Every bus. There was a driver and a conductor. They all made incomes good enough to raise families on. Then, you know, so thats so thats the problem with the housing right there. You cant what i think is that, im representing a demographic thats below the demographic this project recent project we just talked about is made for. Maybe the upper third of the people i represent might have a chance to get into that housing. But, you know, probably not. Making it worse is that the people who are in that 100 of Median Income range, 125 , theyre taking up the housing that the lower demographic used to live in, for instance, the president of the board of supervisors. So what im saying is i want to put a marker out there and say if were going to do things like mission rock project, we have to do more than that. The Behavioral Health component that somebody mentioned right now, thats kind of what im talking about. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please. If there are any other members what who would like to address the board, now is your opportunity. Were pushing the limits. Overhead, please. Timing is almost everything. I may have blown the time. Tell the guys at the giants thats me in 1955 after they won the i was all decked out. You might say i was baptized a giant back in new york. So im partial to them. Heres another photo. Thats the health club. They were a mom and pop Marijuana Club that got knocked out four or five years ago when the last feds moved in. They were the oldest club. Thats the love shack. Thats where i can go and i can get weed out of a jar. Its not its not packaged in a package like this. It is fresher. If you went to the building and you bought all of your ingredients in plastic wrapped in plastic, thats the difference of what the feds are doing. So basically, growers that like to grow their weed and make a gift of it cant do that anymore. Were losing moms and pops. The brothers have been doing brownies for 10 or 15 years. They may lose out because of the new ingredients. I brought in a couple of joints last time. Those joints would last me two weeks. They cost about 20 each. A cigarette is smoked within ten minutes, 40 minutes later you need another one and its destructive. We need to take marijuana away from its being a radioactive. Its a help to living. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Madam president. Thank you. Are there any other members of the public who would like to provide Public Comment . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Madam clerk, read the items for adoption without reference to committee. Items 46 through 48 with being considered for adoption without committee reference. These may be approved by a single roll call vote. Otherwise, a member may have an item considered separately. Okay. Madam decker, on the item, supervisor peskin. I would like to sever item 48. On the remaining items, madam clerk, call the roll [ roll call ] there are 9ayes. Madam clerk call item number 47. Item 48 is the resolution to designate michael rios of the city and counsel ameritus. Apologies. I neglected when we honored mr. Rios. Supervisor pes kin. Thank you supervisor ronen. Can we take this item same house same call. Its adopted unanimously. Madam clerk, read the in memorium. The late dr. Jack mcconnell, on behalf of supervisor cohen and supervisor safai for jeremy gordon. And supervisor breed. And president breed. On behalf of supervisor cohen for the late mr. Jeremy gordon. Thank you, madam clerk. Is there any other business before us today . That concludes our business for today. Thank you, everyone. We are adjourned. Seniors in that area, they cant climb stairs and you dont have any wheelchair access for any handicap so its like discriminating against handicap people. How are they going to get their hair done, whatever they want to do in this location . And its not a good i thought if you have street most of the commercial places that have hair salons and stuff like that, at street level, you can see from outside. So, this location you cant see anything from outside. You have to climb stairs to get to this shop. So, thats my, you know, i know a lot of seniors in that location. Its like theyre being discriminated against because you dont have any access for them to get to. And its already, like i said, a hair salon a few doors from this location. Why would you want to put another hair salon in the same location . This is up by van ness and chestnut. Theres not many Commercial Area in that location. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Any additional Public Comment on the items proposed for continuance . We have a motion and a second. Does that still stand . Ok. Yes. All right. So, to call the roll [roll call] motion passes. All right. And so item three has been continued until february 22. So well take that matter up again then. And well continue item 2b to march 8 also. Thank you. Commissioners, so that brings us to your consent calendar. All matters listed under here and under constitute a consent calendar considered to be routine by the Planning Commission and may be acted upon by a single roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the commission, the public or staff so request and in which event the matter shall be removed from the consent item and shall be considered as a separate item at this or future hearing. Any Public Comment on item four or five . