us to think differently about that. i mean, how do we not have to save ourselves from ourselves? how is it that we don't -- how do we promote a culture that is a starbucks oregon charred supply, a neighborhood people don't patronize those differences so they don't survive, they don't want to come to san francisco? why is it that there is that tension and we basically have to try to stop people from doing that? i don't know. it's weird, it's an interesting kind of dynamic, but that's actually what we're asking ourselves to do, save ourselves from ourselves and, you know, i do believe that i see an impact and it's hard because necessary and desirable is our conditional use threshold. i don't know that necessary desirable improvement in this particular case. i don't know why -- it sounds like we have lots of other hardware related uses that exist, you know. obviously desirability is very much a subjective terminology

which i think is why it makes it funny when you have that for conditional use. but in term of necessity, you know, i don't see that there is a necessity. obviously if the building were vacant or there were other issues, it would be easier to say maybe necessity. but it's hard to find that. >> commissioner moore. : >> i think i was less focused on right or wrong until i saw this diagram. this is really what turned the discussion for me about saying is this location necessary? is this location desirable? and i've come to think that it isn't. i know myself that the advantage of smaller hardware stores actually neighborhood by neighborhood reflect the type of building need to replace a doorknob or specifically

difficult older plumbing fixture, et cetera, is served by though experts like here who have been part of the fabric of the city for a long time. and there are many formula retail stores who don't understand what your issues are because they just don't carry that any more. then, too, some kind of a form ulaic 20 washers, [speaker not understood], i'm not saying that is necessary and desirable somewhere else, but i don't think it is here. it is my continued real concern about to individually support and support the mixture of smaller business in san francisco because that is what makes our city livable. and that is for these people and all levels of society form that kind of social fabric that is supportable and viable for me. i am concerned and

unfortunately we are not discussing -- we can't discuss labor issues here. that the high percentage of part-time employment is indeed the business model. in the city where we are so much struggling, and as -- and that is relevant to this commission, finding affordable housing, finding builders who provide affordable on-site. * we are indeed creating a large populace who will because of the structure of employment, not be able to even scrape at the bottom of what is there. and, so, i think we're trying to pull in two directions. i am interested in finding neighborhoods and places where perhaps one of them is possible. but when i hear about pipeline projects, i have to really say not in this location. i unfortunately come with the obligation by then supervisor

and now assemblyman ammiano who discussed with me before i became a commissioner what my real belief on formula retail is. and by voting against this today, i just have to say [speaker not understood]. so, i am making a motion to disapprove. >> second. >> commissioner moore, you would have to make a motion of intent -- >> i am making a motion of intent. thank you for that correction -- to basically not approve this project. >> thank you. i apologize, i had skipped commissioner hillis. so, commissioner hillis. >> please stand by; captioner change

>> have you seen an impact from lowes. >> my name is keith, when lows opened up, we immediately took a 20 percent hit in our gross sales. i mean, within a week, you

could tell. the monday through friday, sales have come back. >> our saturday sales are still 20, to 25 percent down since they opened. which has cut 22 people from the staff on saturdays. >> thank you. >> so, yeah, i mean, i i think, i share some of moore's concerns, i have a hard time approving the use in this location, given kind of the comment and the testimony that we have heard. >> commissioner antonini? >> well, thank you. yeah, i have mixed feelings on this. i'm also a small business while dentistry and medical services are different from hardware, there are similarities. they could put a dental clinic next to my store and i don't care. they are going to hire people that are not confident and do

unnecessary work and under pay them and things like that. people know the difference and they come in and they know the kind of service and care that they get, and eventually they will choose you, but there will be some who will go to the clinic next door, because you know, the price is all that they care about and they end up with disastrous results sometimes because the care is not what it should be. and we are not dealing with anything as serious here. but it is still kind of is the same story. however, i do have a family member who, you know, always, i get criticized for going to a local store and buying a few razor blades and say why don't you wait until i go to costco, you are paying too much for them not that it makes that much difference, not that we can't afford for me to go and buy the razor blades, i can't wait for a time, a saturday or some other time when a long trip can be made to save a little bit on razor blades along with a bunch of other

