and 2015 - 2016 budget. assuming there will be no changes on the resource levels, of course, that's not the case we've received the final picture of the first half of the fiscal year and this year we're seeing another unprecedented year of new revenues and projects coming in this is the second year in a row. we're proposing an increase of 11 new staff for the year 2014 - 2015 and we're proposed to fund the 8 positions they were not funded pending the availability of revenue to fund those positions. as you'll see we're realizing those revenues. it's an unprecedented time we're

seeing applications coming in at a rapid pass and i will say that one of the unusual things the biggest bulk of the permit applications are for rehabilitation or permits to alter existing buildings so many of our buildings are 50 years old. we're seeing a high number of those applications come in. that's effecting how we're going to use those in our work plan and keith will go over that in detail >> good afternoon commissions i'm keith the it manager it's, it's my pleasure to present the upcoming information.

we're go over recent case permit and as well as our revenue budget and our capital requests we've made and the updated work program including the 11 positions and the proposing proposal to eliminate 4 foes and the remaining items for the budget calendar. so let me start with some recent case of volume trend. this bar charts represent the volume and the line represents the percent changes from the prior fiscal year. so you can see in the past 5 to 6 years we've seen department growth. last year what we saw 8 percent growth and this year i'm projecting projecting 13 percent

so it's very, very substantial growth year after year. over the next two fiscal years we're anticipating continued growth but not the same growth over the next 2 to 3 years. so moving on to our revenue budget with 6 completed months the department is projecting a surplus of $5.2 million because of the adapted budget. this additional revenue is attributable to the applications we've discussed particularly some of the building permit trargs and subdivision condominiums. in the current year's budget we received approval for 8 new positions that director ram

mentioned those positions are currently unfunded. the department is proposing to fund those 8 positions for two naive years and other for office space and work to accommodate those staff using the revenue the total amount will be over $3 million. the department fee revenue is erupted to grow by 27 percent in the next year budget the first reason we're assuming a 2 percent volume growth from this year into next year. our fees are automatically iktd and the rate it 2.4 percent and we'll be seeking the one time appropriation to fund those for

3 and a half millions that's in the next year's budgeted if the fiscal 2015 - 2016 we're assuming a one percent growth and then the loss of that one time appropriation we'll be asking for. the grant revenue b will increase and we'll go over the grant fees. we receive an impact revenue like in the area plans and the projections are going to be growing. the departments expenditure recoveries for services we perform for other departments will be declining because of major one time projects over the mroos last year's and our gentle support of 8 point millions plus

it reduces it by 1.5 percent. moving on to the budget the salaries continue to be the majority of our expenditures representing more than 68 percent of department it includes health care and social security are expected to increase over the next two budget years. the director mentioned it includes 11 or fte positions which we annual lists to 14 and a half in the fiscal years 2015 - 2016 and i'll go into that. we'll be proposing to substitute existing positions for new and more appropriate clarifications that are more in line with the functions of the those are

actual positions including the restructuring of the senior staff positions. we'll are increasing our interim position and it will include the historic resources survey. you'll see that did number one personnel services expenditure will be increasing due to you contracting budget and one time grant funding and increase in the budget for the tracking system. you'll see that the promise expenditures are expected to increase and that's due to the one time appropriation of $3 million for the funding for those positions over the 2 1/2

years. so moving to the new position requests we'll be requesting over 11 positions over the next two years that will be annual listing 14 and a half. the majority of those positions will be dedicated to the backlog of the substantial increases in volumes particularly in historic preservation commission and the environmental and transportation. we also will be adding staff for code enforcement and various citywide prongs and a dedicated for housing policy to support mayor ed lee's housing project and the packet goes into detail about those position. i'd like to ask sheila the departments writer to introduce

the grant budget >> hi, i'm sheila the departments grant writer. we have a portfolio it includes $3.9 million in grant in our fiscal year. we're the lead agency on most of - more than that 23 million supports grant work and dwp and other local nonprofit organizations as well. the grant support a wide range from historic preservation and along neighborhood corridors and major infrastructure as well. the grant budget for in upcoming year is 3 point plus million. of the projects the first one is for the funding from the metropolitan transportation commission for priority development priority planning and that will be submit in april

