is the planning commission for thursday, january 24, 2019. the commission does not tolher rate any disruption. please silence your cell phones. if you care to state your name for the record. i will take roll at this time. (roll call). >> we expect commissioner tillis and richards. commissioner richards is here. first is consideration of items for continuance. case no. 2018-000813co8 at el

list treat street it is proposed for march 7th 2019. 2a and b for 2013a through f york street condition variance continuance to mar14, 2019. i have no other items proposed for continuance and no speaker cards. >> commissioner moore. >> move to continue items as noticed. >> we will take public comment. >> would it be possible to add additional continuance to the calendar a community group is requesting continuance of number 12. we have agreed to continuance.

>> right you requested a continuance date to february. the give h february datings are closed. march 7th wobble the soonest. >> is april 4th. march 7th we are not available. is the last week in march? i think that hearing is canceled. >> we can push it to march 14th if you like. >> march 7th and 14th are not available. >> march 21st. >> that is not. >> then april 4th. >> that is fine. thank you very much. >> very good, commissioners. >> commissioner moore was about to make a motion. >> a motion to continue items as noted. >> does that include item 14. >> item 14 as suggested. >> item 12 to april 4th. >> yes, thank you. >> for the record, for case

2016-00430 at 22 broadway street condition use authorization to april 4th. is there a second. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners to continue as proposed. (roll call). so moved that passes unanimously 6-0. >> to continue item 2b to the date specified. >> thank you. that will place us on the concept calendar. these are routine by the planning commission and may be acted upon by a single roll call vote. no separate discussion unless a member of the commission, public or staff request at which time

it shall be removed from consent calendar and considered as separate. item 3. 2505 third street. condition use authorization in item 4. 4018 at 24th street condition use authorization. i have no speaker cards. >> would any member of the public or fellow commissioners have any objection to the concept calendar -- consent calendar item. okay. >> second. >> thank you on that motion to approve items three and four on the consent calendar. (roll call). >> so moved. that passes unanimously 6-0. places us to item 5 consideration of adoption draft minutes for jan 10, 2019.

>> anybody have any public comment on the minutes? okay. seeing none. comment is closed. >> on that motion to adopt the minutes. (roll call). >> so moved commissioners that passes 6-0. item 6 commissionnents and questions. >> commissioner richards. >> i received an advanced agenda for the meeting on february 7th at mission high school. a couple comments i would request president melgar set with the community folks to make

sure we have a civil dialogue. if you need help on that, let me know. the other one is i have seen meetings that have gone awry. i would request that we have sheriff's deputies there. i don't know how other commissioners feel. i feel there might be a safety issue. >> we are addressing both of your requests. thank you. >> one last quick item. governor's housing hammer, carrots and sticks to get housing. he wants to withhold transportation funds from sb one because cities don't build enough housing. the city doesn't build the housing. 70,000 units. why would you withhold funds. if those were built, i think it is very misguided. >> commissioner moore. >> in these meetings a question

on the regional discussion. the city of concord in downtown just approved a very large site right next to bart to become a soccer training center, and i m wondering why the discussion would not be geared towards asking every community to put housing next to transportation? am i missing my microphone here? >> director do you want to weigh in? >> commissioners, it is a very good question. i don't know why an individual community would do that either except as you know there is a mixed bag in the region about communities encouraging new housing and those that are not. the board has no power to compel communities to do that.

that is one of the challenges we have at the regional plan. there really isn't no legal teeth to require communities to meet the intent of the plan. >> thank you. commissioner johnson. did you want to say something. okay. so that concludes the comments. >> department matters item 7 director's announcements. >> i if i may with with respecto commissioner richards comments. the city is meeting the market rate an arena goals. presumably under the governor's proposal the city would not lose transportation funding. it is not clear what the specifics of that would be. i think it is meant to as i understand it, it is meant to really go after communities that are not -- that are doing very

