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 retetirement 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 normal staff attrition. salary and fringe expenditures were adjusted also to all line with anticipated revenue as well. çwe will experience some reducd salary and fringe expenditures from the execution of the transfer of function of that one planner staff to the port, as i

mentioned earlier. the department's work order with the department of building inspection for the server consolidation initiative that i discussed a few weeks ago -- anticipated expenditures on that will increase slightly from what i previously presented a few weeks ago. çmoving on to the department's grant budget, the grant budget -- the only change to this from what i presented to this commission on february 2 was the inclusion of a $20,000 grant that we anticipate being awarded from the california office of historic preservation. the grant will fund various efforts of communication about historic property in san francisco. ohp has previously funded efforts without a permit in prior years. other than that, no changes. we anticipate slight increases.

this slide is the department's capital and technology request. there are no changes to these requests, as i presented a few weeks ago. we have already submitted three capital requests for the first three items on the table for the better market street project, the pavement to parks program, and the street tree inventory program. we will also be sending a technology request next tuesday on february 21 to fund the remaining activities of the implementation of the permit and project tracking system. now, i will move on to the department as a work program. this is an update from what i gave earlier in january. overall, the department is proposing to slightly reduce its full-time equivalent stockouts from 104.13 to 147.5 in fiscal

year 2013, at slightly increased to 149.15 in fiscal 2013-2014. minor reductions are primarily attributed to additional salary and fringe expenditure savings from projected attrition and anticipated staff turnover and vacancies just from the normal course of business. this slide is the current planning division. the current planning division's fte's are anticipated to decrease in fiscal 2012-2013, and decreased from 52.73 to 52.37 in fiscal 2013-2014, compared to what i presented here on january 12. other than attrition savings, the only changes that were made were to reassign 0.5 of a vacant planner one position to the code enforcement position, add additional staff support resources, and reduce the one

planner position from the execution of the transfer function of that one planner to the port. other than that, there were no changes to the program. moving on to the city wide planning division, this division -- their anticipated decrease from 31.37 to 30.66 and decrease from 31 with 37 to 27.96 in fiscal 2013 compared to what was presented here on january 12. again, the only changes here were some adjustments to attrition savings. moving on to the environmental planning division, the division are expected to -- fte's are expected to decrease, compared to what represented here on

january 12, again, due to some minor adjustments to department's salary and fringe expenditures from attrition. moving on to zoning administration and compliance division, division's fte's are anticipated to increase in this book well -- fiscal 2012-2013, due to the change in digital earlier of the point by fte of a vacant planner one position being reassigned to code enforcement. finally, the administration division accounts are anticipated to increase from 30.86 to 32.45 an increase from 30.86 to 82.84 compared to what i presented here on january 12.

aside from the attrition savings assumptions that were made, the only changes were to add resources for the pay will technical support positions i mentioned earlier, and resources to website support, and to the commission secretary function resourced changes. i delivered the same presentation yesterday where they recommended approval of the department as a budget. çwe can to the department's budget to the mayor's office next tuesday, and then i will come back to the commission if there are any changes to the department budget based on the redevelopment agency, changes the director had ventured earlier. i will also come back if there is any fee change legislation that will come back over the course of the next few months. the they will propose his budget on june 1. i will be happy to answer any questions you may have.

thank you. president miguel: very good. is there any public comment on the budget presentation? if not, public comment is closed. commissioner sugaya: just an observation -- on the presentation and the materials we have in front of us, the numbers you were quoting from the fiscal year 2011-2012 totals are different than what are on the charts. in the narrative, i think you have the numbers that you were reading, but the totals are not the same. it is no big deal. >> i think the confusion is what he was quoting was the numbers that changed from what he presented last month, not from this year. basically, what happened is that the numbers were kind of refined over the past few weeks, so he

was making the distinction between what he presented last month to what is now under fiscal 2012-2013 and fiscal 2013-2014. >> it is just confusing. the narrative below says increased fromç 30.86 to a 32.. >> at the last presentation, we had anticipated the 2012-2013 number to be 30.6. it is a little confusing. my apologies for that. çcommissioner sugaya: that is l right. i have another more specific question. ]ithe more detailed budget presentation in the japan town better neighborhoods plan, we have 0.5 fte through this year, which ends at the end of june, whicbe