how many potentials does it take so how we implement that for the department how do we talk about making some of those things a happy so it's useful >> one of the things we talked about a lot of times 9 project sponsors are surveying their areas and their property and the survey boundary change and if there's a way to stitch the information together that's not replicated that would be, you know, kind of an interim stage. i i know that you guys have been looking at that >> and if i could get staff to comment i didn't know that you boundary change. >> in the survey. >> if it's not a surveyed area. >> yes. >> and you have a project the

boundary of the survey will change what's the determining factor. >> a that's true. >> i've never heard that. >> i can explain if you're told our a contributor to a district. >> wu but a sdrishlt not in an area it's a potential district our surveying in a large swap. >> you're told to do a survey it would be okay but there's a disagreement about the level of detail of changes in project to project this is an area we spent a lot of time digging into it there maybe a disagreement in between us and the planning department. >> tim fry department staff. and certainly, if we're going to dive into the sequa 12u6 let's

talk about this it depends on the level of details preliminary because the majority of projects we review the departments planning staff is conducting that curry you research only when a project is large enough to require a full source evaluation and that's when a consultant is called in and we'll ask the consultant to do a scan of the neighborhood and we will - have general perimeters of wasn't general area they need to look to help us determine who there's a district in that location but no, if one single property owner most of that where the lion share of that work is handled in house >> when hr e is required by a

third party you're saying that lion street is an t was a residential they want to do treatment to the front of the house so it's a little bit different how do you pick those boundary. >> we'll sit down with the preservation consultant and scope the project before they begin to make sure there's an agreement on both sides for the area. >> where do you start. >> we have to start with the information we have on file and i'm sure you're aware of some districts are large and some small but our general perimeters and my colleague can clarify this we generally ask that the immediately block facing the building be looked at first. one block >> is the starting point. >> one block in each direction

and sometimes, we ask for more but that depends on the level of information and the potential for the project to have a significant impact. on the resources i mean given a small addition to one property may not about a significant impact >> understood. you have a rebuttal, if you will, >> yes. i think explaining what the block phase means it's the block the one indirectly across to - it will be a 9 plain clothes area. >> i noting - not just one block. >> yeah.. so we recommend and he do honestly think that's where the bulk of the disagreement are.

we our recommendation 17 says that the interim period before the citywide survey is complete you might want to recommend some type of standard we recommended the land of site >> i've had a couple of, you know, projects were there was changes to one house on one block and, you know, the professional had to come in and you know it added many thousands not only the report about the house itself but then to survey a 9 block area is a vast amount of work so it added thousands and thousands of dollars to one person's project and why they said have to pay for the survey when it benefits people around the block was a complaint actually a common complaint because of the scale that was

asked for . >> commissioners tim fry if i could clarify one we're talking about a small number of projects every year in the thousands of sequa cleaners we give you're looking at 10 projects a year that have to go through - >> my thing is presently gets a bad rap. >> and that's understandable we have standard procures for how a consultant should approach one of the analysis the scans we didn't building it's a sire we couldn't make a formal decision on that but that's a scan of the neighborhood and give us additional information. most of this will be updated and a road applicant will be outlined in that bullet you'll

have a chance to respond to the scope as we've laid it out. as you notice through the recommendations the majority of the sequa recommendations, you know, are general response would be we agree and these procedures need to be part of the preservation bullet 16 which is a priority for us to update not only to provide clarity for our staff but for the public >> i have a followup question to this item. i think this condition suggests there's more clarity about what the project sponsors should do make sense. the flipdz this isn't only about protecting the interest of the

properties but sometimes things have to be done and the question i be having is there a recommendation that survey work that's done for a specific property and that's all consolidate and becomes part of the record that builds up in an interim basis is that in here >> let's say you have a project they survey a particular area that's in the foil of the project it is not going anywhere else? as national exactly we use that information in house. we also comically as much information an individual neighborhoods to help streamline our own process so while a property owner mating may not be

benefited >> would that became part of the public record. >> no, it would become part of the public record. >> it sort of builds up an ad hoc. >> yeah. it's a citywide ad hoc survey. >> commissioners any other questions to the surveys before we go to district. okay 2 main points to cover in historic district >> the meat of the report role focuses on again public outreach which if with your looking the historic districts in the sense of sequa districts i'll leave for the sequa communication but in terms of whether this is a

