enough about and that is loading dock and the residential usage on kate street, fire and emergency access and issues that come into play and we don't decide that at least you have a basic elementary understanding of whether or not that would pose problems in the long run. >> the loading dock, as i understand it is been in existence, so therefore it is a non-conforming use in terms of being able to load it and unload in that area. they do have a customer dock in the front in the parking lot. the environmental review for this project stated, or it is exempt from the environmental review and there is not a traffic study or any requirement for that. as far as fire and loading, we have not checked that, and that is something that is reviewed

after the approval of the conditional use. >> i am going to oppose the continuance, we have the legislation that we are responsible for and we will not always, if we are not willing to up hold in this case, then i fear, i know that one case is not supposed to set a precedent, but it will. i don't think that it is going to do something, although the

orchard will talk to people merchants will say that it is not going to effect me and it is okay if i come in there and i can buy something cheaper. as far as the other issues, like loading, if we do pass it, we can take it up in, you know, just deal with it. >> commissioner antonini. >> i don't know if we are supposed to debate a continuance. first of all a month from today and if it is okay to speak to it. i think that we have neighborhoods, stores and there are, this is a neighborhood. and but, it is also a very busy area where there is a lot of traffic, coming from other places, which has been brought

up. and there might be in the area that might drive out of the city and there is room for both and there might be a way to work something out between the merchants and the hardware owners and orchard supply. it does not hurt to have the continuance and if we come back and they have an out reach to the neighborhood and the merchants, then, it may get disapproved. >> i will not be supporting, and i think that for me, possibly a way for us to standardize the way that staff look at formula retail and we have these five retail that are standard and i have stuff use

different distances that they look at or different criteria, different ways of doing surveys. i have seen a walking survey, or something called a windshield survey, i have seen it looked at in a commercial corridor or in a zone, i think that we should look at, maybe, and i'm open to what the standard actually is. but, look at a certain radius from the site or just something standard so that we can really start to get a count of how much formula retail is around. >> these are in the umu and these were in the formula retail district and so it was easy to calculate the distance on the nc districts because they are pretty linear and the

enus are gerrymandered. we did use the district and it is possible and that is something that we can speak to scott sanchez about and that radius map is not the district as the criteria states and i understand sort of the difficulty in assessing that. that is something that we could get back to you that i wanted to clarify that. >> thank you. >> commissioner moore? >> i like to go back to geary street corridor, a few years ago, the market was slow and large and previously a formula occupied space and the formula retail comes along and we immediately says that it needs to be filled and have the vacantcy and i think that in this area, we are much likely in the different building in a slightly different market and to have the department, also from the application, look at potentially vacant buildings of this size and talk about higher

and better use would be of interest to me because as the district transforms itself and becomes the umu and takes on the more desirable qualities of the most recent plans and i would like to look at these as not as fall back positions as formula retail but potentially the next generation of innovative store or stores that we could put into them. >> commissioner, hillis? >> just, on the continuance, i mean, i, if we vote, if we vote against the continuance and we vote for the intent to deny, when is that heard next week? >> we would bring it back to you commissioners in a matter of two weeks to give the planners the chance to draft something and get it out to you, if there was some sort of a time restriction or consideration we could potentially get it to turn around. two weeks, would probably be... >> and we do like to get the

draft to you a week prior to that. >> right. >> okay. >> okay, i have a question. >> go ahead. >> on the matter of continuance, commissioners, to march 14, commissioner antonini. >> aye. >> borden? >> no. >> hillis in >> no. >> moore. >> no. >> sugaya. >> no. >> wu. >> no. >> and commissioner president fong. >> aye. >> that motion fails, commissioners, 2-5. >> if you would like we could take up the motion with the intent to disapprove. >> commissioner moore. >> i would like to restate the motion as previously stated. >> and intend to deny. >> the motion is an intent to disapprove. >> that is correct. >> commissioner antonini? >> no. >> commissioner borden in >> aye. >> commissioner hillis. >> aye. >> moore.

