very pleasant, and where possible, i think that is something we have to look at in san francisco. where we will find the land is the question, but i think there might be sites where this is çpossible, andñr we have to encourageçç production of this kind ot housing wherever possible, so i appreciated that editorial or op-ed pieceç that the supervisor had done. he is involved with a group that is studying this. there was a hearing on monday which $xregrettably was not able to attend, but i think it isça subject we need toç focus on because the core of any city is its middle income families, and we have to find a way to be able to address that shortage. thank you. commissionerç borden:ç i wanto be=)ç the first among the ch'' to welcomeç our new commission. we are excited to serve with you and have a full commission again. çi know there will be a lot of fun times ahead. i know people think it is crazy to say it is fun, but we would

not serve on thisçç commission that we did not believe it. i was fortunate along with commissioner wu last night to çattend the green connection çkickoff, funded through a grat partnership among various city agencies and partners to connect people to greenç spacesçit sht this northeastern part of the cityç. it is an initiative to look at the existing green spaces, how we look at it, and how we connect people and how we connectçç people. çñrçthereçç were maps and pe people could make suggestions. i'm really excited about the

initiative because there will be a lot of unconditional workshops with walking tours and biking tours to kind of explore these areas. i think itç is very exciting tt we have an opportunity to look at something. ççñrleading ahead in a way wen do not have funding to do these çthings. i want to say congratulations to the partners of that. commissioner sugaya: i cannot remember where i got this, but i did send a copy to staff, butçt is a workshop being held in emeryville on cell towers from march 8 -- on march 8 from 7:00 to 9:00 in the evening. çthe topics seemed to be the kd ofç things that we seem to be facing every time we had cell çantennas on our agenda. i know nothing about the center

for municipal solutionsç. i'm not sure if it is with anybody going like staff or not, but anyway, i will pass this along. they have some fairly enticing questions on yourççç -- on h. comm for those who were not able to make it tuesday, city hall looked spectacular. ñrwhoever organized it should gt big kudos. it looked fantastic. in today's "new yorkç times," there is an article which i strongly recommend for everybody to read. we have beenç asking ourselves about the impactç of foreclosus in said francisco, which is an issue difficult to put your finger on. the article squaks about extensive foreclosures, defining san francisco,

officials suggest how pervasive irregularities may be across the nation, that it actually speaks about the study that was done the discovered large amounts of ñrirregularities in this city ad county. i suggest everybody read it. it says a lot, and there is actually quite a bit to be concerned about. president miguel: some of that article was in today's "examiner"ç as wellç. other than that, i have been having a few meetingsç with people regarding the masonic auditorium issue, and there may even be hope of a solution. we will see. çcommissioner antonini: i also had some meetings. i would like to, of course, welcome commissionerç wu aboar. but crest mott court neighborhood association -- that may not be the correct term, but i did meet there with -- there

is a project coming up in that area,ç and in that with about 0 neighbors there on monday night. it was very interesting. we will be hearing about that as we look forward. also, i talked about the mayor's office and the projectç sponsos in regards to california pacific and became a price of where we are on that. i'm trying to be proactive on that one as well as anything else when looking at our future calendar. -- becameç uprisedç -- became apprised of where we are on that. >> commissioners, thank you. we can move on to directors reportç, directors announcemen. ç>> thank you, linda. i would also like to on behalf of the department welcome commissionerççç wuç. weç look forward to workingç h you very much. i did want to report quickly on theçç meeting last night that

commissioner borden mentioned. itç was a veryç interesting e. because of the location on market street, i think, and the timing of the eveable to come immediately after work, and a lot of people who came were people i did not recognize from previous events, so it was a nice variety of people. in a nutshell, the green connections study is funded by the strategic growth counsel at the state, which is a consortium çof state departments. çit is a two-year grant. the first is meant to look at a city wide network of green pen spacesççç and the city's water.and not only for people to use, but for wildlife. the second phase of the grant will be to take six corridors in six underserved neighborhoods, which are generally in the southeast quadrant of the city, and design those to a higher level of detail so that we can

