north block. here in this diagram, it shows that the existing path. this is visitation. this is raymond. here's the paths along there now. our site, this is approximately 36 feet from this corner to visitation. in this area, 106 from this property line to visitation here. these trees are here. they will be staying in place. the five homes -- this is the development that the lady referred to along the community gardens, on the end of leland cul-de-sac. here's a development of five homes, one, two, three, four, five. two on leland and three on the raymond side. what we also showed here, too, i think there was confusion about the landscaping. we have some areas where the lots are wider. we've plan to put landscaping to screen the buildings. you can see we're keeping the

mid-block open space here. typical floor plans for the houses, 4 bedrooms on raymond. on leland, 3 and 4 bedrooms. i will go through them quickly. raymond street profile of the new buildings. there's existing buildings here. what you see, too, in our landscape elevation, this is the condition of the raymond cul-de-sac. our clients are taking on their own response to clear some of the trash that's being dumped out here. the church building is there. there's a 40-foot height difference between the cushion the corner from the leland area. and these are the drawings showing you the context of the buildings. again, our landscape, as you can see, this end lot is much wider. this is approximately 35 feet and landscaping it, putting in a new fence, which is a willow, wood fence horizontally laid in there.

this is a condition, like you see from visitation. this large tree in the center is on park property and that will remain. here's the church building. again, i think one of the concerns from the last planning commission meeting was a view from the park. this is a new landscape we're proposing. here's the fence, the willow wood fence mounted horizontally that we designed with our landscape architect. here's leland avenue street. and here's raymond avenue street. other views we generated -- this is a quick plan of the house on a triangular lot on leland. this is the cul-de-sac as it is now. the area has been excavated, 598, 596.

again, just the floorplan showing the relationship to the property line to the house with landscaping on the side of the house. again, the rendering. this is what it looks like from the street. we modlate where the buildings are going. the church sits on a 10-foot-high terrace. and that's why it's -- you have the steps here and the landscaping. again, our landscaping, again, on the street, as you can see, and i'm available to answer any questions that you might have. >> president hillis: all right. thank you. we may. first, we'll take public comment in support of the project and opposed to the d.r. mr. smith? >> good afternoon, again, corey smith. obviously a little bit away from what we're typically going for

or advocating for on an active basis. it's not park land. and it's sipping -- single-family homes. and specifically, the word is, families. it will be an opportunity for families live in san francisco. we want access to the park to be maintained and continue to be used by the community. we're speaking against the d.r. and want the project to move forward. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. any additional public comment? seeing none, ms. martin, 2-minute rebuttal.

>> sorry. i have to get assembled. several years ago, the planning department held the eastern neighborhoods master planning process. originally vis valley was included, but dropped without notice or reason. we have suffered from piecemeal rulings that have been a problem. in the past, there's been a denial of master plan and allowed our neighborhood to be used for what the rest of the city doesn't want in affluent neighborhood. our main concern is that the land not be built upon, particularly on the raymond side. if the land were to be sold, there is possible financing with the vis valley developers fee, which our organization initiated. malia cohen supports our efforts to save open space at the 590 leland site. there's been a slow reduction of

the park. in the recent past, housing was build on private property adjacent to mclaren park, creating a fortress around the park. the easy access and visibility has been denied to our community. the city needs to adhere to the general plans. shadowing, public accessibility, and integrity has to be taken seriously the focus is on housing and much-needed amenities. planning should look at the entire vis valley neighborhood and think about creating a healthy community in a high-needs neighborhood expecting 5,000 to 10,000 new units of housing in the near future, which, by the way, we promoted from the beginning. this project adds no value. it just diminishes our neighborhood. allowing it to go forward is shameful treatment of a community that has supported

high-density housing that other neighborhoods reject. >> president hillis: thank you, ms. martin. project sponsor? 2-minute rebuttal. >> commissioners, just pack from my diagram here. as we pointed out, the pathway that many of the public has referred to is still intact right here. this is the pathway. some of the work has gone in here, but this is the pathway. sorry. this is the pathway that many of us refer to. there are already tall trees that you saw here that's on the public property that casts shadow. we had discussions with malia cohen's office and their aide. and in all of our discussions, we were not aware of any positions taken by the office,