little. that is all the comments i have today. thank you. >> seeing nugfurther item 8 review of past events at the board of supervisors, board of appeals and historic preservation commission. there was no board of supervisors meeting or historic preservation commission yesterday. no appeals. members of the public may address the commission within the subject matter jurisdiction except agenda items. with respect to the agenda items it will be afforded when it is reached for up to three minutes. we have one speaker card. >> good afternoon. >> i feel a little schizophrenic after the historic preservation

joint meeting with the retained elements policy. i am asking you to add just. i can see a conflict there. if i may, i gave this to you on january 10th, this letter from 2014, but commissioner johnson wasn't here. here is a copy for her if that is okay. why do i keep harping on the demo? the zoning administrator adjusted his number three times in the last four years. i thing is a corrolary. on the list the one from 2014 that i gave you all and just gave to commissioner johnson. that was a snapshot from januar. there are 55% of the projects on this list sold upon accomplice. they got the permits and were sold right away. average of $2.5 million

increase. the letter i gave you on octobee packet from october 4th had an expanded version larger snapshot from 2012 to 2018 combined with the yellow list from 2014. this makes up 74 projects that could or should be classified for demolition. with 63% resold upon completion of the work of the alteration permits increase of $3 million. 36% of those on the list are either under construction currently or not yet sold. 1% were never on the market for sale. it is a snapshot. i think it shows speculation. most of these are in the valley which you could make the argument is the generator for what made the extreme acceleration in prices since the

crash of 2008. along with the za increase i hope you will consider adjusting the callings as was intended by 317 to allow reasonable alterations and maintain relative affordability. thank you very much. >> next speaker, please. >> my name is jerry dratler. i have been attending the meeting for a little over one year. when i think about specific projects i comment on it dawned on me the planning department planner never states why the planning department recommends approval of the project. often the files are large. it would be helpful for the citizens watching or attending the meetings to understand why the planning defendant is

recommending a specific -- department is recommending a specific project. putting the whole food store in the lombardi building. the community benefit of the grocery store is clear it is difficult to weigh against 50 or 60 housing units or negative impact of the large chain store on the polk street mer chants. then the demolition of 655 alverrado street replaced with a monster home with a bogus inlaw unit. i still don't understand what the planning department was recommending this project. i am suggesting the planning department provide a one page summary of each project issues and why the department recommends approval of the project. one of the long-term benefits of this recommendation is that

planners over the time would develop a better understanding of which projects are acceptable to the planning commission. for example, a planner with a project with the illegal demolition looks like a home with cruise ship decks and might not want to brick that before the planning commission. thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon. congratulations to president melgar. just before i get into what i came here to comment, i want to mention director what you brought up in terms of what the governor is proposing about withholding the funds. it is true we have been going over our quota every year. when the recession is going to hit and i am sure you noticed

the builders are not building because of the cost of per square footage and withholding permits until it is more advantageous we are getting hit with what the governor is proposing. now everybody has a feeding frenzy. when the economy slows down we get hit with undue, unnecessary punishment. so i am here to bring up again the issue we came here a couple weeks ago. 1295 47th avenue. it is very difficult to actually react to these unjust permits when there is no 30-day notice, no formal notification. as an example i want to read the e-mail exchange between the tenant trying to figure out when the planning was going to approve the a.d.u. plan and this is what she sent to the planner.

she goes. thank you for the update does this mean the permit has been approved or on the way to being approved? thanks again. i anticipate routing this permit out of the department for parallel possessing. by no later than the end of the week. i hope you can work with the sponsor team to reach a resolution. can anyone figure out what the response means? this gobbledygook about the possessing and what not. to be fair to the staff, we just received a response from her that is saying they are still working on it to get to the bottom of this. basically, these are the issues with respect to the a.d.u.s and the city of san francisco with the garage conversion is

different than south city where people are having a ranch house on a lot to turn the garden shed to a.d.u., this is very different. i am hoping the commission could come up with a policy easier for the people subject to this unjustly to react. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners, i am mark christianson president of the triangle neighborhood association. at your february 14th commission hearing on the consent calendar for condition use permit there is a topic of h matter at 39 allegheny boulevard. we are in total support and the neighborhood association knows of no opposition. preapplication went well with over 100 people in attendance.

