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 chineseamerican 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 decrease. The one thing that may not be reflected here, as youre aware, the National Trust will have its conference heres in november. We are working with the trust and discussing with San Francisco heritage to be a partner in that in that dofrns really help guide the intangible heritage tracks and the Community Involvement in the overall conference. There may be some financial commitment that the city is willing to provide to make sure that happens. So well make sure these numbers are adjusted to reflect that. If they are different. It wont be a huge change, though, from what you see here. And then finally, the legacy Business Programme and Cultural Heritage initiatives, which as you recall from last year, creating that position, now we have a full f. T. Devoted to that. Quick question for you. About the pick. Is that reflected in this or is that you said that the pick is being increased from the parttime position to a fulltime position, is that correct . That occurred last year. Michelle langley is now our fulltime preservation pick person. There may have been, as deborah was mentioning, there may have been some attrition, depending on when she was hired and when she has been here just under a year. Once she is here a full year, next years blunt fully reflect that position. But that is currently listed. Im not sure if its listed under the preservation team, f. T. E. , or maybe it is embedded in pick. Do you know . Ok. Well double check for you. Thank you. So, for the next slide, just to give you a sense of proposed fundings in comparison with previous years. No anticipated funding for the 1920 fiscal year for ceqa review, but we are proposing for the following year 100,000. This is usually for oncall consult tanlts to provide us support when we have priority projects or city funded projects that may need an extra boost in meeting their aggressive timelines if theyre associated with federal funding or some other important deadline. Additional survey contracts. This is some seed money that were going to keep. On record so we can continue to negotiate and work with the Getty Conservation Institute to demonstrate that were committed to finishing the citywide survey in a timely manner and they will, in turn, give us access to their software developer, who we worked with in the past and currently working with, that created the arches programme that is the interface for survey. The c. L. G. Grant, as mentioned before, is shown there in all three years. Our friends of city planning preservation grant, library grant, 1200 every year to support the purchase of books and other subscriptions for the use of staff, but also the public. As we mentioned, the African American c. S. Er grant is winding down and is not reflected. And we have an ask to the Historic PreservationFund Committee for 50,000 to augment the 20,000 the city is putting forward to complete the Cultural Heritage strategy for the Lgbtq Community thats currently under way. And with that, i will turn it back over to deborah. Unless you have any questions. None at this moment. Thank you. Thank you. Ok. So, our final slide here is the calendar to let you know what the next few months hold. We will be going to the Planning Commission with our informational initial presentation next shurz. Thursday. We will be back here february 7 and going to the Planning Commission february 8 and we need to submit the departments budget to the Mayors Office by february 21. And following that, the Mayors Office has a budget until june 1, at which point they give it to the board of supervisors. Their hearing is in june and the final, final adopted budget actually comes in and out july, even though the fiscal year starts july 1. This is a very long process. The next few weeks we will take the feedback from this commission, from the Planning Commission, incorporate it and have a final package for you by february 7. Thank you. Ok. Thank you. Commissioner, any questions before we go to Public Comment . I do. Just a few. There are more questions of curiosity than anything. Thank you very much for the presentation. It was very clear. On the expenditure budget page, fy1820, you mentioned contracts. What kind of contracts . Personnel contracts . Not hiring people for staff use. So, personnel is our staff that is really that is the topline here in the expenditures. So, the contracts that were talking about, a lot of the studies, so we have right now some really large ones for e. I. R. S, for example. The civic centre, public realm, that is a big one. In the Additional Resources for Historic Preservation, we have money set aside related to those grants to hire contractors to do some of the work there and we oh, gosh. We have a few dozen contracts right now that are on call. So for example, if we have an archeologicalspecific need, then we can hire a contractor for something thats very limited scope and very specific area. So, there are contracts for a specific purpose for a particular project. Yes. Ok. Thank you. Just another question. I know it was mentioned several times by you and also by tim about this shift of the four f. T. E. S going from ceqa historic review to the environmentalrelated e. P. Team. Theyre going to be doing the exact same work . Yes. Yes. Ok. And then one last question. From this document. I read, i think it was on page 10 where you list the nonpersonnel expenditure contracts and talks about the ethnic themed Historic Context statement that relates to what is listed here in the back on page in the attachment. Im sorry. I was just trying to make sense of yeah. So, the grant for the 45,000, which i believe is c. L. G. , page four. The 45,000 contract. All right. That is all i wanted to know. Thank you. Thank you. I guess well take Public Comments at this time. Any member of the public wish to speak to this item . If so, come forward. Seeing and hearing none, well close Public Comment bring it back to the commissioners. Any comments . Commissioner johnck . My questions are related to the grants budget on the Sea Level Rise action plan. Yep. Deborah. On the grants, is that is that going to new positions or will the existing planners be working on being funded out of those grants on the action plan . Yeah. So, if were able to secure that funding, which again were optimistic and hopeful that we can secure all the grants that were applying with here, well put most of it