but we kept them apprised of public concern. the housing, which is noted here, is when the lot -- the lots were never divided. the lots were actually combined for billing purposes to one lot and then resplit through a compliance letter so that the intention of urban development for this site is the continuation of single-family housing. it's the type of structuresable uses that is predominant in this neighborhood and we feel it's compatible and it adds to the neighborhood by adding more housing. in this development, there's an opportunity for this site to be a buffer between the more established housing and the other housing and the park because of the landscaping and buffering that we propose on the site. we would like the opportunity to develop this property. we feel it's a good value

project for an in-fill project, particularly for a site where the structure is unutilized and vacant right now. we've had numerous break-ins on the church and police reports where we've been asked to get vandals and vagrants out of the property. so it's been a problem for us to manage it and would like to develop it into single-family homes. >> president hillis: that closes this portion of the hearing. we'll open it up for commissioner comments and questions. >> commissioner melger: i'll start. so it's been a year since we saw this presentation. and i'm wondering if i could ask the d.r. requester if there has been any progress made. i remember a year ago, you had talked about the conversations you had had with the parks folks

about -- can you come up? thank you. this is, as you know, private property and we're limited as to what we can do, but you've had a year to have discussions. did you make any progress? >> in terms of rec and park, i have to be careful what i say. we have had discussions, but it's -- i'm not allowed to reveal. i know it sounds strange, but i can't say. yes, we've had talks. and they've been -- there's been some support in rec and park and i think if you recall there was a vote to support aquisition of the site and one of the things

holding it up is financing. and we could get the financing quite possibly through developer's fees. when we talked to supervisor cohen, i don't know how much it would cost. my concern is that it not be built on. we had to stop home depot. we had to get community planning going there. once you build, it's all over. we will never be able to do anything at that space. it's not an enormous amount of money. i've been on transportation authority cac and different groups and $1 million or $2 million. it's a lot of money to me but in

terms of the city, it's not that much. in terms of the value that will be added by this land to that open space is im measurable. and -- i don't have an answer. i know that the community does not want it. we have different groups. we work with kids. there as school right there. there's senior housing. i don't think that -- as jim mentioned, the land, where it comes in, it narrows down. there's that -- there's two paths that are -- a sidewalk and a pathway, that are proposed to rec and park and dpw and, you know, the powers at be. >> commissioner melger: okay. thank you. my question was only about if you made any progress during this year. i have a question for the

project sponsor, if that's okay. so when we heard this the last time, there was a lot of concerns from the neighborhood that were raised about the path going from raymond avenue cul-de-sac down to the community garden and i understand that there's no impingement from the project, but i remember that you had put up pictures of a very tall fence and, you know, i remember my worry being, well, so the kids are used to going down that concrete path right now a the at sort of left edge of the top of the hill. and now you will make them go around? and i'm wondering if you put a big, tall fence how that will go. so you showed some pictures of a newly designed fence, but i didn't get a sense of it. can you show them again or if you have a better -- >> sure. i'm one of the sponsors. we've met many times with the

d.r. requesters and in one of the earlier ones, they raised the question. we sat there eight hours, four hours one day, four hours another, not holidays. we didn't see a single student. there was a lot of suspect activity at the end of ray monday, if anything. we didn't see anybody in two different school days walk up and down. there were a couple of people with dogs walking, excuse me, maybe in all that. there's a distinguish ed panel speaking against the item, but with every item, 293, you will see a lot of pictures that we took that show that almost none of the issues, if not all of them, are invalid. we're not blocking anything. most of the area, as it is, of

our area, is already -- already has a structure on it. we're not taking anything from the park. i have a lot of pictures here showing you up a the garbage that's all over the place. >> commissioner melger: i understand. i wasn't questioning that stuff. i was asking about the fence, if it's been redesigned or if we can look at it. >> may i add something? we got an urgent call from rec and park asking us to meet them at the site. we get there, talk to them. they were concerned that we would block the path. we show them everything. we talked. we asked if they had any interest. they said they had none, but maybe they don't know. i can't say. the only concern is that they were going to redevelop or do something with that path that goes sort of along visitation avenue, that we're not touching