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Commissioner koppel . Permission to remove items fours and five. Second. Ok. Commissioners, so we received a motion to approve items fours and five. [roll call] so moved. Items fours and five pass. This brings us to item c on your calendar. Commission matters. So item number seven is consideration of adoption of the draft minutes from the january 25, 2018 calendar. Any public sdmenlt seeing none, well close Public Comment. Commissioner rich ars . Move to approve. Second. Received a motion and a second. [roll call] item number eight, commission comments and questions. Commissioner moore. Youre still sitings on the Regional Housing discussion group, correct . The apac board, yes. I have a question. I read in the paper yesterday that there are 376 units in melbray called the gateway, with no knowledge to the public continue to be pushed out and not being built. If im correct that the Bayview Project did not get its approval from city council regarding the building on housing, but are opting for office instead. I think you mean that the latter you mean brisbane . Brisbane is what i said. First is melbray, the second one is brisbane. My question to you is, as we are week after week being bombarded with ever more difficult obligations to meet housing goals, particularly on the affordable end, as were discussing the balance between workplace and housing, how come that these communities who really dont have any notable, larger projects contributing to the Regional Housing, how are they able to continue to avoid stepping up to the line . How do they do that . I share your frustration and concern. As you know, we the reality is that zoning and by California Law is up to each municipality. And the brisbane project, the latest on the brisbane project, and the late zest 4500 units, and they have asked the study is 2,000 units, i think. Just as reminder, it is a 700acre site. So, it is a site that could accommodate thousands of units of housing and there is also a caltrain station on that site. But on the unfortunate reality i shouldnt say that, the reality is local municipalitis are in total control of zoning and they have the ability to say yes or no. The brisbane site isnt even currently zoned for housing so they would have to change the zoning. But it is it is regional challenge that everyone is very concerned about. The sum total of what i hear the general opinion in brisbane to be is that office is more profitable and if youre supposed to rezone for a higher and better use, better means more return on land value, then obviously anybody would opt out to choose the higher returning land use. That call being office. I heard that same concern, yes. Just to express my frustration, can we develop mechanisms to slow down our own processes a little bit . Because i believe were running into real serious problems. One meeting the goal but also being forth at a much more rapid pace to achieve them. There would need to be a larger policy discussion about what we do as a city and response to the region. I will say that the second version of plan bay area was adopted about four months ago, i think. And it does call for over 4,000 of units of housing on the brisbane site. And that was done over the objections of the mayor and council of brisbane at that hearing. But there is still nothing to compel them to approve that housing. And we can certainly agendaize a discussion of the regional issues. Weve had this before. But a response to what others are doing in the region. Commissioner richards . I have several things. Ill try to be brief. I attend senator weiners town hall meeting on a warm, hot saturday and i stood for two hours . A packed room hearing about land use issues related to sb27. One of the things i did say is what i keep saying here and for anybody that listens. I talk about the entilement. Pipeline, and i went into all the different breakdown. And somebody came up to me later on and said hey, why do you keep doing this . Its like you dont support any additional upzoning . I said no, it adds context to the discussion, but it is identifying an issue as to the question needs to be asked is why were not building the housing that sits here thats entitled. Some of it was entitled many years ago. A couple of the things that were on my mind is we have a public bank discussion coming and there is a task force thats been formed for it. I would love to have the task force or have this commission write to the task force and maybe say the role of the public bank is to finance these projects having trouble getting financing. I know theres infrastructure issues. We cant build houses without roads and electrical hook ums and all that. On Treasure Island has some issues. Maybe speeding up funding or some type of a bond measure for infrastructure to get these projects jumpstarted. There is 30,000 units sitting there. And then also, i guess talk regionally as the director and commissioner moore said i keep mentioning a marshal plan for housing. It is not a 100 million or 200 million project, its in the billions and potentially there could be some type of renalal regional solution here and get it on the ballot like the bart i believe it is in november. Second item, the new topics of discussion at senator weiners town hall is sb827, which is a Transit Oriented Development measure that rezones the entire city of San Francisco. We asked Annemarie Rogers two weeks ago to come up with a memo on how that would impact San Francisco and she did a really great job of what was in our packet just today. I didnt get a chance to read it. Im sure it is online for the public to be able to look at. What id like to do is, during the town hall meeting, i brought up several issues to the senator and he started to write them down and he says why doesnt the Commission Send me a letter . So instead of me sending a letter, i think we should have an informational, have some Public Feedback and the commission should figure out what areas we support, what areas were concerned with and send a letter over to senator weiner and assembly man ting. And i hope that we could do that. Ill read this and i hope the public reads it. A couple of