believe the transition would it's simply called for this in the budget. with respect to the department's work, it has potential effect of having those areas come under our jurisdiction and another aspect is that we have about half a million dollars a year in work orders from the redevelopment agency in our budget every year. so that's another way it would effect or could effect the department. now, all this is unknown because there's no specifics yet. but the governor has made this proposal and essentially it would allow the tax increment funds in redevelopment areas to be collected into the general fund for both the city and the state as if they were if they were not in the redevelopment areas. and the other thing immaterialed to mention is a couple of dates related to the housing element. actually today, we are releasing the third draft of the housing element. you will all be receiving copies

of that and in the next day or two. and we have a memo set out that explains the changes that we have made in the draft. there will be a second and what i have been calling a conversation with the director on the housing element on the evening of february 16 at 6:00 p.m. at the department. we had a very productive discussion, i thought, about two months ago of that same nature and 20 to 25 people come to talk about it and we would like to repeat that with a new draft in place. we have tentatively scheduled the initiation hearing for the housing element on the morning, sorry, i thought i had it here. oh, the morning of february 24, would be -- wait a minute. that's not right either. yes, i'm sorry, the morning of 24th of february. and that would be informational

hearing and initiation and then tentatively either march 24 or april 7 for action. we don't know which of those two dates at this point. so i wanted to give you those dates which are in the cover memo going out with the new draft so you'll have that in front of you in the next day or two. and it is all in the advanced calendar, but to give folks a heads up t treasure island and housing elements will be heard within a week of each other so there will be a lot of reading to do. >> that is it for me unless you have any questions. >> good afternoon, commissioners. anmarie rodgers here with an update and this week they heard an ordinance initiated by the commission and it was the upper market n.c.d. changes to the planning code. and they recommended approval of

this on november 4 and it would insure that commercial and residential development in the area is consistent with the existing development pattern and provide release from the parking requirements and insure new development provides community benefits to offset the impact of that development and because it did not include a long planning process like much of our work, we felt it was appropriate to apply the controls and providing some exemption from certain other impact fees or pre-existing projects that are able to make good on the permit application by securing that and we heard from gold's gym and the gold's gym owner made the argument this would be the only nonhistoric corner between

vaness and castro. and this committee heard public community and one supervisor was recused due to the location of his home near the site. and after that he returned to the meeting to allow the rezoning of 65 feet to work with this proposal and once it's introduced, we will bring it before you for full consideration. and also at and there use, there were 8 pieces of legislation concerning discuss the creation of the pilot project on rincon hill. commissioners, while you did not consider the specific ordinances, you did consider the enabling ordinances on legislation on july 22 of last

year. at that time you heard the resolution for the area infrastructure finance district and would establish a committee to advice the city on policies and recommended the approval with the understanding rincon hill would be the first pilot project and recommended that the city consider two additional considerations. first you asked the board to seek additional funding to add a second pilot project for the eastern neighborhoods abed and second that the city conduct additional studies on the general fund. since your action, the apif committee has been formed and see the development of drafting the policies that would governor the use of ifd's as well as the completion of a fiscal impact analysis studying the long-term effects of rincon hill pilot on the general fund and a net fiscal surplus at build out.

staff has served on the apif committee to insure that your concerns were addressed. and they will consider the budget for approval before the full board. property owners in the rincon will vote on the ifd on february 8 and the board has tentatively scheduled consideration of all the pieces of legislation at 3:00 p.m. at the committee as a wholen o february 8. this week the full board of supervisors heard an appeal for 1269 lombard street. we had a categorical exemption for this property and the property involves demolition of an existing single-family house and construction of two new single family residential buildings at the front and rear of the property. the department has determined that although the subject building is within an area potentially eligible for listing

on the california register as an historic district, the building does not retain significant historic integrity to convey the association with the district. therefore, it does not contribute to the historic significance of the district and could not be considered a historic resource. the new construction would be compatible with the larger and smaller districts and preserving the fuelling of the resources. the board listened to all parties and voted to uphold the department's legislation. an ordinance introduced by supervisor ferrell at prosidyo avenue and to amend the height map from 40 to 55 field fooet and reflect the boundaries of the special use district. that concludes my report. i don't know if there's any

question. vice president olague: commissioner sugaya? commissioner sugaya: what was the address again? vice president olague: commissioner antonini. commissioner antonini: thank you, and this is a question to redevelopment that i should have asked earlier but in the state of the state address or one of governor brown's statements with regards to this issue he kind of compared and contrasted the proper use of redevelopment funds to some that were not as well done and i would like to see if we can get some of that verbiage somewhere and i think most of the projects would be looked at more favorably than some locations that are particularly referred to as inappropriate and i think that is really important.