it, not putting anything on it. we have a slide showing 37 to 36 feet from our lot. there is no issues of soil. it's flat. it's full of garbage, but it's flat. that's what rec and park told us over a year ago when we met them there. they had tremendous concerns that we're going to destroy the path or do something. it's out of our private property. we're not touching anything. >> commissioner melger: thank you. my question was about the fence. nothing else. [laughter] >> i have this problem with my wife, too. i don't answer her questions right away. let me pull that up real quickly. this fence. there's another image, too, let me get to that, right here, that shows a fence to the right of raymond right here. this fence. it's a willow wood fence.

it's made so that you can see through it, so it's not a solid barrier. >> commissioner melger: all right. >> you can see the landscaping. it's more like a filter. >> commissioner melger: okay. thank you. that's better. >> president hillis: commissioner moore? can i ask a question on that same topic? behind that and adjacent to 590 between the city property and 589 raymond where you are showing that fence, what is the use of that land? >> that's a side yard for that house. >> president hillis: so it has a large side yard? >> correct. let me get to a site plan. >> commissioner moore: which one are you referring to? >> president hillis: raymond avenue along the cul-de-sac. >> this is the 35-foot-wide that you saw with the rendering. this is a side yard to this house. and it's landscaped.

>> president hillis: has there been any discussion about is that? it's a large side yard. it's nice for the property to have that side yard, but i'm wondering, is there any -- is there any way to somehow utilize that in a better way with no fence or remains an open easement between your development and the city property there? >> i -- well, i think what's important to note there is that the site is very steep in this area. it also drops off very quickly. it's not as flat in this area where the -- as it is out along where the trail is. so this is -- if you can see it, there's a drop about 40 feet from this curb height to this curb height. >> president hillis: yeah. what is the drop from that curb height at the corner to the -- to where the building starts at 589? >> probably 4 or 5 feet. i think you see it here on this

-- let me get to this image. you see here's the -- if you can see the dotted line, that's where the street is in front of the house and here's the high point of the triangular corner, okay? so there's a drop. it goes down from there. [please stand by]

>> the very large building is at the edge of the open space and the building is the maximized single residential in comparison to what is adjoining to the south. and i'm wondering why you pushed that particular building against the property line. >> if i could have the image up on the screen, we have the site plan here that shows it might appear on the garage level plan where the building and stairs

are against the property line, but as it goes back, this footprint steps back. this is at grade. commissioner:i am using the overall site plan which is a cumulative image of all pieces together that outlines the building footprint as coming all the way to the property edge. and i don't know if that has changed. >> the one that we submitted to the staff is this one where it actually steps back, and it's not against the property line. >> commissioner: for the commission, i am referring to this drawing. dated 12-16-2017, so that's for today's packet. is the lead page and each of the five buildings with the building in question highlighted in yell yellow.

>> that is 598 leland, correct? >> correct. that is the only one this sits aggressively on the property line. >> this is what was submitted to staff. >> commissioner: that is accurate to what is in the drawing set. if you look at the, i guess, it's hard because they're all labelled 590. and the one package for 596 leland, you will see there is more detail provided. >> right. and this diagram, i think this is the pdf sent to the staff, it is part of the record. what we do notice sometimes is when we send the pdf to the staff and they go and print it, the clarity of the prints that come from the printing house aren't the same as we get in our

office. but if you look at this one here, this is 598 leland that shows the footprint in sort of that orange color and then the landscaping that is against the property line and the fence is there. if the building is not intended to be against a triangular property line, it is intended to have landscaping and grade. >> commissioner: and i don't have the one you are referring to. i have a site plan similar to what you are showing, and i'd be happy to show you the copy here. >> sure. >> commissioner: i'm concerned that one building makes the project look rather massive. i don't have anything --

the buildings otherwise are fine. they are large. they fit the neighborhood. it is definitely a kind of like developer-driven housing. and is not spec housing and the building that looks similar architecturally i think they are fine. it is just that they are very large. and because they are large and you have a very sensitive site on which they occur, there is a little bit of crowding at the edges. that would be the best way i would describe it. >> is there a way to -- that 598 lela leland, kind of the last jog of that property, could you eliminate that? >> i think we could work with staff to, how can i say, remove the love handles that you see on the side of the building. >> commissioner: right. the last 1/3. the last 1/3. >> yes. >> commissioner: if you look at your design. >> and kind of emulate the