i ask you fast track this. the neighborhood is without a grocery store for four and-a-half years. i speak favorably. there are a few other people that want to do the same. thank you very much. >> next speaker, please. >> i am emilie adams. i am a member and representing my church which is in that area for the supermarket golden gate church, and we are in support of this supermarket. we'll really need it. hopefully we will get it soon. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> i am glenn and i am also a member of the triangle neighborhood. we are totally in favor of approving the h matter. we are without a super market for 4 and-a-half years. we need a super market there.

thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> hello. i am glenn rogers, and i support h matter -- h matter. they are in need of this shopping center with the inclusion of the supermarket. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> hello. my name is steve hiding. i am an executive board member of the extension triangle neighborhood association. i am in total support. we badly need a super market. it is four and-a-half years without it. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> my name is sandra norris.

i am in support of the supermarket. i am part of the group. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> paul chow. i also live in the neighborhood. i support the h mart. >> any other general comment? okay. >> we can move to the regular calendar for item 9. [please stand by]

. >> so there may be the possibility of adding a staff

position later in the process, but it is not clear at this point, and she would like -- the mayor would like to look at all departmental budgets after we submit to her office in late february to see what the total picture is with the city before approving any new budget positions. so they have asked us at this point in the process not to consider any new staff positions in the budget. so with those two explanations, i'll now turn it over to deborah. i'll also point out that members of the senior team are here to answer any questions. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, director deborah landis, director of administration. so we are going to go over first the mayor's budget instructions, then we're going to take a look at our current

year budget projections and then go through, given that, our expectations for both revenue and expenditures in the upcoming year and go over the work program and then the calendar of the remainder of the budget cycle with you. i'm happy to answer any questions going through or afterwards, and we have leaders here as well that can answer any questions about the overall division and the budget if you have any. so we were asked to focus on accountability and equitiable outiums and sort increasing overall effectiveness. build more housing, reduce homelessness, create equitiable opportunities for everyone, and

make government more accountable. so we really do try to strive for that throughout the year as well as next year's budget to accomplish those goals. as director rahaim mentioned, we have no new positions that we're proposing in next year's budget per the mayor's instructions, and we were also asked to reduce general fund support by 2% in each of the budget years, and this does take that into account. we make those reductions based on the base budget rather than the prior year budget. so we have made those reductions as requested. so the looking at the last ten years of volume and the projection for next year, as you can see, we'd been talking about the last couple of years this plateauing. we expect to be a little bit

down from last year, so we are taking that into account in our charges for services, which are our fees. we are going to reducing them by about $1 million from the current year's to next year's budget to anticipate that softening in volume. did i wait -- should i keep going? there we go. okay. it's back. so the charges for services is that top line there. that's what i was talking about, taking down by about $1 million from 18-19, which is our current year, to 19-20, which is the budgeted year. we're projecting to remain basically even from next year to the out year, and as a reminder, we do two-year budgeting, so next year's out year will be the second -- sorry. this year's out year will be next year's first year, so we do have a chance to go back and

adjust based on another year's worth of information we go back and collect. our grants budget, we are anticipating that we will keep that steady around $2 million. very hopeful there. and a remiebder because we do not know what funning opportunities will come up two years from now, we have a few grants we get annually regularly, and other than that, we don't project grant funding into the second year because we find those opportunities really within a year, 18 months at the most. so that number, i would say almost certainly increase in -- once 20-21 becomes the budget year that we're talking about. so for development impact fees, we do administer the interagency plan implementation committee, which is ipic, and that is a good chunk of the impact fees that come to us. and in 19-20, we are also

reflecting some other administrative costs that other departments will incur that we will take the administrative money into planning department and then distribute it out to them. and then, in '20 and '21, the same thing. it's for planning and ad striv costs combined. the expenditure recovery line, we are hoping to increase that in both budget years, so that is related many to funding from a -- from the port for an army corps of engineers, for the d.p.r. to review two large projects. and then, the general fund support increases seen here between the current year and the budget year related to

