Skip to main content

tv   San Francisco Government Television  SFGTV  February 3, 2017 8:00pm-10:01pm PST

8:00 pm
>> fantastic. fantastic. we're just about done. [inaudible] if you look in your programs, first of all, save the dates, there's two key events going on [inaudible] at the african-american cultural heritage society for educators. [inaudible] at 5:30 pm. please,
8:01 pm
come join us did secondly, down at the bottom of the page there is a [inaudible] with taking [inaudible] anyone that wants to sign on those trips to chicago we encourage you to sign up there. there's also our [inaudible] anyone interested in the joining the society we would love to help you come and join us as a member. finally, in terms of announcements, i want to acknowledge joyce armstrong [inaudible] tenants association who is here with us. michael ward is an advocate from [inaudible] african diaspora here and michael carr from the mayor's office of economic development is also good. let's give them-i don't know who you are pointing to?
8:02 pm
and fire chief joanne hayes-white is here with us as well. >>[applause] okay with that one final note. none of this would be possible without leadership and involvement in the society and the leadership for orchestrating this event and all our black history month programs is missed outdoors cameron. we just want to express our appreciation to all doors for her leadership of the committee and the hard work she has done to bring all this for to us so thank you so much for that. with that that brings our program to a close word today. they do also much for being here and sharing this with us. take the words we've heard of wisdom from landon,-thank you again, landon for your great
8:03 pm
words of wisdom got rev. brown, for your insight. thank you all very much and go out and celebrate and enjoy black history month. thank you very much. >> >> >> good afternoon. welcome to the san francisco planning commission regular i'd like to remind the members of the audience that the commission does not tolerate disruptions of any kind.
8:04 pm
and when speaking before the commission, if you care to, do state your name for the record. i'd like to call roll at this time. commissioner president hillis commissioner johnson commissioner koppel and commissioner moore. >> we do expect commissioner fong and commissioner melgar shortly and commissioner vice president richards will be absent commissioners, that places you under your is consideration of items proposed for continuance we have several bear with me case one at 2645 ocean avenue is proposed proposed for continuance to april and 3326 mission street to april 13, 2015, item 3 for the academy of art university adoption of ceqa
8:05 pm
finding is proposed for continuance to july 27, 2017. items 4 ab ac adoption of planning code changes by the planning department recommended to the academy is proposed for continuance to july 27, 2017. item case 2016 - adoption of ms. hayward related to the academy of art university is proposed for continuance to july 27, 2017. case 2012 academy of art university tech changes planning code tech changes also proposed for continuance to july 27, 2017. items 5 abc d f and g for case -
8:06 pm
at 2209 van ness avenue and octavia street and pine street, stuttering street and bush street relatively are all proposed for continuance to july 27, 2017. item 6 townsend street is proposed to proposed for continuance to july 27, 2017. items 7 for case - 466 townsend street also proposed for continuance to july 27, 2017. further commissioners under our regular calendar we received a
8:07 pm
request for case folsom street a proposed for continuance may i have no other items proposed for continuance and there are no speaker cards. >> thank you jonas any any public comment on the items proposed for continuance seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner moore >> move to continue all items summarized under items proposed for continuance further to that prop for items 15 ab as note this morning. >> thank you second. >> thank you, commissioners on that motion to continue matters at proposed commissioner johnson commissioner koppel commissioner moore and commissioner president
8:08 pm
hillis so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 4 to zero from the acting zoning administrator can continue 1-b to may 11th. >> i will to may 11th. >> thank you commissioners, that places you under your commission matters item 8 consideration of draft minutes for january 19, 2017. >> thank you public health on the draft minutes seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner moore. >> i so moved. >> second. >> second. >> thank you commissioners on that motion to adopt minutes for january 19, 2017, commissioner johnson sxhorp commissioner moore and commissioner president hillis so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 4 to zero item 9 commissioner questions or comments. >> commissioner moore. >> i'm reading about being
8:09 pm
asked about the city's requiring sidewalks along van ness in a particular portion i've tried to google but can't find what that means and i'm curious. >> commissioners that was an item we've been negotiated with the state for a long time the city has been maintaining the sidewalks along van ness it is a state road for many years and the city has been in negotiations with the state to take control of that part of right away that gives us more flexibility we we can do the state for example, we had a discussion the state will not allow projection for bay windows into the right-of-way so after a lot of discussion with the staff and state they will relinquish their right-of-way with the
8:10 pm
building to curve to allow us more flexibility how that space is used. >> i'm glad you're getting something for your money. >> commissioners, if there's nothing further, we'll move on to department matters drourment. >> no new announcements. >> past event the board of appeals and the preservation commission and armed services that weeks lucrative was scald for the later than you think year but the sacramento commercial district by supervisor farrell passed the second reading and the various general plan and map places of entertainment for the sfoep passed their second reading i understand the mayor is doing a sign this friday and tthd ordinance passed tifrsz its
8:11 pm
first reading and the hearing for the 950 market street this item was the appeal was withdrawn as a party's came to agreement on the eastbound terms we have a transgender cultural district and so far no introductions have shown up that's all. >> thank you mr. starr. >> no report from the board of appeals the historic preservation commission did meet this were no real items of electrician to the planning commission only note that they did hear a presentation regarding the budget and the work program i'll hear today and they received public comment on the pier 70 mixed use project i'll hear on february 9th there are no questions move on to general comment not to exceed 15 minutes. at this time, members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction
8:12 pm
of the commission except agenda items. with respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. each member of the public may address the commission up to three minutes. there is one speaker card. >> thank you very much georgia swedish and then if any additional general public comment you you can please line up on the screen side of the room. ms. swedish. >> good afternoon like speeding through the agenda and was at the historic preservation commission yesterday there was a new co2 a they taken off the facade of one 51 liberty i don't care if you, you know about that it had a dr that was withdrawn when any neighbor had a dr in july of 2014 so i was interested in it i looked at the online this is why i was interested here's the plan favoritism can i
8:13 pm
have the overhead, please? that was with the packet when it was before withdrawn this is the lower unit it is a nice little unit living room and bedroom a nice fireplace the 1913 house, i believe not clear from the unit was oriental before the project they were remodeling it putting in a garage they expanded the back and changed the lower unit and the thing that struck me as odd the media room the media room became the dominant room of the unit that was a programming when was back in the historic preservation commission it is an elevated unit here's the new plan and the media room which is the majority of the unit was closed off so i guess my point is it has to do with
8:14 pm
with programming, programming the unit it is important you talked about that last week with the family unit it is not necessarily determined by the number of bedrooms by the not determined by the number of living room or family room allows floor space in a residential building it is important that gets memo to section 317 that looped i hope will get closed at some point from the unit is downsized they are flat two flat unit one over the other they have no control none has control over the smaller unit it hits the market or rented i think this loophole is incentive i's turning one into a mega unit with a smaller unit that is ultimately school
8:15 pm
board that is a fact of a merger we hope that's why you close the loophole that's my connection with the project. >> thank you, ms. swishing is there any additional public comment? >> good afternoon. i'm paul wormer we want to take advantage to raise an issue i've raised before this was brought to mind by the recent discussion of mission and gentrification of the mission the argument well gentrification is not a result of the new construction but there is a problem in the gentrification has been going on for a long while and tailor clearly feedback loops unfortunately as i discussed when i talked about the article 7 revision a awhile back no good policy in the department for assessing what is going on in the neighborhoods. gathering dictated identifying
