that we'll be requesting next fiscal year. so you can see we'll be requesting over four and a half positions dedicated to continue to a reduce the backlog of the huge applications we've received including the historic preservation commission applications and a environmental among other. the staff for code enforcement and other key initiatives and there are outlined in the commission packet. so the grant budget. >> hi, i'm sheila the grant writer. so the department are currently has a grant portfolio of 6.9

millions that covers the years to come the planning department is the lead agency about 2 million goes tomato mat and depending and nonprofits we work with to implement the projects. they support a wide range or range of activities like the major thoroughfares. it's 4.3 million that is 6 hundred thousand higher. on the grant which we will submitting this spring for seven hundred thousand for m t c that will support of the phase 2 of the railroad feasible study and the application we'll be presenting. and the annual grants we get in

the city planning and those support the conference attendance. we're looking to a group called the urban sustainability to do some matching funds to continue the work. every year we've think successful of getting money from the historic preservation commission to do preservation projects that's it >> this slide shows the capital requests that the department made on january 17, 20182014 to the committee and they'll be reviewed during the mayor's phase of the budget process and if approved they'll be in the

report. this is to continue to fund our parks to pavement program some market street activation on market street and a tree inventory and there's a description in our memo. the following 5 are projects that the staff works on from impact fees and various projects included as well. so including the all leveling point ftes and other ftes that slide is a summer review by the division of what the ftes counts will be. appendix a in your memo breaks anti into much greater daily to cross the division staff that we work on its in your memo.

as part of mayors budget and instructions the staff reviews those to see if any fees maybe reduced or eliminate we are going to reduce fees for you t and the reax fee. this table shows the fees for the past year and a half and how much money we've collected. none of those fees have a high volume of tractions and none generate revenue for the department. the cost of the administer straw hat is so minor that the fees themselves are not justified so

the department didn't expect any revenue loss so we're proposing to eliminate them in our proposed budget. so i should say i'm presenting this proposal to you state will need to come back to the commission for a public hearing on the elimination of the fees themselves. and finally, the remaining budget calendar tomorrow i will be delivering this presentation to the planning commission and come back to you on february 19th at which time i'll ask you for a recommendation of approval and go to the planning commission on the 20th asking for their approval and submit it to the mayor's office on february 21st that concludes my presentation if you have any questions, i'll be happy to answer them thank you very much >> commissioners any questions for staff on this? commissioner

johnck. >> okay. well being new to the commission i have a comment and i realize i could do more work looking at the website but you've presented a to and comprehensive discussion on the budget. y where can we be more helpful to you. there's a lot of numbers in here and a lot of data and i'm impressed with what you're developing. now and then how can we be helpful without getting nitpick i didn't and the second thing i'm interested it appears a major trend to reduce general fund support and go to fees over the years i've been looking the state of california and other states well, we're is a service

agency to the city. i'd be interested or if you could direct me to an appropriate document how do you come up with the fees. i assume a portion of them are pegged to the staff person that's attached to the project perhaps than a percentage of the total project costs in addition. i'd be curious how that is derived >> thank you commissioner on the first question the way to be helpful is to look at the property part of the budget that has to be with presently. we're proposing an additional fte largely because of the volume increase. one of the interesting things we've found particularly in the last 3 months of last year the

increase is not for large projects but for permits for buildings. we've seen a huge increase in building alternatives. so we're seeing a huge demand for preservation services for resource evaluations and so forth. it will help to look at the resources your associated with. on your second question keith can answer sporadic but because of frankly prop 13 in the 70s there's been a trend to shift from a fee basis of government revenue maybe 12 or 15 years ago

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