anticipated salary and benefit increases. so on the expenditure side, as usual, the people in our department are the vast majority of our costs. so you can see salaries and fringe in the current year are about 67% of the whole budget. and then next year, we anticipate that to be 72%. this overhead rate is set by the controller's office. it will likely change as budget development continues. this is the number that we have in the current year and in the budget system, and so that's what we're reflecting when -- when the controller's office determines the out years for the budget year and the out year for that number. that will get loaded into the budget system for all departments across the city centrally by them. and so our contract budget, which is in the nonpersonnel services category, we're expecting to reduce by about $300,000.

it's 1.6 million in the current year, and we're looking at 1.3 next year. you do have a list of contracts in the budget packet that we sent to you if you wanted to get into more detail on those; they are described there. the largest single day in that is a decrease in the civic center hub eir based on the civic center portion of the packet. so materials and supplies we are increasing in 19-20. this is related to mostly telephone purchases for the new building. we are moving into a building with no phone lines. it is going to be roy integrated technology for our phones, or voip technology. for now, we wanted to have a little bit of buffer -- we're

not exactly sure yet what our costs around moving into the new building will be, and the -- the capital and equipment line is anything that is over $5,000 with a useful line of three years or more. so in -- next year, we're anticipating to buy a printer, and that is the $9,700 expense there. because we are moving into a new building at the end of 19-20, beginning of 20-21, we are anticipating that any of our capital equipment needs to be alreadien coy encomepassed building. this is the general bucket where we think we're going to

get some money. we don't know exactly how it's going to be programmed yet, and so that is where we like to budget things, particularly grants where we have proposals where we will put forward to funders, and we need to get those fully scoped, and we can reallocate the services out th

supervisors, there were one-time atrition counts that reduced our f.t.e. count, and that was a one-time reduction. we're back to the normal level. we're not reducing staffing levels, we're not adding any positions as was instructed of us, and it stays stable into the second year. and so we went to the historic preservation commission with this presentation plus a little bit more detail on january 16. we're here today with this additional presentation. we will be returning to both

commissions, historic preservation commission on february 6, and then back here at planning on february 14. because we need to submit a budget to the mayor by february 2 #. after that, the mayor's office has it for a few months. on june 1, the mayor submits a proposed budget to the public. it goes to the board of supervisors, and the board of supervisors finishes up in july. so with that, happy to answer any questions or call up any colleagues if you have questions for them. >> vice president melgar: thank you very much. we will now take public comment on this item. >> my name is jerry dratler. the planning department by law is required to produce an

annual department report. the 2014-15 annual department had three excellent pages. and i'm going to show you, but you can't really read them. it's just more to remind you what was there. this page is a five-year history with performance data. it's not in the 14-15 -- excuse me, the 15-16 annual report. the next one is a graph, and the last one, which is particularly useful shows case planning activity by area of the city. so the question is -- or the three questions i have for director rahaim, is the

planning department continuing to collect and report these statistics internally? if the data is available, why was it not included in the 15-16 panel report? and lastly, is there money in the budget this year to have that data included in the current department annual report? and i ask the planning commission if you review the annual planning department report before it's issued to please not approve a report that lacks this very useful data. thank you. >> vice president melgar: thank you, mr. dratler. next speaker, please. >> thank you. ozzie realm with no i'd fee council and san francisco identities coalition. to continue asking for more support on the a.d.u.s, we did

hear this budget is not going to have as much funding next year compared to this year, but as i mentioned in my previous comments, we do need to have some communication, some oversight over when the people who oppose it, they could actually get involved and file a formal complaint escalating to you folks and file a d.r. also, i think it is about time for us now to have a report on how we're doing with these a.d.u.s. how many a.d.u. applications require a waiver? how many a.d.u. applications area a variance? and after all, are these a.d.u.s being used for airbnb or are they actually tenant occupied? i think it's been more than two years that the a.d.u. policy and ordinance has passed, but