8:16 pm
trend and drawing connections and if this this is not happening decisions with made and aon a case by case basis what is happening in the city be that good or bad pa means the department of city planning end up reacting than planning not good for the city i urge you to ask the planning department to look at how they can actually start assessing what is happening in the city in terms of trends of land use in residential areas, in neighborhoods commercial district >> how o those interactions play in february loops thank you thank you, mr. wormer. >> is there any additional public comment? >> good afternoon jeremy paul when public policy in the
8:17 pm
planning code take one hundred 80 degree turn quickly it leaves a lot of question marks and remnant that need to be cleaned up and a cognizant distance in the community i'm talking about legalization of dwelling units and the one hundred and 80 degrees that went from any new kitchen sink requires a parking space to the conditional use procurement for removal of a kitchen sink what that left us with a planning of setting policies hold officers from the time when things were designed specifically or written specifically to prevent people in adding dwelling units there is a document that is still relied on called the rooms down magic and the independence of what is a kitchen and a
8:18 pm
cooking area we believe are obsolete and creates questions among the planners and create a degree of difficulty for property owners mostly single-family or two family pertains that really have no solution though 0 workout what to do with that second kitchen or quite often in the wealthier parts of town needs for a secondary kitchen for event catering or their own use or staff of households so i would ask the commissioners to consider directing the department to reassess the usefulness the down matrixes and the definition of what is a kitchen and do we want to prevent people from adding bar
8:19 pm
sinks where is that more liveable thank you for your attention. >> mr. dulavich. >> good morning tom executive director of livable city wanted to second everything that jeremy said i imaginations or mentions that we're talking about making family-friendly housing and adding around the adu like no. you can't are a kitchen this kind of stuff maybe if we want to allow more flexible single units for types of household with children or undocumented family members multi adjudicatoral households you could look that if you read the down guidance it is aimed as preventing people from creating adu's maybe we think what are
8:20 pm
you trying to do with that the, etc. the requirements are there things we need to do or should do so i also wanted to follow up on something i noticed we have a family-friendly housing presentation and it kind of showed the map of where families are move on in rincon hill is a good for example, 40 are percent of units are two bedroom for larger households but no families move in to those united something that going on another thing developers say oh, you have lots of parking spaces like families need cars and you know garages then children will come back and i need more parking for the children; right? we hear this as ever hearing family-friendly housing means parking and actually in conjunction with the tdm word i
8:21 pm
say look at the evidence we're building the downtown parking in the integrity and not bringing children back if you look at this graph of households with children in the decline of households with children in san francisco you see like it drops in 1960 and 1950s we impose one parking space per unit so a lot of parking has increased over the same time with the households with children are decreased if cars bring children back we have a ton of evidence that didn't work and come up with smarter ways but don't let children continue to be the reason that we over park projects in transit rich areas of the city we're making housing more expensive by doing that and increasing cars from the tdm ordinance so but we're not
8:22 pm
making the unit family-friendly we'll need a different strategy to make them family-friendly thank you. >> thank you. is there any additional public comment general public comment seeing none, we'll move to the regular calendar i believe we have a request from supervisor peskin to call item 14 first i don't see their office. >> i don't see them in the audience. >> we said 12:30 my presentation will go after 12:30. >> so we want to call item 12 we're prepared let's casing call that and hopefully they're watching. >> it appears that the staff is waiting on that as well they were anticipating that - >> let's go ahead with mr. starr presentation 14 very good, commissioners. >> i'll sit down one more time. >> commissioners under our
8:23 pm
regular calendar for item 14 called outburst of order for case 2014 pca the reorganization and simplification of the project a planning code amendment. >> good afternoon. aaron peskin the phase two of the reorganization planning focusing an article 7 i want it explain why the department started this so the planning code is a large and complicates document some of that complexity is necessary a
8:24 pm
dime city and with the san francisco's values and aspirations we're a city of neighborhoods and preserve the identity for the land use control we expect the planning code to be complex, however, a part a code over the years without much thought for over will you explain control not often easy to find the controls and some controls get lost because of complexity that makes that difficult for planners but confusing for the public so i have i've a visual that hoping will illustrate i don't know if mr. moore i think this is the planning code from 1948 27 pages long 4 of the pages are techs for the planning code the other 23 have the land use map that is pretty short
8:25 pm
then go into the 70's and we have a planning code from 1979 the code is quite a bit long and complicated but 200 and 14 pages and then finally we have today's planning code 3 volumes with 13 hundred pages it has grown in complexity in the recent years so prior to this project will was 4 different places in the code you could find independence to places in article 2 and one in article 7 and one in article 8 two ways to promulgate that the article 2 and zoning in article 7 and tables in article 8 after this process one set of definitions given the number of definitions from three hundred
8:26 pm
plus to one hundred a standardized way the information is organized in the code all will be done while maintaining the land use regulations in the zoning district or the necessary complexity code so how did we get this way the code has the basic structure until 198 g prior to that the standards railroad in article 1 and standards and organizing tables that contain a definitions we have only a dozen zoning district and a few regulations the formulate worked, however, the code gained with the special use district to dry to bring order to the code the city added article 7 that created general and commercial district and
8:27 pm
special use district and added an article and a new way of oracle the code known and a as zoning district and article 7 came along which was similar but different all the uaw while article 2 remained the same we have 3 sets of definitions and 3 because of defining that in 2013 this project was to restructure the code to read and understand. >> use this is a accomplished by the consistency through the standarding zoning district format to help achieve this is the divided into 3 phases march of 2015 and dealt with article 2, article 2 includes the residential and mixed use and pdr and downtown xerosis now the
8:28 pm
depictions have an syrup two twooekz have been needed but overall helping the planners do their job better that includes phase 2 and focuses an article 7 and phase three article 8 since the definition have been consolidated into section one 022 reformulate to mick those in article 2 and use the consolidated definitions in section one 02 the definitions in section 790 will be deleted a significant number one number of begins are bans the definitions in section 790 one of the biggest changes to how uses will be regulated in article 7 the removal of what we called used grouping those groupings are found in section
8:29 pm
790 they include other large institutions. >> small institutions on the retail sales and personal business or professional and other retail as part of existence of the xhoechgs e consolidation those have been split into there used to preserve the land use controls the effects will not affect how the individual users uses are regulated in article 7 but allows for more fine-grain definitions and for the controls if zoning district throughout the city the ordinance eliminates section 316 that covers procedures for conditional use authorization and mcd district except one main defense they're the same in section 306 for cus and other entitlements one main difference the 20 days notification that is required in
8:30 pm
neighborhoods commercial and mixed use in other districts it is 10 days it make it 80 days and the ordinance deletes the food existence and notified as described how the use is regulated by planning finally this use makes changes that have been requested by supervisor tang and zions e supervisor peskin for commissioner tang is amends the outer sunset to the conditional use authorization is required for bars and liquor store and personal uses on the second floor and republican states the outer sunset commercial district supervisor peskin has requested to the north beach ncd and f cd with the storefront prohibited assess on grant avenue and