25-food module already been expressed. >> commissioner: and the bedroom on the main floor and extra room on the top floor. i agree with that comment. i think that would be a good kind of effort. i don't think we're at a place, at least i'm not comfortable in a place to deny this project. it's private land. i get that the folks from the area have worked hard to maximize open space in the neighborhood, and thats a kind of been supportive of development in the neighborhood. and this is not a city-owned site. there doesn't seem to be any movement towards -- >> i think that suggest would create more massing relief between the city property and the family house. >> yes. >> commissioner: commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: since there is no reaction from park and rec, which i would have liked to have had to go through the larger ideas, hear their larger plan, and get a feel for what they think, i feel that

what is really in front of us is five residential buildings which come forward as design on a large lot, subdivided into five individual lots. and that is basely cha it is. there's nothing wrong with the unit. i think the modification that we are talking about here at least aleaves some of my anxiety of the -- alleviates some of the anxiety on my part and the more flowing nature of the garden next to it. and that's where i am. >> commissioner: is that a motion? do you want to adjust the 598 leland portion project to maintain that 25-foot, i think, width of the building throughout? >> and the module. >> commissioner: so you wouldn't bump it out at the last. >> correct, correct. >> second that if that is a motion. >> commissioner: it's a motion,

yeah. >> president hillis: we have a motion and a second, jonas. >> if i understood that correctly, it's just the motion is to take dr and approve the project with the amendment that the 598 leland project maintain the 25-foot module to be consistent with the other properties. on that motion, commissioner fong. commissioner koppel. >> commissioner richards. commissioner president hillis, excuse me. >> thank you. that motion passes unanimously 5-0. >> that is it, right. so meeting adjourned. thank you.

>> they tend to come up here and drive right up to the vehicle and in and out of their car and into the victim's vehicle, i would say from 10-15 seconds is all it takes to break into a car and they're gone. yeah, we get a lot of break-ins in the area. we try to -- >> i just want to say goodbye. thank you. >> sometimes that's all it takes. >> i never leave anything in my car. >> we let them know there's been a lot of vehicle break-ins in

this area specifically, they target this area, rental cars or vehicles with visible items. >> this is just warning about vehicle break-ins. take a look at it. >> if we can get them to take it with them, take it out of the cars, it helps.

[gavel sounds] calling this hearing to order. good afternoon and welcome to the historic preservation commission hearing for wednesday, january 17, 2018. this is our first hearing so happy new year and welcome back, commissioners. >> happy new year. >> i'd like to take roll at this time. [roll call] unfortunately commissioner johns notified us that he is out ill today. i will remind members of the public that the commission does not told rate any disruption or out bursts of any kind and to please sigh elevens your mobile devices that may sound off during these proceedings. first on your agenda is general public comment. at this time, members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except agenda items. the opportunity to address the

commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. each member of the public may address the commission for up to three minutes. i have no speaker cards. >> yes. please come forward. >> good afternoon, commissioners. david silverman. thank you for the opportunity to address the commission today. i was here on december 20 representing 420 eureka. the purpose of the hearing was to take the h.p.c.'s comment on the draft d.i.r. most of the discussion that the hearing focused on a mitigation measure that i believe was taken from another project and did not belong in that e.i.r. it had to do with a walking tour and i addressed the commission on that point and raised the issue that a walking