stuff. there are people that have that attitude and you are not going to change them and they are going to be price sensitive and going to orchard supply or, i don't know where the nearist one is, but they will find one. they like the store and they will like the price. and i think that is the deal and also, i think that we really should allow competition, and allow people to compete with each other. and i don't think that, you know, they are necessarily doing anything unfair. they can charge a little bit less, but, i think in the end, people are better off with the individual hardware store and they are going to get the service that i spoke up earlier. however, i would like to see this issue, it is going to be, it is going to actually be quasi continued even if there is a vote to disagree.

an intent to disapprove. i would like to see a continuance, i don't know if i can get a second on that. we should have work between the district merchants between the orchard supply and try to get a working arrangement and they would be more cooperate. they presented that it was formed by a cooperative of farmer and it has changed a lot from there and i would be more supportive from there if they were a local firm if they are not based in san jose, even if they were a bit large local firm. that would be what i would say is to continue. >> the second. >> the motion to continue, actually takes precedence over the motion of intent. >> i did hear a motion by the commissioner antonini and a second by commissioner fong.

>> commissioner? >> i would like the zoning administrator on an issue that i think that we have not talked enough about and that is loading dock and the residential usage on kate street, fire and emergency access and issues that come into play and we don't decide that at least you have a basic elementary understanding of whether or not that would pose problems in the long run. >> the loading dock, as i understand it is been in existence, so therefore it is a non-conforming use in terms of being able to load it and unload in that area. they do have a customer dock in the front in the parking lot. the environmental review for this project stated, or it is exempt from the environmental review and there is not a traffic study or any requirement for that. as far as fire and loading, we

have not checked that, and that is something that is reviewed after the approval of the conditional use. >> i am going to oppose the continuance, we have the legislation that we are responsible for and we will not always, if we are not willing to up hold in this case, then i fear, i know that one case is not supposed to set a precedent, but it will.

i don't think that it is going to do something, although the orchard will talk to people merchants will say that it is not going to effect me and it is okay if i come in there and i can buy something cheaper. as far as the other issues, like loading, if we do pass it, we can take it up in, you know, just deal with it. >> commissioner antonini. >> i don't know if we are supposed to debate a continuance. first of all a month from today and if it is okay to speak to it. i think that we have neighborhoods, stores and there are, this is a neighborhood. and but, it is also a very busy area where there is a lot of

traffic, coming from other places, which has been brought up. and there might be in the area that might drive out of the city and there is room for both and there might be a way to work something out between the merchants and the hardware owners and orchard supply. it does not hurt to have the continuance and if we come back and they have an out reach to the neighborhood and the merchants, then, it may get disapproved. >> i will not be supporting, and i think that for me, possibly a way for us to standardize the way that staff look at formula retail and we

have these five retail that are standard and i have stuff use different distances that they look at or different criteria, different ways of doing surveys. i have seen a walking survey, or something called a windshield survey, i have seen it looked at in a commercial corridor or in a zone, i think that we should look at, maybe, and i'm open to what the standard actually is. but, look at a certain radius from the site or just something standard so that we can really start to get a count of how much formula retail is around. >> these are in the umu and these were in the formula retail district and so it was easy to calculate the distance on the nc districts because they are pretty linear and the

enus are gerrymandered. we did use the district and it is possible and that is something that we can speak to scott sanchez about and that radius map is not the district as the criteria states and i understand sort of the difficulty in assessing that. that is something that we could get back to you that i wanted to clarify that. >> thank you. >> commissioner moore? >> i like to go back to geary street corridor, a few years ago, the market was slow and large and previously a formula occupied space and the formula retail comes along and we immediately says that it needs to be filled and have the vacantcy and i think that in this area, we are much likely in the different building in a slightly different market and to have the department, also from the application, look at