8:31 pm
prohibits the large-scale kennels and 24 businesses and restates the - removal of movie theatres as the manufacturing is the definition to the north beach and require cu and provides the sud for for the changes under the 2011 restaurant ordinance finally supervisor peskin also requested that the broadway mcd allows restaurants as of right and register perf with regard to public outreach i've hosted 3 invitations were sent to over one thousand recipients that is the legislative e-mail list and the organizations per for san francisco neighborhood hayes valley and quatro, represent 23 livable city and law firms and members of the public participated in the meeting he
8:32 pm
offered to go to neighborhood group meeting only the coalition took me up and offered to meet with people and as a result met with representatives if sacramento street and polk street and fillmore and neighborhood commercial district and several meetings and folks with representative from north beach and conditioned to brief landowner and presented the proposal to the small business commission and the historic preservation commission i set up a project website the dates and times of the outreach meeting and published a draft report to weeks in advance on the projects website and notice of that out to the legislative and neighborhood e-mail so as a result this ordinance has been significantly amended to respond to the issues i've heard from the community those amendment what about found on page 12 and 13 of our executive
8:33 pm
summer i want to bring up planners to address the changes how that they've effected their jobs. >> hi commissioners litigating director of current planning i'd like to touch on two main areas the reorganization will have practical improvement for the planning department staff as you may know we've done a tremendous amount of hiring for the planning with in any staff comes technical training how to read the code is a challenge to the size and complexity what makes it for complicated there are different land use definitions identify seen how easy it is for staff to learn article 2 than
8:34 pm
5e678 - one of the current challenges of article 7 that was highlighted in a real world situation last week that note all of the land use educators are listed and whether or not general office use was allowed the tackle doesn't call out office space there is a reference buried in the code from the land use is not listed it is inheriting not permitted pointing that out section is an inconsistency methodologies irrelevant to other codes it is taking staff more time to provide the public what should be quick combrorn answers i want to talk about the notification component as part of legislation we're loin the notification to
8:35 pm
be 20 days i'm a proponent to align and simplify the requirements it results in one less variable that is unnecessarily detailing it it will get up, up to speed quickly and well-informed the public and fewer mistakes i recommend you pass this so we can recommend article 8. >> are we excluded the staff registration thank you supervisor peskin and welcome. >> thank you commissioner president hillis and commissioners aaron peskin member of the board of supervisors let me start by saying respectfully to the department i know a lot of work has gone into it frankly a solution searching for a problem the only
8:36 pm
justification i've heard that makes sense what she said what is that apparently the code is two complex for a rash of new planners this is a code that has evolved neighborhood by neighborhood for very specific reasons i don't understand why there is this desire to have a one-size-fits-all solution it ain't broken didn't need to be fixed and the things your hearing from myself and supervisor tang has nothing to do with with the code reorganization those are fixes that we want and our constituents president in various places under various incremental or commercial districts that's the the neighborhood commercial district has evolved over thirty years
8:37 pm
let me say with all due respect to staff and to any body seven hundred and 50 pages there is no member of the public that has the ability to absorb all of that, yes a how much of people that says article 7 quite frankly one time and again and again pointed out to staff unintended consequences which thank you staff has fixed in part including unintended consequences that would have wiped out the formula retail or valve curtail them not intentionally by staff nobody has read there the seven hundred and 50 pages if it ain't broken, don't fix it let's adjust what needs adjusting in policies and other mcds this is a project to me seems like a huge waste of time i have no idea why you're spending this amount of time and
8:38 pm
article 8 any constituents in chinatown are deeply invested in the way that article 8 has evolved so go down this thing excuse me - ivory tower is fine to redesign but my folks in chinatown it works fine for them. >> thank you supervisor pes n peskin. >> we're doing rearranging on the presentation and we have a representative from supervisor tang's office. >> hi, thank you everyone good afternoon planning commissioners i'm arching a legislative aide to supervisor tang and give me want i'm under the weather i'm here to speak to the mcds as part of legislation and
8:39 pm
acknowledge the comments by supervisor peskin supervisor tang is not fundamentally opposed to this as well but the entire reason i'm here is just for the district four for the changes made we're correcting an error excuse me - that took place during the last code clean up and the interim controls in district 4 for mcd and just to recap the bars and liquor store require a cu authorization on the first floor rather than principally submitted we have existing interim controls that require a few 30 years ago in the terryville and that will become permanent and personal services which were edited as separate of article 2 formerly now which encomes like pause and things like that that requires a
8:40 pm
conditional use authorization for the second floor on the terryville ncds thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon commissioner commissioner president hillis and members of the board ed with dave i work with the calendaring we're the face of department this is where we make most of our meet san franciscans for the first time i applaud the movement of standard other things that disrupt the meeting are prohibited. the planning code and the main reason is our merchants are citizens when they approach us at the counter and we explain article 2 many, many times people want to walk away they get overwhelmed with the legislation so i look forward to anything that actually embraced our public especially the merchants and homeowners and engages them to be part of the progress so as part of
8:41 pm
information counter we look forward to especially for the zoning administrator making less and less due to the complexity of the planning code so thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon commissioner president hillis and commissioners i'm litigating pearl planning department staff i deal with planning development and don't use the code on a daily basis however, like most planners in the department i work with the planning center twice a month and as edgar mentioned this is the publics main contact so we have to have the support there and there is as mentioned the code is complex to be daunting and explaining this to the public can be challenging i find the effort to be terrifically helpful it is easy to respond to
8:42 pm
questions from the public and allows me to help more consumers if you've been to the counter the waiting is long with the new formulate i know the answers are accurate so our customers can make the appropriate decision i'm looking forward to have better service. >> thank you, commissioners so i've been a cart planner that on the team for at past 6 years and come talking about as a a planner that takes projects for the record as you may know in the quadrant we have a collection set of rules not only do we see things in article 2 and 7 and 8 one of the most frustration is the code sections the logic in how the uses are explained and the characteristics of each the use is different than the sections of planning code so having a
8:43 pm
consolidated set of definitions is extremely important making sure the definitions are consistent across the zoning district so that there is less of disparity in terms of how you define a bedroom in one part of city as opposed to so - moving forward our service to the public another piece in the grouping of use categories how we chaplain specific uses simplifying that information within the code is important we already have established in article 2 as i said sets up a good standard and getting consistency and the last point is speed we want to be sure to communicate information to the public and provide the accurate information it is challenging to communicate effectively to the public when it is different in
8:44 pm
one area of the city versus another area inasmuch as we can get the consistency regardless of zoning district this is a logic that is established within the code and important that we stay true it the logic and keep a consistent formulate after all thank you, commissioners. >> thank you. is that the end of staffs presentation mr. starr are you done? i'm done thank you for listening appreciate it >> opening up for public comment i have a couple of speaker cards but if you'd like to speak please line up on the screen side of the room. (calling names). >> go ahead tom you want to - >> also george go ahead mr.
