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, which i believe is enough to move forward with the plan, and next year, you have 0.1, which reflect the fact that work on a better neighborhood plan will wind down, and there will not be

as much need for staffing at that point. but i have a question then on page 6. this is under environmental planning. it is activities b and e. product without dedicated funding to support ep's work, and e is in my middle work for city sponsored project without dedicated funding. for the japan town neighborhood plan, if it does in its final form require an environmental report, with that come out of either one of these two line items?

>> probably. this is essentially -- with these line items showed our projects that are covered by a fairly small general fund allocation that we have to work on those kind of public projects. what we do every year with the budget is approved is kind of look at all the projects that are potentially on that list that do not have funding and decide which ones we can do because we generally cannot do all of them, so we have to kind of set priorities as we move forward. >> if it is a smaller allocation and it requires a larger eir, and perhaps we do not know exactly what that would be, with the department then have to seek additional funding for that specific project? >> we would. we currently are thinking it is not likely to be, but if by chance it will need to become the costs are so much higher that we would have to seek some additional funding. commissioner sugaya: ok, thank you. commissioner moore: i believe

that this update is very thorough, very credible and layers old information on new insights, and i hope that you will have an asterisk somewhere in your presentation. i'm repeating myself, but the additional work you are undertaking bringing extra work to you will be reflected in that there will be staffing and funding to do a better job. i assume this is an action item, so i express my support. >> to everyone involved in this, i think the presentations have been timely, thorough, and

relatively clear. i understand the statistical mix up today, but you have done a very clear job of letting everyone -- commission and public -- understand where we are. >> commissioners, the motion before you is to adopt the department's final budget commissioner antonini: and work programantonini aye. çcommissioner borden: aye. commissioner fong: aye. commissioner moore: aye. commissioner sugaya: aye. commissioner wu: aye. president miguel: aye. >> thank you, commissioners. that motion passed unanimously. >> thank you, commissioners. appreciate it. >> commissioners, you are ready for item 6, and information presentation on the eastern neighborhoods monitoring reports

>> good afternoon, commissioners, president miguel. senior planner and manager of the information and analysis group with the citywide policy of analysis. the eastern neighborhoods plans report is informational]i and action is required.

>> the each neighborhoods plans were -- eastern neighborhoods plans were adopted by the planning commission in 2008 and approved january 19, 2009. the monitoring requirements are listed to ensure effectiveness

of the plans. this requires that first five-year reportsç be releasedy july, 2005 but we're just now able to present this to the commission. the reports will be the first in the time series and will cover 2006 through 2010, roughly a couple of years before and a couple of years after the adoption and approval. a subsequent report will come out in july 216 and will cover july 11, 2015 and 2016. the resources include the annual housing inventory. the curely pipeline report, the different databases andç the

m.t.a. and the mayor's office. section 10-e. 6. e also lists the different required categories of information and the reports will follow the order stated in the mandate and will cover commercial development trends, residential development trends, publicç benefits and historic surveys. the presentation wilpd follow te categories as stated in the mandate. first, on commercial space development nonresidential development in the five years between 2006 and 2010t( saw the net addition of 1.1 million commercial square feet in the eastern neighborhoods. the completion of the 907,000

judiciary foot office space. the butcher hill area. the picture in the background is the a.t.m. overall the new development in the eastern neighborhoods constituted almost 18% of all nonresidential development citywide for the period. much ofç the new development ce in the form of office use. note that this isç net square footage, meaning that there are other developments that added new commercial space and other projects that resulted in loss or conversion of commercial space. onto the pipeline. the commercial space pipeline in the eastern neighborhoods, if completed, will just be a slight

uptick, a very small portion, about 1% of the commercial developmentçó, pipelines citywi. this is because of much proposed projects elsewhere in the city. this is another slice of the commercial pipeline byç land u. theçko addition of the commerc the general hospital expansion and significantly smaller growth in retail and office pace spaces. the loss in p.d.r. space explains much of the relatively low commercial additions to commercial square footage. 1/3 of the pipeline is under construction or have received entitlement. the remaining 2/3 are still under review. the square footage is not new

net square feet. there is new commercial place in showplace square but you will see there is, i guess, a loss in the other, east soma and the mission. now on to p.d.r. while there was net adecision in the five years reported. the pipeline is showing a net loss of about 325,000 square feet, later to be converted or demolished. the picture here is the allows square building and construction has started to build 194 units in this space. we were asked to discuss employment terms. the second quarter of 2010 there

were about 54,100 jobs in the area, representing about 10% of all jobs citywide. of these jobs, number one and three were in office jobs, about 25% in p.d.r. and another 25% were in retail services. this is another slice of the jobs distribution with the mission having proportionately more of the c.i.e. medical and retail jobs and p.d.r. jobs were mostly in east soma and showplace square. the monitoring mandate requires an accounting of new employment in the eastern neighborhoods, specifically new office and retail employment based on the commercial development trends. based on