additionally, i think this project is well located in that there are services like mine in the area, mass transit, the highway, you can walk to the ballpark from this area. i think the project should be supported and i really am in favor of rental housing. thank you. >> i have to remind the public is that this public comment is to the environmental impact report, not to the project itself. >> we put our cards in on this but we want to talk later. >> i'll hold it for 11a. any additional general public comment? okay, seeing none, general public comment is closed. next item please >> item 9, fiscal year

2013-2015 proposed department budget, this is an informational item and requires no action. >> good afternoon, commissioner, john ram with the planning department, i want to briefly introduce, this will be the first of multiple hearings on the coming year's budget, which is a two year budget, as you recall, we do a two year budget every year, so this is the second year of last year's budget but we have to do a budget from fiscal year 13-15, i wanted to remind you that as you heard last week through the supplemental appropriation, our fee revenues are anticipated to be much higher than we budgeted for this fiscal year and we will see that 3% volume increase in our applications, we are anticipating volume levels to be the same, i'm trying to be a bit conservative and not assume the same level of growth next year so we're

not assuming more revenues, but we are being more conservative in our projection for next year and not assuming the same strong growth that we had last year. so, this does propose to increase staffing levels by about 8fte next year and 9 in the fiscal year 14-15, and we will focus on a number of updates from the historic preservation and general plan, transportation analysis, communications and public outreach which are some of the programs that we like to fund with this additional staff. with that, i'll turn it over to keith demartini who will go over the details. >> my name is keith demartini, i'm the finance manager for the planning department, i'm here to present the fiscal year 2013-2015 departmental budget, i have copies of the powerpoint presentation and there are copies for member of the public that would like to follow along

with my presentation as well. i will just be giving you an overview of recent planning case and building volume trends that we've been experiencing, the expenditure budget as well as the proposed grants capital and other budget requests, and then just an update on the budget calendar going forward. so, let's just start with a recent planning case and building permit volume trends as director ram has already mentioned, i'm on slide three here, we had anticipated a 3% volume growth in this fiscal year which we are experiencing, approximately 80% of our case and building permit activity comes from the review, we'll see growth in permit building

review and various multiple application ins this current year. we are at this time projecting that volume will remain relatively flat in the upcoming budget years in fiscal year 2014 and 2015 and those are the two bars on the right, a historical trending of the volume we've experienced over the past ten years and what we project into the next two fiscal years. so, moving on to the department's revenue budget in the next two years, as i communicated to you, we are expecting approximately 6 million dollar revenue surplus in this fiscal year in the department's budget. upon review of these larger projects and these existing and titled projects are in the pipeline, the department anticipates the trend of larger project case review will continue into the next two fiscal year, at this time, we

don't anticipate that it will happen at the same magnitude that we are experiencing right now, we are seeing a pretty substantial bump in this current fiscal year, we expect growth in next fiscal year but not to the same magnitude. the department's fee revenue is anticipated to increase by 19% from what the current year's budget is into next fiscal year's budget and that's mainly due to the three following reasons, first, the fee revenue increases from the continuing trend of the larger project reviews which i mentioned is the most driving factor, there is an automatic consumer price index that automatically adjusts all the fees in the planning and administrative codes, and that rate is 3.258%, and we are also assuming the recognition of close to a million dollars of building permit revenue that we will

collect in this current fiscal year that we will anticipate being able to defer and recognize into the next fiscal year, so that we can recognize that revenue in next fiscal year when we conduct the review on those building permits, those are the three factors that drive the charges for services line item on this table. in fiscal 14-15, the only change to the fee revenue assumption is the automatic cpi indexing of our fees, it's 2.86%, we are expecting grant revenues to increase in the budget years in the next fiscal year by almost 24%, and similar to last year, the department will probably receive some development impact fee revenue that recovers our staff costs related to the administration of various development impact

fee programs around the city. and you'll see the general fund line. this 3.8 million dollars in fiscal 13-14 does meet the mayor's budget instructions of reducing our general fund allocation by 1.5% in each of the fiscal years. moving on to the expenditure side of things, as in prior years, salary and fringe expenditures continue to be the most driving factor, and the most significant proportion

this is a collaborative effort with various city county act sis such as a ta, and tpw and the department is playing a

leading role. we did request funding from the capital planning committee during last fiscal year's budget process, we did receive funding and we are asking for some additional funding for our continued work on that project, similar to the payment to parks program, this will allow for the department to retain and formalize the program, conducting a program evaluation and analysis, again, last year, we requested fund, we received some and we are requesting some additional funding to continue our efforts in that project. with the street tree inventory, the city did submit an application for a grant in december which will lead an interagency effort that would fund an intensive public engagement and education program, and for the first time to have a park and first

trees, it will be the capital allocation. and then lastly, as i mentioned, the department anticipates requesting from the preservation fund commission 250 thousand dollars to fund the work on the local interpretation to have secretary to have interior guide book, this guide book, it's not specific to local conditions, regarding the infill development in historic districts this accidenter will appropriate staff to develop [inaudible] resulting in a clear guiding document for the application of these standards citywide. so, here's an update on the budget calendar, we've come to you with a draft work program, budget application like we did with the historic preservation, today i'm presenting a draft.