other things. It was a week for publicity on retail. I went to a neighbourhood meeting last night for Eureka Valley and the entire hour and a half we talked about retail vacancies. So, in tuesdays chronicle, the front page of the bay area section, the struggle to survive. Read it. Its cut and paste for pretty much any neighbourhood in the city these days and buried inside was the board of supervisors wants to focus on vacant storefronts. That is number one. Number two, and then yesterday, formula retail laws are dead end for business. And i thought it couldnt get any better and we had brokaw stewart talk about commercial landlords stealing San Franciscos soul today. I think there is a lot of discussion around retail. My neighbourhood where im at in the upper market has had some retail [inaudible] for six, seven years since the projects have been built and nothing is coming. I think we need to we have this on our action item list. Not just to help prioritize this at the time we prioritize the list, but it is a raelz topic of discussion today even at the board of supervisors. Thank you. Commissioner fong . Thank you. I just wanted to follow up on commissioner richards first piece and i very much appreciate your enthusiasm and house deep you dig into these items and often speak in public about them or individual project sponsors. And i agree with you many of these things are up for discussion, should be discussed. I also want to be careful that anything that you may have a feeling about is not represented as the entire commission absolutely. I realise the action you are requesting is for us to discuss it and then from there, create a position. But i think it is important that we maintain our independence as commissioners and that we dont speak necessarily for others without having that absolutely. I realise you are asking for that. Thanks. Commissioners, if there are no other further comments, well move on to department matters. Number nine, the directors announcement. Thanks, rich. Commissioner, i was going to call to your attention this memo that annemarie and josh wrote. You just received it today. I would encourage you to read it. It is a thorough analysis of the effects of potential effects of sb827 as its currently written and if you would like to have a hearing in the future, were happy to schedule that in a reasonable timeframe. So let us know if you want to do that. Yeah. I think we would. Ok. Well get that scheduled. That is all i have for today. Thank you. So, well moves on to item number 10. Review of past veterans at the board of supervisor, board of appeals and Historic Preservation commission. Good afternoon, commissioners. The manager of leaptingive affairs for the planning domestic. Excuse me. At this weeks land use committee, the Committee Held a combined hearing dealing with the citys vacant and abandoned property, which was called by supervisor fewer, ronan and yee and on the state of the citys retail sector, called by supervisor tang. This is in reference to commissioner richards. At the hearing representatives from the office of budget and legislative analysis, oed planning and d. B. I. Presented. A similar report focusing more on land use but also well go into some of the other issues before this commission on february 22. So, youll have an opportunity to discuss it then as well. In addition to the committee members, tang, safai and kim, board members, stefani and yee were also in attendants constituting a special meeting at the bore. Committee members expressed concern about the perceived high vacancy rate and concern over the changing nature of retail. They also had some questions of planning staff regarding possible district changes and tough questions for the department of building inspection, which is in charge of enforcing our vacant building registry. There are also several speakers during Public Comment. They mainly focus on neighbourhood individual issues. At the end of the hearing the vacant abandoned property hearing was continued to call to the chair so d. B. I. Could gather more information to present to the committee at a later date and the hearing was heard and filed. Next on the agenda was mayor ferrells ordinance that would establish the special district. This was continued from last week so that language could be drafted to include the commissions recommendation. That inclusionary rate be increased from 18 to 23 and that the project be required to have four [inaudible] spaces. At the hearing, the drafted language was added to the unanimous vote. There was a good deal of Public Comment on this ordinance, all of which was in support of the item. After Public Comment, the committee continued the item to the following week because the amendments were substantive. Finally, the Committee Heard the planning and zoning amendments. Commissioners, you heard this item on october 5 of last years and unanimously recommended approval. At the hearing, editors from the s. F. Giants, the port, m. T. A. And planning staff presented on the item. During Public Comment, about 13 people spoke in favour of the proposed project and one person in opposition. After Public Comment, vice chair kim amended the ordinance to remove a provision that allowed hotels up to 300 rooms in location in which residential uses are permitted. This motion was unanimously approve. The committee then voted to recommend the item to the full board. At the full board this week, the inclusionary Affordable Housing programme amendments proposed by supervisor peskin received its first read in past and adopted the finding reduces the exemption for 2417 green street and that is all i have for you today. Thank you. So, as far as i know there are no other items reported on the board of appeals and then regarding the Historic Preservation commission, they did host their elections and elected Andrew Wolfman to continue as president as well as aaron highland to continue as vice president. Well move on to general Public Comment. 