8:45 pm
dulavich any order. >> good afternoon, supervisors tom dutch i'm one of the citizens that read all seven hundred and 50 pages we've been working with the planning code urging you to clean up your code that 13 you know 13 hundred i don't know if so it 23 hundred i don't know it is xrlg cities are complex the code is complicated it is not just complex that is incredibly poor organized and self-referenceal there are huge gaps inquiry about art uses through a planning code amendment in 1988 i was like are they allowed in an mcd district kind of like the section if they're in the
8:46 pm
implicitly permitted than not permitted so when you create a zoning category in one zoning district or one set of zoning district often you, you know before that use was split out that was permitted but you don't permit it no where that is a separate use there is been a lot of that so we've made uses illegal without intending to do that it is incredibly poorly organized tool this basic idea you put all the controls that apply in a particular zoning district on one table is the right way to go and just we're not losing a lot of complexity with this reorganization weer at the end of it have over one hundred individual uses will be regulated and each of the one and 11 districts and no one of that is lost we think this is
8:47 pm
actually been a pretty conservative redo maybe to a fault there is some aspects we put those in the letter like parking in mcd districts the art and nonprofit i mentioned and the uses that previous code reorganizations have prohibited in ncd districts and - the way you handle the ncd district is there as a message in the code but still this project is really, really important we know where all the messes are we know where we at what is permitted and not permitted this reorganization makes that transparent whether or not i'm a citizen or planner at the counter everyone gets to know what is permitted and not permitted that's the basis of you to rethink what should or shouldn't and what should the controls be in the future we urge you to move forward we've been to all the public hearing
8:48 pm
and done everything you've asked them to do you feed to move forward but we're here and asking you it is better based on other - the board will have their own things to say about it but hopefully, your work is done. >> overhead please and sfgovtv if you can go to the overhead please. can you set the clock please. thank you. >> good afternoon rose this is a copy of your agenda for today's meeting note the item
8:49 pm
filed for this meeting our packet references the pdf this is the item number and the january notice we've received we have a different filename that is not linked for this meeting for phase two february 2nd meeting and so on january 20th the planning code sent out the notice with a link to the proposed article 7 which you are to vote i wonder in the legislation and in the meeting packet has the same of a different length and a different name a while ago i showed you this graph overhead please sfgovtv this shows sort of a comical graphic article 7 this is plus or minus things were taken out and the defendant
8:50 pm
factor to show what kind of differences in the ncd and we got a note before the planning code in article 7 allowed a particular use in the mcd now and a different use possibly but combine that with the things coming out you have what one can guess how the changes work with the zoning administrator arbitration as far as splitting the groups and right now a finer grape use in the future no finer grains in the planning code today that will be taken out 316 and 306 is yes, the 20 day period have been linked i believe was 10 days you know if you actually put a lens to the changes it is not exactly the same been significant amendments and i don't know if there is any reason to think that staff
8:51 pm
training will come into play i'm an average bear reading the prado since 1999 and i've figured out things like this to be more mysterious but my main concern what are we're going to get what does each commercial district get how does that change the planning commission meeting i was the only one there and second meeting to people and third meeting i didn't attend so i'm not sure that a real encompassing outreach kind of thing but again about policy procedure and having the public involved that's my main point. >> thank you, ms. olsen.
8:52 pm
>> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners my name is george wooding president i believe the planning department staff has found a new way to make that impossible for public review according to the planning department staff there was no substantive changes in the reorganization of article 7 indeed there are substantive changes in seven hundred page document as supervisor peskin was alluding to and that's been extremely difficult to redo the most recent changes since no red line versions made available various versions of - the actual article 7 is seven hundred pages they're asking normal people to go through seven hundred pages of code over
8:53 pm
one hundred definitions brought into this so it is a been a very difficult thing to review and when you start to review it changing 2i7b8 towards the end from the question mark it means the review of the neighborhood was frustrateless in the first place we've been after this for months and all the time we find it was the appeal was wasted we me i'll say me i don't know what we getty doubt people that on the planning commission understand what is internally given to you right now i would say maybe 3 people planning department staff that actually are up to date on the changes
8:54 pm
that are being made are this is not a simple oh, we're unifying the mcd this being presented to you i think this is more this is a way to get public input public review, planning commission review and planning department staff review none knows what our getting right now so i hope you'll think about that i'm certain you'll pass it but something that i think because it says when confusing neighbors are interested will be used in the future i hope we don't have to see seven hundred pages every time and then change
8:55 pm
6 times so thank you very much. >> thank you. >> next speaker mr. weber please. good afternoon ladies and gentlemen, my name is paul weber i'd like to read a one and 50 word statement into the record and i'll augment it with comments if our letter. >> the commission should not support the seven hundred and 50 page reorganization project that's not wild read arrest considered by staff of ms. mcds but raise universal substantive issues after continuous denial staff has just quietly acknowledged significant substantive changes which it has not universally analyzed no time for martin luther king to react and
8:56 pm
understand if staffs repeated and erroneous public recommendations that changes were not substantive the complexity and lack of highlighting of changes that were made, the frequent publication of different versions and the completely inadequate outreach sets the topaz for no reaction by those who should have an interest but were really uninformed ncds in two supervisorial districts have been subtilely assisted with the supervisors supervisor tang district and by informed locals in the case of supervisor peskins district and come up with substantive changes summary universal so, please approve separate legislation for each of these leave article 7 intact and gave me all others
8:57 pm
ncds as per liv by way of amplification you can see if you read for supervisor tang and supervisor peskin one-size-fits-all independent a definition are changed the most important the staff took months with commissioner sanchez changes and the two people working on the supervisor peskin changes spent well over one and 50 hours engaged with themselves and staff i understand they're still not done so like i said go ahead and prop separate legislation for each of supervisor tang and supervisor peskin led let them go forward but don't pass article 7 until
8:58 pm
the rest of the supervisorial district is engaged. >> thank you. >> i'll call a couple of more names (calling names). >> hi, i'm teresa with the veterans equality center i'm here actually we found out about that the reorganization of article 7 and as you may know our organization is actually participate in communities planning for soma for the heritage district and also there is undergoing a proposed release the draft eir of central soma plan so what comes to our community planning through the filipino we looking into the current nct codes it it dawned on us yesterday the
8:59 pm
reorganizations of article 7 and this is seven hundred pages long we've not discuses this with our community member as well so respectfully for the sunset or north beach amendment i believe if the supervisorial districts have been working with the community and with the planning on this then we support those but in like when it comes to redefining article 7 and other area plans changes coming up in other districts i think creative members and other supervisors should be also involved with that so thank you. >> thank you, ms. imperial >> next speaker, please. >> commissioners joseph with south of market community action neglect in the richmond of the human rights committee we request that the planning commission not approve those
9:00 pm
changes to article 7 today article 7 revisions appear as previous speakers have noted shouldn't be just revisions pertaining to the sunset and north beach neighborhood but has been discussed with the over seven hundred page document as the executive summary says and wholesale table of the definitions and replacement of them that causes great alarm as supervisor peskin noted earlier having the considerations for district 3 and 4 the separate be from the hotel revisions of article 7 make sense and i nodded i do a lot of work with the soma and richmond district we appreciate for sure that is a magnificent undertaking by staff with tons
9:01 pm
of detail in the huge document before you but in terms of the implications those revisions have to other neighborhood line the south of market and the neighborhoods on the district 4 - they cause alarm there has not been community review of those changes i'll note a lot of people think there is no nct district south of market there are to current ones and as teresa imperial noted before me we going on a big effort for the same house, same call? latino cultural district and through the central soma rezone another three hundred page document we'll have a hard time with a document i would like to bring up an example that is presented for us especially in south of market the way the 5m detriment e development planning led the
9:02 pm
family special use district that changed the boundary of of our special use district in order to the planning to approve the tower and the special use district so planning actions to favor the developers a over the community it is present as we precede with the planning south of market and other neighborhood so wanted to highlight the fact that as there are swhoil changes maybe substantive maybe not substantive or maybe said they are substantive and non-substantive as supervisor peskin said we have a huge task as citizens to digest all the information front of us and ascertain what whether or not it is substantive thank you.
