some items we considered for 11-12 as we go through the budget development process that we'll discuss with you is how to fund a new requirement to develop a master plan. the e.i.r. on america's cup and the historic preservation work and the redevelopment area work' mid market redevelopment and also as we get the additional grants, we're required to match them. so we'll consider how we provide matching dollars for the federal and state grant funds that we get. so the last -- the last -- last week the mayor's office released the 11-12 budget instructions. they're projecting a 379.8 million dollar citywide general fund deficit. 86 of which is a revenue shortfall and 293 million of which is increased expenditures.

this is sort of a high level summary of those items. the departments have to submit a 10% general fund decrease, % of that has to be ongoing. d-2.5% has to be identified in the current year and submitted to the mayor's office by december 21st. the remaining 10% has to be part of next year's budget submittal. additionally they want another 7% contingency identification, which is for the entered in the budget but -- but they're developing a list of contingency cuts. so what that means to the manning department is that -- a 10% reduction of our current year general fund is $143,000. the ongoing is 100,000 and the 2.5% required is did $5 thourges. -- $35,000. that's a quick and dirty

overview of the current year budget. and next year again, the schedule that we're proposing for the mapping commission through you of the 11-12 budget. questions about the planned schedule or budget? >> director? >> i wanted to first thank tom and nadia who is in the audience and is our finance officer who has been with the department only a few months and unfortunately, nadia is also preparing to leave us as of tomorrow. so, i'm both intoufing her to you and bidding her farewell at the same time. just a note on the budget. i think -- i think a couple of notes of interest for you i think. one, just the citywide budget which is interesting to me that out of -- of a nearly $ 00 million shortfall, 30 million is costs not shortfall. it is interesting to note.

i think most importantly for us is -- is slide number six. that shows several projects which -- which for us are going to have substantially increased costs next we're. it it is going to be a chalfoning us given the fact that on the one hand we're being asked to cut our general fund and then we're being asked to take on several substantial projects that will cost substantially more money. so we -- we -- i will, we will keep you informed on how the discussions are going and how the fund-raising for these projects are going. it is important that we recognize that we are being asked for most of these projects to do work that is not yet funded at all. and we will be -- we will seek funding for -- for the month or two months. >> commissioner sugaya. >> along that line, shooment

redevelopment be -- be kicking -- shouldn't redevelopment kick in bucks on the work? >> they are. we are -- we are -- there is some funding for that work but frankly we don't think it is sufficient at this point in time. they're covering our costs for this year and we're figuring out how to pay for next year. >> and golden gate park, is that h.p.c.? >> yes, the preservation commission asked us to do the work necessary to propose, initiate designation of the park. and -- >> there's a -- there's a -- there's -- the golden gate is only already on the national register. there's a substantial amount of historic research and whatever that heab -- that has been done. >> they have already done substantial research. what is this is anticipating is not only the process for designation but the process, because the parks department has a number of projects coming down

the pike that we need to make sure that we have a higher level of review with what is designated. >> commissioner moore. >> these are a couple of picky questions. slide four, why is this -- there such a large shortfall on environmental review fees and environmental review is obviously a large component with major projects have been being moved to the department, having looked at a few of them this year? can you elaborate why there's such a large shortfall? >> two years ago, the environmental review budget was approximately what it is in the current year, the $5.4 million. at the end of that year, there was a -- there was a -- a huge shortfall and so, when the 2009-2010 budget was developed, that budge photo that fee was reduced by 59%. when the current year budget was

developed and the revenue came in above budget so, when the 10-11 budget was developed, it was bumped back up 59%. because -- because last year's budget was so short because based on what came through the door right now, we don't think we'll see that increased level. i will say, the issue with projecting review fees, there's one or two big prodge athletics come in in the spring and you hit your target or you're close to it. we can't foresee that. so again, based on -- on the prior five pons, we don't -- we're not projecting what -- what come through the door so far, we're not projecting we're going to meet budget on that revenue stream. >> and commissioner, i think that -- i think that -- since tom wasn't here when that budget was developed, i think we had anticipated that we would indeed see a couple of big projects coming in the next -- during this fiscal year. we haven't seen them yet. we're erring on the side of caution. on the other hand, our revenues.

