partnering with the san francisco latino historical society on a city-wide san francisco latino context study. as desiree mentioned, our lady of guadalupe is among the most significant landmarks associated with the early latino community to present day. i'm authorized to speak on behalf of the latino historical society this morning -- sorry, this afternoon -- as well to express our strong support for designating the interior of the church. i had the opportunity to tour the building a few weeks ago with the current owners and stewards of the building, and it's been the first time since i've been inside in about six or seven years, and i was immediately impressed by steps already taken to restore integrity of the interior. the last time i toured the building, it was filled, the sanctuary was filled with temporary classrooms. that's all been removed and much work done already to restore the interior integrity.

it's important to note and give credit to some of the other steps that are already underway by the current owners including resurrecting the annual procession of former congress cs which happened last week, and this is important for the congregation and important gesture of good faith. you all, of course, realize that this would make the church one of only a handful of interiors designated as city landmarks in san fransisco, and it is certainly worthy, and i want to applaud the current owners for working with the community and the department in making this happen. thank you very much. >> thank you. i do have a few speaker cards. i have juana viegas.

>> good afternoon, everybody. like you said, i'm juana viegas, and i am here because i've been to guadalupe every year, even if we meet outside, we are tending the same, celebrate vision of guadalupe. i grew up with all my life with the spirit of mission of guadalupe because she's my mother, and she's the mother of all the mexican, and i always make a joke about is our mother, but we can give it away. i am just asking you to applaud this project because it is really important for us. it's the spirit that we feel on friday, when they open the doors for us there after so many years. i've been there, inside, in 2015, and it was really

depressed to see the inside, how dirty it was, and the big difference each year, to go inside, and just walk inside on december 12th to see that big vision of what guadalupe is for us, makes really big impacts. we need vision of what guadalupe is important for the community, and for everybody. in san francisco, i see so many different nationalities on friday, attending events. for us, it's an important, so, please, say yes, because i had a grandson who was with me when he was a baby. it's too bad he's not here. he's at school, but that made me upset because this is the opportunity to bring him because you can see how many generations, that you said, just really nice to keep it that way,

the vision of guadalupe, even if you are here, from another country, it's no matter, for them, they believe in vision of guadalupe, and they are really proud that heritage of mexican, so, please, say yes to this proposal, thank you. >> thank you, ms. viegas. mark ruper? >> good afternoon, commissioners, on behalf of the building owner, first, i want to thank desiree smith and tim and the designation staff for the hard work on getting the landmarking here. the building owner is really, really excited to be here today, and, as you've heard, we are fully supportive of staff's efforts to update the landmarking to include the interior. you probably surmised that building owners, since acquiring the project, has spent a lot of time working with the community and also cultural groups and

groups with historic ties to the church. the owner is proposalling to reopen the church as an adult education and community facility, and so we will be back here asking for certificate of appropriateness. we are talking emergency egress stair out of the way, and so we'll be coming back here for certificate of appropriateness, and we hope to be here soon, and hope for the certificate of appropriateness before the end of february. thank you very much. >> thank you very much. does any other member of the public wish to speak? >> good afternoon. i'm felix ortiz, and i became a part of the project about 13 years ago, but a lady named clementina. she now lives in mexico city. she lived here for 60 years, and she was really instrumental as

well. ramos, who is out of the country, and it was really very unique way to see the history that is speaking about what san francisco is about, no matter where you come from or who you are. i think by approving this, we're sending a strong message, not just to the latino community, but to the world because the impact of history of this church, it's a facility, but it's also instrumental of going to be serving the community, which is something that we always wanted to do as a group. the ownership is being very welcoming and anything you want to do, you want to reach out to the community, and i think that's what san francisco is about. thank you. >> thank you, mr. ortiz. do any other members of the public wish to speak to this amendment? seeing none, i close public comment.