9:03 pm
>> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners my name is harris harrison from the chinatown center i'll keep this short and sweet what we've been talking about which is essential this one-size-fits-all approach is not really didn't make sense for our city we have a huge exist of different neighborhoods and neighborhood commercial all over the place and this is ill-advised also as well there is been as many have's said no chance to review those amendments and neighborhood commercial district are not able to you know process the information especially it is changed constantly.
9:04 pm
>> because the project guess what was represent as non-substantive as a community process was under gotten not adequate to really allow the community time to digest all the changes and understand what the real impact of the changes will be for them in their homes and neighborhood with that in mind we respectfully request you not go forward with that ordinance thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> can you reset the clock please thank you. >> ill i eileen district 4 resident i'll urge the commission to continue this item i have also urged small businesses in district 4 and citywide to have staff do
9:05 pm
predicts in the corridor small businesses should not have to come to city hall or this room there are first of all, eliminating section 317 community notification also the backing fact that staff is directing saying all requests for changes should be directed to the supervisor for that district rather than to staff that is a major departure in terms of district 4 specifically i have the following concerns changing n judah from - dividing terryville into district 4 versus district 7 and creating a sub restaurant subdivisions of terryville there are on 3 restaurant in that area i respectfully disagree with previous speakers leave the district 4 part and move forward don't believe that citywide
9:06 pm
understand the implementations are i ask you to continue the whole thing including the district 4 thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> take the opportunity to comment on 4 jeremy paul i'm a permit consultant i want to support the comments that the two gentlemen made those are the front line people next year the planning department i'm sort of a front line person outside a lot of small business owners have enormous frustration small business owners they have a make enormous investments before they are certain their business plans can moved in the district they're in i have to ask as you look at the
9:07 pm
issues before you and whether or not to delay this who benefits? who benefits if continuing chaos continuing questions and who benefits from making things simpler and easily digestible i ask the commissioners to take time so sit and watch take an hour and see how many small businesses with walk away in disbelief at the lack of clarity it is not because the lack of professionalism or skill of the gentleman and his colleagues those people are professionals and do their best to clarify the code it is incumbent about upon the city to make that easily for them to do their jobs and the citizens of this city to function thank you very much >> thank you.
9:08 pm
>> next speaker, please. >> mr. wormer. >> good afternoon, commissioners my name is paul wormer i want to talk about discussions with aaron starr and i support the intent of the revision it does clean up things that needed to be cleaned up i will say looking at the upper fillmore and the task force neighborhood i don't think there are any unintended changes you don't i can't say for sure and in part because of some existence and what have you i'm concerned that the one thing that does do is remove any requirement for review and revision or a review of what is happening in neighborhoods commercial districts following up on supervisor peskins comment
9:09 pm
about changing the restaurant abatement in the upper fillmore i see two property that were de facto formula retail both closed well over two years ago one with the tenant not being are you in custody that was the talley's cafeteria on fillmore and jackson they're in ongoing construction after approval periods of well over a year when is that use actually abandon is a question i'll ask is there a strategy now that is being played out whereby and formula retail is getting produced approved and really not
9:10 pm
doing anything known is quite sure what to do but a conditional use it is locked in more valuable to the property owner there are questions what is happening and how those rules are played out and gained and how they affect the community not answered none it looking at that and in fact, the review of how things are perform in an ncd is removed from the code with nothing to replace that that's a concern i the president the living that is very complex trying to figure out what is going on i spent much of any career looking at technical specification and review operating procedures the code is not that different this code is a lot more complex though than those things the clean up is a good thing know how to reconcile the concerns
9:11 pm
what actions what planning take to mitigate the causes thank you. >> thank you, mr. wormer. >> ms. hester. >> i sue hester i appreciate a clean and restructuring but a revelation the planning department needs to realize there is a public aspect of the planning code i'm not here on tv rearly i believe people in their neighborhoods are more effective than using me there is numerous monuments put into the development of ncd from the public and various commission the original ncd were done by a woman the chief of planning for
9:12 pm
usf and lauren does a heroic job in setting up it originally there was in the past couple of months when this was going through the elections for supervisors in one, 3 which aaron dealt with 5, 6 and 8 it is a supervisor elections they were doing enormous efforts and integrity 11 and district 89 so there was a hot and heavy campaign involving the supervisors that should have been been the vector a solution in their own district district 4 didn't center an election but got resources from the planning department and district 3 had a convey election but the district
9:13 pm
in his neighborhood dealt with the planning department you would do the same thing for every other district especially the ones that have multiple ncds do the right thing the acknowledgement you have a public role and the planning department has a public role you're not a section of mayor's office and the appointing authority you have to step up the ncd article 7 is how the community raise questions historically when they were all for it there's a difference between the sunset and telegraph hill and the north beach, and pacific heights and you need to acknowledge them at the same time rewriting the code i appreciate aaron starr but there needs to be more.
