thirty percentage of the departments is from revenue and now it's 10 percent. the general fund is, you know, used for many purposes in city government as well. keith can talk about the structure and how we organize the fees there's an elaborate fee schedule we do and we prop fees that are based on that analysis >> we have major agenda today it, too. >> our fee structure is based on a cost recovery model so it's meant to recover the review of an application and based on a oofrj cost if the fee is one

thousand dollars it costs one thousand hours of staff time. so everybody has a fully loaded rate to help us to recover the rate you such administer staff like myself i don't review things like that but there are other staff costs but it's a typical cost recovery model for other departments as well. >> thank you commissioner matsuda. >> i had a question about attachment one think historic preservation who do i ask. myself tim fry >> so director ram said there is an increase in theal rationed

it goes down to 1.53 for ftes. i'm happy to see there's an increase but i'm wondering how often is that reviewed in terms of the percentage of people working on those particular areas because as we discussed in the landmarks i've seen a lot of landmarks they have zero hours next to them i want to make sure that's credit card one of the priorities so can you give me some information about that >> to answer the first part of your question not all the building for alterations the ftes are spread across other

lines of the program such as the building permits for applications. >> tim fry to clarify line item b is where the major increase is occurring and line item c is related to just properties designated under props 10 and 11 so sequa is where we see the biggest there where the all the rationed where the buildings are 50 or 60 years ordinary and don't have guidelines. so we are going to increase the prejudice staff by one fte that person will be working primarily on designation work and to relieve some of this bag log related to sequa work so adding

that person they will address many of the increases. in addition to last year's budgeted we were allocated a code enforcement planner and that code enforcement will make sure to alternate the work and make sure the entitlements are done and we're hoping to designate that to one person will help to address many of the backlog as well >> mr. frying fry which does that code enforcement person start. >> the job plan will 0 come out any day and hoping to fill it by may. >> commissioner pearlman. >> my question is a followup question that commissioner

matsuda had. the one fte person role. and it sounds like it is being spread among job descriptions. one of them i'm wondering if a big part of the backlog is revving the sequa policies. it sounds like there are more than one job description so maybe the job time is going towards relieving backlog >> that's a fair assessment. we're looking for process consortiums we're finding on the average of ail applications there's a small number that are historic resources. so there are maybe ways to phone call o focus on the ones are resources so it can move quickly

through through the process >> so how are we measuring our backlog has it improved. >> it has not. it depends on the part of the backlog in terms of the historic preservation related to sequa it's a combination of adding more staff but the volume of adding the applications is a significant increase. from my prospective we're reviewing the project more quickly it's just the volume of the projects that are taking more time to process. so one is that based on those performance measures that the gentleman showed you at the last hearing we need to one check to see if those are realistic goals to meet in the next year and figure out the internal process

to reach the 75 percent goal >> will that evaluation happen between this draft and the final and question for more ftes address the backlog. >> it doesn't seem like that's the case. >> i mean to we are is our first question we measure the backlog are projects that come in the doors but have zero hours allocated to them the challenge is the huge projects there can be several months before 0 someone works on the project. that's one of the challenges of the huge increase >> so what can be done what's the backlog one fte is enough? >> it's all across the department clearly it's a

challenge how many people we can reasonably hire it's a combination of the alleged staff we're trying to figure out a way to a quickly determine if something s a resource. so is there a plan b if the 3 months backlog continues to go up >> that's a good question the plan b this year was to you keep menacing giving us permission to add people it speeds up the government in the city government it takes 6 months to hire someone and by the time the backlog builds up we're trying to reduce that by not having the actual positions approved. when the commission approves the

budget they're also approving a number of position and we don't want to have to come back to the board. we shorthand this by not having the positions approved and so we can hire them sooner and cut out the process. we motive be doing the same thing this year it's hard to know in the revenues are coming in this year but the staff is continuing to look at our processes and we try to do and this one issue that tim mentioned about the earlier dictation is the faster thing we can do >> it's frustrating to me as department head to have those projects waiting it's very, very frustrating. i'll say in our defense that we have literally more projects at