the other revenues are balancing that out. it is a fairly good news story. as a whole. >> as a picky question, slide number five, before the mayor's com pents on your review -- comments on your review, the grand total reward amount was $6 million plus, in the revised statement today you were talking about 7. however, in the list of funders, i can't see any additional -- >> it is the first two, the irvin greening, the million dollars, the first two grants on the table that are -- above and beyond what was in the october 20th memo. those are two additional grants that we received since the october memo was issued. >> when the award is given, you're showing it with others,

however, in the may's -- in the first version, you're living a larger amount for the department on -- on line item one and on line i'm thite two, you're chairman mccray jr.:ing the amount by several -- and on line item two you're increasing the amount? >> the -- where are you looking? >> old and new, it is a detail. >> you mean the presentation from the -- that was in your packet? >> yes, i'm reading across because i want to see where the mayor commented and why. >> on the grants. the only two constructions from the mayor was 10% reduction to the general fund. >> the only thing here is you between writing first and second version, you found additional money to say that you got more to work with. >> that's right. since we sent you the pact, we got more grant money and the mayor issued few instructions. >> i agree with the assessment that the department's participation particularly on

potentially the america's cup which will be a major planning effort for the department including the health care master plan which ultimately is -- as we know is supposed to be was in the department jurisdiction was and with the health department requires setting aside, earmarking fees and even if it was theoretical those things haven't been decided on leaves you with a huge hole to stare into. there should be a line item which allows you to -- to mark budgets or projected budgets even without full approval. you can't do it, if you don't have it. no-brainer. >> my comments are question, not criticism. i want to applaud bringing on two people that will try to bring on grants of 7 million which you probably wouldn't have if you had not brought them in.

curious about the priorities and the looming costs that these priorities come along with. if there's someone and i'm sure there is, someone looking for additional grants and matching funds to help those -- those expenses as you point out, director, the increase are increased expenses rather than lost revenue which is a little skerpg. more money is going out the door and simm amount is coming in. so -- again my questions are a -- so my questions are elementary. getting up to speed. does the department have a or ur forecast or ability to change things six months through? >> can you explain what you mean? >> meaning is a six-month mark. i see we are approving a budget in february, the six months after that, is there a mid-year adjustment? >> what happens is we submit our

proposed budget in february and start negotiating with the mayor's office in terms of what is in the budget, what funding priorities they have. between then and june 1 when the mayor's office released the budget, the budget is modified. it may be modified to additional revenue projections, updated revenue projections so that february 2 is just a preliminary departmental proposal. it is a first pass. between then and june 1, the budget could change drastically based on conversations we have with the mayor's office. >> six months after june 1, is there a check back in with this commission to see where we are landing and what the forecast may look like? >> that is what is basically on slide four, a look at where we are in terms of revenues after the november mark. we will do a more formal update after the six months when we have a little more data, but

this is based on data through november. >> that is essentially what we're trying to do today. we do not have december figures yet. we will give you more detailed updates in january, but to answer your first question about the unfunded projects on this list, the couple projects do have the potential for funding, what is the america's cup, and there is a local funding entity raising money for the city's costs with respect to the america's cup, and we think our costs will be part of that. then, there is some money from the redevelopment agency, so i do not want to portray the fact that we have $0 on these projects. the agency has given us what they can at this point in time. we will need more funding next year, which is why we added it. >> great, thank you. commissioner miguel: thank you.

is there any public comment on this item? public comment is closed. >> commissioners, if there are no other commission comments on this item, and it does not appear as though ms. rogers is here yet, you can move forward on your calendar to general public comment. this has a 15-minute time frame. members of the public may address you on items of interest to the public within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission. members of the public may address you for up to 3 minutes, keeping in mind that the category has a 15-minute time limit and that they may not address you on any items not scheduled on today's calendar. >> i have [inaudible] at the market.