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 of the commission, exempt 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 for up to three minutes. I have a couple of speaker cards. Tess, george, laura, and if others would like to speak, please line up on the screen side of the room. Go ahead, jeremy. Or tess. Yes. Tess, why dont you start . Ok. Thank you, sir. Im delighted to hear that the commission is thinking about sb827. I look forward to reading the memo. Weve got look more at the jobshousing balance, too, because just adding housing to San Francisco, while a god thing, doesnt take into account the issue about commercial. And if you keep approving many, many new jobs without taking and making sure that housing is built for it, or conversely if we can only build so many housing unit, then stop approving so many commercial units. It seemed like that we have to do that. 827, it occurs to me that it would override local zoning and indlaouds destruction of existing sound housing, rentcontrolled housing in probably most cases. We values to look at the carrying capacity of San Francisco. You know, how many people can we hold here . My own guess is about a million, but there are those who want to see quite a bit more than that. Lets look at also what is in the carrying capacity of transportation, of parks and entertainment. How many people can we have here . I appreciate that youve started to look at this already and id like to see how you can either advocate on your own or advocate to the supervisors and other parties to make sure that this legislation is either amended or replaced. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon. Thank you for mentioning 827. I was going to look for it online. I know that the officers met on the 31st. You mentioned it on the 25th of january and then it was in the action item list. I dont know if you are going to release a memo on that. But your officers and the b. I. C. Officers, it was public information. I just would be curious. Maybe you dont have to, but im curious. Sorry. I missed that. What was the question . Well you met with the b. I. C. S officers on the 31st. Well have a joint hearing. I know. But i didnt know if you had any memo to release on it. But as a prelude to the joint hearing, i firmly recommend that you watch the hearing on the 17th of january, the folks who are in the back were there. And it was quite a hearing about demolitions. It was mostly on the j. K. Denine article. S what i came to talk about today are these two projects near me. This one is on chavez. There it was before overhead, please. Hello. You can see there is three buildings like that. It look like fred and wilma flintstone, but theyre still nice buildings. Here it is under construction. Ors destruction. It was an alteration. There was no d. R. There it is. Today. Pretty much almost done. You can see it there. I guess my point is there were no demo calcs with that in the 311 that went out. Same is true, this one which to me is even worse on duncan because its got an ad. Well, first of all, it says in the 311 proposal to add a third floor existing twostorey Single Family residence but on the 311, it lists two addresses and the pin has the two address and now it is for sale, entitlements. I mentioned this before but had to mention it before. The entilementment is being sold and here it is there. And also there is another picture of it there. See . And here it is in the block in the context and all of these are little houses with little extensions. Yeah. This ones pretty big. But that was done in the 1990s, prior to 317. So, there they are. It is a row of them. And the Building Department put a notice of violation on it. But nothings happened with that yet. So i dont know. And it still hasnt happened. I looked this morning on the tracking thing. So, again, entitlements,s so there it is. I dont know what planning is going to do about it, but its got all the pieces. No demo cal, cans, just like today, your 3drs, there are no demo calcs in front of you. Im not saying theyre demolitions, but theyre no demo calcs, but something to say about. And do watch that hearing if you have a chance. Good afternoon, commissioners. Jeremy paul. Id like to make some comments about city planning procedural issues. First a compliment. I submitted a conditional use application this morning. Were using the brand new intake format. And i think it is a really good change from the previous forms that were being used and i want to congratulate the clerical staff for being much more helpful and knowledgeable than theyve really have been in the past and its really a good thing for the department. Ments and now for a criticism of the department. And i dont know if there are any john oliver fans on this commission. But you might know of a campaign he started against a common practice in the southeastern states of the United States he calls the fbarrel. Ill leave out the word. Where municipal fees are charged for one thing or another that put people in a trap that they can never get out of and often end up with bail issues or funding issues. People lose their homes or child custody because theyre never given an opportunity to cycle out of debt created by a municipal agency. And i never thought it would happen like that in San Francisco with the Planning Department, but i think it is. I want to tell you about a situation if i can go to the overhead, please. This is from the 1976 historic survey. This is a garden wall at the corner of lake and 17th. And the field notes say garden wall and landscaping are best features of this development. So the Property Owner went to