commissioners, do i have comment, motion to recommend approval, or initiate? commissioner? >> quick comment. thank you very much, this is a fantastic extension of what's already been landmarked. i was very moved by ms. viegas, moved by what you said about the spirit of the place, that you walked in, and that really moved me, talking about how you're connected to that place, and the spirit of san francisco, that essentially right across the street is the self-help for the elderly chinese seniors' home, and that reflects the history of that neighborhood and, certainly, the history of san francisco, so thank you very much, and i certainly would move to initiate. >> second. >> any other comments? >> thank you, commissioner. >> want to move, second, and comment. >> okay. >> okay. this is very exciting to see

this approach here to include the interior as a very holistic approach to the cultural landscape and history in which the building sits so i'm very excited and thank you for attending today and for all the work that's been done to go into preserving interior to date too, so -- >> thank you, commissioner? >> thank you. this was another example of how things in san francisco, as a native american man sitting way back there years ago observed that in this city, wherever you are, something ca came before ad something's going to come again, and i think it's very, very important that this building, landmark, the expanded to included interior, and that we

study this building and we talk about what went on there. it will remind us that the mission district is not the center of latino culture in san francisco historically. it was at some time, then it wasn't, and then north beach was, and then that changed, and it became it again, and now that's changing, and so we always have to be sensitive to how our cultural areas move around through various parts of the city as new faces and new generations come, but we shouldn't forget where these groups were originally. so i'm very supportive of this. >> okay. thank you. we have a motion and a second. >> very good, commissioners, and all that motion to adopt a resolution to initiate. commissioner? >> yes. >> yes. >> yes.

>> yes. >> yes. >> commission president? >> yes. >> so moved, commissioners, motions passes unanimously, 7-0. >> before we call the next item, which is i think is 900 north point, is that right? >> yes. >> i need a motion to be rescued because my company works for this owner. >> i move to rescue. >> second. >> rescue commission president. >> yes. >> yes. >> yes. >> sorry, i was waiting. yes. right. >> commissioner -- >> thank you. >> yes. >> yes. commissioner president. >> yes. >> so moved, you are hereby

recused. >> item number, 900 north point, certificate of appropriateness. >> good afternoon, commissioners, rebecca, planning staff. before we request certificate of appropriateness to exterior operations of 900 north point street, located on the north side of north point street between polk street and markan street. the proposed work is located at the non-contributing open air structure within the square that was constructed in the plaza in in the 1982. it is city landmark no. 30. the proposed group of work includes enclosure of the first floor of the two story building, which is currently serving as an open air pavilion for use as a cafe. the enclosure consists of glaze multistore front windows with dark finished aluminum framing

matching the color of store front systems within the general vicinity of the plaza. staffers of the proposed work will be in conformance of the requirements in article 10 and rebill nation. the proposed work changes the first floor of the building from being open air to being enclosed, the large areas of the glazing, operateble windows and transom movers maintain the space and relationship to the landmark. the proposed store front at the building will be installed between and recessed within the existing columns at the first floor. the aluminum framing has a finished matching predominant framing finish found in the store fronts of the vicinity of the plaza to be compatible with the landmark site. this will consist solely of framed glazing panels with no solid bulk heads or other oh makopaqueelements other than fr.

this is upon approval of conditions. staff recommends one condition of approval to provide a sample of the proposed framing to ensure that the finish will be compatible with the existing store front framing finishes found in the vicinity of the terrace plaza, the subject property. no public comments received since patrick's were submitted. this concludes my presentation. if there's any questions, the project sponsor is also available to answer any questions about the project. >> all right. any questions, commissioners? this is a project sponsor to make the presentation or just for questions? okay. go ahead and open this side up for public comment. any members of the public wish to speak on this? >> good afternoon, i'm joshua callahan on behalf of the ownership, johnstown llc. we have been working to restore

the square, and it's more than 90% leased now, and we've done that by attracting local businesses including the chief of san francisco, san francisco brewing company, mini golf, and others. we appreciate continued support as we come forward with projects we think additionally add to the revitalization of the square, so thank you very much. >> thank you. >> all right. any further public comment? seeing none, i'll close public comment and bring it back to the commission. any comment, questions? >> i'm going to make a motion. >> yeah? yeah? >> that we approve this. >> second. >> i have one question. >> go ahead. >> are there any -- what's happening inside? is this just going to be open space? are there fixtures? sink? tables? cafe? is it retail space? >> so this -- the proposed