conservation district downtown or a landmark ear there are code areas that require us to do extensive public outreach and even outlines the types of outreach to consultation we're supposed to make the property owners and tenants aware of the responsibilities of being in a designated district there a maybe some overlap but considering it's mandated as part of the code we're pretty well covered in terms of the outreach for the designated districts. the other component of the report was really the encouragement to develop interpretation for the secretary of standards. again something we whoerld

agree with we had interims xhoip an exhaust literature review for the standards and practices for many cities cross the country on how the standards are applied and for garages and window replacement that work is coming to completion and while we'll we'll met with the victorian alliance next week we're going to attend a san francisco policy commission meeting to gather input and listen to them. we hope to have sort of a road map on the public participation and maybe a draft document to respond to by fall or winter of this year that honestly will be

the process right now it's a information gathering phase we need additional funding and there will be a robust public participation process around that. i wanted to let he knows that the department is committed to that aspect and it's the most important recommendations that come out of that section. in terms of the grievance process i'm sorry that was part of the last recommendation. oh, in terms of the architecture review committee there was a concern i think or the prospective of the review committee is from the report is many people are not aware of that but the architecture review committee is used very well by

the department and public we're going to make that explicit to let them, they can come here enemy >> is that for any projects or for any historic resource. >> i'd like to say any article 10 or 11 project there's a recommendation in here about using the r.c. in another way maybe part of the sequa discussion but for articles 10 and 11 we want to use that resource. >> isn't that the mission of this commission? that we're looking at anything that falls under arts 10 and 11 so that's not a change >> exactly the prospective is most people doesn't know that the ar c is around it's true.

several folks in the business didn't know >> i understand but your project is considered for a landmark status. >> that doesn't fall under our. view >> exactly the question i also get i'm getting stimulated by the department is there any recourse, you know, to go to the ar c any recourse other than the staff member sayings i have to do the following to me this was in the report. so maybe it's a different issue but it didn't seem like anything different and in terms of the public interaction it's the much

boarder question oh, my building is historic what does that mean i want to make an additional change and i don't know any location i can go except to staff members >> commissioners with all due respect you're welcome to disagree with me but the planning department gets into the position we're treat asia arbitrator our precipitation the ar c r is there for guidance but for the pronounce that the department creates in terms of providing guidelines and policies and procedures and looked at it this as a collaborative process so i think

some of it is on our heads or shoulders we need to change the intent or the purpose of the ar p we don't want to put you in a position it's us against them scenario where we are trying to have a dialog about a project and we certainly aren't prohibiting anybody to go to the ar c when we have enough information to have a forum who this is the article 10 and 11 or properties identified for the purposes of sequa we need to have a discussion because we as the did not have a concern about using the ar c go in that fashion in the broadest sense so maybe we can have that

conversation. >> director ram. >> yeah. this is one of the points is the reality of the planning department is we're disagreeing with people also so if we start creating a situation whether agreement a prove or disprove and project sponsor doesn't like what we say they go to a public forum we're opening up a challenging process that will extend the time and process beyond months. we'll be shooting users in the to the we'll be in a situation where we would be extending the process way beyond where it is today and we'd be ash concentrating disagreement into a public forum i'm not sure that's a good use of time and

sort of having a situation where the commission is pitting project sponsors against staff is an awkward position >> i have to agree with director ram very deeply it's a slippery slope. the planners are professionals we're professionals too but their professional planners and they give the sponsor a original scope and i don't think we should be involved in that that's the departments business; right? and there are there for a long period of time years and years and it's a slippery slope, however, i do understand >> i have another question. >> once the project is scoped out you're getting refinements not a concept level so, yes.

>> commissioner wolfram. >> yeah. i would agree with director ram i'm not sure this is what the intent of this recommendation it seems in it refers to article 10 and 11 buildings i don't see the benefit of extending that beyond that because i think for projects it becomes confusing too you're coming to a subcommittee of a commission and asking for the opinion of the commission then it's not - usually we give a recommendation as to what motive be approved by the f pc and nicole they'll be coming forward with a project but never coming to the pc implicit and sending them down a road that's not beneficial at all. >> so one of the my questions

the planning commission actually does there the dr process the publican come down and sigh we're in disagreement with this it meets the residential guidelines. >> those are permitted by another project sponsor. >> but if i happen to be the project sponsor and i don't agree with the department i totally hear what you're saying we don't want to say to the department it has to be this window and not that window that's crazy there are three or four cases there was subsequential disagreement to the department and they had no recourse slavery a withdraw their project in one case they were ready to sue the city.