to support of rail generated and feasibility study. the second one to the substantial growth council is a state source for half a million to support of feasibility study. we do get about 60 thousand a year from the friends of the city planning from any t special projects. the fourth one is the furnished network for the substantial growth we're going to do more eco support. and the final one is fray the office of historic preservation for state funding for the state preservation work. and this table lists the number of capital requests the department has submitted to the

planning committee on january 17th. the first 3 items are from the general fund and the remaining 5 items are from general impact fees collected. i won't go into detail today but there's lots of details in our memo. so this next slide is the revised work program which lists the number of ftes are the equality positions with the 2014 - 2015 the 14.5 ftes. appendix a goes into much greater details within each

division. as part of mayors budget instructions the departments are to look at all foes carefully to determine if any foes maybe reduced are eliminated. the department is proposing to eliminate the smallest progressing and the retelevision station fee. this table shows the foes we currently charges for the past year and a half. it shows the revenue we've collected from caesar's and collecting on those foes none of those fees generate any significant revenue for the department. the cost to the department of administrator are so minor we feel are unjustified.

the department will not suffer an impact here. this proposal is presented conceptually and it will need to come back for a more form hearing later on in the process. yesterday, i delivered this same presentation to 9 historic preservation commission and their supportive and asked the program how to uh-huh. >> staff. the commission had a dialog with the historic preservation commission about the work program and how staff will continue to address the progressing times and the backlog. in two weeks i'll come back asking for your approval the department budget and then we'll submit the budget to the mayor's office on february 21st if you

have any questions, i'll be happy to answer them >> commissioner moore - off any public comment on this item? >> sue hester. at some point there needs to be a general discussion of why this department is an enterprise department rather than supported by general funds my prospective is enterprise departments start to be expectations for those who pay the fees rather than an extension of the citizens. i'm just throwing this out one of the issues on the enterprise

department and this department in particular to put this mildly we have two notorious, notorious logs that are in the department for 8 years and one of them is an academic of arts university this is out of compliance with the planning code as possible and it it takes to ridiculous extreme doing environmental review if you don't do a competent review second one 130 el camino da mar i get the messy

cases. those are going both enforcement cases and they've never been back to this commission. i have a couple of other questions. my other questions is when you're dealing with the expenditure budget, you know, we role could be helpful i'm the only person who asked for this. if you require the department to have an organizational charter it should be on the website and available to any member of the project i don't know who's in charge of long-term planning. this is the first time i haven't known in 40 years. i can't tell people how to go up the food chain people come to me for help if i don't know not

everybody can knew. if you don't require it require an organizational chart they're not listening to me oh, they're working on it why is it not in the budget. that's it for now. the enterprise is a big question >> thank you any public comment on this item? okay public comment is closed. >> i expend the same climate i'm a principal in support of what you were saying i only have a couple of questions it's my need for clarification. on page not - on package two talking about the revenue budget and comparing the mayors

mandated for the reduction you're showing 42013 - 2014 and 2015 - 2016 if there's a drop with would the number be that larger it's honorable >> you're talking about the general fund. >> yeah. >> so the way the reduction is circulated to the fiscal years there was some one time funding for specific projects in 2014 - 2015 such as the street tree planting so the reduction of the fund is not including that one time for example. >> oh. >> it's a reduction to our base budget. >> but that's a big hit and

that's something i need to think about ahead of time because it is a large drop. having said that, package 3 the code enforcement is a discussion that popped up in the paper there's an incredible increase and people are questioning this breaking down something think the hill people fell off the scalpel and they didn't have a license and so no permit or approval. so why is the increase with such increase with the volume of activity in building such a small one that it's personnel increased on code enforcement in package 3. so the code enforcement activity