project is solely for the store front framing enclosure, and then an application for whatever interior tenant improvements will occur is going to come at a later date. >> and will that come back before us again? >> no. >> probably not. >> because it's an interior alteration. >> okay. because it's completely transparent. >> yes. >> good question. >> commissioner black? >> well, you -- i was did > -- >> i beat you to it. >> my exact comment. no hesitation with the design, but how the funnishings and fixtures are handled at the edge, looks great or it could look not great on clear buildings like this, so -- >> yeah. staff will be reviewing that when it comes in, so that's definitely our concern as well, but it's not an item that will come before the commission.

>> there's nothing further commissioners, there's a motion seconded to approve the matter with commissioners on the motion. >> yes. >> yes. >> yes. >> yes. >> so moved, motion passes unanimously. >> item 10 for case 2008.004u, 690 market street. this is a mills act application. >> good afternoon, commissioners. shannon fearingson n ferguson, a renewal for 690 market street. can i have the overhead, please? the nine-story plus office tower originally constructed in 1889 to '90 and adjoining 16-story

tower constructed in 1905 are subject to the contract. the eight-story ver vertical condition completed in 2007 is not subject to the contract. the legislation authorizes local governments to enter into contracts with private owners of qualified historic properties. this agreement provides property tax reductions to owners of the historic properties who then allocate savings to an appropriate rehabilitation and maintenance plans to preserve the property. the city currently holds 31 contracts. under the contract, one year is added automatically to the initial term of the contract at the anniversary date unless notice of non-renewal is given. they are ten-year revolving contracts renewed annually and in perpetuity. this allows either the property

owner or the city to not renew the contract. if written notice is not served prior to renewal date, one year is automatically added to the term of the contract. the board makes final determination if contracts will not be renewed. property owners pay property taxes based on market value of the property after the contract expires. the contract was approved by commission on march 20th, 2008, november 18th, 2008, after reviewing approval, and the information provided by the assessor's office as well as weighing benefits of the mills act to the property owners and historical value of the property with the cost of the city providing the property tax reductions. the board of supervisors approved the contract. the board of soup vis supervisos expressed interest in eliminating the contract in order to better achieve a balance between the benefits of the mills act and the cost to the city.

so the mills act contract for 690 market street is proposed to not be renewed. i note there's an error in the staff report and also the hpc resolution regarding term of the contract. it currently says it will be limited to 10-year term, and this is incorrect. the contracts will expire in 2028, if this resolution passes. the department recommends the hpc recommend to the board of supervisors approval of limiting contracts to a term to this term, because it provides incentive for historic preservation, rehabilitation of the work to be completed in that term, and achieve a better balance between the benefits of the property owner and the cost of the city. this concludes my presentation and happy to answer any questions. >> thank you. commissioner? >> i do have a question. this is the ritz hotel, isn't it? >> yes. >> so it surprised me only in that here's a business that's

going to absolutely be taken tag care of their building as a matter of their business, you know, i mean, if there were, you know, given the quality and the nature of the business. i'm just wondering, you know, what benefit the mills act has for this building at all relative to the business? >> property tax reduction. >> no, no, i understand that, but that's a benefit that the city is offering them for, you know, for taking care of the building. maintaining the building, but they are going to maintain the building anyway because of the nature of who they are. >> and that's why it's proposed to not be continued. >> right, no, no, i understand that -- i understand that, but you said that the original one was 2008, right? >> yes. it was approved and recorded and actually approved by the board of supervisors in 2008 and contract recorded in 2009, so that is the anniversary date of the contract. >> right, so it's already been ten years, had the benefit for ten years, and now we're