one time than the department has seen in our history an ate unprentsd position. 5 years ago before the recession we were at a one year wait for review for environmental projects today it is three or four months. we're in bettered shape then we were that's a lot better our cost system has improved we need to continue that improvement >> commissioners any others questions? okay open this up for public comment any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. bring it back to the commission. this is informational so any other questions. no okay we've move on. >> that will place you on item 8

for the case the 2013 open space element up to date known as rose this is an informational presentation only. >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm suing sue with the department staff. and as was mentioned we're going to give you an up to date on the recreational space element. so we've been doing this for quite awhile the process started in 2007 i'm going to go over the process in a minute. the first draft was out in may of 2009 and in july of 2010 we had a review. the second draft ways out in 2011 and the final draft came out last november.

so as i mentioned we've been doing this for seven years so there's a lot of community process. we started with a task force that was an in violation by the mayor and there were a number of working groups in the task forces. after that we went into a community base we worked with 27 groups with the parks hallway lines and had focused groups and went in the advisory council committee we went to the recreation & parks commission and the planning commission we've been there five or six times and we've had industries meeting and one-on-one meetings. so just to kind of step back a little bit and explain what is

the general plan and what's it's role. we have 10 elements currently in the plan and various other plans like housing this is an example of transportation and community safety and this is another proposed element. this is an element that it was done in 2006 and the high level documents set a vision around 20 years this is out-of-date par r they're not planning codes or law everybody wants to get specific and interpret words in different ways and make it as good as they can but sometimes, it gets stuck in the process and it can be really challenging to

make the differentiation between code and policy. this is kind of starts the vision and what happens is you'll see something in the 1986 that was the golden gate plan. it was done in 9 process to complete that process. so just going to give you a high-level overview. this came out of the process over little seven years the main themes one of the first and biggest themes i think is that people want to make the most of what we have we have a robust system but that can beal kinds of ways there's no prescription

in this document. it says a lot of spaces need a lot of different things and each space should be looked at carefully to make sure it meets the needs of the community. the next thing and this is an update. this is called a priority - where we fiscal our resources. this is the update this is only the 2010 the map is from the 17980 consensus so it's been channeling the recreation & parks commission units their own but we don't have a vision it's

out-of-date and it happened in 1980. so a new objective and esteem e theme we've heard is open space that wasn't your traditional open space thinking about the street and alleys and plazas different kinds of spaces how do we make this part of our network. there's a dedicated supplemental to this space. objective 4 is the bio diversity and a department sustainability. this is a theme we've heard through the city not just the designated the rec and park department they designated nature areas this is how do we bring nature into the city, how did we think about nature

thorough out and this is now being the internet is being adapted and that looked how to create habitat throughout the city. finally, we have a brand new objective how to engage the community how do we work and figure out how to make those projects the best they can. the intention we were making sure we had a guiding envisions for engaging the community. and finally, something that's obviously trying to figure out how to fund all of this. the maintenance of parks is a big issue that could about and funding the maintenance the rec and park department rely on general funds so we're trying to

get creative and this perpetrates some ideas and puts them out there none of them you have to do it sets forth some ideas to consider. so this is a quick snapshot what did we do since the last it sdraft maintaining our cars and recreation is important maintaining our private open spaces and privatization concerns. sustainability we tried to incorporate all those concerns into our latest draft. but i would is i horde in january this idea of preservation and parks it was the first time in seven years it's come up so we've thought about some drafts and policy language we could include. this is just an idea of kind of

our first look you're getting first look is implemented the historic feature and responding to contrary needs and we'll consider incorporating the needs of sustainability techniques into the plan the sustainability. tim and i brought this up i wanted to mention the preservation policies and the preservation element which i'm going to turnover to tim for a quick update. commissioners tim freeway i don't want to deviate from the told me before you but i wanted to talk about 9 preservation element where that stands and many of you don't know or aren't aware of the draft preservation

element for the city. the city contracted with architecture resources group to prepare the element and in 2008, 89 it went through reviews with the prejudice board and all the changes were incorporated and at the end of 2008 the city charter was amended and now we have the preservation historic commission. at that time, we realized that a pretty substantial of environmental review will have to occur because we didn't have funding at that time or subject years but the good news is in the most recent budget we weren't able to talk about we have proposed funding to revive did discuss about the prejudice