9:14 pm
>> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners you'll forgive me i've written a few things down i'm here to represent spur and register or rental the code reorganization we feel a monumental effort to simplify the code we previously supported the reorganization of article 2 in 2014 and now support the modification of article 7 adjusting it and encourage the department to modify article 3 in the same fashion we appreciate the efforts that evolving have all shift the charts to the tables and the standardization of requirements across the district we applaud the efforts of livable city and staff if an
9:15 pm
effort we urge to you move forward with phase three and perhaps add additional items to the scope of work thank you for the opportunity to comment. >> thank you is there any additional public comment on item number 14 seeing none, public comment is closed open up for commissioners questions or comments. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you very much to staff supervisor peskin, representatives supervisor tang and all of the commenters that came out today and spent a lot of time engaging in the process we had to date i think that there is a lot to be said for all sides argument we heard and i appreciate the really substantive public comment we've gotten from everyone you, you know the
9:16 pm
planning code is like the goldberg of codes in san francisco like on the wooden i completely understand there are different dpngz for different neighborhoods where i agree with them or not they're there nor a reason and that's completely understandable and not the purpose i think this initiative on the other hand, speaking both for the planning department staff i know has to work through this and people at the counter and people - members of the groups and the public and even myself as a commissioner it serves none to have a code that is so complicated that it is hard to follow logical and when you want to make any sort of change that makes sense for a particular neighborhood or the entire city it requires that the lowest effort which is not just
9:17 pm
you know someone you know sad it is time and money to figure out who will reverberates across a complicated planning code this is an effort while it is still maybe i am perfect that is actually unified by the staff this is a necessary first step i don't think that's one of the initiative that is going to be successful if it is structured as something that hospital to be perfect at this time of the approval that is one of the things you have to start somewhere and then set up the system i think ms. hester brought this upset up the system for increased engagement in the future to make sure you have all the correction and simple indications and reorganization the way you want to without changing the spent land use
9:18 pm
proposals in the planning code but to say we're go back and make that perfect before we move forward i think that is going to be an exercise of futility and didn't serve anyone well understanding this is some things that continue some looking at be i am appreciative of the initiative as it cumber standards we need to go forward and talk about the process to be in place people can say hey, i mini missed an unintended consequence without a major process every single time in no one's interest to have a planning code we can't ph.d in logic i appreciate everyone that spent a lot of time on it as far. >> commissioner moore. >> i support the intent but
9:19 pm
the comment about the public code strongly resonates with me - the presentation that aaron gave about thirty years plus which has created the complexity of that code and the nature and the dpa dna of this city that expresses complex cities have complex code yet not over simplify i believe that particularly the example that different tables for the ncd have different definitions show by making that definition the same we are taking something which i believe has not been complained with more than two neighborhoods in two districts at the moment to create equal adjustment for the rewriting of article 7 we need to engagement all neighborhood and give them equal tools to do the same as
9:20 pm
supervisor tang and supervisor peskin district have been able to do they presented and worked with staff to create adjustment of compromises about the specification of the neighborhood i believe that all others districts and those which have neighborhood and commercial districts deserves the same the support so for the intent at this moment i'm cause to see there's more work to do before we support it in its entirety we need to engage all supervisorial district to develop the tools that resemble those developed for district which represented future a little bit more political comment i believe that the diverse city requires detailed attention to sustain and foster diversities and by doing it quite the way it
9:21 pm
is presented today does not work for me. >> thank you commissioner melgar. >> thank you to everyone that came out and to staff i also support the intent i think that we should have a code that is clearly understandable and logical i don't think that does us any favors with the public access to have something that is so complicated with that said i am not convinced this has been vetted i'm struck by the disparity of who has been - has weighed in to the unintended consequences of those changes iceland the outreach process that took place folks were notified this was in
9:22 pm
the works i understand it has been in the works for awhile and folks respond and many folks didn't to me not an adequate sort of showing it didn't have untended consequences to me that is i think can have that should neighborhoods more capacity than others in some neighborhoods folks chime in and folks don't have the time or expertise to do things particularly those neighborhoods are dealing with issues of gentrification and displacement so i did work in economic development in the city for a few years and over the last few days i checked with a bunch of any former colleagues that work on small business development in the bay area and the excelsior and mission and folks actually didn't know there was going on
9:23 pm
i understand that you know at some point people should be responsible for like figuring out what is going on i'm not convinced and it may be that this really is not substantive and didn't have unintended consequences but now we have a new supervisor in district 9 and district 11 and district 1 i would appreciate if there was more vetting you know those neighborhoods corridors particularly because that happens to be most of ones we've not specifically had being from the neighborhoods - you know those sections of town people of color live and poor neighborhoods and more distressed districts i'm not ready to support this today. >> thank you commissioner fong. >> thank you. i understand all of the variety of especially is from the neighborhood my
9:24 pm
background in small business owner supports the entrepreneurship of san francisco i'll currently that. >> with that it is the challenge of trying to keep san francisco the way it was and modernize it and accommodate for new businesses nation wide this is a a challenge here in our city replacing some of the businesses in one year and hear the struggles the complexity of current code so i saw a sandwich shop it makes it - it is important to streamline i view that's as a reset bottom and agree with the commissioners not a perfect and hopefully, we have the patience to tweak it later specific neighborhood and the level of patience yeah. those are my comments i'm
9:25 pm
supportive but also supportive hopefully as a result of this unintended consequences that are fairly addressed for each neighborhood. >> i'd like to add one thanks to the staff and to the members of the communities that participated i know that is complicated our code is complicated i think that all the folks say they don't understand the changes i don't think people understand the code this is not good for the public or the staff we see here every week in order to understand you have to hire a expediter or a lawyer that doesn't serve our low income community for those who want to get involved in the planning process not understandable this is a good step forward we see the unintended consequences of us making changes and not
9:26 pm
getting references or other changes that is effective down the line things are not in one place we've seen that time and time again we've made during the course because staff didn't understand what is happening the code puts the benefit an attorneys frankly we see them here every week on small matters that's not right or correct will there be unintended consequences absolutely we'll have a clean of that but i think that is clear staff asks the members of the public don't intend to make substantive changes to the code except the ones on the two districts to simplify that is a great public service we're doing what ms. hester has often told us we need to do to make things
9:27 pm
understandable that is a huge step in doing that so i appreciate not work you often get award for to clean up the code and make that understandable i know we rely on the zoning administrator and a come up couple even if key folks mr. dulavich of the code and overly rely on those folks that is so daunting i appreciate i'm fully supportive and as we vet this and get input we'll make the changes that is important to understand that people have had that neighbors and look off the market we look at the upper market and the ct and they'll be here as things changed from a substantive way
9:28 pm
in their district but hopefully make the future advocates and have a better understanding the code we're not trying to change that in san francisco with very much different neighborhood we want to respect that and not make one-size-fits-all but have it all in the same first 50 pages of the code to i'm fully supportive i wish wisp taking more time to talk about the subjective changes in district 3 all over the place in the sum i think some of those are great and can use them potentially in other districts supervisor peskin has probably the north beach change anguish limitation on lot mergers will require a cu and storefront mergers will be prohibited those things that might have a