so, i mean maybe those are unique cases but it seems like there should be someway to get past a staff decision if it's not being applied properly that's all >> i would like to ask the colleague to come up. >> i'd like to acknowledge any colleague so hopefully we'll have the dynamic troy. this recommendation is about providing a clear metabolism that's already loud in the 10 and 11 i agree with the property landmark if you're in article 10 or article 11 district and you want an voids opinion the purpose of the recommendation in the sequa session really has to

do with the secretary of interior standards and how their mraitd applied they're a safe harbor we here a lot about those discussions of whether something a project does actually conform with the secretary of interior standards and there's no recourse mechanism and perhaps the ar c but it's trying to address that particular issue that the commission has raised i wanted to point out they're two separate situations. thank you >> thank you. >> number 14. ; right? public utilities number 9 and 14 >> do we want to go to sequa. >> sure. >> commissioner wolfram. >> i had one question maybe this isn't similar to the report but a map shows the part of the

city that were surveyed but there are the beginning of the survey and that's not mapped in this report how easy are those for the public to access. i mean how would you know there's a context statement on your neighborhood for example, >> tim freeway we do have is list on the preservation pages of the departments website our goals to vuvenl link those. the most recent surveys have a link to the survey and the context statement the older statements don't because they're in hardcopy but the goal with our new permit tracking system our updates to the pin to the preservation website that's still in progress that all of

this information will sooufbl be linked. at this time if you see or someone sees context statement they'll send us an e-mail and we'll make it available from observer preservation library. >> and if it's a map similar to this map that would be helpful because the list it's easy to assess. >> not at this point, because ems some context statements are based on geometry but we can look into that we're trying to dig intents as much as possible. >> certainly phenomenon the go graph. >> i personally want to see how it overlaps with the survey map.

>> just quickly is this list on the site if i went on our roster i want those gentlemen list on the review committee and an explanation. >> your commission home page does have. >> it's on there. >> very good it used to be in our older applications there was language but it was removed we noticed it several months ago our goal is to put that back we say that another every project meeting involving a designated property we want to formalize that to make people aware of the information. >> sequa. >> yeah. i guess to keep the conversation going about the organization r.c. ms. jeopardizing is here to clarify

the recommendations but, you know, we feel that the recommendation and the report about using the ar c to make finding of compliance with the standard for the most part we feel the issue will resolve itself through the development of the guidelines. right now i think the gray areas month folks aren't entirely clear about how the departments apply the guidelines and the consultant apply those in various ways the planning commission and this commission have have to talk about links. so we think that will be able to address many of the concern about you know how the

departments are policing the guidelines or standards and whether or not to see that the organization r.c. applies the guidelines >> do we have a timeline. >> as i mentioned easily we are going to visit the heritage committee next week as part of our information gathering on the one hand but our goal is to have a public participation plan outlined for you to look at as well as a with graft sort of a best practices throughout the country and hopeful that will be available this fall. >> from there, where does it go. >> per the code this commission and planning commission have to adapt it so maybe by the end of the year. >> no, the guidelines

themselves we don't have a timeline. >> but we hope to engage we are formerly engaging stakeholders but to have something to reach out to the public by fall or winter after that there will be a long process and getting you'll the commissions and public on board with the document that could be another year. >> so if we can all that for goals. >> sure. >> that's great. >> sorry. >> i'm sorry sarah jones environmental review officer i want to add one point but that the 14 or recommendation 14 as a it relates to the sequa which is that if you have a project that's consistent with the standards the presumption under sequa there's no impact but you can have a project that's

national consistent with the impact that still has none so the connection of having the standards is over stated in the context of this report and so i think that's an important point to understood this may not be an unnecessary means to address those issues. >> sorry. >> yeah. >> commissioner pearlman. >> could you explain that again so basically you're saying if the staff says this doesn't meet the secretary of interior standards what happens then how does the department sign off on something that doesn't moot the standards. >> the preservation staff responsibility one pack of their work is to determine whether a project is or isn't with the

secretary of standards but a project that's not in sync with the threshold the impact under sequa does it teller impair the rows so it doesn't convey it's significance so the easily example a contributor to a historic district obviously demolition is not consistent with the standards but that demolition is not necessarily a significant impact on the whole it doesn't necessarily impair the district so such a degree that the district can convey it's significance and eligible for listing. so it's a different threshold essentially and we have many times projects