element and start engaging this commission and the public on what that preservation element should contain. we will start having conversations and we'll talk about the spovp and maybe we'll be able to have that broader decision but we see the logical reason to add that to the open space element. so if you have any questions about the prejudice element i'll be happy to answer them after susan presentation. we shared the draft presentations with architecture heritage in san francisco. i see that ms. smith from the architecture heritage is in the audience i don't know if her comments represent the

architecture group but she can respond to the draft policies. with that, i'll let sue take over and if you have any questions, i'll be happy to answer them >> so to kind of wrap up up the schedule for this element. we're proposing to close the commentary we've extended that and to include the comments we are going to have a couple of for hearings on the park commissions and i think that's on the 27th. so let me know if you have any questions or comments. >> right off the timing of this being adapted and the preservation element i mean, there's no way the prejudice element is going to be ready how

does that get into this. >> that is one of the general plan elements there will be 8 preservation elements but there will be a much more thorough and historic preservation. >> what's our ideal timeline getting it done and approved. >> great question tim fry department staff in the 2014 - 2015 staff we'll start engaging the public and the process conservatively it will take a couple of years. along with the recreation and upper design elements there are friendly policies that are in all the elements so there isn't anything to preclude us to

adding anything to what we're drafted and showing you today. it's metrological that we can start the conversation or put some policies in this element but have a more robust set of policies related to cultural landscapes in the preservation process >> i'll definitely is that within the resources within the city you have only two sentences talking about preservation doesn't do it justify. my other commissioners, comments or questions >> just to follow-up on that is that part of the budget we just saw. >> maybe director ram knows it is about $150,000 maybe it's include. >> there's a number of it

included and that's included in that list. >> any other commissioners. commissioner johnck >> well, i have some comments by are we having any public comment? >> yes. we are. >> i'll wait. >> commissioner hyland. >> as far as cultural landscapes is that more appropriate here? >> i think that's a great question for the call of the commission to have with the department it's metrological to have some policy preservation policies here if you think we should expand those would he do love to hear our feedback and with the prejudice element that's preservation landscape. >> correct. >> i think it's important to

remember that the idea was that the full range of activities be addressed in the preservation element. we're talking about the open space element so whatever policies you feel are important to incorporate i think it's important to incorporate here but there's a whole range of activity you've discussed >> we'll see that on the next agenda so we'll have time to get a robust statement in there. >> it's not? >> no, because they're trying to get it qualified and sitting here today, we don't have enough input from the stakeholders it's now coming to us and being pushed it for the record so i want this on the next agenda.

>> we're going to meet on the 19th. >> okay. okay. >> do you want to do any public comment? >> yeah. any other questions or comments from staff. we'll open this up for public comment. ms. howard >> good afternoon commissions. katherine howard from the prejudice alliance we're here today to ask you to submit written comments on the rose. i'm glad you've read it my obviously i think that you can take more time. there's no deadline open this it's not like a housing element. and i'm insured by my former board of supervisors president aaron crossing to the charter

code in response to ms. x lines process i want to tell you that words matter yes we're fighting over words but this is the annoyance we're looking at and people will make decisions on what this document says. on the screen we've seen the landscapers and i'm happy to see that there's widen room with balancing for contrary needs you run into that all the time be very careful of wiggle room and please include cultural landscapes in your comments. i've e-mailed this letter from our comment group on the golden

gate matter of the plan there is the opening of the door to our buildings on the square parkland. we want the rose to encourage the city to have new land for the project and second to the golden gate master plan it could open it opening up for reversions. we are concerned that we want to add section 4. all proposals must conform to the design and intent of the park and protect the landscape as in the golden gate park master plan objective 2 policy a landscape preservation and renewal and that's attached. your comment group includes many

individuals who volunteer their times on parks i'll give you the names. just to let you, you know, judy and linda the chair of the prince act on the coalition of open space twinkie it's and a mr. stevens and dennis with the take back our parks and chris shaufrtd >> any other member of the public wish to speak on this item? >> hello, i'm desiree with the san francisco heritage. i think was mentioned our policy committee neither has looked at the element and i would welcome for time tov