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 clear that the rincon hill plan, this is one policy from the plan and specifically talking about the city acquiring this site or a portion of this site for a future public park. this was part of the visioning process back in that area and it's called the caltrans parcel because it's currently owned by

caltrans. this kind of gives you a sense of the open space system. we're talking about this parcel right here and the northern portion is what we're talking about purchasing and turning into a park. so it is, eligibility is one of the things in the funding plan for the plan. and it is a priority both for the plan and for the neighborhood. i think the project sponsor, who is also here if you have any questions, worked hard to work with the community on determining whether this was a priority open space and working on the design. and in your packet there are minutes from three of the four meetings that they held that talk about the community support for this park and the feeling, i think, that one thing that resonated when i read the minutes was the need for an area for children to play.

and was severely lacking in rincon hill, so it is very much a priority. the last of the consideration is whether it's recommended. and so as i have been talking about, the community support and also a big consideration with recommendation is whether the implementing agency, in this case parks and rec, is requiring this park and feel it should work. we have done a lot of work and planning department and coordination with park and rec and the department of real estate and the project sponsor to get this proposal to a place that everyone feels like it will really work. in your packet i believe it's attachment four, there is a letter from park rec saying they're committed to continuing to work with the project sponsor on the design, maintenance, and the central acquisition of the park. this is one of the concerns about recommending this park or any improvement would be the

maintenance issues. in this case the project sponsor has agreed to privately fund the maintenance not using impact fees but using other sources for the life of the park. so that is a really important consideration and that helps the city feel very comfortable in recommending this park as an in-kind improvement. and then in term of issues and the only major issue is finding the balancing of the funding and it's roughly $8 million and your actions today could give the city a credit of a little over $1.5 million for the park and as anmarie reported on, should the board act to establish an infrastructure finance district in rincon hill, that would help us fund the balance of the park. so the city would be a little quiet -- would be able to acquire the park and unclear on how the timing will work out because it will either be right

at occupancy or shortly afterwards. so that one issue seems to be sure to resolve it. it is very important, too, because i know the park rec commission that oversees the open space fund are very clear they want another source to fund that, so it's great that the project sponsor and the city have been ieable to identify th. the department in the end recommends the approval of the in-kind agreement and i am here and available for questions and david is also here. thank you. vice president olague: thank you. would the project sponsor like to address this or do you have anything to add? no? okay. let's open it up for public comment on this item. seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner moore. commissioner moore: i just have a couple of questions, and they're really just try to get

my bearings and the idea of the park. we haven't talked about this for a long time and i would like to ask the city attorney or the director or somebody who can answer it, when the city owns a park and the maintenance of the park is the responsibility or somebody takes it on, does that create any restrictions in the use of the park? >> i can answer, but that is an important consideration in term of our negotiation about not just the funding of the maintenance but the maintenance agreement. one of the main things we're really strong on is making sure the park functioning as a public park. and we will have the park open the same amount of hours run by the public and in terms of the events that are allowed and the way security is managed.

are those the issues? commissioner moore: those are some of the issues and the next issue that follows right along the line of what you are saying is plant material, attitudes towards irrigation, compliance with the general streetscape plan and how it would affect the adjoining park. again, the maintenance in private hands, will you still be treating it like anything else which is basically the public realm?

that would be the time to negotiate issues of access, irrigation, and those issues. is it parks and rec that enter into the agreement? >> park rec commission has to accept both the design and the maintenance agreement and they're very focused and the department is also focused. >> and this functions as the typical city park and with respect to your comments about the materials and such, i think we can just enter that into the record as kind of directions to us on the maintenance agreement that that is something the commission would be concerned about. commissioner moore: the last question i would ask and is a

generic question. since this park straddles on the long side in the freeway ramp and the idea of helping the communities about air pollution and affect on public health, so how does that affect this location because it's led to this type of discussion that arose almost in parallel when this was first discussed. and the new legislation that is pending and how could this affect this park? >> i don't have a lot to add to that. this would have to go through environmental review and it is my understanding that it does have a programmatic level of review through the plan, but specific concerns about this piece being a park would be addressero