we have four positions that are continuing to do the same work that had been in current planning, they're going to environmental planning. three positions from city-wide that are going to current planning. one from add miniover to city-wide. the only overall change is the adu position. to summarize, this is easier to read in the printed pact than on the tv screen. not a whole lot of changes. the positions which i mentioned, the shuffling, the adu, the grants, $2.5 million, impact fee funding, the big changes there are a rabb funding. and then the nexus study we have 400,000 for the nexus study in 18-19. and then 49,000, we're going to have lot more information a year from now, but it is coming, it's going to cost money and wanted to make sure to bring that up to you. you have in the memo the detailed work program. you can see easily where the positions are going back and forth between the divisions. one of the things i want to mention is work program is always different than fte count. work program is about the number of bodies and people. if we have a temporary position that is not budgeted it might show up in the work program, but it's not going to show up in the fte, so these two are always going to have different numbers. it is confusing, but this is about the people and the bodies doing the work in the office every day. and then the calendar of event, we went to the historic preservation commission last week to do our introduction to them which is all of this material and more detail on the funding and work that the department does. we're here today, the 25th, we're going to be returning to historic preservation february 7 and returning to this commission on february 8. which is the last meeting before the february 21 deadline that we must submit to the mayor's office. so if you do have any questions or recommendations for any changes between now and the next time we meet, please do let us know. we'll incorporate them and we will be able to come back to you for approval in time to get it to the mayor's office on february # 1. on june 1, it goes to the board of supervisors and at the end of the july, the city budget is fully approved. as john mentioned, it's fairly year round at this point. and we are always in budget season as far as i can tell. but hopefully, the information that we can share today and in two weeks will give you whatever you need to be able to support us to move forward for next year's budget. >> president hillis: great. thank you. >> just wanted to add, reiterate, that the detailed work plan is in the memo we sent. the senior management team is here to answer any questions you have. and as deborah mentioned we have one position we're requesting specifically. it's an unusual request to have a position devoted just to one topic, but we're seeing this incredible increase in application. staff is now projecting we'll receive about 500 applications a year for adu because the pay growth has been increasing every month. the program is working as intended and we need to have someone on board who can process those fairly quickly. with that, we're happy to answer any questions. >> president hillis: any public comment on the proposed budget? i'm not speaking to the pact today, i'm dealing with the one that was online. the last four pages of the report is a breakup of program activity. we have a major housing loss crisis in this city. housing is being demolished, converted, rent-controlled housing is being lost. and the planning department faces it every day. the public comment today was one of the historic buildings are being lost, including the housing. condo conversions are being manipulated to remove tenants in violation of the subdivision code which mandates a planning role. that was two weeks ago. demolition emerger, georgia comes here all the time. there is -- a lot of the 311 notices come to you, really do deal with the loss of housing because the planning staff doesn't catch them. and i'm not an architect and i shouldn't have to be an architect, but i know enough to know when plans look squirrely and the staff has just pushed them on. accessory dwelling units are a big problem. 505 grand view. people are manipulating the accessory dwelling units provision to add stories and units and the planning department just passes them on. it shouldn't only be the responsibility of people like me and people like georgia and people like you've heard today, to find out things are squirrely and redevelopment historic plans, conversion of a residential hotel to a tourist hotel. preservation staff doesn't look at that. nobody looks at adus. you need someone on staff that really has no responsibility of pushing projects through. just deal with housing issues. loss of housing issues. and little digs into them for you. dpw is not going to solve the problem. dbi is not going to solve the problem. this is a planning department problem. you have the laws to deal with adus, dwelling units and mergers, historical buildings. that's the planning code. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. any additional public comment on the budget? proposed budget? seeing none, we close public comment. any questions, commissioners? commissioner melgar >> what is non-personnel services? >> they're outside contractors. >> non-personnel services also includes software and licensing. so services to other departments is what we do if -- so the airport is going to have a big environmental -- a big project that requires environmental review, so they're going to pay us for our work for them specifically. the non-personnel services is the category, it's the financial term that the city uses, sorry, but it's what we pay to outside agencies. >> i see, ok. so the other question i had is, under services to other department which includes legal, for code enforcement, what we pay the city attorney, how is that related to what dbi pays for code enforcement? >> i'm not sure. i could get back to you if dbi or the city attorneys are willing or able to share their