Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Department outlines staffing boost, citywide historic survey in proposed FY2015–17 budget
Summary
San Francisco Planning Department officials presented a two‑year budget proposal that would add about 12.6 FTE in 2015–16 (14 annualized for 2016–17), fund a multi‑year citywide historic survey and temporarily staff short‑term rental enforcement as applications surge.
Get email alerts on the Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The San Francisco Planning Department on Wednesday told the Historic Preservation Commission it will seek to add roughly 12.62 full‑time equivalents in fiscal 2015–16, annualizing to 14 FTEs in 2016–17, as part of a two‑year budget and work program aimed at addressing fast‑growing application volume.
Director Ram said the department is reviewing about 1,500 projects at once and faces sustained demand for permit and entitlement work. Keith DeMartini, the department’s finance and IT manager, said the department is projecting a small general‑fund target reduction and anticipates a fee revenue surplus of nearly $3 million this fiscal year that staff proposes to allocate to the FY2016–17 budget instead of augmenting the current year.
Why it matters: staff said the workload increase is affecting preservation work and cited housing affordability and short‑term rental enforcement as new policy drivers. The department proposes a dedicated preservation survey manager and asked for funding to launch a multi‑year citywide historic survey — an effort staff estimates could take four to six years to complete — and to add three enforcement positions for the incoming short‑term rental rules.
Details and safeguards: DeMartini said the 12.62 new positions reflect a mix of temporary backfill and new hires; positions typically phase in part‑year in their first budget year and annualize the next year. Preservation staff described a reorganization that has created floating preservation planners and one staffer focused on landmark designation work, which the commission had requested. Staff also outlined anticipated grant funding, CPI indexing of fees and modest general‑fund support.
Commission response and next steps: Commissioners pressed staff on performance‑measure baselines (when the clock starts for the nine‑month targets), grant totals, and whether mayoral authority could remove position requests. Several commissioners urged more granular, preservation‑focused budget briefings. The presentation was informational; staff will return to the Commission for a recommendation before the department’s proposed budget is transmitted to the mayor and, subsequently, the Board of Supervisors.