the Building Department and said, look, my garden wall is falling over and there is a public right of way there. What do i need to do . And they said, well, you dont need a permit to fix that. They sent him to city planning. Public information counter pretty much confirmed that he is allowed to do what he needs to do this. Here is the replacement. Exactly in kind. Its not black and white. He did not replace the entry gate. Just the Property Line fence. He received a notice of enforcement of for 1300 requiring him to file if an application with a variance. He filed the variance. He was told the variance wasnt complete. He probably needed to bring in a professional or Something Like that. For a variance. Why does he need variance . Fees for variance and for the costs involved, maybe 5,000. So he said no, i want to challenge the requirement for violation or requirement for a permit for this. In other words to do that, he needs to pay 1300. To get a zoning administrators reconsideration of the violation. Thank you very much. The fbarrel comes to San Francisco. Thank you, mr. Paul. Next speaker, please. Im daniel. Im the owner of the property that mr. Paul was just speaking about and id just like to add a little bit to what he has said. The property with its lets see. Will this work . Yes. If you look down the street, down the two streets, you will see that the setback the sidewalk is much wider on our property, three times as wide as it gets further down the block. Houses further down the block are flat up against the sidewalk. There is much more room on this sidewalk, much more what i would call a setback than exists anywhere down the block. And yet im told the setback isnt enough. I was told that the variance was declined because i needed elevations for the fence. And elevations for the house. I would have to hire an architect to do all this. I was sent to the help desk where i talked to heidi. She said, well, first of all, one of these is the side fence and, therefore, the setback doesnt apply. So, you dont need to worry about that. She said since the fence is already built, you dont need elevations. You just need careful photographs of it. And maybe just floor plans for the first floor would do. I took that back to my contact at planning. No. No. No. Heidis totally wrong. I feel like alice in wonderland. I dont know where to turn here. And from my perspective, the rotting timbers that caused the fence to begin to fall over and cause me to rebuild the fence, well thats an act of god. That is not my fault. They were mounted in concrete and yet over the 50 to 100 years that this fence has existed, they rotted. I did my best, my level best to preserve what is. This is exactly what used to be. Absolutely. And the Planning Department, ms. Berger and the Planning Department acknowledges that it is exactly the way it used to be. The problem is that i didnt repair, i rebuilt. Mercy. Please. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Im Gwendolyn Rosalyn and im here to say that the fence that was built is identical in character to the fence that was there then and the fence that was there was already old and not in perfect condition. The hinges to the gates are rusty. All we did was replace what would otherwise have fallen apart. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. [coughing] good afternoon, commissioners. Im stephanie peak and i live at 3517th avenue which is next door to 25 17th avenue, one of the projects written about by j. K. Denine in that recent San Francisco chronicle article about illegal construction in the city. As my neighbours and i did more research about our unfortunate circumstance, weve come in exact other residents all over the city, fighting virtually the same set of circumstances. Inaccurate plans, work beyond the scope of permits and work without permits. All of which have become a purposeful method of conducting business in San Francisco. It has become apparent to us that this is not a rare occurrence but wrather and em. Democratic. Epidemic. The submission of inaccurate plans centres around the Planning Department because it is the Planning Department that is the first agency that fully reviews plans and it is the planning code that bases many of its rules on how existing circumstancess are portrayed. You heard neighbours around 214 state street tell you of the grade lines that were grossly misportrayed to extend the excavation and you may recall the project is at 116th 20th avenue where the adjacent building walls were grossly misrepresented. In the case of 25 17th avenue, it was the illegal removal of a large threestory bay and then the drawing of the building without the bay that prompted the city to recognize the existence of two lots instead of one. Had the drawing portrayed the legal building envelope, two lots would not have been recognized because that bay crossed what the city now says is a Property Line. In other words, the submission of false plans resulted in the city subdividing a lot. What you may not know is what you see is just the tip of the iceberg. Many plans are submited with adjacent buildings portrayed larger than they really are or without windows to prompt a speedy approval by the planner. By the time the d. R. Is filed, most sponsors clean up the worst of the inaccuracies and neither they or the planners disclose how inaccurate the plans were when the Design Review decisions were made. Some planners are vigilant about spotting and correcting errors. Others, like the steiner case, the planners say it is not their job to correct. So it doesnt seem to be any procedure around this issue. As my neighbour explained to you several weeks ago, there is no penalty whatsoever for the submission of false plans. Today you will be deciding the budgets and work programme. We ask that you include a programme to get to this bottom of this issue and stop it. The practice of sub mitting inaccurate plans for its architects that are honest hurts National Conventions and makes a mockery of planning regulations and everyone in the city should have to play by the same set of rules. Thank you for listening. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon, commissioners. I wanted to update you on the results of our complaint to the Sunshine Ordinance Task force about the Planning Department not providing the rhca with requested documents on 60 russell. Between march 17, 2016 and march 31, 2017 four requests for documents related to six [inaudible]. On august 3, 2017, after our hearing before you on 60 russell, a 30plus page project review document authored in 2014 suddenly appeared on the related documents link on the Property Information map. After much review, Commission Manager Christine Silva explained, quote, there was a bug on our website which was not correctly exposing documents. Classified as internal review developments. We dont believe that the Planning Department staff deliberately withheld this pivotal document and we thank mr. Ionam for acknowledging the Planning Departments failure to meet the sunshine ordinance requirements. But the problem here is that this happens with regularity in the Planning Department. There is an online Property Information map which allows all relevant documents to be up loaded for public access. The manner which staff uses the system is haphazard at best n. This case, a planner left the department and the record disappeared for two years, unavailable either online or through sunshine request until after all four hearings were finished. Until there is an exmy sit directive from the planning director that requires all planners to place all or most documents on the information map, the punt will continue suffer through a lack of what should be publicly available documents. The lack of these documents results in land use decisions based on incomplete or misleading information. The full task force sent the complaint back to the compliance and Amendments Committee to assure that all records have been provided. And back to the education outreach and Training Committee to, quote, review the departments procedures policy and training to ensure that public records are being made available to the public in a timely manner. We intend to continue to work with the sunshine committees to follow through on this. Worth noting is that ms. Silva reported that approximately 1300 other documents were not posted. We dont know how many of those documents were subject to a request. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon. Todd david on behalf of the San Francisco Housing Action coalition. So after last weeks hearing, i had a conversation with lots of people about the desire for more housing there. I was pretty strong am a current strong supporter. I think it would explain what was a new i. A. R. , what is the current there will likely be some type of legal action. So really if we wanted to add more housing, how much more time would we really be adding to the overall plan, perhaps it would be a really long time and people would say, like, no. Lets move forward. Its already been a long process. Maybe it would be like, you know w the legal action that is going on, we might be able to add additional housing and continue to have the amount of commercial property there also. So i think its just one of those things that maybe it would help inform future dialogue on that plan. So its one thing. The other thing that i understand is there is going to be a joint Commission Hearing with b. D. I. One of the things that weve been looking at is the incredible cost incredible high cost of construction. In San Francisco and throughout the bay area. And one of the things that weve been looking at and speaking to members of city hall about is the potential use of mass timber used in europe and canada and it could help bring down the cost of construction. I think something that were all interested in saying to help things pencil out. It would be interesting to add that as an issue to be discussed at the joint hearing. Anyway, thank you. Thank you. Laura clark. There was some interest earlier in hearing about brisbane. I was wondering if there could be an update on brisbane and state we were going to have hearing on the regional issues coming up shortly. There were questions specific. Is this eating into my time because ill shut up about it. If you have question, we will ask them. I have updates on the legal aspect of brisbane if anybody wants it. If you want to do the overhead. So, theres been increasing conversation about jobs housing balance a lot. And about where were building. And about how most of our existing pipeline, especially whats supposed to be coming online is concentrated in a few large projects. While a few large projects gate lot of attention, they are really fundamentally a dangerous thoing rely upon for our housing as example with the upcoming issues with the shipyard. We dont know how long these big, large projects are going to take. They involve a lot of complex financing and deal making. They take a long time. And they are big headaches. And meanwhile, we are missing out on a lot of housing that could be built in other neighbourhoods. Small projects should be the bread and butter of this Planning Commission. They should be things that are expedited through the process. This is where were missing the missing middle. We are not doing equity of development. We are asking almost all of the housing to be built in a single district, in district six and a little bit in district 10 and the further out the pipeline as it goes forward continues to double down on that policy. And meanwhile, we are continuing a history of red lining. More than onethird of our city is zoned Single Family home only. Deliberately exclusionary where we are not allowed to add apartments. And we have a lot of opportunity in those places for doing the kind of gentle infill that we all say we want, the call, reserved, the not shouting about 50story towers. Were talking about six story walkup apartments, the kind of stuff we used to build but we do not anymore because we have outlawed it. We said the development has to take place in historically lowincome and minority communities where were allowed to build the giant towers and were not asking all these out lying districts to take on their fair share. And you have the opportunity here with the budget. Im going to talk about that a little bit later, but to really say how are we going to explore upzoning these outlying neighbourhoods. 