tour for a four-unit project was, perhaps, not appropriate. and my takeaway from that hearing was that a better mitigation measure would be assigned in front of the church. and i believe that was the commission's sentiment. after the hearing, i communicated with the staff and their response was, of course there's going to be a walking tour. so, i would like the -- to ask the commission to ask the staff to report back at a future meeting on that particular mitigation measure or to place this on the future agenda for further hearing. thank you. >> thank you. any other member of the public wish to comment on a nonagendaized item? if so, please come forward. seeing and hearing none, we'll close general public comment. >> commissioners that places us

under department matters. item one, director's announcements. >> there's no director's announcement today. >> item two, planning commission staff report and announcements. >> i believe we don't haves that either. [laughter] >> very good. moving right along. commission matters. item three, president's report and announcement. >> i have no report announcement today. >> item four, consideration of adoption draft minutes for for a.r.c. september 20, 2017 hearing and draft minutes for h.p.c., december 6, 2017 hearing. december 20 took some time because we lost the audio, unfortunately, to that and so it took time for staff to put together -- >> oh, ok. our brains don't go back that far. [laughter] any comments on the draft minutes? no? does any member of the public wish to comment on our draft minutes for december 6 and december 20? seeing and hearing none, we'll close public comment. a motion to adopt the minutes? so moved. >> second.

>> thank you, commissioners. on that motion to adopt the minutes for september 20, a.r.c. and december 6 regular hearing -- [roll call] so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 5-0. and places us on item five, commission comments and questions. >> i think i would like to follow up on the public comment that the speaker made so we could get a report on that project on the -- >> 150 -- >> here we go. >> i will certainly relay that to staff. >> any other comments or questions? >> no, different topic. >> ok. i was hoping mr. frye was here. i sent an i.f. to jonas to send around an article that was in the chronicle about the historic houses, a number of houses that were illegally torn down and it's a very

interesting problem because, you know, so often we hear these stories and it's so far out of the hands of the architect, the engineers, the planning staff, because it is, you know, an owner, typically a developer who takes it upon themselves to make some decisions in the field. and i know that the finds often are, you know, not commensurate with the problem. i was just wondering if, you know, especially when it is a historic building, you know, if we could have a further conversation, if it's something we can schedule a conversation about. how to address this. i don't know if the staff is specifically already looking at -- thank you. >> sorry, this isn't technically on your agenda, but the planning commission has raised that exact same issue and we're looking at more

robust ways to make sure there is, number one, better communication between us and d. by. -- d.b.i. on these issues and, number two, what we can do to try to address the particular players involved in some of these decisions where this has, frankly, happened repeatedly. >> yeah. >> so, we're working with the city attorney's office and planning commission and happy to work with you as well on future discussions about how to best address this, as this has become an issue that a number of people have asked us to start working on, more robustly. >> maybe we can have it as a staff report in a subsequent hearing. >> happy to. >> no know what's going on. >> and we can ask questions about it. >> absolutely. >> ok. yeah. because the 840 chestnut was an interesting one. that is the willis polk house where they came back and said the house was so deteriorated. that should have come up in a historic report. you know, that it was -- that it deteriorated and could have been discussed as to whether that was appropriate to them, do more work or less work

relative to that. so, thank you. i appreciate that t.s i do have one other thing. i'm giving a talk on february 2 to the alliance of monterey-area preservationists in pacific grove. on generally what we're doing here in san francisco for preservation and then more specifically about the hibernia bank building. if anyone's down in the area, please join us. it's on -- i can give you more information -- >> actually, i can add to that t. i'm going to be on a c.p.s. panel next friday about -- it's about ceqa review and the commission's perspective. historic preservation commission's perspective on the ceqa and how we're involved with it. next friday at pier one. >> very good. >> any other comments? we can move on. >> see nothing other comments, commissioners, we can move on to item six, election of officers. in accordance with the rules and regulations of the san francisco historic preservation