then seek funding to actually make imprthey are not exclusivet primarily city streets. the idea is to pick the most logical ones and the most billable ones, if you will, to turn into these kinds of green corridors. it is an interesting process, and we are fortunate to get this grant, and it is something that grew out of the open space element workedç and was identified as a next phase of work for city-wide open space. i did want to mention briefly that regarding the sell tower issue, we have been in discussions with the department of public health and the department of technology. they are not being cooperative in helping us think through their sides of this issue, namely the public health issues and the capacity and coverage ççissues and we are continuino work with them on beefing up

that side of the process, if you will. so that they can do the same kind of analysisç. we will hopefully be coming back to in the next couple of months and the proposed change to the process. finally, with regard to the successor agencies and the development commission, there is not a lot to report except at the first meeting of the oversight board, it is scheduled for the first tuesdayç in marc, which is i think -- whatever that tuesday is. i apologize. i guess the sixth. one of the orders of business that i'm hoping we will address

is the name of this entity. we are currently called the oversight board of the successor agency of the former redevelopmentxd committee, which is a real mouthful. there is not a good acronym. i'm hoping we will come up with some more pitchy name for the organization at that point as well. that is it for me, unless there are any questions. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm here to give you your weekly report about the board of supervisors and land use activities. at the land use committee, i wanted to run down a little about that hearing on middle- income housing. it was at the request of supervisors weiner and chu. although she is not a member of the land use committee, supervisor olague also attended. the meeting began with the directors of the mayor's office of housing. they underscore the importance of the issue and launched what was a veryç fact-filled hearin.

staff explained that the agencies are working together and convened a task force to study the issue. they wanted to research the issue and identifyç housing nes compared to market projections for new development. the group is also looking for a gap between housing needs and production so the city can better direct funding. the controller's office concluded that neither issue alone could solve the issue, but more funding would be needed. the public discussed potential trade-off between fundingñr for the low-income housing and funding for this new middle- income housing, and this hearing was informational, but no action was taken. however, the hearing is expected

to inform two ongoing separate projects. first is the update to the inclusion very housing requirement. this work is expected later this year. the second project is the housing trust fund working group established by mayor lee. the work -- the group is looking for public funds for affordable housing. also, the land use committee -- also at the land use committee was the chinatown special zoning, and the ordinances would allow the demolition of existing mixed use buildings without prior review or approval of the çreplacement building. this commission approved the ordinances on january 26 of this year. this week, theç legislative sponsor amended it to ensure that the mou for relocating tenants of this property conforms with the central subway's relocation study. the study was adopted by the

board in 2010. the item has been recommended by approval, and the full board on tuesday of this week did vote to approve it on first reading. also at the board was final approval for all the ordinances related to the community plan, the culmination of 10 years' worth of planning. çlastly, i wanted to share thre items that were introduced as new items this week. one is a motion authorizing the budget analyst to perform three audits, one of which does relate to planning. the item of interest is an audit of the city departments management and oversight of the former agency's assets and functions, and that was introduced by supervisorç farrell. supervisor and board president chu interest the extensions for the ne legislation, which you heard a couple of weeks ago. this will allow you to hear it within the precise time limit

when you our next here on march 1. lastly, there will be a hearing on the legislative analyst audit of san francisco's affordable housing programs, andç it wille presentations by the mayor's our department and a problem of affordable housing. that concludes the report this weekñr unless there are questio. commissioner sugaya: could you go back over the audit? what is it intended to do for the planning department? >> i only describe the planning department. this is an audit of three different functions. !ó"t u$t agencies assets and functions.$t commissioner sugaya: isn't it a little early to do that since there is an oversight committee that has not even met? >> i think it is meant to analyze what we do now that is related to what the agency was doing to see where potential overlap exists.