we're proposing to increase we 1.5 ftes and is that the one >> that's the one i'm referring to. >> certainly it's a small number but it represents about a 20 percent increase in the department staff. >> we're a small tight-knit team and late last year, we are increasing we'll probably double our code enforcement do you have over the next couple of years and certainly in the department is in favor of the new positions we want to be more efficient would code enforcement. it's a good discussion what the city wants and expects. are there's multiply department

for example, the planning department wouldn't be involved in the building scape =. so the question is also the coordination is what supervisor weiner was getting at this week and we think it's a discussion to have in the future and we appreciate more resources in code enforcement we'll have other funds to help but at this point this is our request >> there is one position added this year and plus a second position that's dedicated to the historic preservation commission so we've added two and another two next year. i agree it's not as high as it could be but it's a balancing act >> we see the efficiencies and

collaboration and reporting back and forth you might have more information i'm in support of having this department acquit well staffed. we only hear it when it's too late. back to my comments i would personally be interested to hear in detail about the grants that's a small part of the persuasion but i would be interested to hear about this we never get the details and never hear about why you win awards. lastly as you're describing the general planning environment planning etc., i would be interested to hear a little bit

more of how particularly the first 2 items currently planning and citywide planning collaborate and overlap. >> commissioner sugaya. >> yes. let's see under 8 staff positions that are authorized or whatever but noted funded directly and the new 11 positions what's itself relationship between those two are they separate or 8 part of 11 or. >> they're separate so the 8 positions we got approved their unfunded they're dedicated to reducing the backlog and the 11 ftes in the following years is a combination to reduce the

backlog as well as other citywide programs and housing policies so on. >> what you say they're good for 2 1/2 years are they city employees or if they are they become civil service and isn't that another issue if we run out of money. >> so they're to be appointed to permanent exempt because their funded for two year and a half years to work on the backlog they will be permanent exempt and normally over the course of the 2 1/2 years through attrition departments may absorb those people but

their permanently exempt. >> thank you. i have one other question on the line item it's item f for the code clean up you have half a fte and retaining a third fte. is there really that much work to clean up the preservation code i thought most of that was done >> sorry that one i'll have to get back to you commissioner. it's item f on the program going from half to a third. i'll get back to you tim proposed this and i'll get back to you with more specification >> thank you. commissioner wu >> thanks. i wanted to ask about reducing the backlog and if you could

explain more of what that entails is it hiring staff and training them, shifting them around? >> so we call the backlog i shouldn't is that what we define the backlog it's projects we consider projects in the backlog have come in for applications but have no staff time put opening on them. so because the revenues are coming in thank you rapid pass we're able to hire those folks especially on environmental and a current planning they work on projects proposals. that is what we call respectfully yours, the backlog literally working on the applications >> it's role great to see the one person for the housing plan.

i think that's part of the actual plan. any sense how long that will take to hire that person >> the reason that the term keith use is the annual listing their three-quarters of 0 position it's taking 5 or 6 months to do the hiring but i'm hoping by late to mid fall. >> okay. thank you. >> commissioner moore. >> i wanted to use this moment to commend the adopting department for a great interim program we have a lot to teach the public and the environmental and social and housing etc., issues particularly san

francisco has a short fuss you talking with state government and i appreciate it and some of your new inheritance will have a public face so they can really see in action what it is we do. >> okay. thank you great work. >> commissioners move on item 13 the rail yard alternatives this too is an informational preservation. >> i'm with the planning department staff. i'm sure you're aware of we're worked with the joint powers

authority with the transbay which includes the downtown extension. we've been an integral part of an agency that comments on the plans to trek, if any, the rile services our those transportation investments are closely intertwined for all of those infrastructure projects. those projects need substantial additional fund to be fully released. you adapted this plan that delta - dealt with the project. we received funding at the urging of the mayor's office to lead a brief technical analysis of the development opportunity

and capacity to build over the rail site and this property in the center of the city holds financial value to help tap aisle all the infrastructure and create more funds to support cal train. there was several number one reasons including to connect the south of market and the bay front altogether. and to provide for spaces for off a and public amenity and a very transient area. this started and stopped because of the highly speed rail but we have now put the development on the rail yard for o of over $24 million. we want to evaluate some of the co