next wednesday, i will be going before the historic preservation commission asking for their recommendation of approval and in two weeks from today, i will be coming to this body asking for your approval of the department's budget before we submit it to the mayor on february 21. na concludes my presentation, i would be happy to answer any questions we have. >> thank you. any general public comment on this item? seeing none, general public comment is closed. commissioner borden? >> i think this is a great plan, it has a lot of interesting projects you're working on, can you talk about the food clusters work that you are getting grant funding for? i'm curious about it, does that include the food trucks, is that specific for food production? >> it's looking in general at the whole kind of food policy issues and we have a couple of grants, we have staff that is

spending a quarter of her time to look at establishing a food policy for the city, so we're getting off the ground and defining it, but it's meant to be at the starting point a comprehensive point of how food is provided and grown and food deserts and all those issues in the city. >> i would like to have that brought to the commission, the same for the urban forest public education campaign, that sounds interesting. all of these are really interesting. i mean, i know we heard about some of the various programs, but to have an opportunity to hear a little bit about the work and how it's being scoped, i think that would be worthwhile. another item that's kind of random and i don't mean this to disparage my historic preservation commissioners but i'm just wondering in here, there's a mention of a stipend and i was wondering what the

rational was behind that. >> the idea was similar to the planning commission, there would be a stipend given to the commissioners on a per meeting basis. >> the same way you receive a stipend for -- >> maybe i was wrong because most commissions, there's some like the airport and redevelopment to have some degree of funding but i always assumed it's because we had the crazy long hour that is we get stipend, i was surprised because there are professional requirements for the historic preservation, some of them had to be experts in the field, that's why i was wondering -- >> na's a proposal on the table, it's your final call. >> i just, you know, was wondering if that was something the board of supervisors, i know ours was set by the board i think. >> well, i believe it's in the

-- planning commissioners? >> actually, the way the commissions work, it's a job class within the annual salary ordinance, so depending on what commission you're on, there's different groups. about 4 or 5 years ago, the planning department proposed through the budget process to change the planning commission to a group 5 which is 200 dollars a meeting, we're proposing group 3 for historic preservation which is 50 dollars a meeting, it has to do with the appointment to a job class within the city's -- >> i wanted to know it's not a standard policy, you know, and i just assumed, there was so much involved, that that was the reason and the other reason, i thought it was somewhat different because there is professional -- some degree of professional requirements related to that commission that are related to

the work that the commission does, one could argue that people who have these expertise and are appointed to this commission may benefit financially already from that appointment as opposed to people on the planning commission. >> as the director on the case, just a proposal to recognize them for the time they commit, there's nothing in the charter or an ordinance, it's a job class appointment. >> i just didn't really know that all the different commissioners had a job classification. >> commissioner moore? >> we understand that the implementation of the street tree program and the fact that the city can't maintain the trees but put the responsibility back on the home owners or adjoining property owners is still an issue, do

we move forward? >> this line item is inventory of the trees and developing a plan for their further retention and growth so the maintenance question, you're right is an important question, it's not completely resolved yet, it's important to have this work done as a background for that. >> thank you for clarifying that. another question perhaps for mr. demartini, is there another place where we could see a little more detail on how the commission itself is budgeted as there are a number of line items which come together when you bring that figure forward, that includes an addition to the stipend, obviously the cost for broadcasting, cost for deliver services, meals for late meetings that all might be -- could we perhaps, the president and the vice-president take a glimpse at it so we know it's properly projected for the two years to come? >> sure, we could do that