we really don't have any metrics. so this is a time that you have the power to put this line item in the budget and ask for metrics for us to find out what's going on. are we at 100% requiring waiver and variance or 50%? what is the situation with a.d.u., and are they actually really being filled by tenants or is this an airbnb situation? so you know, that's it. please find a place for these items in the budget, even though the money's not going to be as good as past years. thanks. >> vice president melgar: thank you very much. next speaker, please. miss hester. >> sue hester. it would be really great if the staff adjusted this -- overhead -- to be 8.5 by 11 where tby the meeting every week because it takes a lot of time to

address it. what you missing in this discussion is what you did really well with the joint hearing with the h.p.c. this morning, which is to think through what the hell is going on in the review of projects. i would offer that existing housing and displacement of existing housing should be right at the top. residents and existing rent controlled units, and some units that are s.r.o.s and residential hotels are the poor grandchildren, stepchildren of the planning department. no one really digs down on housing issues, and so before you adopt the final budget, i would ask the commission to put on your schedule not just your

goals, the mayor's goals for housing shown to you didn't mention one bit about existing residents and existing housing. there's nothing. building new housing is very easy if you ignore the effects of -- on existing housing. right now, i se right -- the number of people who understand the law on s.r.o.s in the planning department is, i think kate conor, who -- who did this for five hotels a couple of years ago. there was an attempt to displace five residential hotels and make them into tourist hotels. and the understanding of rent

control and administer of rent control is abysmal. and the amount of understanding of construction when they come in with a plan for rebuilding or mansionizing a site right now is negligentible. you need more grounding in your staff on rent controlled housing and s.r.o.s -- s.r.o.s, residential hotels. and that is a major flaw and the mayor's goals don't address it. thank you. >> thank you miss hester. any other public comment?

okay. seeing none, public comment is now closed. commissioners? commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: let me -- a couple of things movingmoving forward. i know we asked for it last year, and miss hester summed it up during the year, somebody to be the tenant or resident advocate. i know we had a debate up here, but i guess my question for the director is have we centralized that function or that role or do we have any -- have we put pen to paper on what that means? >> yeah. i think commissioners, as you know, and this is sort of a learning curve for us, too. so what we are doing now on staff, and perhaps they can talk about this more specifically is more spending more time at that -- on those issues as projects come forward. i don't have a body that i can devote to that, but we certainly -- we're asking staff

to look at more existing conditions, looking at tenancy, that sort of thing. it's a little bit of a challenge given the rent board's role. the other thing i will mention is that the -- we are filling in existing planner position with some of the strictly devoted to a.d.u.s who will get into more of those issues. if you recall, since the case that's brought to you on broadway, on 47, i should say, we have changed the policy so that tenants have to be notified, such as when parking or storage in an d.a.a.d.u. ha be notified, and we'll follow up on that. >> commissioner richards: one more question. maybe mr. sider would know

better. >> commissioners, thanks. dan sider with staff. we've made a great dale of progress both internally and through the legislative process. jacob, our expert on the subject is coming to you i believe on valentine's day with a report to dive into the specifics of what we've done, what we hope to accomplish and what we'd like to do with a process improvement project in the future. >> commissioner richards: great. >> thank you. commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: this is a question for the director. you said you were seeing a drop in applications, which is reduced revenue. in which departments do you see that having the largest effect on staff?

if you numerically overlay the revenues in the departments -- >> well, the entire department relies on those revenues. so while the workload is -- might change a bit, we use those revenues across the board. whether we can shift resources from one part of the department or the other is the question. the challenge is we might not be able to fill all the vacant positions we have, so that's the balancing act that we have to look at right now. >> commissioner moore: it's taking what you just said, i understand it cannot be pinpointed exactly by core groups. when i look at your work program overview, i see an increase in current planning, i see an increase in numbers in citywide planning, i see a slight increase in environmental planning, but i see a significant drop in zoning and compliance.