>> aye. >> hillis. >> aye. >> wu. >> aye. >> fong. >> no. so moved, that passes 5--2. push >> commissioners, that will place you on your final regularly calendared item, number 1 1. the fiscal year, 2013 to 2015 department budget and work program. this is an action item. >> last, but not least, commissioners, john with the planning department and we are here to ask for your approval today on our 2013, to 15, proposed budget. and keith will make most of the presentation and i did want to go with you the major changes to the budget specifically the 8 new positions that we are proposing for the next two years. and i will refer to the memo that we sent on february 4th,

on that if you have that in your packet. there are eight new positions that we are proposing that are the major changes from the current year. in the current planning, we are proposing an additional position to be a preservation compliance officer, that will work on the enforcement issues related to the historic properties in the city wide division we are looking at four new fte, roughly four to work on a number of efforts, the housing element, the monitoring requirements that have been required by the board, and the commission, over the last couple of years. to work on master plans for large publicly owned sites. to work on the urban design guidelines and to work on china town, open space planning. to work on some street scape work in the hunter's shipyard area to focus on market street

and in a position. and i have been working on this for a while and this budget allows us to do that. in the final planning we are looking at roughly two new positions, one would basically continue to work on puc projects but essentially it is a shift from the current position that is a puc position working in the department to a department employee who works on puc projects and funded by the puc and second a transportation planner that took not just on sequa but on longer range policy issues. >> and we are proposing two and a half positions next year bumping up to three in the following year for an it program, or to help on communications and the training and professional development coordinator. so those are the kind of major changes if you will. if you recall, the supplemental budget that you approved allows

for ten new positions that will, or being introduced to the board next week, i believe. and that combined with this, budget, would allow for an increase in 18 fte in the department. it takes us to about 175, or 176 positions that is a lot of staff, it is in terms of the new revenue that is coming in with the new applications and the backlog that made the front page news with the examiner but that is a real number. that 460 project backlog is the number of projects that we have not been able to spend any time on yet. that does not include the projects that are actually being worked on. that is the number of projects that are actually in the department but we have not been able to spend time on. those are need and we clearly have the revenues that are needed to support all of these

applications. with that i will turn it over to keith to give you the details and we will ask for your approval thank you. >> my name is martini is i will present, 2013, 2015 departmental budget that we will be submitting to the office next thursday. and we have the hand out that we started going through and the prior hand out was the memo that was emailed to the commissioners a few weeks ago, describing in detail the position, the new positions that we are requesting in the budget and this is just the powerpoint for today's presentation. so what i will be doing today is giving you an overview of pretty much the same material that i presented two weeks ago to this commission, and just highlighting the changes that director ram has already gone over. again, just a very high overview of the planning case

and building permit, and volume trends, that we are experiencing, our proposed revenue and expenditure budget and the grants and capitol and other questions and update to the division's work program, which incorporates the ten that we have requested through the appropriation, and the more than eight positions that the director has went through and then just an update on the budget calendar. just recapping, we did anticipate in the budget the over all volume growth of three percent and with six months of data to date, we are projecting that we will experience that 3 percent over-all department volume growth. and for the upcoming two budget years, at this time, we are

expecting flat volume growth from what we are projecting in this current year and those two far right columns are what we are projecting in the upcoming two fiscal years. >> at this time we are projecting five million of a revenue surplus in the current physical year and this additional revenue is mainly atrib able to the higher permit and the fees that we anticipate collecting from the much larger scale projects that are coming in the door which are assessed much higher fees based on the estimated construction costs of the project. upon review of the larger projects and the existing title projects are on a pipeline, we do anticipate that we will continue to the two upcoming years and not to the same magnitude that we are experiencing, in this current fiscal year. so if you look at what we are