>> thank you. >> a little changed in order call. our preservation coordinator will now becoming to the planning commission every other week to make the report tomorrow, since he has obviously a good handle on this project. also, he will also be conversely making a report to the hpc on the activities of this commission. in an attempt to just improve communication between the two commissions. president miguel: thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. a couple of items from yesterday's historic preservation commission i would like to share. the architectural review committee, which is a subcommittee, that yesterday. yesterday, to review the proposal for the new mission

theater, which isç -- overall, the project was well-received, and they believe the project sponsorçó is applying best reservation practices. most of the discussion was related to specific areas on the landmark interior that the project architect should study or clarified by the time the project is before the full committee for its full certificate of appropriateness. the planning commission will review the full project, which also includes a mixedç use development adjacent to the historic theater. the planning commission will review the environmental çdocument requests for conditional use authorization as well as exceptionsç under sectn 304 of the code in the fall of this year. ñrthe second item was the hpc consider theç initiation of landmark designation to the gold

dust lounge. the commission took up the matter based on a case report submitted at public comment during its february 1 hearing. yesterday, there was a great deal of public, in support of initiation of landmark designation. supervisor kim's office spoke in support of allowing -- of legislation that would allow it to stay in business. when mark designation cannot protect a use of a property and landmark designationç only relates to the review of the physical features associated with that historic resourced. the hpc voted to continue the item until its march 21 hearing. the item was continued to allow the property owner and the authorç of the designation rept time to addressçççó hpc at its hearing yesterday requested informational hearings on the city's pdr program in

anticipation of the transit district area plan coming before the body, and also on the sock story retrofit program. that concludes my report unless there are any questions. commissioner sugaya: yes, just to clarify, i think the proposed use for the new mission theater is as a multiplex theater. is that right? >> that is correct. commissioner sugaya: so it will remain basically in its sinews? >> the proposed projectç is foa single screen theater with a full-service restaurant. the variants within the environmental document raises the screens to a five-screen theater, but it is only a very it currently under study. it is not the proposed project. commissioner sugaya: ok, thank you. ç>> thank you.

commissioners, with that, we can move forward on your calendar to general public comment. members of the public may address you on items that fall within the subject matter çjurisdiction of this commissin with the exceptionç of agenda items that may not be addressed at this time but only at the time they are reached on kali appeared with respect to this category, members of the public may address you for up to 3 çminutes, keeping in mind that the entire category has a 15- minute time limit. i have one speaker card. ççpresident miguel: catherine howard. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i have today a letter that was submittedçç to the draft environmental impact report for the soccer complex in golden gate park. project will removeç over 7 acs of naturalç living grass and replace it with over 7 acres of artificial turf. gravel, plastic grass, and thai çairwaysç -- tireways.

let's will shine 150,000 watts of light from sunset to 10:00 p.m. 365 days a year. this is a commonç letter from kathleen macall allen and her 16-year-old daughter. i have a photograph for the overhead, please. she writes, "my daughter and i oppose the proposal for artificial turf and stadium lights. this happened to our field in palo alto, and the results met all the players on my daughter's teams and many of her friends on the other teams miserable. they actually preferred playing on natural fields even in the rain because soccer players are a hearty lunch, and they love playing in the mud. çsee the attached picture.

i have others of the entire team muddied up and smiling. my daughter and her friends were miserable playing soccer in palo alto when they lit -- change the field to artificial turf. besides constance give reasons and for putting, there were many more accidents, and the girls just hurt more after playing on them -- besides constant skin abrasions. my daughter had a miniature concussion." there is more in the letter. sf ocean supports active recreation. we support renovating the existing fieldñr with natural grass and no lights and better construction, using the remainder of the $12 million fundingç for other playing fie, providing recreation opportunities for use all over san francisco, while preserving golden gate park both woodland and matters as wildlife habitat and as a park with heritage for future generations. p&e%ei president miguel: thank you. is there additional general public comment on not agendized

items? >> we are the smaller spokes' group for a neighborhood committee that is opposing a product on belgrade ave. it is on the schedule for march 23. it is a combined schedule where it has very itsç. we would like to request that it be split because the dr's would be on a proposed law that does not exist that is not under any literal interpretation or reading of the zoning code that would be possibly permitted under any of the five conditions. i can give you a case number. we have tried to request -- we just got a letter on that note, so we apologize. we are not sure of the right process to do that, but just wanted to make sure we go on record to do that.