extended it for another ten years? >> because of the nature of the contract, as i mentioned, that one year is automatically added to the contract each year unless there's a notice of nonrenewal so now that we have had this notice of nonrenewal, the contract runs itself out. >> the state law requires it to be minimum of a ten-year contract unless it's canceled, and now that it's canceled -- >> i'm saying are we -- >> in 2009. right? >> 2009 or 2010. >> that's what i'm asking. >> okay. >> so in 2009, it would have had to have been a ten-year only contract, but now it has to be an additional ten years -- >> right. >> because it was not -- got it. okay. yes. got it. >> commissioner myland? >> i was going to address the comment because i think we had the conversation several times, and that is around need, and i think that goac had conversations and determinations based on need and whether the

property owner needs this -- >> that's my point. >> needs this justif offset, and to clarify the mills act is an incentive for the property owner to take care of the property per the standards, so it's an agreement that they will adhere to a better, potentially better preservation of the property than they would otherwise be required to do. and that's the incentive they get back for it in property rebate, property tax rebate. it's not a needs program. >> thank you for that clarification. commissioner black? >> so, got to my question, presumably, 2008/09, there was a preservation plan proposed by them in exchange for this benefit, and -- >> the report was actually -- >> how was that? >> it's in the attachment here.

>> oh, under -- from -- >> it's exhibit a, i believe. >> b, i think. >> extent of the contract. >> i apologize, then. that's something that all these obligations in the time that they said they would? >> i believe they have. we have been doing inspections every five years to make sure the building is being maintained as well and in good condition. >> okay. are there any further questions? we can open this up for public comment and any of the public wish to speak to this matter? seeing none, we close with a comment. do we have a motion? any further discussion?

>> i move it's approved. >> second. >> thank you. >> commissioners, there's a motion we second it to adopt resolution recommending to the board of supervisors of nonrenewal. >> sorry, i had to specify the changes to be read in the resolution. >> okay. >> yes. in the resolution, page 2, the third paragraph, strike to a term of ten years, that's in the second sentence. >> that's it? >> that's it. >> on the motion to adopt resolution recommending to the board of supervisors, recommended by the staff, commissioner black. >> yes. >> commissioner? >> yes. yes. >> yes. >> yes. >> passes unanimously. that places us to item 11,

historical resources pilot program informational presentation. >> commissioners, tim frey, just wanted to make a few comments to you. naturally as you have seen from the letters in the pact and heard yourselves, occasional request for the department to develop a mechanism that provides clarity and some assurances for property owners when they are thinking about engaging a designer or developing a proposal for an age eligible building or property where we have no information in the files, other than the property's age eligible. with the city wide survey starting in earnest in january and looking at the preliminary project assessment process, we

developed a pilot program that addresses this request and helps expedite data collection for the city wide survey. we commend staff especially for their work and their hard work in developing this pilot program. it really took a lot of minds to come together, and we spent a lot of time in the past year in developing this pilot, so we're going to continue to monitor the efficiency and use of the program as well as update you on its progress, and so, with that, i wanted to turn it over to you to walk through the proposalled project and answer any questions you may have. >> thank you. good afternoon, commissioners and planning staff. here today to present and get feedback on the historic resources assessment program, a new process that the department will be piloting in 2019 as tim just mentioned. this process was developed by

the department, and there's several members of the working group that are here today, including myself, lisa gibson from the environmental planning division, jeff joselyn, and jeff fry frojefffrye from the curreng division, and there was several others as well. just before i discuss the new process, i just wanted to give you a little bit of background about some of the department's current processes around historic resources. so i have a little map here. on the screen, if jonas can pull up the screen, please. sorry about that.