proposing in our budget for our services for services, the fees that we assess, the next fiscal year it is just over $25 million which is actually a little bit less that what we are projecting. we are not anticipating it to be at the same magnitude that we are anticipating in this year. so in the department revenue, in that first line, we are anticipating it to increase for 19 percent, mainly atribable to the larger scale projects and the automatic consumer price indexing in the administrative code and that will be 2.58 percent, and also, an assumption about revenue that is coming in the door this current fiscal year that we will be able to defer to the next year. in 14, 15, the only change that we made for the fees to service

line is the automatic indexing. and i will go into more detail about our grant's budget which i have reviewed in the next few slides. >> on the interest side of the house, our salary and expenditure continue to be the most, it reports more than 3 quarters of the expenditures, they are ex-expected to increase, the fringe, in both fiscal year. as director rams had mentioned we are including the addition of more than 8 full time equivalent positions which the director has went through the details of in the upcoming budget, and i will highlight the director has already highlighted the position changes, but i will show you how that effects the division's work program as well. >> and there were no other changes to the expenditure budget from when i last

presented to you two weeks ago. >> i won't go into the details of the grants, but just to summarize on the status and the achievements of the department's grants program. we currently have a portfolio that has funded more than 20 projects since it began. although the department is not the lead agency on a majority of these grant funded projects, you know, more than 2.2 million dollars of grant funds go to support the work of other city agencies such as the nta or dpw, and also other local, non-profit organizations. >> they support a range of activity and we are expecting the grant revenues to increase in the upcoming two fiscal years. >> moving on to other budget requests. this table lists the capitol requests for the better market street program, and the

pavement to marks and the street tree project which we have made to the capitol planning commission and then also, a fourth item of an intent to request funding from the historic funding committee for a local committee of the guidebook and no changes from what i presented a few weeks ago. >> so now moving on to the division work program. in appendix a of the memo, for this presentation, it does give you the details behind this summary table. this table represents each of the five divisions within the planning department and what the current budgeted fte allocation is across those in the current year and what is proposed for the upcoming two budget years. so you will see that the positions are projected to increase by approximately 18 full time equivalent positions and in the first year of the two-year budget next year.

>> mainly attributable to the ten positions that we are requesting in the years in the supplemental appropriation and the new, eight, roughly eight, positions that we are requesting, which director ram has already gone through. so, excuse me, in current planning you will see the most significant increase, the most significant change from the current fiscal year to the first year of the budget, and mainly due to the positions requested through the supplemental appropriation and then also, the new positions in historic preservation which the director has mentioned as well. in the city-wide planning division, over all the fte allocation is expected to remain flat year over year and that is mainly due to one time funding we got in last year's budget cycle, four two ... four projects but he has mentioned a list of seven or eight position wheres the ftes will be allocated to work on specific

projects. environmental planning we will experience an increase due to a position requested in the supplemental as well as a three working on transportation analysis and the transfer of function from the puc and in the zoning administration, just an increase of one for the new code enforcement planner, requested through the supplemental appropriation and then in administration, again, that positions for the it programmer position to support the permit and tracking system and the development as well as communications. so, last wednesday, on february 6th, i delivered this same exact presentation to the preservation and they recommended approval for the

fiscal year, 13, 14 budget to the commission and, they did request three modifications to the department's budget which i would like to give you an overview of right now. so the first thing that they requested a modification for was to increase the department's proposed staffing allegation, for community initiated surveys and landmark designations in the department's work program in fiscal year, 13/14, we had an fte allocation of 0.05 of an fte and i requested that we increase it and in talking with the historic preservation coordinator tim fly we decided to increase it to 3.15 of an fte in 13, 14, and 14, 15. the second modification request was to identify funding sources and staff time to complete the surveys initiated by the former

redevelopment agency and at this time, the development is working with the redevelopment staff to understand what obligations might exist to continue work on these projects. the third modification request was to increase funding and find alternative funding source to pay for the second of the interior interpretations guidebook, again, the department is currently researching other resource to complete that work. with that said, i respectfully request that the planning commission approve the department's proposed 13, 15 budget, so that we can submit it to the mayor's office next thursday, that concludes our presentation and i would be happy to answer any questions that you may have, thank you very much. >> is there any public comment on this item? >> public comment is closed. >> commissioner sugaya? >> yes, thank you for that report. i am encouraged that we are