>> and i did not have a report for you from the historic preservation. with that, commissioners, we can move on to the 15-minute general public comment category. and at this time members of the public may address you on items that is within the subject jurisdiction matter. each member of the public may address you for three minutes keeping in mind that the category has a 15-minute time limit and i have no speaker cards. vice president olague: is there any general public comment? >> walter paulsen. i want to thank you -- ♪ and i think you can remember all the history in this city. ♪ all the places that you be. ♪ i want to thank you very much. ♪ thank you for the history and

all the houses that you must keep and i want you to remember all the history that was made. ♪ oh, i want to thank you every day. ♪ thank you for the history. ♪ thank you, planning, for the history. ♪ and we can use it every day. ♪ and i pray we're going to make it, saving history. ♪ history, and i hope you make it, too. ♪ i hope that you, you make it to the history. ♪ and save it all. ♪ and save it a lot. ♪ and bring it all sky high. ♪ and i hope that you will make it good and save it all the time. ♪ save the history fine.

thank you. vice president olague: thank you. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. secretary avery: thank you, commissioners. you can move forward to item eight t review of fiscal year 2011-2012 proposed budget and revenue options. >> thank you, commissioners. john graham, planning department. i will give a brief introduction and then we will present the budget information to you. today what we're going to talk about is balancing options for the budget and last time we presented the budget and we will be looking at the proposal and the recommendation for how we balance the budget this year. and in a nutshell, the budget we're proposing is a status quo budget. we are not proposing to grow or the good news is that we're not proposing to shrink either, so there are no layoffs proposed in this budget. and a couple of items just to

note on the first page of the memo, the budget does not include expenditures or revenues associated with a couple of the big projects that we have been talking about, america's cup or the health care master plan. we simply don't know what those costs or revenues will be yet. so this budget does not reflect those. we will likely have more answers on that after the budget is submitted to the mayor in a couple of week. but as of right now, we don't know enough to include that. as tom will take you and talk to you about in a nutshell, we are not proposing any fee increase this is year either. there is a consumer price index increase that happens automatically. but we are not proposing -- [bell ringing] >> i don't think my time is yet up. we are not proposing any increases on top of that for the year and believe we can fill the modest gap without having to do that. with that, i will ask tom to

present you the budget in more detail. and to remind you next week we will be asking you to take action on next year's budget. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm going to go over shortly the status of the current year budget and the proposed budget next year. before i do the presentation, i wanted to acknowledge some of the staff people, donnie wong who primarily works on the expenditure grants and work order side of the budget and yvonne coe who does the revenue and billing for the department. in the current year on the revenue side of the house, we're looking to be on budget for revenues. as you can see from the table, we're seeing a shortfall in environmental review fees of about $2 million that is actually offset by above budget

projections for building permit alterations and new construction building permit. so that the increase there will offset the shortfall that we're seeing in environmental review fees. this revenue budget assumes volume growth of 2.5%. on the next green you'll see a month over month comparison from july through december. we're actually seeing 7.6% volume growth, although as you can see from month to month there's some positive months and some negative months. so it's a little up and down. and there's still some uncertainty exactly where we're going to end at the end of the year and what the volume growth will be. but on average we're actually exceeding the asuch-- exceeding assumption that was in the budget for the current year. on the expenditure side of the budget, we are in the process of filling positions. we still have some vacancies and are projecting to have salary

savings of $1.4 million. some minor contract of materials and supply savings of about $94,000. and we are projecting a $600,000 shortfall in work order recoveries and that is primarily related to three work orders that are are redevelopment agency and the airport work order not materializing. and the contract incummer bed that were -- and that was encumbered and carried over to the budget. and we are hiring and we run examines for all the planner classifications and are establishing a list and including those positions to anticipate increasing our salary expenditureses by another

$370,000 by the end of the year. we do al have a sortfall on the special revenue side of our budget and there's $83,000 shortfall in grants related to some indirect costs that we have to wait to bill and the enforcement side is projecting a shortfall and the savings up above in salaries and whatnot will be used to offset those expenditures. moving on to the proposed budget, i'm going to start with the expenditure side of the budget and for all the budget decreasing and there are minor changes to salaries and most is related to minor adjustments and m.o.u.s that have been negotiated and partial year positions that are in the budget last year that are being

annualized and some minor adjustments to step increases for staff. the biggest change in our budget is in mandatory fringe benefits. the controller's office loaded an 18% increase in retirement costs and about $500,000 of that is related to that and i have assumed a 10% increase for health and dental. the rates are being negotiated and health service board has finished negotiating the rates and take them to the board of the supervisors and we don't know what with the final rates are yet. and nonperson services and this big decline is related from last year for caesar chavez and most of that money went to public works for construction so that

negative is that one-time money out of the budget and there's materials and supply increases and this is related to just office equipment and the xerox machines and contracts for that and some i.t. and web contracts that are also part of that. for equipment, this really funds our servers and proposing a 50% reduction from the prior year for the replacement of that and a minor adjustment in services and overall the budget is being redoes redoesed deuced and o the revenue side, i am going to start from the bottom of the screen and end from the fees and the year over year change and last year about $1 million in projects that we closed out that was one-time savings which is not available next year and as i