9:29 pm
might have - those are the things i wish we were talking about not the same old things with public outreach i'm fully poster of substantive changes and interested in how they get implemented and perhaps implement them in other district but thank you staff and to those who been involved from the process director rahaim. >> on aaron starrs brave this is a existence no good deed goes urban punished i remember my counterpart in los angeles was embarking on a complete rewrite they budgeted $15 million we needed to do you believe that in money and time they're half way through and no where are near
9:30 pm
aaron starr has been involved one one half years not just during the election circle and important to remember us that the goal of making staffs job easier to serve the public is a pretty damn important goal i guess the one thing that bothered me about the comments the notion that is not important i'll heartily disagree i think that is - i would suggest that we ask you to move forward with that recognizing the board will make further changes the board might not approve that i appreciate the commissioners comments on both sides this is an important piece of work that needs to happen. >> mr. starr there was are a couple of questions i don't know if you want to address did
9:31 pm
sensitive issues. >> paul wormer had great ideas how we can monitor the commercial district better it is so overwhelming so again, he was responding to community concerns and listening to them with regards to things that have changed the principle was introduced commissioner bobby wilson of commissioner president hillis i know you had to go but commissioner vice president richards was there unfortunately unable to attend today but in the presentation and in the invitation it that presentation he said i'll go over the changes since the initiation i put the details changes i might add came from conversations and letters more letters from coalitions for
9:32 pm
san francisco neighbors and many, many phone calls and letters from the north beach neighbors and feedback i got in general from the commission i have reached out, i've solicited feedback and put them in the ordinance with regards to the changes requested by supervisor cowen and supervisor tang those changes are independent of this reorganization they not because of the reorganization those are changes that the supervisor wanted to make to improve their district their changes that would be made now in the code they're not changes that are being as a result of this reorganization effort also every district doesn't have their own definition so this
9:33 pm
idea that i'm somehow taking that ability we're taking that ability away for them to provide for focus i guess land use controls is inaccurate there are one and 15 definitions which can now be regulated separately and independently i think that unprecedented in the country i'm simplifying the code i'm simply making it coherent. >> it is important to note i'll encourage you to work with neighborhoods and neighborhood groups i know you've been responsive to us we've called and asked about questions you're responsive to any neighborhood that is wondering what the changes and how they back their ncd how to interpret this one. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you. i want to say i'm highly impacted by a
9:34 pm
responsive to commissioner melgars comments about the thinking equalities and who shows up and know the planning code in and out and which sections of the planning code requests the policies for other neighborhood i can tell you looking at the bayview it is tough not a lot of advocates and to understand the planning code and understand how they can interpret the process so the policies how the neighborhood get shifted is in the planning code doing the simplification i understand it maybe put out a call and say hey, we'll be reorganization for article 7 they have none none will show up i think that is the service of those communities to make the code easier to read third street will be completely we thought in the next few years not like
9:35 pm
generations third street will be completely rethought there needs to be advocates to read the planning code and understand what the definitions are and whether those definitions are representative of the neighborhood and right now it is so complex that anybody who is taking a toll hold and try to do something good for the neighborhood will not be able to do that you know not anybody sitting out through this is you know maybe a couple of people but that's about it to me i did not say it strong enough in my comments but what you said that was what i was thinking about this is about equity and having a few neighborhoods that know how to do that we need a simpler planning code so people can be part of the progress that's why
9:36 pm
i want to move forward it can be easier and you go forward from there. >> thank you commissioner moore. >> i'm of a slightly different mindset when it comes moving forward i think the department as spent a lot of time and money on the commission is raising questions at least to me why not to move forward i assume the vote is here to support as it moves forward i hope as it goes to the board of supervisors the detailed questions of concern literally expressed by every commissioner for or against will be documented so that the supervisors pass that as ann as a tool to see the nuances in our responses. >> thank you commissioner melgar. >> i'm sorry, i judge have one question it is something said was not what i understood
9:37 pm
from you earlier which was that what we're talking about for nearing and terryville and n judah is changes on their own not precipitated i will the article 7 the cu requirement for ncds actually was because we were whooip out something did i get that wrong. >> that was done prior and because the definition of what a active storefront was thanks- >> at a previous ordinance it is as long back story we told the previous supervisor not to control ncds in her district we'll pies that we missed that it was changed the intention to require a cu for ncd in those district by requiring a conditional use for anything on
9:38 pm
an actual use in 2014 we did a large report on medical cannabis dispensaries in the city we recommended to normalized the use in the districts to create the district and require them to have transparency so we wander the supervisors we're trying to work with the new supervisor in order to put that regulation back in place. >> hope that answers your question. >> yeah. if per approving today, we're approving something that is not you know, i actually think that alone requires for discussion given what was going on you know ♪ commission i mean - >> this goes to the equity of
9:39 pm
distribution across the city and i august with you it was a control that was taken out in a previous ordinance that ordinance will put that back. >> supervisor tang raw can introduce an ordinance to put it back. >> i guess gesture to her i said oh, this article 7 i'll put it in there i reject saying that that makes the conversation more complicateed. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you. any additional commissioner comments. >> commissioner johnson. >> i'd like to adapt a recommendations for approval i believe the staff change to allow - can you come up i can read it from the packet but you're here.
9:40 pm
>> the. >> staff represents approval with modifications those administrations will continue to review and refine the proposed ordinance to make sure the land use controls will be maintained we're allowed to make non-substantive changes the city attorney is good at telling us when we are doing that sometimes, the change it not a change to the land use we specifically are calling out to maintain the planning code we can amended the planning code to do that. >> in a substantive change to the ordinance staff what make that go change without coming back to the commission. >> exactly. >> only based on if it is a current land use we're trying to preserve. >> okay okay so i'd like to make the recommendation for approval with
9:41 pm
that change thank you. >> second. >> shall i call the question? commissioners. >> please. there is a motion that has been seconded to adopt the recommendations for approval with staff modifications with the subjective changes to maintain the land use control commissioner fong commissioner koppel commissioner melgar no commissioner moore no commissioner president hillis so moved, commissioners, that motion passes 4 to 2 with commissioner melgar and commissioner moore voting against. >> commissioners, that places you under your the fiscal year 2017 and 2019 it possible presentation. >> good afternoon, commissioners for the record john rahaim we're at budget yet and seems like we were here a month ago and indeed
9:42 pm
back i'll not make most of presentation but leave that to the finance manager the first place in about 6 years no new revenue growth in the department we have sfwlooichlthsd record level we're consistent with last year's revenues but we are seeing no additional growth that combined with the additional costs related to labor costs and other costs at the city level we're more caution than we have been in terms of taking on new you'll hear the mayors bucket direction we're not permitted to add new positions we can replace open
9:43 pm
positions but not allowed to add new positions the budget you'll see proposed for next fiscal year is on par with this year's budget in terms of revenues and we will ton to monitor the next few months to where the next project applications come in but just could reiterate we have peaked out for now from the last several years with that, i would ask dementia to. >> good afternoon. i'm deborah i'm here to present our proposed budget i'm going to walk through the current year projections we have a motion and a second be bagging our budget we're proposing and the division work program staffing and i will with calendar to remind you of what the next month's look like and wanted to let know we
9:44 pm