>> commissioner sugaya. >> in previous years, we've had a much more detailed budget to look at in materials of line items, and i don't know if you've seen those, but we used to have them that were pages long and it was rather interesting to see by line item what the expenditures were for staff and other things. >> are you referring to the work program with like the fte counts? >> yes. >> and i think that addresses commissioner moore's question also, in two weeks, your memo will have that level of detail where it shows the proposed fte count widths the initiatives, if you want the actual dollar amounts, i can provide you with what you need. >> commissioner moore? >> i would like to add a comment that in the past year, since this is not our standard everyday literature, just reading it, it is more difficult to understand and then having to vote on it after

you make a presentation sometimes raises more questions than answers so i'm wondering if we could spread that with the presentation and then vote in on it a week later or something like that. i always feel a little bit overwhelmed because it's so hard to understand. >> if i may, today is just an informational hearing for what we're proposing at this time and in two weeks, we will be coming and asking for you to vote on the budget and we've also already made a presentation on the preliminary cut of the department's work program a few weeks ago, so we will be coming a total of three time tos the planning commission with budget information, hopefully that's a sufficient amount of time that has elapsed during presentations and if you have any questions, i would be happy to answer them. >> any additional comments? >> that would place you under item 10 for case number

2000.61be, bren nan street/1 henry adams street project, the proposed project has two sites. >> commissioner hillis? >> commissioners, as i did last time, i need to ask for a recusal as well as items 11a and 11b for the same reasons, i work for fort mason center. >> commissioner antonini, moved to recuse him? >> second. >> commissioner sugaya? >> yes, i have a question for mr. hillis, in past situations, i've had conflicts because i've worked on portions of environmental impact reports, in that case t city attorney's office ruled that i should recuse myself aon the eir

portion but i was eligible and they felt comfortable in my participating and voting on the actual project. in this case, it would -- i don't know, i'm not the attorney, but did you ask whether or not you could participate in the eir portion versus the project portion? because it would seem your conflict relates more to the actual approval of the projects rather than the technicalities and the contents of the environmental impact report. >> we did talk about this, okay, do you want to mention it? >> i mean, if they've already said -- >> yeah, it's one project, the advice was to recuse myself from both. >> alright, thank you. >> we have a motion and a second. >> commissioners, on the motion to recuse commissioner hillis from items 10 and 11a and b. commissioner antonini.

>> aye. >> so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously and commissioner hillis is hereby reused. >> good afternoon, president fong, members of the commission, i'm debra dwire, planning department staff, the item before you is the certification of an eir for the proposed 801 gran nan street and 1 henry adams street, it would include demolition to have concourse exhibition hall and demolition of three existing commercial industrial building on the 1 henry adams site, there would be two mixed use and residential use alt the 1 henry adams site, they would be 68 feet tall, the eastern

most portion would be a partial fulfillment of the inclusionary housing requirements. up to 150 units of affordable housing would be constructed on that portion of the 801 brannan site, there are three project variance proposed, variant 1 would include new construction of two mixed use and retail building on the 801 brannan site which variance 3 would also include two buildings on the 801 brannan site, but variance 1 and 2 would not change development on the 1 henry adams site from what is proposed on the project but would not include land dedication to the city. total development would include 1 million 187 thousand 943

gross square feet with up to 824 residential units, approximately 54 thousand 600 retail space and 866 parking spaces, since publication of the draft eir, variance three is the proposed project, a copy of the draft eir certification motion is before you, the public hearing on the draft eir was held on july 28, 2011. the public comment period closed. it was published and distributed on january 10, 2013. subsequent to publication of the responses to comments document, a correction has been identified. on page 120 of the responses to comments, there is a typographical error, in the

response aq1, the phrase no more than 5 thousand vehicle trips per day should be changed to no more than 6 thousand vehicle trips per day in both the first paragraph and last paragraph, these text changes do not represent any new information that would alter the conclusions presented in the draft eir according to the bay area air quality management district emissions sources such as the vehicle trips from the project that are less than 10 thousand vehicle trips per day are considered minor sources. consequently, they do not trigger the need to recirculate the draft eir pursuant to the environmental quality act. i also received a couple of petitions within the last three weeks which i will hand to the commission's secretary, these are regarding save the concourse and would apply to the next items on the agenda,

however, i provide them here for your information. during the public comment portion of this meeting, we heard speakers who raised issues concerning the project. many of the comments do not address environmental issues but were expressions of support or opposition to the project, you may wish to take some comments into account during your consideration of the project entitlements. some of the comments raised did address environmental issues or the environmental review process, and with respect to consideration of demolition of iq280 and changes to circulation in the project vicinity, this is a conceptual idea that is being studied but it is not advanced to a specific proposal and is not curtly undergoing environmental review.

so, once a plan has been developed, it would undergo its own environmental review and that view would consider conditions in the project vicinity such as this project. having addressed these other matters, i would like to conclude my presentation regarding the certification of the eir, the evaluation of issues contained in the eir found that implementation of the proposed project would roult in project specific significant and unavoidable environmental impacts with respect to transportation at two intersections and the air quality both operational quality pollutants and construction and operational health risks that could not be mitigated to below a significant level. in addition, the eir found that implementation of the proposed project would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the significant and unavoidable cumulative land use impact identified in