potentially vacant buildings of this size and talk about higher and better use would be of interest to me because as the district transforms itself and becomes the umu and takes on the more desirable qualities of the most recent plans and i would like to look at these as not as fall back positions as formula retail but potentially the next generation of innovative store or stores that we could put into them. >> commissioner, hillis? >> just, on the continuance, i mean, i, if we vote, if we vote against the continuance and we vote for the intent to deny, when is that heard next week? >> we would bring it back to you commissioners in a matter of two weeks to give the planners the chance to draft something and get it out to you, if there was some sort of a time restriction or consideration we could potentially get it to turn

around. two weeks, would probably be... >> and we do like to get the draft to you a week prior to that. >> right. >> okay. >> okay, i have a question. >> go ahead. >> on the matter of continuance, commissioners, to march 14, commissioner antonini. >> aye. >> borden? >> no. >> hillis in >> no. >> moore. >> no. >> sugaya. >> no. >> wu. >> no. >> and commissioner president fong. >> aye. >> that motion fails, commissioners, 2-5. >> if you would like we could take up the motion with the intent to disapprove. >> commissioner moore. >> i would like to restate the motion as previously stated. >> and intend to deny. >> the motion is an intent to disapprove. >> that is correct. >> commissioner antonini? >> no. >> commissioner borden in >> aye.

>> commissioner hillis. >> aye. >> moore. >> aye. >> hillis. >> aye. >> wu. >> aye. >> fong. >> no. so moved, that passes 5--2. push >> commissioners, that will place you on your final regularly calendared item, number 1 1. the fiscal year, 2013 to 2015 department budget and work program. this is an action item. >> last, but not least, commissioners, john with the planning department and we are here to ask for your approval today on our 2013, to 15, proposed budget. and keith will make most of the presentation and i did want to go with you the major changes to the budget specifically the 8 new positions that we are proposing for the next two

years. and i will refer to the memo that we sent on february 4th, on that if you have that in your packet. there are eight new positions that we are proposing that are the major changes from the current year. in the current planning, we are proposing an additional position to be a preservation compliance officer, that will work on the enforcement issues related to the historic properties in the city wide division we are looking at four new fte, roughly four to work on a number of efforts, the housing element, the monitoring requirements that have been required by the board, and the commission, over the last couple of years. to work on master plans for large publicly owned sites. to work on the urban design guidelines and to work on china town, open space planning. to work on some street scape

work in the hunter's shipyard area to focus on market street and in a position. and i have been working on this for a while and this budget allows us to do that. in the final planning we are looking at roughly two new positions, one would basically continue to work on puc projects but essentially it is a shift from the current position that is a puc position working in the department to a department employee who works on puc projects and funded by the puc and second a transportation planner that took not just on sequa but on longer range policy issues. >> and we are proposing two and a half positions next year bumping up to three in the following year for an it program, or to help on communications and the training and professional development coordinator. so those are the kind of major

changes if you will. if you recall, the supplemental budget that you approved allows for ten new positions that will, or being introduced to the board next week, i believe. and that combined with this, budget, would allow for an increase in 18 fte in the department. it takes us to about 175, or 176 positions that is a lot of staff, it is in terms of the new revenue that is coming in with the new applications and the backlog that made the front page news with the examiner but that is a real number. that 460 project backlog is the number of projects that we have not been able to spend any time on yet. that does not include the projects that are actually being worked on. that is the number of projects that are actually in the department but we have not been able to spend time on. those are need and we clearly

have the revenues that are needed to support all of these applications. with that i will turn it over to keith to give you the details and we will ask for your approval thank you. >> my name is martini is i will present, 2013, 2015 departmental budget that we will be submitting to the office next thursday. and we have the hand out that we started going through and the prior hand out was the memo that was emailed to the commissioners a few weeks ago, describing in detail the position, the new positions that we are requesting in the budget and this is just the powerpoint for today's presentation. so what i will be doing today is giving you an overview of pretty much the same material that i presented two weeks ago to this commission, and just highlighting the changes that