it's a little -- as far as it'll go. so what this map shows is we're starting to try to visualize kind of the development patterns of the city as part of the city wide survey process, and on this map, which i'm sorry you can't see all of it, everything but the sort of light pink and light violet are age eligible properties. essentially. so most of the city's buildings stock, as we know, is more than 50 yearing years old, and approy 19% of the properties in the city have been surveyed to date, so that means most age old eligible properties are tagged as category b or unknown to their historic resource status. for purposes of review under the environmental california act. until the survey, which is a multiyear phase effort, these category bs remain unless a project application triggers a

valuation under sequa. for project application to be considered complete and accepted by the department, generally, detailed scope of work and associated architect plans need to be prepared and submitted at the time of the application, and we've heard from many in the public that this is expenditure resources can be a problem, given that the unknown status of the property while they are preparing those materials. so the historic resource assessment process, which the assessment will pilot in 2019 is intended to provide feedback whether a property is eligible for listing on the national and/or california registers before any development applications are prepared or filed. hra will be based on information available at the time of the assessment and will not be a formal determination.

the hra's assessment is subject to change during evaluation of the property and neighborhoods around the survey where if new information becomes available during subsequent review of a project application. the pilot period we're proposing is intended to assist the department and public in measuring the efficacy of the project and identify appropriate staffing and fees as the process moves forward. the hra application, a draft of which was included in the packs packets, is required for a supplementation tomorrow. we wanted to make sure there was essentially equity in the information we got between different processes. the planning department's preservation staff reviews application materials, conduct limited archive research and state visit in the assessment of

whether the property appears eligible for the national register or the california register. assessment of eligibility is based on the national register and california register criteria and integrity, the same criteria used for survey evaluations and historic resource determinations in our department as reviews. the department will issue hra letter to the applicant outlying the assessment, and the pilot targeting a 60-day response time for the letters. in some cases, assessment is inconclusive, pending additional information as part of a formal determination pursuant to sequa. where the hra is conclusive, the property will be recategorized in the preservation tab on the department's property information map to either a category a, which is the known resource, or category c, which is not arouser. a resource, andg

else is reviewed accordingly. any properties that receive and request hra is flagged in the city wide survey efforts to provide background information to surveyors. if no new information is available in subsequent review of the application or survey, the assessment provided for the property in the hra process will be accepted as final. for the survey process, any hra assessment would be included as part of the survey findings and forwarded to the historic preservation commission for final adoption. thank you. this concludes my presentation, and i'm available for any questions or take any feedback on the process as outlined in the presentation and packet. >> thank you. at this time, we'll do public comment. any public wish to speak to the manner? seeing or hearing none, we close public comment. commissioner? >> thank you. so i have a number of questions.

so this is great because, you know, virtually every project we touch requires some form of information, so a few questions. how is it true -- like, how is it triggered, you know, i got a client, they have a property, when do we submit this, and how much does it cost, and what's the benefit over -- is this done before the ee submittal? what's the process for that? >> so, sorry, there's -- some of this is outlined a little bit more specifically in that draft application, but just to respond, so this would happen before you submit anything else to the department, and it's focused on category bs that come up very often in the property information tab. that's really, at this point, asking that anything that's already been categorized as a c or a would not submit this

application. but, yeah, it is intended to be it's own free standing application that is submitted and acted upon prior to any other application being filed with the department, and, in fact, i should also say that i think the application also states that if you have a pending application already with the department, we'd also ask you not to submit this because we're already going through a process. but the intent is that where we can be conclusive with this assessment, even though it's still preliminary, that you would then you, or fellow property owner, and it is an application made by the property owner requesting that we do this assessment, that that information from the assessment would then be used to develop your project application and submitted. >> and how much -- >> oh, sorry.

>> would that be? >> the fees. >> yeah. >> right now, we are going to be piloting -- as part of the pilot, we are charging the project review fee, so which is approximately for -- sorry, it's $455 for, i think, five units or something larger, and commercial is 1076, and all the numbers change january 1, but that is the fee schedule that we are using. >> so the advice to a client, a property owner, would be the day you hire me, we should submit this because then we're still going to have to wait 60 days to get that back before we know for sure, and we may not even know for sure, but we'll certainly know this is going to require an hra or something like that. >> yes, that's good advice, or even before they hire you. >> well, that's -- >> having shown that. >> they may not know about it.