compliance, to us at the receiving end here, seems to be something that could be really enlarges one as a revenue generator, and so generator. >> i think the reason that you see that increase -- that decrease, i should say in the compliance group is that it's a line item issue. it's -- that group has been shifted -- three members of that team were in the short-term rental team, and that team is now under direct -- my direct supervision. so it's simply shifted from compliance into the administrative function of the department. it's the same number of people doing the same work. i just wanted to assure you of that. >> commissioner moore: okay. perhaps when we come to an f.t.p. at the moment, it will be clearer. it seems the 15i78 wsame way w

doing that. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. commissioner johnson? >> commissioner johnson: i'm saying this was my first budget hearing, and it was great to get to see really all of the complex work of the department laid bare and thinking about what we've done and what needs to be done. in particular, i think the focus on housing affordability strategy or connectsf, data logistics and stablization stat gee and resilience are the right things. i would echo some of the comments of my colleagues and miss hester. how we're stable our vulnerable communities in working with the rent board, this is kind of the issue that i watched last year's hearing, and i think commissioner richards said that it's challenging to find somebody to really bottom line these issues, and i see where

taking a step at that, and i just would add encouragement to try to go as deep as possible in that coordination. i just had a couple of questions, which is just, one, on plans and policies on page 17, there was a line of staff time for emergent work, and that was intriguing to me, and i was just curious. there's no -- there are no staff people for that now, and i was just curious what that was. >> again, and that's a function of us rethinking how we put the projects together and where they're kind of categorized, but we know every year, the mayor, the board of supervisors, maybe even our director will come up with a new idea that they would like us to put staff on. last year, we knew the f.t.e. was coming, that was a place holder, and we had no problem

using that for projects that came up in the year. this year, we're taking more of a hard line approach. we've got our work together, and if new work comes in, if there's problems with capacity because we don't have positions filled o we have more work coming ought us than the f.t.e., we're going to make a conscious decision on what needs to be put on hold before we have the right capacity. there is a limit to how much work we can do, and we need to be clear with the public and you as the decision makers when we make those choices. >> commissioner johnson: thank you. thank you for that. it's sad to hear that. i think it's important, many times our commission has talked about a desire to have a futurist on staff or really run with those larger ideas or ideas that do come forward, especially in this time. i think that's needed, but i appreciate that -- that

explanation. the other thing is just around a question that was asked before. at the end of the report, there was a calling out of the planning department's performance measures, which is fascinating, and i want to ask a bunch of questions about those. but it sounds like we're going to have a hearing in two weeks talking about how our process improvements have turned out, and i'm wondering if this piece and telling us a little bit more about it will be described in that, yeah. okay. great. i'll save them for that. thank you. >> thank you. commissioner hillis? >> thank you. just a question for director rahaim. there is a lot of activity, which is good at the regional level. are you staffed to be able to coordinate and respond and kind of take on those efforts? i know you, yourself, have been attending some of those, but i

think it's growing more and more important at -- kind of looking at this at the regional level and want to make sure we can respond to that. >> no, i appreciate that comment. we are spending more time on that because out of necessity, one would argue it's part of that emergent work line. you know, a few years ago we weren't even dealing with state legislation. and now, the department is much more involved in not only analyzing and reacting with what we did with ab 827, but interacting with legislation that we think will improve our work and improve the condition. [please stand by]

the move is reflected in this. we are anticipated to move roughly in the middle of 2020. it might hit the next fiscal year and certainly the following fiscal year. the expenses are not known. we know about the phones. it is not clear from the city administrator about the furniture. we are playing it by year. >> is this typical for all other

departments? this is a brand-new building. as you know, there will be three major departments and smaller offices in that building. whatever rules they develop will go to all departments. the rent will go up a lot. we are trying to plan for that. >> it creates problems. it would be interesting for us to support you. if you break the phone you have to pay for it yourself? >> that's right. >> that makes it very difficult to operate in a public environment or what is perceived to be a public environment if you are paying for it if you are responsible for your own costs. it is a very difficult situation. >> i appreciate that. we are living in a lot of unknowns with respect to the new building. we will try to keep you informed. >> that will be very much appreciated. >> commissioner richards. >> time goes by so fast.