yesterday, i reviewed commissioner sugaya's comments. before that, he mentioned some negative comments about a few restaurants, and i just want to clarify that -- we are fully complying, and we are in -- doing our business as we are supposed to. we first originally made the mistake due to a misunderstanding but then corrected it, and i hope we come before you in the near future. that is what i want to say. thank you. commissioner miguel: thank you. francisco da costa. >> commissioners, as the director of environmental

justice advocacy, i want to bring to your attention a few points. one, there is this perception and idea put forward that in the future in san francisco, there is a demand for hundreds of thousands of homes. commissioners, if you read the daily news, listen to the federal reserve board, listen to the students, listen to anybody who knows something about the judiciary elements that govern this nation, it is going to take us some years to get back on track. i have spoken about this some time ago, and i'm going to speak again. the time has come before any planning department to think

outside the box. money is tight. in the past, what we did was we favored certain developers and treated other developers who did not have clout, and put their projects on the back burner, and we should apologize. the planning department should apologize for having gone in bed with the developers. not only that, former planning department heads now working with certain entities and certain projects where they do not work for the planning department. they used to, but they still propagate that type of

corruption, and i just came from the transbay meeting, where i saw some of those characters. i will name them on my website. i do not want to name them here. that is wrong. i'm glad that you have zoning administrator -- a young zoning administrator, and since you are a young man, this is your opportunity to take city planning and san franciscans to a better place, and you know what i mean by that. i would like to commend those commissioners who have fought for bayview hunters point. i was away for a month and a half and have come back, and i'm

back on track to come to your meetings. thank you very much. commissioner miguel: thank you. additional public comment? >> since i'm here on another matter, i'm going to take advantage of the opportunity to talk with you about something that has concerned me a lot. >> can you state your name for the record? >> pardon me, linda chapman. i mentioned before how much i appreciate your deliberations, and that includes even the times when i do not get the vote the way that i would want. i see that a lot of attention is being paid >> i'm very concerned when i see things happen which in fact last time -- you know, it wasn't your responsibility, but it has to be stopped. and that is the dealing that is happening in some cases between the developer's representative and people who say they

represent the neighborhood and maybe even think they do. i refer to 1645 pacific recently, which i know concerns some of you. i refer to live nations as another example. where instead of really paying attention to what does the planning code say, what does the zone code say? what are the rules of a variance, there is a lot of dealings that happen between naive people who live in the neighborhood, the very experienced development attorneys like steve vettle, doing a good job, and the people in the neighborhood who opposed this and maybe thought they were depending on people who were going to oppose it being shafted. i believe that is probably not going to happen here with regard to a.a.u., the item i am here for because staff is on the correct side. for some reason, staffer goes

with variances that are in accordance with the planning code or disregard what is the zoning. if you actually looked at the planning code. that happened with live nations. we are going to live with that. it is going to be up there with polk street that we heard about recently. why? because we didn't pay attention to what the rules say and what the procedures are. it is not all right if some people who say they represent the neighborhood, and may honestly think that they do, but who have no authority to negotiate, go in and negotiate with the zoning administrator, with the board of supervisors, when we have a city charter, and we have commissioner who have a role, which i think you want to play. >> thank you. is there additional general public comment? if not, general public comment is closed. >> ok, commissioners. we will then move on to your regular calendar --

>> no. [inaudible] >> ok, if we can go back to item number five, review of the past week's events of the board of supervisors. >> good morning, commissioners. excuse me for my tardyness today. i obviously made a mistake with the calendar. >> that's all right. we just started earlier. >> to review this week, the land use committee heard three significance piece of legislation. the first is an ordinance for entertainment in the van nuys area. commissioners you heard this item last week, and at that time you recommended approval of these controls for other entertainment in the area. at the time of the hearing last week, staff recommended a modification to the change of the governing controls for uses in this area. while you agreed with the

supervisors' intent on other entertainment, you asked for more time to consider what would be the appropriate governing control for the r.c. district. we have a second ordinance that will be before you later in the afternoon calendar that amends these two sections in question. this will allow you to consider and perhaps make an advisement on that merit later today. at the land use hearing this week, on supervisor supervisor alioto-pier: or the nance, she modified it that other under c-12 be provided in this area. supervisorality also -- supervisor a lot a lot moved it forward to the full board to give you time to hear what you thought would be the appropriate governing controls for the r.c. district.