>> right. >> okay. very good. thank you. >> commissioner? >> well, on the similar line of questions, but this sounds great. i think this -- i wish to save you time, or the property owner time, you know, later on in this discussion on the evaluation in the midst of a project application, so i can see value of that. so, i guess, the idea, and i think this should go right up on the front page of the website. everyone should do this, really, i think, and that would be widely known and distributed, and so you have your property and that'll be registered up on your property information sheet on the website, and so i think this should be kind of a widely distributed practice for that. i guess the other question, the only other question i have is, so, if there's going to be -- i

think you mentioned there's a, for instance, a statute of limitations on how good the information is for -- you said something about, you know, can you -- how long can you rely on that, so i tell people, you better get your hra done now and even if you have something not for ten years from now, so i think that happened, so time to change it, i guess. >> something could happen in the time to change it. it is a preliminary assessment, and we, you know, have tried to make that very clear in the application that the two primary things that could happen are, one, that the city wide survey, the phase actually comes to that property, and based on the broader research we're doing, we realize that, oh, the assessment we made in the preliminary process is not correct, and it would change as part of the survey findings, or that when

someone submits a project in the intervening years between the hra being done and the project being submitted, we adopted new contact statements that actually include this property or something like that, so there could be new information that happens. essentially, the way that the assessment is intended to be used or statute of limitations, it's very similar to how we use survey information today, which is that, yes, you know, at the end of the day, a survey sort of has a shelf life, but it's lengthy depending on how long it takes to do a survey and do any updates so we're not putting a time frame on it. >> okay. and as far as the how much time it takes to get one of these done, did you say -- >> we are targeting a 60-day response, and, i mean, and then, you know -- >> sounds good. >> however much time it takes for a property owner or whomever

to put together the application materials. >> right, right. >> that's outside of that. >> right. >> thank you. commissioner myland. >> i wanted to acknowledge the staff working with the hia chapter, and locally, i know, maybe as you joined the city, it's been a long time coming, and the small firms committee, and the newly, at that time, formed public policy advisory committee, efficacy committee, they were looking for ways to open up dialogue between their work and the city and improve things, and i know, jeff, you've been working really hard with them for open dialogue. >> there's been a lot of dialogue. >> pardon? >> there's been a lot of dialogue. >> oh, yeah, there's been a lot of dialogue. i appreciate it. they appreciate it, and it's not gone -- it's been well noticed, let's say. i have one question, and maybe i should know this, but on the

occupancy history table, is that a standard in the hres the research that is necessary behind that something that's always happening in all hres? >> both in hres and in summit supplemental forms, we ask for that information, depends what's generally available -- >> how do you obtain -- >> in is our sort of best practices ideal what we would like to have the information, but we understand that for some properties, this information is impossible to obtain or very difficult to obtain, and we also want to make as part of the process, you know, we're not requiring that a consultant be involved in the preparation of the application, so we want it to be accessible to a property owner to prepare that information. >> so, in general research for the property, outside of this

pilot, just general research, it's only what's known, right? you don't expect the consultant team to go through business tax records and research continuum of occupancy through the period? just to identify if there's any significant -- >> yes. we expect them to make their best efforts to use the information that we provide in how to research the property's history to kind of go through to the different locations, but, no, we don't expect them to do -- to go beyond -- above and beyond that. >> we can talk about this in the legacy business, but some of the feedback i get from consultants who do this work, they are afraid they have to trudge through business tax records in order to identify all this stuff, and i don't know what the answer to that is when they are asking this. >> i think, like i said, our intent is that for this

application it's a similar amount of information that's provided for environmental review, either supplemental form or an hrer. this is not on the same level of the hre, but for the supplemental, we would be asking for the same. >> right. so when someone says, please list all occupants from date of construction to present -- >> and how to research a property document tells you to go to the library to look through various documents to find that, but it doesn't say that you need to -- >> right. if an applicant says i have the beginning and something that happened in the '50s and i have the last three, but i don't know anything else -- >> that's fine. >> i could see a staff at the review table who may not be, you know, as knowledgeable of our processing, saying, well, i need to know that information. is that possible? >> no. that shouldn't happen. again, as mentioned, how to research your building, sort of

