up and you see at least 16 posts rather than the glass. i'd like you to consider that when you are making your decision on this. we are able to live with a deck because it was granted originally, but not this 6-foot structure and nobody else seems to need a windscreen despite the fact that the wind is the same all over. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. project sponsor. you have two minutes. >> my name is maurice miller, commissioners. thank you for hearing us. i have three general comments. i shall say, first of all, the reason the piewood is on the -- the reason the plywood is on the roof right now is for safety reasons because there was no glass installed because we got the permit to put in a 6-foot

glass and then we were told not to install the 6-foot glass. so there was never any intention not to install glass and re-install it. we were told we could install 6-foot glass and purchased its and it sits in my garage. this is my primary outdoor space for the building. i have problems with stairs, and we would like the roof to be more usable. that said, the 42-inch screen would also have been acceptable had we been told that we couldn't do a 6-foot screen. in response to the comments about 16 poles, in fact, there will be less obstruction because the glass windscreen does not require a top rail. the 42-inch windscreen does require a top rail and the amount of steel on the roof will be much lower with the 6-foot rail rather than the 42-inch

because there won't be a top rail going around the roof. finally, i did spend $30,000 on this, and i think there is some equities involved in this that we were told we were given a building permit by the building department. it did seem like a minor change to the roof. and what is being told as a very monumental change to the roof, in fact, isn't much of a change from our perspective admittedly. thank you very much for your time. >> president hillis: all right. thank you. that closes this portion of the hearing. we will open it up to commissioner comments and questions. commissioner moore. >> commissioner moore: this is a very difficult situation partially because something is approved by one agency and it comes back to us. i believe if it would have been reviewed by us, it would have cautioned in the design phase

that it was a questionable thick because of the visibility from the street. the four on 4-foot center spacing of the poles could have definitely had a different type of solution. the architect, the owner, probably knows what the prevailing wind directions are in san francisco, and would have come forward with if this issen the only space that is -- if this is the only space that is really usable to consider that beforehand. the deck in its configuration is not a small deck. it is properly tucked the way we normally expect it. however, for the extended windscreen to be added to it, i think we would have further shaped it in order to accommodate that. it is good to see the structure, the poles right now almost historic poles, and that is what raises my concerns. also, the fact that there are really no patterns of these types of roof decks in the adjoining area, something we

have talked about a lot when it came to other situations where there is a beginning precedent emerging that roof tops all of a sudden start to make the buildings taller and more different. i am very concerned about this. we have talked about this in another circumstance earlier today, particularly with permit tracking and finally after three years coming together. the department is put in a very, very difficult position when it comes to what we normally would have all done thoughtfully reviewing the entire thing with the intent of having the windscreen on top. at this moment, i am very much sitting on the fence because i think it is too impacting on the street. >> president hillis: i have the same feeling. i think we would normally or at least i would, i don't want to speak for everybody, but deny this permit and keep you at the typical rail height.

because it's a large -- no matter what you do with these, glass, if you drive around the city and you see them, they are a bit jarring when they are -- you can see them from the properties in the rear and also from scott street. but i think my issue is, so the process that you all go through and clearly was a mistake made to approve this. >> in this case it was our mistake. it was the planning department's mistake to approve this over the counter. >> it was approved over the counter. >> we approved over the counter and dbi issued the permit. that was done in error. >> what is the department's kind of protocol when a permit is issued in error when it was rescind that permit? >> that is what happened. when we discovered the error, we still go through the process of suspending it. >> and what if it was built two years ago? when do you -- >> if it was already built, it would be a different situation. it would have been -- the notice would have expired by then. >> right. >> but in this case, we issued a

new notice per the zoning administrator's direction, and then that made the -- that prompted the -- >> but it was built, he would haven't done it. >> well, if we discovered the error, after the fact is not typically when we do it. under construction is when we typically suspend the permit. >> right. that is my challenge. >> president hillis: i am sympathetic that clearly it is not an insignificant deck that you have spent money on and the department has issued a permit and now rescinded it. again, if this was clean and seeing this without anything being built, i would reject it. i would vote to reject it, but i am torn what to do. sure. >> in response to that, the notice we received to stop work on it was received on the day that the glass was to be installed. so my contractor was not able to install the glass on the day

that we received word from your planning department with the rescission of the permit was the afternoon that the glass panels were to go to the roof. just to be clear that construction was one day away from finished. >> president hillis: i think we understand. commissioner richards. >> so we get stories all the time from project sponsors about extended families and need 20,000 square feet and yada, yada, and a lot of times i actually don't believe until proven true. we see the project sponsor has a mobility issue. we see it's not like it's an architect representing some llc and this is going to be flipped. here is a human face to the need for having the windscreen. i know 42 inches versus they should have figured it out. but i think it's a fairness

thing because you went ahead and purchased them. we made a mistake. i wouldn't like to see that walking down the street, but i chalk it up to you win some, lose some, and not taking dr and allow the process to going forward out of basic fairness and seeing the project sponsor who really needs the roof deck. >> president hillis: commissioner moore. >> commissioner moore: i'm trying to figure out -- i don't know exactly the prevailing winds in this area. >> president hillis: probably from the west. >> commissioner moore: south, southwest. and the elevator housing that provides some protection for the roof deck itself. and if it is windy, we just tuck perhaps somewhere near the elevator override. some put additional planters further inbound, but i personally cannot support adding