the second thing would be this has been about four years in the making. there was one pretty crudely written proposal submitted. we expect it to be updated becauseç they have new lawyers and what have you, and we would like to look at that. it had to be submitted earlier than the day of the hearing so we could prepare ourselves and not be caught offç guard. presidentçç miguel: thank you. >> is that all weç do here? thank you. 89 belgrade is the address of the existing law. 93 is a proposed new law that does not fit the zoning. >> if i may piggybacked for a second,ç in a resident. what puzzles usç is that the variants required to construct one of the projects -- the

hearing does not at present precede the dr process. we would potentially be straddled with the burdenç or t least the challenge, i should say, ofç the filing, which we e unfamiliar with, and it makes no sense to us that we would be potentially filing dr's when the project could potentially not go forward because the lot would be not created. frankly, we are asking for your help. just somehow the incongruity and the difficulty of facing all three of these hearings in one day. so thank you very much. ç>> we would like to have the hearing on the variants before the dr hearings if at all possible on a separate date. president miguel: thank you.

is there any additional general public comment on items that do not appear on the agenda? if not, public comment is closed. >> thank you. commissioners, we can now start your regular calendar with item five. this is the department's final fiscal yearç 2012-2014 departmt budget and work programç before you for action. >> thank you, linda. çwhoops, i should know better. today, we are presenting our final presentation on our proposed budget for the next two fiscal years, and we are asking for your action today. as a reminder, the commission does have the responsibility, if you will, of adopting the actual department budget that is sent to the mayor. the department's budget will go to the mayor, as all department budgets are due to the mayor, on the 21st.

the mayor may make changes to our budget after that fact, but it is your authority to approve the actual budget to send to the mayor. what people present to you today is simply an overview of where we have been over the last few weeks with the slight modifications that we have developed and refinements of the last few weeks. i also say yet again that i do not yet have any changes to the budget that would come about as a result of the dissolution of redevelopment. that process is taking some time. we do not currently have an aberration from the controller's office to understand the implications yet -- we do not currently have information. with that, i will turn it over to keep -- keith. president miguel: before you start, please do not stand in that section. he might stand on the other

side. it is a fire hazard in front of the door. >> thank you. good afternoon. i am the finance manager for the planning department. it is my pleasure today to present the department's final fiscal year 2012-2013 and fiscal 2013-2014 department budget and work program. i have left copies on the table forç any member of the public that would like to follow along. again today, i will just be reviewing in general just the changes that the department has made over the course of the past few weeks from what i presented to this commission on january 12, which was the draft work program and what i presented to this commission on february 2, which was the draft departmental budget revenues and expenditures. i would also like to mention

that yesterday, i delivered this same presentation to the historic preservation commission, and they recommended your approval on the department's budget. with that, i will be just going over the major changes that the department made to its revenue and expenditure budget, grants budget, the capital and technology budget requests that we plan to make. some of the changes we made from the department work program, and the remaining budget calendar over the course of the next few months. starting with the department of a budget, the department revenue but it did not change significantly over the past few çweeks, as we finalize this budget. the current year budget is $24.6 million. çnext year, we anticipate  to be $25.5 million. in fiscal 2014, it will be $26.1 million. çsome of the changes include te comptroller's office provided

additional guidance to city agencies. the consumer index rate will increase, but department fees should actually go up from a previous assumption of 2% to 2.3%, so that equates to about $100,000 of additional revenue assumption we have made. the department anticipates being awarded a $20,000 grant from the california office of historic preservation. that revenue increases slightly over the course of the past few weeks that we originally anticipated. finally, the department has an agreement with the port of san francisco where a department planner works full time on historic preservation activities at the port pirie the department recognizes expenditure recovery from the port, for the service departments that provides. the department will execute a transfer of budget in fiscal 2012-2013 so that this planner position will become a permanent

employee of the port, so we will reduce expenditure recovery, but also reduce salary and fringe expenditures from that position. moving on to the department's expenditure budget, again, there were no major changes from what i presented a few weeks ago. we did want to point out if you think your first of a salary and fringe rates were adjusted slightly to reflect changes to employee retirement contributions based on the most recent actions of the sad but cisco employees retirement system board. the changes are reflected in salary and expenditure line items. nothing to significant on the department expenditures. the department did adjust some salary and fringe assumptions in its temporary salaries and attrition savings based on normal staff turnover projections and projections of averages of other city agencies of just norm