director ram has already gone over. again, just a very high overview of the planning case and building permit, and volume trends, that we are experiencing, our proposed revenue and expenditure budget and the grants and capitol and other questions and update to the division's work program, which incorporates the ten that we have requested through the appropriation, and the more than eight positions that the director has went through and then just an update on the budget calendar. just recapping, we did anticipate in the budget the over all volume growth of three percent and with six months of data to date, we are projecting that we will experience that 3 percent over-all department volume growth. and for the upcoming two budget

years, at this time, we are expecting flat volume growth from what we are projecting in this current year and those two far right columns are what we are projecting in the upcoming two fiscal years. >> at this time we are projecting five million of a revenue surplus in the current physical year and this additional revenue is mainly atrib able to the higher permit and the fees that we anticipate collecting from the much larger scale projects that are coming in the door which are assessed much higher fees based on the estimated construction costs of the project. upon review of the larger projects and the existing title projects are on a pipeline, we do anticipate that we will continue to the two upcoming years and not to the same

magnitude that we are experiencing, in this current fiscal year. so if you look at what we are proposing in our budget for our services for services, the fees that we assess, the next fiscal year it is just over $25 million which is actually a little bit less that what we are projecting. we are not anticipating it to be at the same magnitude that we are anticipating in this year. so in the department revenue, in that first line, we are anticipating it to increase for 19 percent, mainly atribable to the larger scale projects and the automatic consumer price indexing in the administrative code and that will be 2.58 percent, and also, an assumption about revenue that is coming in the door this current fiscal year that we will be able to defer to the

next year. in 14, 15, the only change that we made for the fees to service line is the automatic indexing. and i will go into more detail about our grant's budget which i have reviewed in the next few slides. >> on the interest side of the house, our salary and expenditure continue to be the most, it reports more than 3 quarters of the expenditures, they are ex-expected to increase, the fringe, in both fiscal year. as director rams had mentioned we are including the addition of more than 8 full time equivalent positions which the director has went through the details of in the upcoming budget, and i will highlight the director has already highlighted the position changes, but i will show you how that effects the division's work program as well. >> and there were no other

changes to the expenditure budget from when i last presented to you two weeks ago. >> i won't go into the details of the grants, but just to summarize on the status and the achievements of the department's grants program. we currently have a portfolio that has funded more than 20 projects since it began. although the department is not the lead agency on a majority of these grant funded projects, you know, more than 2.2 million dollars of grant funds go to support the work of other city agencies such as the nta or dpw, and also other local, non-profit organizations. >> they support a range of activity and we are expecting the grant revenues to increase in the upcoming two fiscal years. >> moving on to other budget requests. this table lists the capitol

requests for the better market street program, and the pavement to marks and the street tree project which we have made to the capitol planning commission and then also, a fourth item of an intent to request funding from the historic funding committee for a local committee of the guidebook and no changes from what i presented a few weeks ago. >> so now moving on to the division work program. in appendix a of the memo, for this presentation, it does give you the details behind this summary table. this table represents each of the five divisions within the planning department and what the current budgeted fte allocation is across those in the current year and what is proposed for the upcoming two budget years. so you will see that the positions are projected to increase by approximately 18 full time equivalent positions

and in the first year of the two-year budget next year. >> mainly attributable to the ten positions that we are requesting in the years in the supplemental appropriation and the new, eight, roughly eight, positions that we are requesting, which director ram has already gone through. so, excuse me, in current planning you will see the most significant increase, the most significant change from the current fiscal year to the first year of the budget, and mainly due to the positions requested through the supplemental appropriation and then also, the new positions in historic preservation which the director has mentioned as well. in the city-wide planning division, over all the fte allocation is expected to remain flat year over year and that is mainly due to one time funding we got in last year's budget cycle, four two ... four projects but he has