this windscreen here. i just can't. the fact that something happened over the counter may require another settlement, but i am not a lawyer of how the glass is sold to somebody else or reimbursement, but i cannot support adding a 6-foot windscreen. i can't. doesn't matter. anybody else could do the same thing and find a way to wriggle themselves into a permit and under normal circumstances is not supportable. it is too visible from the street and impact and jarring. you have toed a mitt that. -- you have to admit that. i cannot say because there was a mistake somewhere we have to approve it. we may need to support the department to find a way to remedy between the expenditure of the glass, but that does not force me to approve a 6-foot screen here. it does not. >> president hillis: commissioner melgar. >> vice president melgar: i agree with everything you said

and it doesn't seem fair to me. knowing what i know about municipal finance, i don't see a way that we would reimburse the homeowner for something he did in good faith according to our instructions. so the only recourse would be to sue in small claims court. but right, it's not small because it's $30,000 and that would add cost to him and the city. it would be a bummer. so i agree if this project had come to us, we probably wouldn't have approved it. you guys know that. the fairness element in terms of the process and what citizens' expectations can be of government, it doesn't seem fair to me, so i would lean towards

just not taking dr. >> president hillis: this in essence was for all intensive purposes, it's built and the glass is in the garage and the structure is up. can i ask a question about the prevailing winds? are there any modifications made to reduce the impact? i think we agree with the neighbors that this is -- we've seen these and somewhat of a structure there. could you have 6 foot on the west side and take the first two -- or the first -- i don't know how wide that is on either side, until you get to the first frame? and then drop it down? so you've got some protection to the wind but on the kind of building edges there isn't that 6-foot structure. >> i happen to be in the wind business actually. i am a wind project developer

for 35 years. >> could you speak a little bit louder? >> i'm sorry. i have been a wind energy project developer for 35 years. including the altamont pass. the prevailing winds from san francisco are from the west and southwest. so if you consider there is one aspect of this that also was not -- that was in the presentation and was not presented. and was that when we bought the hou house, my exact neighbor had an approved permit for a roof deck. and my structure for my elevator and the stairs landing on the roof was designed to be directly next to his. so it is on the wrong side of the deck, if you consider it that way, from the purpose of blocking any wind. it is on the north -- it is on

the southeast sort of corner of the deck. and south side of the building. so the wind will, if you tried to get behind it, you would be on my neighbor's roof essentially is what it would come down to. but in terms of can there be anything done to cut posts to reduce the windscreen on the north side, does it change the perspective of the back neighbors, the la villa neighbors in terms of seeing this? i think from my perspective, it's not a good solution. it changes the dynamic of at least one pole and maybe two poles to try to re-engineer those poles so they don't have an area where the glass tries to be install ed.

i was told that this isn't something that normally gets imposed because color can be changed. one thing we can do is we could change the color of the poles such that they are not jarring. they were done that color by my contractor without asking because they matched the interior design. of course, exterior design doesn't necessarily need to match interior design. so that is one area that when you look at -- when you look at it, then, it would look like the sky instead of other things. >> president hillis: all right. thanks. since we have been given you the opportunity to talk, if we can hear from the neighbor. just a couple of minutes. >> i think the misunderstanding here is he had purchased the 42-inch deck rail and installed the 42-inch deck rail. presumably -- >> hold on. guys, we can't have this. whether he did, though, or not, and -- >> he went and got a permit and purchased the 72-inch rail, too, is our issue. he purchased it.

he could put up the 42 back, but still out the -- he got a permit and the department, in error, kind of issued the permit. and allow this to go forward and get built until you saw it in legitimately raised an issue, and admittedly we made a mistake. >> on the first day they installed the first 6-foot post i called building on the first day. >> president hillis: thank you. commissioner richards? >> i would be inclined to approve it with two conditions. take dr and approve the project with two conditions. one, the posts are painted a neutral color. maybe a white, so not jarring. and two, kind of like we did before on accommodating the person's personal need when we said when they sell the units in question, that we merged, that the units have to go back. i would say upon sale of the house, you have a 42-inch rail installed. so accommodate your needs while

you are there, but upon sale of the house, the mistake is rectified. >> second. we're breaking new ground. that was a motion then, commissioner? >> it was. and a motion and second. >> a ground breaking one. >> it was indeed. there is a motion that's been seconded to take dr to aprove project with two conditions that the posts be painted a neutral condition such as white and upon sale, that the 42-inch railing is re-installed.

>> president hillis: if it's quick. you have to come up to the mic. you have to come up to the mic. >> would these conditions be put in the deed. or be recorded? >> president hillis: yes. they are recorded. commissioner koppel? commissioner richards? commissioner moore? commissioner melgar? so moved, commissioners. that motion passes 4-1 with commissioner moore voting against. okay. new dance. all right. our meeting is adjourned.

[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. preservation project reviews, which is embedded in part of current planning when a preservation planner is asked to attend a project review meeting. special projects and to give you a sense of what this includes where you see there is a slight decrease, i will have to double check this number. the one thing i did want to mention was special pronltzes does include grants. we do currently have a c.l.g. grant for the chinese-american experience, historic context statement. we are currently under contract. we do intend on applying for another c.l.g. grant next year. our civil rights underrepresented community grant is winding down so that is not reflected here, which is one of the reasons for the decrea