commission, the president and vice president of the commission should be elected at the first regular meeting of the historic preservation commission held after the first day of january each year or at a subsequent meeting, the date of which is fixed by the historic preservation commission at the first regular meeting. >> so, i was going to suggest and commissioner johns is not here, that we wait until the next hearing so we have the opportunity for his input in that. everybody ok with that? >> yes. >> public comment. >> yes. >> any member of the public wish to comment on this item? seeing and hearing none, we'll close public comment. we don't need a motion to -- >> we do need a motion. >> ok. we have a motion to -- >> move to continue this to the next meeting. >> all right. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners. on that motion then to continue this matter to february 7. [roll call]

so move, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 5-0 and places us under your regular calendar for item seven. case number 2017crv. this is the 2020 department budget and work programme. that is the informational presentation. >> good afternoon, commissioners. for example, john ram, departments staff. i'm struck by this phenomenon that the older i get, the quicker time seems to fly by. this is my 10th budget preparation and presentation to you and the planning commission so i'm -- it is amaying. i thought we were just here a few months ago and here we are again. i'll have deborah landis our deputy director of add nointion give you the presentation today. but just to tell you that we are, after several years of sometimes double-digit growth since 2010, the budget we are showing you today is a budget that is essentially a kind of

stay the course budget. we are -- our revenues have essentially leveled off over the last 18 months or so. we were seeing substantial growth, as you know, after the recession and the last two years, or roughly two years, we're seeing a leveling off of those revenues. mind you, leveling off at a high level. we're not dropping, we're still seeing a record number of projects and application come in. but we're not continuing to see the substantial growth that we saw in recent years. that leveling off combined with increased cost in which inevitably happens with our budget every year means that we have to be a little more cautious than we have in years past about take on initial tiffs. the budget and work plan you'll see today is a pretty much stay the course budget. the good news is that we don't really have to make any substantial cuts. the bad news is we really can't grow any substantial way and take on major, new initiatives. with that, i'll introduce deborah landis, the deputy director of administration and

i'm joined by tom desanto who's our chief administrative officer, as you know, and jeff jocelyn and tim frye here to answer questions and the work plan. thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. deborah landis. i will try to make this brief and as painless as possible. as john just mentioned, the budget is not going to be changing very much in the upcoming years so i will walk you through the projections for the current year, which is what we based our future years on in great part and then the revenues, the expenditures and then some of the bigger changes that we wanted to point out to you today. one thing i do want to note is that the budget system itself has only just opened and so when we come back in a few weeks the numbers will be slightly different. the general idea of what we're proposing will be exactly the same. but because we have to come up with all of these estimates and projections without the budget

system, there will be differences slightly when we come back. ok. so, let's see. and we will be back on the 7th for your recommendation to the planning commission for approval. so the agenda here, i just ran through very quickly, in addition. we will have some detailed slides and information on historic preservation specifically. and then at the end, we'll go through the overall budget calendar, which has john mentioned, is fairly year round. two items to ♪ that we get instructions from the mayor's office every year. the set of instruction this is year included a 2.5% decrease in our general fund support. and as you know, most of our department is funded through revenues that are not general fund revenues, application review, building permit review, impact fees.

work order recovery from providing services to other departments. so, the general fund reduction was about $95,000 in each year. we've been able to find that. so, we are able to comply with that instruction. they also asked all departments that are mostly self-supporting to absorb cost increases and we've done that as well. and the mayor's office asked for no new positions. however, we do propose one rove gnu generating self-funded position related to accessory dwelling units, a.d.u.s, and that addition we expect will pay for itself with the additional a.d.u. application volume that we've been seeing and the increase we expect to continue into next year. of course, the context for all of this includes the mayoral directive around streamlining the approval and construction of housing for san francisco in general and despite the dollar amounts not changing very much,

every division in the department is focused on the mayoral directive and how we can foe cushion on expanding the housing opportunity in san francisco. ok. getting to the current year, which is again what we based most of next year on, in last year's budget we had assumed that we would recognize some deferred revenue, which is revenue that we got from projects that began in a prior fiscal year that will finish in the current fiscal year. so, we got the check last year, but we're actually recognizing it this year. and so we always anticipated that. when we look at the current year and we see that there is a shortfall, it's an expected shortfall. and we will be covering that with our deferred credit for current year ending up with an even net zero finish of revenue and expenditure at the end of