827, is the state coming in and doing it for you and you have the opportunity to do it yourself. Thank you. Thank you, ms. Clark. Any additional general Public Comments . Seeing none, commissioner richards . Ms. Clark, if you could spend 20 or 30 seconds telling us about bay lands, please. Sure. Do we want it . Go ahead. Sorry. So there is talk about doing a statewide piece of legislation that would take the entire decision away from the city of brisbane and i think that makes a lot of sense. The current, as commissioner moore brought up, the current economic difference that theyre looking at, they ran a feasibility test on a project that was purely just commercial. They would make 7 million a year. The one thats mixed use office in housing, they would only make 1 million a year. And so all of the talk about every other way to look at that, they are looking at a difference of 6 million. I do not believe that the city council will be capable of saying no to 6 million and that is the way these decisions end up being made all down to south bay where we see this jobshousing imbalance so i do believe that were going to require a specific piece of legislation to be passed at the state level because theres nothing the a. H. A. Doesnt apply. There is no other way to take the decision out of them. Theres not great grounds for lawsuits. Thanks. Thank you. Ok. Commissioners, well move to our regular calendar. Item number 11, case 2017 014010crv, fiscal year 20182020 proposed Department Budgets and work programme. Final review of the departments revenue and expenditure budget. Thank you, rich. Good afternoon, again, commissioners. Were here today to ask for your approval of this years budget as a reminder that the commission has the authority to approve a budget sent to the Mayors Office on february 21 by charter at which point the mayor brings all the Department Budgets together and issues his budgets to board of supervisors later in the year. Im going to cover a few of the questions that came up last time at last weeks hearing and then have deborah landisreview the revenues and expenditures for you again. So, just as reminder, this years sbunl this years citystate. Were not seeing much of an increase or decrease from the current fiscal year. We see the revenues are flat, albeit at a very high level. But theyre relatively flat from the Previous Year or so. So on page three of your memo are a couple of items that came up last time that i just wanted to review with you quickly. One is what used to be called the preservation element of the general plan. Were referring to it as the Heritage Conservation element. Were now in the final draft form of that and it is in the process of going to the City Attorneys Office at which time after which time well start the Environmental Review which will take several months. It will be coming to you in early next year, at long last. With respect to park and auto issues, those came up a lot in our discussions both last week and in earlier weeks. But not to be encompassed with the largest Transportation Planning effort at which we will be, i think, coming up with a new hearing in the next few weeks as well and were happy to kind of cover those issues in more detail when that happens. With respect to eating and drinking uses, there are a number of code amendments at the board related to that issue. As you know, one of the challenging aspects of that issue was when does something become a restaurant versus a bar and the gross receipts tax, which is hard to enforce, while working with the board and looking at what other cities are doing in that regard and coming back to you with some ideas. The last two items are items that have come up repeatedly here at this commission in the last few months, the last couple of years. One is issues related to tenancy and the other as you heard from many members of the public on demolitions. Were currently proposing that that work encompass with current planings work. I understand that there is concern that we may be needing to add more resource to that and im happy to have that discussion as we move forward. With that, let me ask deborah to come up and just review the details of the budgets and then we can have more discussion, if you like. Thank you. Good afternoon, commissioners. Deborah landis for the Planning Department. As john said, im here to review the proposed budget. We were here a few weeks ago and in addition to next years budgets being very similar to the current years budget, also the presentation today is very similar to the one from last time. In fact, i think in the memo that you have, we noted that after the budgets system opened and we were able to make all of our entries, we ended up being 16,000 difference at the end of the day. With our numbers today from two weeks ago. So, very, very similar presentation. We do have some proposed legislation that were going to include with the budget which well review today. That has not come to you yet. And those are two items both related to fees. As he mentioned, this is the final presentation to you asking for the recommendation of approval of this budget and then we submit the budget to the Mayors Office february 21. As is required by the charter of the city and on june 1, the Mayors Office submits the budget to the board of supervisors. Through the month of june, the board has the budget and it is finalized for the fiscal year in july. So going through the Revenue Sources that we have. As you can see, we are almost entirely supported by the fees that we charge, the charges for services, which are our application and Building Permit review fees. The proposed budget is 43. 