costs. >> vice president melgar: i wondered how many of these projects -- it's like the same project that have significant code violations for both planning and housing. -- i mean planning and building code and i'm wondering how that gets charged and who bears the cost and -- >> in my experience it's agency that refers the matter to the city attorney office that gets the bill, so in terms of cases that we refer to the city attorney office like the lombard case that was mentioned previously, out of the settlement that we received, money went from there to pay the city attorney. >> isn't that a disincentive to send it to the city attorney? >> if the city attorney did it for free, that would be wonderful. but -- [laughter] >> vice president melgar: the other question i would have is about the tenant improvements for the new space. where is that coming from? because we know -- you know. >> so dpw is covering the construction cost and i assume a lot of that will be recouped. the mortgage is going to have to be paid for. and that probably does include some of the costs they're incurring now. i can get more details on the funding there, because it's not planning department cost at the moment. i don't have the details, but i can find out and get back to you. >> vice president melgar: thank you, that's all my questions. >> commissioner richards. >> commissioner richards: this is the 4th one of these i sat through and i'm finally cracking the code, understanding and delving deeper into these. overall, there is not much to talk about, because there is continuation, however one of the disconnects i do see is between this commission and the fte. i look back at some of the areas of focus that we had asked the department to look at and there was a lot of work done and kudos to the department, the director and i talked about this. sometimes the department's its own worse marketing enemy, because we say something and they do i want, but we don't know about it until it's done. the question is, we had big items that we wanted to focus on and we keep talking about it, parking and auto ownership. i'm trying to understand, we prioritize the list in the next month or so, once we get a full commission will we see fte dedicated to the things we prioritize? retail? the other one that reared its head recently is what -- when i said this, i remembered the director nodding, i said it's not just about the building, it's about people. i think, she was reading my mind, some kind of fte or fraction devoted to tenant focused issues, evictions, whether the adu is going to result to rent evictions? all the stuff we're seeing. that's part of the disconnect. are there fte for the big things? and the other one, is the preservation element. it looks like it's on here, on one of the pages to be deferred or scaled back. so much work has been done on it over the past ten years, we should get it over the line or scrap it. a little bit of focus to get it over the line or decide what to do with it is warranted this year. >> to speak to the preservation, the change there is that there are four fte housed in environmental rather than current planning. >> commissioner richards: preservation element. so i guess the director can talk about some of the things we talk about and how they channel into the fte. some of these are big items we see week in, week out and the new one is the people focused one. no other organization is owning it. >> the short answer is that when you come up with requests, we try to look at the existing work plan and design it. it happens continuously throughout the year and the budget is done once a year. the items of concern, for example, carly grove is the -- the planner focused on the housing issues and she's helping us think through the issues that you've raised in terms of demolitions and that sort of thing. we also -- through the partnership that we have created with the mayor's office of housing and community development, some of the issues that you have respect with eviction and tenant controls are working with them to make some of those changes happen. now that program is meant to get ahead of that stuff, so we can reduce evictions, reduce displacement, but that work is -- we don't directly control a lot of that work, so we work with them to make it happen. we formed a partnership to address some of those things. but what i think the best thing to do is to take the specific questions and show you next time where on the work plan that work is embedded specifically. the work plan is detailed but not to the level that you're talking about right now, so the best thing is for us to show you where that work is. >> commissioner richards: i'd like to know from the partnership working with the other organizations if you think that now that we're all on budget time, they have enough resources? we know it's responsibility of another organization but they're not staffing for it, i would like to understand that, we're going to keep seeing this over and over. we have money behind it all across the city, this is a time to understand it. >> fair enough. >> commissioner richards: i look forward to working with the officers on the action item list, one or two items we want to get ahead of this year so we can incorporate it into fte or funding. >> the other thing to mention, per your request and discussion, i think it's a great idea for me to report monthly on the action item list, so i'm going to be doing that next week for this month. jonas is going to reorganize the action item list a little bit to cluster the items of similar requests, so we can then report to you. >> commissioner richards: wonder. i see process person, 2.51, is that nicholas? we have one dedicated fte and a lot of fractions? >> jacob is the process department. >> commissioner richards: i see 2.5, is that adding another? >> it's actually parts of several people's time, plus jacob. >> president hillis: commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: could you elaborate on adding additional positions for