the year. but what we like to focus on in putting together next year's projected revenues, what are the levels that we're seeing with our applications and building permit reviews that are coming in the door this current year. so looking that the and looking at the volume that we've had, we are saying this year and the following year will be about even. there is a large increase over most of the last decade and the plateauing really began last year and continues in the current year. we expect that again in the upcoming two budget cycles. if you look at the revenue budget here, you can see that the charge for services line is where our application and permit review revenue comes in and we're showing a very, very

slight decrease there. every year we're expecting c.p.i. adjustment based on our current year projections and then we are seeing about a $300,000 decrease from this year when you take both of those into account. the current year projection and c. pi. adjustment. so, basically even. the big changes you'll notice here, we are expecting more grants, about double the grants next years than we're getting this year. and development impact fees, we had some one-time funding for the rail yard alignment project so that one-time money is '17-'18, it won't be in future years so there is a big decrease there which, of course, is on the expenditure side.

so, we are showing overall that we're going to go from about 55.4 million -- excuse me, 55.4 million to $53.8 million and, again, mostly the same as what we've been seeing this current year. there is a little bit more detail on grants on the next page for you. if you are interested, there's been one change since this was published which is now that we anticipate the california ocean protection council sea level grant application will be in the following fiscal year in 1920 instead of in '18-'19 and we're hopeful and optimistic action these sources. and if there are other grant opportunities that come up, we'll apply for those as well.

that is all the money coming in. and what are we going to spend it on? mostly people. so, salaries and sfring just under 70% of our expenditures for the department. as john mentioned, our cost increase every year, every single employee is more expenseives every year. so, that is going to be a cost increase in every budget that we bring to you as long as staffing remains the same. our overhead is put in, it's city wide. it's something that every department pays and so we don't have control over that number. as far as we know, that number is not going to change significantly. if it does, it will be a few months from now after we're done touching the budget. [coughing] for now, it is in the budget as far as we know even for the next couple of years. the nonpersonal services, that is in great part contracts and so we're decreasing our

spending there to reflect some of our lower revenues that we're expecting in the future fiscal year. the materials and supplies, capital and equipment, those are mostly staying about even. and then the change that you see there, again is mostly related to that one-time funding for the rab project because that was a big chunk of change so we're not going to be getting the money or paying for those expenses in next year. the services of other departments what we pay for other departments when we pay for rent or the city attorney and technology. so, those are our big ones. one of the things to note there is that in the out year in the 19-20 year, we have unknown costs right now where we put in estimates around moving to our new building at 49 south van ness.

and we know that our rent will go up. we know that our technology costs will go up and we have put in place some placeholder there is and we don't know what those costs will be yet. and there is a decent chance we won't have any good clarity on that until next year's budget. we tried to anticipate conservatively so that, if anything, we can adjust our expenses down, wasn't we get a more solid estimate from those departments providing services. one thing that everybody likes to talk about is, ok, so people cost a lot of money. where are the people? what are they doing? these numbers will change slightly. the points that we thought you would want to know about are that we're shifting four employees from current preservation to environmenttal

division and so they are working on ceqa-related preservation activities. still the same work and it's just a -- [coughing] revision they are housed in in the budget. so overall it doesn't change the f.t.e. count, but changes between current planning and environmental planning. and there is that one new position that we are propose, for the a.d.u.s and that we begin in '18-'19 and we are proposing to repurpose one position and that one is also for current planning. so, lots of charts and a couple of graphs. here are some of the major changes we're looking at here. the four ceqa positions. the r.d.u. position are the big staffing changes.