mentioned a few years ago, we have a work order recovery shortfall and we have historically had some work order shortfalls and i have reduced that by $300,000 next year to be in line with the historical trend of the recoveries there. and the code enforcement program proposing to keep the same and general advertising science program and reducing from $700,000 to $250,000. and we completed the first phase of that program where the staff inventory is about 1,800 times and issued violations on over 550 signs and so we are now at phase two which is really a maintenance of the program. this program is being reduced from 3.25 staff down to one staff and that is what that reflects. the 7% reduction is ongoing and 7% reduction at the mayor's office and issued in their

budget instructions in december. and the state and local grants are increasing by over 200% next year. you may remember that he hired a grant specialist partially funding through friend of the city planning grant which is successful to secure grant funding from primarily state source. and the federal grants and this $1.2 million grant is going away and that is that big reduction there. and finally on the fee side we're proposing at $1.8 million increase in fees and that's the 1.5% c.p.i. adjustment authorized in the planning and administrative code that john mentioned as well as an atufrpgs of 3% growth in volume. again, the current year budget has a 2.5% growth assumed in it and seeing over 7% and we think

that another moderate growth of 3% is reasonable. so with that on the fee side, that would be a 4.5% total growth and i put three proposals in the packet. the first is the c.p.i. and the volume growth and the second wave of approaching it is all the volume growth and the third option is to split it between c.p.i. volume and we're proposing not to increase fees this year and are recommending we do the c.p.i. and the growth assumption in the budget. finally at the last meets from the commissioners' comments and we revised the work program attached to the packet to include a column that showed how

many f.t.e.'s of that work is funded by grants. the table here shows you what the changes are in the various grant funding sources and in the current year of the 1.85 f.t.e.'s funded through grants and next year 9.2 f.t.e.'s funded through grants with that grant increase. on the citywide planning section, we also expanded it to clearly articulate the plan and implementation monitoring and funding and community improvement programs and made that adjust tonight the work program also. that is it for my presentation. if there are any questions. vice president olague: not at this time. oh, commissioner sugaya. commissioner sugaya: do you know since there is a new mayor of how he is approaching the budget

and is he sticking pretty much to what mayor newsome presented? >> they issue a target based on the projection that will be updated with the joint report that's issued at the beginning of march by the mayor and the controller and there be will be a new projection and they will allocate the changes and for now the number assumed in december is the number the departments have been given to work with. commissioner sugaya: you are not expecting the mayor to make any substantive changes directly affecting the department? >> no. >> so far the mayor has not changed things and the biggest way it affects us is the 7% increase in the general fund allocation. and as of right now he has not

changed that. vice president olague: are we taking public comment on this? is there any general public comment on the budget? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> with that then next week i'll bring the budget forward for final review. secretary avery: thank you. commissioners, we can move forward to item nine on the calendar. 333 harrison street, in-kind agreement. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am here to talk to you about the proposal today for a waiver for the rincon hill impact fees for 333 harrison street. before i get started, i'm just going to kwo go over three

actions in the case before you today and this is one of the first area plans that the planning department worked on that included not just the rezoning but also the infrastructure plan and development impact fees to help fund that infrastructure plan. at the time the department proposed what's called the rincon hill fee that go to building out the parks and streetscape improvements and the other pieces of infrastructure. the board added another impact fee which is the storm stabilization fee and that goes to the stabilization committee and that i believe's the right name, for community amenities and today we're talking about the first fee t rincon hill impact fee and the project sponsor is a requesting a waiver

for just a portion of that. in march of 2009, the planning commission approved the approval for 333 harrison which is roughly 330 residential units on the southern portion of this parcel. and during, sorry t plan itself identifies the parcel as potentially a park or a park and housing development. when the commission in march of 2009 approved 333 harrison, they also suggested that the project sponsor come back for an in-kind agreement of the development of the park on the other portion of the parcel. that is what we're doing. the other action i would like to refer about is in september of 2010 i was before you with the policy and the planning commission's in-kind policy

directing staff, project sponsors and the public on what your expect expectations are for the in-kind improvements. and that is in packet five but i used that as the tool to think that this made sense for an in-kind proposal. with, that on the overhead is the picture of the proposed park and as you can see where the picture leaves off, this is part of the park here which has a children's area and then a community garden over here and this is some sort of informal cafe i think. this is the proposed design and the development would happen on

this portion of the lot. the overall cost is estimated to be about $8 million and about $6 million is acquiring the value of the land and the department of real estate got an appraisal of the land completed in the last couple of months and with the fair market value which the city feels is appropriate to offer if remaining $1.9 million is an estimate that is for the children's play area and laying the grass and things like that. and as we get more detailed, we will get more specific on what the value is, but we did work with the department of park and rec and they feel that is a fair estimate given how far we are in design. and the proposal before you today is for $1.5 million roughly and the project sponsor's fees for the rincon

hill are about $2 million and just a little more. and some of that money will be collected when they file for that. and are t remainder, roughly $1.5 million is what we're talking about today and that is what you all would offer a waiver for the agreement that is in the packet and the money would be credited towards the city's eventual purchase of the land. and policy you all passed about in-kind agreement included three major steps. one is, is the improvement eligible? and then the second is whether it's a priority and the third is whether it's recommended. this is very much eligible and i wanted to be