another item before the committee was the sequa appeal reform. this would amend the code to specify procedures for appeals for negative decorations and exemptions. it was considered by this commission on june 24th of this year. at that time you recommended 11 modifications. the historic preservation commission considered the ledge slakes in june and july, at which point they concurred and added four additional recommendations. this week was the fourth hearing of the item in the land use committee, and they continued the item. the ordinance has been amended to address the majority of your concerns and the concerns of the historic preservation commission. since you have heard it, it has been amended such that is post would not be required to have prior participation to maintain appeal rights. here are others.

for appeal declines, the deadline for appeal would be 20 days after certification. appeal deadline for next would be 20 days after adoption by the planning commission. deadlines for appeals of exemptions would be either 20 days after each noticed opportunity, or if no notice were provided, it would be within 20 days of the final discretionary permit. now this last item has been the -- has produced some questions. setting the appeal deadline for 20 days after the final discussion area permit is raising some concerns as it would allow a valid appeal with the addition of even a minor permit at the end, like the addition of an electrical permit. so there is going to be continued discussion on this point. it would also raise the level of uncertainty for project sponsors, including the city. the appeal procedures.

currently, the has that the city may not approve or issue permits during the appeal period except to mitigate a hazard. the board must here and act within 30 days of the hearing. and a preseason schedule for materials to be submitted to the board will be specified under the new ordinance. there is also in the current ordinance no requirement to have appealed at the planning commission prior to appeal to the board of supervisors. and the board may affirm or reverse the decision with six votes. a tie would be seen as non-approval. >> it must be in writing and posted on the website and mailed to interested parties. notice of exemptions would be required to be online and mailed. e.i.r.'s would have to be

mailed 14 days before the hearing. notices by city would not require the notice. the historic preservation commission is formally included in the review. it is to provide comments at least eight days prior to the planning commission hearing. and the chief environmental review officer is required to consult with the historic preservation commission on projects that implicate historic resources. that is the curent status of the ordinance. it has been continued and will be heard on this coming monday again. also before the land use committee was an amendment to the d.p.w. code aamending the cellular teans in the public right of way. it was heard and recommended approval. the committee recommended approval of the ordinance as you heard it. i would like to go over some of

the new legislation that was introduced at the full board on tuesday. there is only one ordinance. this would amend section 409. it was introduced by mayor newsom. it is technical cleanup for the technical stimulus and new fee legislation. there were some clarifications that other depends wanted specifically on how cost adjustments would be calculated. we consider this a minor change, and we have presented a case report and will be before you next week. that concludes my report. >> a couple of questions. if i heard correctly, it sounds like supervisor took our

recommendations and severed some items, and also is going for a 312 notice instead of a c.u. for other entertainment? >> that is correct. >> the second thing in regards to sequa. i don't know if it is a matter of consideration, but it was mentioned. the board of supervisors is able to overturn a vote of sequa by a 6-5 vote as you mentioned. i don't know if that is a city or state administrative code, because most of the other overturns for c.u.'s or 309's require eight votes. i am not sure if that is under consideration or if that is in the state code. >> it is specified in the administrative code, and that is the way it currently lies now. it takes a super majority for them to overrule you on a conditional matter.

it is a simple majority. >> if i could clarify, the state law specifies that appeals go to the legislative body. but the city could, if it chose, to clarify the number of votes. right now it only requires a simple majority. >> well, it seems rather odd to me that while most of the other votes require a super majority, this particular type of vote only requires a simple majority. that is something i would like to see explored and what the rationale for that is, especially since we deal with a lot of environmental issues at great length and have extensive hearings on them. of course the hearings are important, and they are heard at great length by this commission before we make a decision. >> thank you. is there any public comment on