takes that into account or makes it clear these are all supposed to be readily available resources that anybody can access quickly, and now that city directories are all online, you can do the work from the desk rather than going to the library. we hope, as said, this allows property owners to do this work if they choose to or have time rather than have to high a consultant. >> and the staff reviewing these and making the assessments are the preservation staff that review this information on a regular basis for other processes in our department. >> commissioner black. >> so i can certainly see the advantage to homeowners in that once the word is out. you know, oftentime homeowners know they are doing a grant project, talk to the bank, talk

to architects, and they can be doing this and get it done while going through the process, and there's an advantage there, and, also, i can see how it's going to streamline the survey process and i'm still confused, a little bit, about the triggers. what level of project triggers this? >> it's completely voluntary. there is no level of project that triggers this because this is separate from our sequel review processes in terms of making this assessment. we -- so anyone -- it's completely voluntary. it's not required of anyone to do this. it's not required as a basis for a future application, and so any property owner who wishes to do this, and right now has a category b property, can, as of january 2nd , fill out this application and ask for the

information. >> but you couldn't, let's say, you're a developer interested in buying a particular property, you couldn't do this? you'd have to have the current owner to do this? thinking about going, oh, i want to buy this property, but i'm not sure i can hire a consultant to do the research, but i want to get the assessment, the planning department to concur with it -- >> i mean, if -- it's like any other application that we have to have an authorized agent sign the application, so if the property owner was to give somebody that authorization and due diligence, they can probably do it knowing it will still take us a minimum of hopefully 60 days. >> right. might be somebody interested in the property and working with the seller, like, oh, i want to know more. i want to, before i close, i want the department to confer with the consultant's findings. >> so, currently, if someone wants to make huge changes, keeping it residential it their residence, they are not required

to do this at all for any property? >> well -- >> well, they will. they would if they are going to make changes -- >> right. >> if they are going to affect the exterior appearance of the building. they need a determination -- >> i guess -- >> that's not -- >> the triggers here. >> i mean, the way we look at this and in the way we tried to describe this is like us doing surveys, but specific surveys. they want to know if their building is arouse a resource, g if there's policies that could affect that project if the building is determined to be a resource or not. >> currently, it's the city conducting this research, not the applicant? >> currently, it depends on the project. >> that's the trigger. that's what i'm trying to say. >> right, so, i mean, basically, review for a category b building

is determined based on a series of scopes of work under the checklist, and that's under sequa to review the properties. >> okay. >> there's some projects, like, replacing a window, that doesn't matter. it could stay a b, and we'll review it, but if somebody wants to demolish a building, that sends them down a path that now we would know up front, well, that building was never resourced to begin with. >> so these are the categorical exemptions pursuant to sequa you're talking about, or they are specific -- >> could be many things. >> could be both? >> can i jump in? we do this every day. >> so, basically, if we have a project, you're going to do this work one way or another, either by submitting a supplemental form, which is part of the environmental evaluation. if -- and the trigger would be something that motio modifies te exterior of the building in some

way other than replacing a window or, you know, changing your roofing material. if you're going to do an addition to the building and a substantial addition, you have to do an hre. >> but what about changing all the windows? >> not changing your windows because there's a window guideline that's been approved. >> for instance, we have garage guidelines for historic buildings, and that's only forever historic buildings. if they had a different idea how to approach a garage, and we didn't know if the building was historic or not, they have to go through a separate process when