the annual report. we are going to get into the specifics during a valentines day hearing. what is the last annual report we produced? >> we have produced one every year over the last 8 or 9 years. we don't print very many hard copies. we give you all a hard copy, if i am not mistaken. the new one for last fiscal year is going to the printers next week or the week after. we are almost there. >> thank you. >> i think that sometimes in an organization there is sort of a polar opposite approaches to havingtic expertise in a subject. you can hire one person who is the go to for tenant's rights.

that brings you a lot of expertise but you run the risk of siloing that area. by the same token if what you want is a change in culture of the department where everyone takes tenant's rights, you know, the way they should when they are touching housing or equity or environmental protection or whatever it is that is your goal. you might be better off not adding that position but investing in professional development and training and intentional, you know, plan for folks to put that in the work plan. i wanted to hear your thoughts. i didn't see a line item for professional development. maybe that is too much into the weeds. i wonder what we thought about that. these are things we talk about at every meeting. we want to do that or that. there are some things that we

have to do. i wonder what you think? >> that is a very good comment. i think there is a training line in one of those lines, debra can specify. i think the point is well-taken. with respect to the rent, tenancy issues and all of that. we haven't had this discussion with you all yet, my sense is what we are trying to do is make sure all case planners with those projects are aware of those issues. it adds work on their part. it is work you have found important, and we are learning as we go on a lot of this stuff. as i said earlier, we made that recent change about tenant support services and that sort of thing. we can continue to work on that. it struck me this morning with the hearing with the preservation commission, and we are being, in my tenure, we are

pulled in two extreme directions more than we have. one is do stuff faster and more streamlined approve more housing. the other is spend more time looking at preservation issues. i want to bring that to your attention. i feel that more now than i have in my 11 years with the department. extreme tension in both directions. ultimately it has budget and staffing implications to work on this stuff, i throw that out there. i think i it is important that more of the staff become more sensitive to the issues and how to work on those issues as they review projects. >> you will invest in it? >> i think we are. i am happy to work with the rent board more. as you know, we have had challenges with the rent board with their jurisdiction versus ours. we can continue to work on that.

>> thank you. commissioner richards. >> commissioner richards: it is interesting about the two forces. do you feel there is an offset. through streamlining there is less work to fund work that needs to be done? >> the challenge is the large projects are from a revenue standpoint is where most of the revenue comes from. that is what we have to look at. there might be an offset in staff time. the revenues don't necessarily match that. >> thanks. >> thank you. seeing nothing further we can move to item 10 for case 2016 2016-003351cwp for the racial and social equity presentation.

i only have 15 minutes. good afternoon, commissioners, planning staff. before i launch to the presentation, i want to say that i want to thank the staff and acknowledge this is a product of a true divisional effort. part of the team is here and we are working closely to get to the point. before the presentation, i want to thank the human rights commission for the amazing work leading the work for the city. coordinating us for the technical assistance. i want to turn it over to the deputy director for the human rights commission. >> good afternoon,

commissioners, i am goey polk. we are so honored to be supporting the planning commission's effort for the past four years. we have with the initiative for the four years. with planning commission staff started this work and pushed us to think about getting this on the city-wide level. within the city-wide initiative we work with more than 30 departments on the racial equity plan. they have an equity committee for the policies and practices with a available equity lens and use todat to for the action plan. in the past year the department of environment and sentencing commission of all of the law enforcement agencies including the public health and sheriff's office have adopted the plans at

a plan. it is similar to the draft plan to look at policies internally and externally and what the racial disparities are there. we are honored you are taking these bold steps and looking forward to work with you and support you on these efforts. thank you so much. >> thank you. as you heard from zoey, this initiative is within the large city effort to advance equity. the city and county has a firm work for key priorities for all city department alleyedder ship. the long-term strategy to advance this and generate equitable outcome.