the grants, as i mentioned, the portfolio is just about doubling, we expect, in the next fiscal year. and the impact fee funding is changing because of big decrease in one-time funding for the rab project and we expect to get impact fees to fund the nexus study, which needs to be done every five years and related impact fee study. >> one quick question. from 17-18 to 18-19, you're moving people to environmental planning and you say you were adding one current planner but the number of current planners went up. quite a bit, enough by plus 7. >> so, we -- >> because it is now 76 and 73, but it should be 73 minus four would be 69 plus -- >> we also have shifted three people from city-wide into current. and believe there was a position last years or maybe

two that have annualized so there is always physician that created, always at .77. the following year there is a .s 23. this always gets a little bit convoluted, mrarsly around the staffing because there are also attrition calculations and some of those are automatically calculated and some of those are manually changed and so it's in flux. the main staffing changes are around the ceqa positions and the new a.d.u. positions. >> thank you. >> sure. and then the fourth item that we wanted to point out is about the new building. so april 2020 is our move-in date. and so we are looking at moving cost as well as i mentioned increased rent and one-time costs such as new telephones that are internet phones because we're not going to have land lines in the building.

so, a lot of one-time cost and then some potentially significant ongoing costs relating to the services of other departments. the work programme for the department you have in detail in the memo that it was in your packets. we wanted to go over just this higher level overview here and then dig into the historic preservation component a little bit more. if you have questions about what was in your packets in anymore detail, i would be happy to answer them and come back with responses. as you see, it's generally remaining stable. we're looking at about 243. this is slightly different from the budgeted f.t., again relating mostly to attrition and then we had previously gotten a lot of funding for

backlog positions, which have positioning that are off budget. so, the budgeted position count and the head count are always slightly different. but the idea here is to give you a sense of where the resources of the department are going and what projects we're working on and what level of effort goes to each of those. so, getting into -- [bell ringing] historic preservation, which is what i imagine you have most of your questions on. i'm going to pass the microphone on to tim or -- on to tim. >> good afternoon, commissioners. tim frye, department staff. i'll start first with staffing, if i could get the slide back up. just to give you a sort of broad understanding of sort of where we are today. but also the work that and encouragement that this commission has given the department. we now currently have a compliance preservation staff

member on the enforcement team. our first cultural heritage specialist working city-wide. we also have a full-time pick preservation planner and then we have two presentation floaters that help with work all over the city. we have our environmental planning, preservation planners which, as deborah mentioned, have administratively moved over to e.p., but are still functioning as part of the preservation team. so from the outside, there really isn't any change in sort of how those planners interact with the public. it's morse of a budgeting and a management shift. and then we have our full-time survey team working on designations, city-wide survey and then the only -- we are

fully staffed right now, save one position, which ms. lavalle is in as the acting senior preservation planner. she's now wearing sort of two hats as survey coordinator and senior preservation planner. so as we figure out what is going to happen with those positions, we'll be back to you to give you an update on that. but overall, we don't see a major shift or increase or decrease in staffing. so, i think the good news at least for us is based on your urging and your recommendations to the board of supervisors, we've been able to create new positions and fully staff the department based on various levels of expertise and subject matter interest to fully address the concerns and interests of this commission and the department. so, with that, we know that for city-wide survey in particular, this commission would like a full briefing on where we are with the city-wide survey.

we're planning to have that hearing in the next month or two. so, we'll certainly get into more detail about it then. about the methodology and where we are right now with the getty foundation, our conservation institute. but happy to answer any questions at this time about that. so, you'll see up at the top of the slide here, preservation survey doesn't really change in terms of staffing and budget p. on the preservation related ceqa case work, which again if you have questions about how that's functioning right now and how it may be difference on the inside, we're happy to answer those questions but that is where the major shifter decrease. there's still preservation staff for all intentses and purposes. our preservation applications are essentially the c of as, permits to alter that we with review under this body and through your delegation. that's going to remain constant.

your h.p.c. landmark designation work programme remains at the full f.t.e., community sponsored designations remains at the .s 15. i will just point out that your one f.t.e. heavily subsidizes this .15 which we've been able to see through the quarterly report that the susan parks has created. but, again, it is something that we think is manageable under these two f.t.e.s so y see any -- or we don't see any reason to increase those at this time. preservation specific legislation coordination, again, sort of on an as needed basis when this commission is involved in reviewing legislation. this usually is handled by quadrant-based staff depending on where that shesing occurring in the city or sometimes me working directly with pillar and the legislative -- our legislative team in the office.