>> we could direct them now to this process to help them get some answers before they decide

to file. >> i think this is a good idea. i think because i haven't done one of the is, i'm really not clear at all and what the jurisdiction does. they have different levels of triggers that establish a process that someone has to go through. >> it is important -- you keep using the term trigger. and i think i just want to restate that this process that we are piloting does not have a trigger. other than a property owner wanting to know this information in advance of the citywide survey actually coming to that property which is a very different from all of our other processes. >> i was gas -- i guess i was trying to find out what the in lieu of this is. >> it is that you would proceed with your project as normal and

develop it and submit applications to us, and we would assess those applications, look at the scope of work, and make a determination if it meets the checklist. and you could get a categorical exemption after you prepared all the associated plans and scope of work. >> and a year. >> i will get to that in a second, conceivably that's good -- that could be over-the-counter if it meets the checklist. if it doesn't meet the checklist , then you are going down a different path, possibly requiring a consultant for an h.r.e. preparation, and a lengthy review process. hopefully the intent is to have this process sit over that as an overlay that could eliminate some of the time, expenditure, resources up and provide a

little bit more clarity before they even get to the project application stage of the permit. >> right now you can hire a consultant before you do any project and then you could do an assessment but there is no mechanism to have them concur. they may say it is not a resource, but may be they are a great component and may be they are not. there is no mechanism to have that. >> you spend a lot of money. >> this could save an enormous amount of time on the front and. if it is not a resource, the process becomes significantly easier. >> and uncertainty for the owner >> i wanted to mention that with the citywide survey kicking off a little more formally and things are starting to happen with that and properties are getting surveyed, eventually we hope to get to a point where this process is not necessary, but there will be an overlap where it will be meaningful for the number of years that it takes for the survey to cover all these properties.

>> i think this is great. i like it because it actually empowers the homeowner to go on their own to seek this information, and feel some level of control about what they want to do with their property and if they want to move forward. my question is, i'm glad you showed the map of the city. i thought all the category -- categories in the richmond and the sunset district, there is a lot of succession going on out there, and a lot of new owners are now speaking. will you have a consultant to help them to fill out something like this, or a referral specifically for people who are chinese speaking? >> these application materials will be in any language or however, we generally process the application.

usually is, and i think the language got taken out of the draft that i included because the formatting is not completed and it was making it all look very funny. there is always text in our applications that indicate based on a number of different language groups how to gain access more -- gain access to more information from the public >> if you don't have that, you might want to consult with rick at the small business legacy because we went through that process when we were putting together the applications, or the local part for that, and then secondly, will there be a dedicated staff person for this pilot program, and will it receive any kind of priority from other applications that will be submitted? >> i might let mr jocelyn answer that. right now the intent is -- one of the things and probably one

of the primary reasons we are piloting this beyond the fact that we can adjust as we need to is to try and get a sense of how many of these that we will get and how to fit these into our existing work program. by the intent right now is that survey team staff would take these on, and if that becomes too onerous or dealing with other projects, then the environmental planning preservation staff members who do a lot of the reviews would also -- >> they will be on a separate track? >> they are on a separate track already because of the 60 day response time. that will move them. assuming we can meet that depending upon staffing and the number of applications that we get, that doesn't make them a

priority, but it definitely -- >> i think that would be definitely encouraging for them. thank you. >> the longer it takes, the less value it has. do you have the request to speak here? >> thank you. as was described, the primary reason for this being a pilot, and not simply a program is that we can't predict what the numbers will look like, and there may be some minor adjustments that need to occur along the way, particularly in terms of expectations around the 60 day requirement. and the other associated staff. it is not a pilot in that it is an interim project or process. we expect it to be in place and looking more or less like this

clear to the last property in the city being surveyed. somewhere between two and a half and six years from today if things go well. as initially described, the original impetus from this came largely from the architectural community who is experiencing this particular and unusual issue. it is his design of a project that they knew could be problematic. i hope that clarifies. that is the great advantage. that is what differentiates us from what is happening today. >> i think i understand that part. i didn't do a very good job of understanding what it takes to present an application for a project.

that is the peace that i need to learn -- that is the peace that i need to learn because i have not done one. >> i think it's great. >> i think it is a great program f. -- i am wondering if you could sense that coloured map of the buildings. maybe you can send it around to all of the commissioner. >> i promise you will see it again in future presentations. >> it is one of my favourites. >> that would be great. i think this is a really great program. >> i do too. >> if there are no further comments, our meeting is adjourned. happy 2018. >> happy 2018.