what is the right word? taking into consideration the recommendations from the preservation commission and that is very encouraging and just one comment. i think through the years, in terms of this preservation fund, this city and not just the department but city has gotten the idea that it is a pot of money to delve into when they feel there is a historic preservation project that they may want to undertake. and i have to remind the city and the mayor's office, especially, i think that this was set up initially through a loss suit that was filed privately. and settled and the money, mr. hillis knows more about it than me. i think because he is used to staff the committee. but, i think that the intent was for the funds, which do not

replicate themselves. i mean, i forget the original amount, mr. hillis, around $2 million? >> $2.5 million. >> yes. and then each time there is a grant allocation, then it gets depleted. so i think that we have to treat that some what as a priority for the community to be able to apply for funding. and that is not to say that they are not worthy city projects too. but i just want to comment on the 250. it seems aufully large to me. having dealt with design guidelines in the past and especially with respect to historic areas. and i don't want to get into a debate about it. but i would ask the department to take a more serious look at

what the ultimate cost will be. >> it is likely that some level of environmental review will be necessary, and if it is an nir it has to be more than that, but i am hopefully we will able to do it within that. >> there was one other question that a member of the public posed to me and that was apparently we are going to undertake an african american context statement for the city? that the hpc has funded. i think that there was a grant or an rfp >> i am sorry. why don't you go ahead. >> tom, the planning department. correct we went to the preservation fund a couple of days ago there was a bidder's conference and so we are in the process of selecting a contractor to do that context statement. >> and so, should that be reflected in the budget somewhere? >> so, the commissioner, the

historic fund committee that money that came out is already fully appropriate ated so there is no appropriation authority that the department needs all of that money that is sitting in the office of workforce develop and they technically move the appropriation to the department and the reason none of that is reflected in the budget is because there is no need to have all of the budget money all of that money is fully appropriated. >> thank you, commissioner moore. >> we appreciate the work and it comes together quite well. i am interested in asking on detail regarding the funding of the commissions. i see on page 7 of 7 in your first memo that you are going down in fte for the commission secretary and commission for

the planning and for the preservation from four to three if i read that correctly. could you explain that tell anywhere the actual costs were for this operation are listed? >> yes, commissioner. it is staffed at three positions as it has been and it will continue to be staffed in three positions. in the current year the reason that it shows four is that linda retired in september and so her position remained in the budget and then it was reclass and it was double counted because we did not delete her position because she was here but we budgeted another position that was for her replacement with a different job class, as you know there was the issue about the job class, so in effect we are possible was double budgeted so she could sit in her position and a new position could be filled in a different job class. >> let me ask you a question i am sure that you have an answer.

you are describing a significant increase in staff and activity, activity and subsequent staffing. doesn't it also mean that is a double burden of a work load for both commissions who for some will proportionly increase. is it fair to say to have a reserve person in the wings, is prudent? because, i think it will require to fully implement the new rig or about the information filing questions and etc. etc. and all of the things that need to be improved and revisited. am i too conservative? is this the time to put that extra in there? >> it is an interesting question. i think that the kind of limit on your time is largely due to

the number of projects that you can see in any given week. it did not appear to us that any commission staffing that is solely devoted needs to increase, but somebody of the other functions in the department are supporting the commission indirectly, like the communications person and the admin staff and so on. those positions are not 100 percent devoted to the commission but they do spend the time as do so many of the staff on the commission items. so it is hard to quantify how much of the department is spent solely on the commission time or partially on commission time verses other things. let me just make or create a discussion only. and we have not at all talked about it. i understand, reading the paper, that you have significant support from the mayor's office. for additional staffing for larger levels of efficiency within the department, etc..