5 million for those fees that we expect to see. And that is based on the current year actuals that we are getting in the door. For grants and special revenues, were going to be applying for more grants next years than we have in recent years so were hoping to get 255 number for the grants and we had reviewed those in detail in the prior presentation so we can go over those again if youd like. Otherwise, moving on we have the intergovernmenttal revenues, which is because the formal Redevelopment Agency has been put into the city and the office of Community Investment and infrastructure in a way that they get their own line. Its very much related to expenditure recovery from other departments where we provide services for them and they pay us for the services that we provide. The Development Impact fees are going down, mostly related to the rail yard alignment study that we got onetime funding for in the current year. And that funding will not be there in the next year. We do continue to administer the area planed impact fee, committee of the Interagency Group that administers those fees. As i mentioned a second ago, expenditure recovery is when we provide services to other departments and we charge them for those services and then general fund support makes up for the rest of the revenue. We were asked to make 2. 5 reduction from the base amount of general fund support. So we did take that reduction from the base budget and for this cycle, it was about 95,000 in each year. And so all of our revenues go to paying mostly for the staff, the salaries infringe. Next years is going to be about 36. 8 million. Overhead is a number that is allocated by the controllers office. Its for countywide overhead costs. Each. Department is charged for that. And the nonpersonal services encompass everything from Software Licensing to contracts. Materials and supplies are the smaller items. So, anything less than 5,000 and less than three years for its useful life. So computer, chairs, tables, pens, capital and equipment are the things that are 5,000 or more and with the useful life of three years or more and some in the current year, we have some servers and a lot of the more expensive i. P. Costs go into that one. Project funding, this is also going down a bit. That is related to mostly around grants and onetime funding. So, for example, the rob funding is in 1718, not in 1819 but we have increased Grant Funding so that is where we budget most of the expenditures around those products. Just an overview of the position changes that weve been proposing. We have shifted for ceqa positions and they continue to do the same work. It is an organizational shift. But the work continues as it has. Were moving three positions from citywide into current planning, one from admin into citywide and proposing a new position which goes contrary to the Mayors Office instructions that no departments oppose new positions. However, weve seen an increase in accessory dwelling unit applications that require review and coming with those are increased revenue that will cover the cost of this position that were proposing. The work Overview Programme is not changing too much with a little bit of the reshuffling in there. Youll see some of those numbers changing slightly. But overall, as the director mentioned, it is steady as she goes. And then the two legislative proposals that we have are, as i mentioned, both related to funding which is why theyre part of the overall Budget Proposal and so the first is that currently we collect fees and fines from Code Enforcement that come in from all enforcement activitieses and are limited to be spent only on sign enforcement activities. Wed like to propose changing the language so that we can use all enforcement money coming in for all enforcement activities. The second is a transportation review fee. We currently have one fee, which is about 25,000 in the current year and were proposing to add a second one at a lower level for the simpler projects that require less review, which would come in just under 10,000 so that the simpler projects would havent to pay as high an amount. And this is in tandem with m. T. A. , which is also proposing to adjust their transportation review fees and the circulation review fee in partnership with us. And with that, i open it up for any questions or commentses. Thank you, ms. Landis. Well open it up first to Public Comment and then probably have questions for you. Georgia, anastasia, and jerry. For others that would like to speak, please line up on the screen sigh of the room. I was very happy last week. I watched the hearing when i was glad you mentioned the demo issue. Ms. Hestera, i want to thank her and the commission for doing it and the director for bringing it up today in that second memo. It was very good. I was confused as to who was going to deal with these issues and i know that a lot of f. T. E. S were spent last year on doing the r. E. T. And i dont know what will happen this year, but well wait and see. But my main concern today is something thwa
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.