presented at historic preservation commission yesterday and they did not have any amendments or changes to what we're proposing here today and i will mention this again we'll be returning in two weeks in you have any requests to make changes to the budget we will take into account incorporate our feedback and then have time to come back with that presentation for you, we have to summit to the mayor's office okay there are two items we want to bring up are general citywide related items we we have a financial system city that is decades old we are in the process of replacing it we'll see changes i want to bring this
9:45 pm
up for the current year the formulate and presentation should look familiar but in the next several my goodness months we'll be incorporating in future presentations we bring to you as director rahaim just mentioned the mayor's budget instructions no new position and a 3 percent reduction in general plans to luckily we're mostly a self-supporting department the figure we made the reductions ♪ proposal $51,000 for each fiscal year and again is because we've received little general plan support bans our self-supporting nature the current year record high this is not budgeted projected
9:46 pm
revenue our actuals are going to come in as you can see $3.2 million shy of our budget has been and so we will reduce our expenditures to match that we within our actually revenues for this year and when we put together the budget for next year it looks like within the department as well citywide there is this trend of growth so next year's budgeted we'll project this year's tussles >> looking at the dollars and looking at the volume the volume is just slightly lower end up with the year slightly lower than last year the revenues are slightly last year the volume was lower and mentioned we are
9:47 pm
seeing on overall plat you but as you can see from the picture we're looking at record high numbers over the same level will continue in the future budget year. >> given this assumptions we're proposing a budget with the revenues here for all to be approximately $47.9 million mostly the for services the fees and what we bring into work we do in the planning department
9:48 pm
so we anticipated revenues are pronged to decreasied not as muh as you might expect given the current year incorporate the cpi adjustments the consumer price index will adjust our numbers that is something we will do across the board and our grant portfolio we are hopefully and anticipate one and a half million dollars in grant, of course, many of those applications are not submitted yet that number may changes in the fiscal year once we're going and get the applications out and the responses this is what we anticipate to receive the office of citizen complaints
9:49 pm
funding level as you can see is approximately the same and development impact fees we have 3 big projects in the current year recommending to contributing and portsmouth square were the two biggest ones and also - that's the doctor about $2 million a one time funding for the projects that came from impact fees the expenditure research other is remaining the same and the general plan general fund is automatic claublthd after salary and benefits increases are input that number will go up the budget system clakdz automatically balances against the cost increases put sglooifrnthsdz that the system gave us as opposed to to
9:50 pm
the year budget a lot of times people like to talk about the grants so i put a slide in her and sheila here if you have additional questions later she'll come to speak she's the grant manage for the department and has detailed knowledge the one thing to note here is that the two the first 5 will probably look familiar and the bottom of the list are new grant we'll be politically for the department didn't currently have and not received previously this is exciting to have couple possible funding sources for some of the work. >> this budget shows what we'll
9:51 pm
be doing with the phone money the vast majority is going to salary and fringe that is the personal costs for the department the overhead number is a number calculateed the county wide allocation is something that each department pays into so not a cost that we effect that cost is told to us
9:52 pm
the non-personal services a change there that change is mostly duo to a reduction in contract outside and so that reduction is to match the decreased revenue budget we're projecting so again, the budget we're putting in for revenue is to match our year tussles to the budget will the tussles had remain the same this is the area we're making a vast difference the materials and supplies goes down because one time costs generally related to staff and technology and those one time costs are not there we see a reduction in supplies and materials as well capital outlay and equipment is anything that is not that is all enough to be considered supplies things to like servers for example, they are more expensive than 5 thousand dollars there's a excuse me - a cap for materials and supplies the because of equipment project is the change here is actually not related to a change in anything we're doing in the budget so much as we're doing in the department so that's a change in where you'll see the expenses in the budget
9:53 pm
the cost there here is already a cost we're paying related to the staffing we have for the backlog of the abatement and the salary line is showing in the project line the continuous of what we're doing a change in where the number shows up and the services in other departments that is what we pay the other city departments like rent and e-mail and there are some changes we're proposing most notely hoping to decrease our what we call work orders with the department of human services to reflect our actual services use an agreement that we have with the court that we are hoping to extend so we can get the funding into two fiscal years instead of one fiscal year
9:54 pm
we can continue that same project with them and then additionally, there is the agreement with them we want to reflect our actual costs that fabulous we're hoping will come down and we are proposing that in the budget. >> i'm going to get into staffing in a minute i see other areas people like to talk about the changes so one thing i want to note we have to put a number of new positions in the current fiscal year we always put new positions as a portion of the whole the hiring didn't happen the first day so our budget increased by 4.7 ftes for the annualtion of those positions on that budget went up 4 about the 78 over the
9:55 pm
current year budget they we were able to make reductions around the attrition changes that did bring us down so let me take you to the picture that looks almost ideal with the staffing projection as the director mentions we're not proposing new positions we're hoping to repurpose to the existing vacant positions one for a development agreement and the other to add a staff member at the pick but again as you can see it is essential the same make up this year and we're proposing for next year - what the divisions do i
9:56 pm
brought in the work program slides you'll notice the numbers for the ftes for budget and the fte in the work program are slightly different that's because the budget assumes a vacant throughout the year from people changing jobs and turnover and the work program assumes that people will be doing this work so if someone is in the spot right now they'll keep on doing it those numbers will be higher than the budget the fte numbers this is really getting into more the reflection of what the distributions e divisions do i believe we have staff here if you have questions about the activity the current planning the largest division the vast majority of work for the processing and, of course, the historic preservation commission and i
9:57 pm
think public information and the process maintenance improvement and management and administration it is where the current planning division work will be dedicated as proposed for the next year citywide although fewer people are many more categories to go through the first slide are the ongoing work the core will functions things like that that the updates and the policy zoning area plans the information analysis group is a lot of data crunching and city design and, of course, the administration and then the second slide the citywide here - is these are the initiative that i do want to point out a couple of them the title has changed the same initiative emerging southeast
9:58 pm
has been called the next generation and civic center the heart of city and the work activity my understanding continue and updated name but we have 3 new initiative they're proposing in the next fiscal year 6, 7 and 8 housing for all and advancing community pick. >> and getting now onto the environmental planning the environmental application review for both private sponsors and the process maintenance and review and management and administration and zoning we have the zoning administration and the code enforcement with the ones in
9:59 pm
place a. >> the administration has a droshgdz office a range of activities and people including the communication and special projects and admin and financial supervisors and it operations and the commission office probably the one you're most familiar with. >> so that's the broad overview of the budget. for the fiscal year 2016-2017 and 2018-2019 next year we'll come back with the changes we'll develop about a year from now by the way, because we have the rolling system we have both years proposed right now and we will get 2017-2018 fixed at the end of that process and 2018-2019 we can change afterward as the director said we're proposing to base next year's budget on the tussles and
10:00 pm
2014, 2015 should mirror the adjustment for dbi and that's it we'll be back in two weeks and also be presenting to the historic preservation commission one more time in two weeks ago and then we submit to the mayor's office february 21st been a few months of back and forth with the mayor's office and the board of supervisors and the entire city has the budget in july >> i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> and we'll come back. >> we'll take public comment first but maybe commissioners questions opening it up for public comment i've got two speaker cards georgia swedish and tom if anywhere else want to speak