toward consultant support to help the existing staff. Oh, it would be consult tanlts. All right. Ok. Thank you. And then this is for pillar or jim. Listen to me. Tim. [laughter] ok. New year. Just getting back into the swing [laughter] you look like a jim. Yeah. Anyway, i am a little im more interested in this switch from the historic to Environmental Planning. And i think i mean, if i can give you my perspective where im coming from, i would like to encourage, and ill have some more statements maybe later at the next meeting that when the e. I. R. S come before us, that the folks who were asked to comment on provide comment on the adequacy of the e. I. R. S that not enough has been focused on immediately on Historic Preservation versus just the promise, per se and appears my experience has been it appears as if the Historic Preservation the Solutions Come later and i want to push more emphasis to recommend that everyone that comes before us with a project takes on Historic Preservation equally or first before they get to the final project. So, thats sort of my overall thought. About the process. So, my thought would be to make sure the department is fully focused, that all theres 14, right . 14 staff people doing Historic Preservation team . Per se. And so i just want to make sure that that group is still has the resources, is still functioning as best that it can. And i know the point was made, oh its just budget tear. But this doesnt feel that way. Ok . So maybe you could explain a little more. Just give me some more insight into how this is going to work. [laughter] with a switch. The switch. Right. So, i think that, yes. S in terms of what we do on a daily basis and our roles within the preservation team, within the department, really nothing has changed. I mean, literally like physically nothing has changed. We with still sit where we always sat and and our responsibilities are the same. The decision to shift the sort of management responsibilities from current planning, taking those four positions from current planning and moving them to Environmental Planning had to do very much with the focus of those positions specifically on ceqa. So, those positions, because they while they those planners do other things within the preservation team, theres responsibilities in their work product are ceqaspecific. So theyre issuing, you know, catexes or largerment dos that are issued and signed by the Environmental Review officer so it felt like there was a sort of disconnect between that Environmental Review officer responsibility and signing off on those ceqa documents and the fact that those Preservation Planners working specifically on those were housed in current planning. So, thats sort of where that the motivation for that shift. All right. But i think to your, you know, your earlier point, you know, we are still i think we still feel like we have those resources to still do that work and were still making every effort to when we bring in the larger documents to make it clear that yourself focus here is to discuss the alternatives and how the project has, or has not addressed the preservation impacts. All right. Well, i guess my reaction to what youre saying, too, and im with you, is this is going to improve the overall functioning of the department and performance and the needed reviews and all that. That sounds right. Yeah. If i could just jump in. I praoernlt that question because it looks and i realised just now that we should those four people should still show up on that preservation slide that shows the 14 positions, it still should be 14. But the reason that we made the shift, i think pillarts explained it very well. But it is to make sure that theres better coordination. I have 30some people, or i forget the number, doing Environmental Reviews who are responsible for ceqa. But our previous structure was that four of them were in a different place and that didnt make a whole lot of sense to us, that we should have those four people make sure that the preservation work under ceqa is coordinated with all the rest of the ceqa work and that is the purpose of that. Im with you. Im with you now. Thank you. Great. Any other questions or comment on the budget . Nope . Thank you very much for your presentation. I think theres no action on this item, so well move on. Very good. That will place us on item eight for 554 fillmore street, 730 south street and 660 oak street. This is a landmark designation. I do understand there was a request for continue wants from the project sponsor. Yes, there was. Do we know the date . Good afternoon, commissioners. We dids request a continue wants, just for some background. For those of you that arent on the a. R. C. , we just received written comments from the a. R. C. Hearing that was held back in the fall. And we have a meeting im representing the owner of the project sponsor and we have a meeting set with preservation staff later this month to go over those comment and talk about a refined programming that would address some of the comments that the a. R. C. Had and so we just want to make sure that the landmarking of this building is done more in tandem with an adaptive reuse that makes sense for the future of this building. I can answer any other questions. Thank you. Did you have a date in which you are requesting the continuance to . This is the second or third time that weve had to go through this exercise. I would suggest leaving it up to the discretion of Department Staff for when Department Staff thinks it would be appropriate to come back for a hearing. Thank you. Ms. Ferguson, do you want to speak to that potential date . Commissioners, if i could just chime in. I feel at this point it is really up to the commission to decide on when you all would like to hear the item. You know, were certainly committed to making sure that the project sponsor has a project that theyre comfortable with and that the community can be really proud of. But at this point, we dont think the character defining features or the history that is outlined in the very thorough case report thats in front of you is going to change. So, it really is up to you all. And then if you feel that its worth postponing one more time or, you know, scheduling further out several months out to give us an opportunity to work with their newark tekt new architect so we can work come prehencively, were in support of either approach but we would defer to you. Thank you. I have a question. Commissioner pearlman. Mr. Frye. I understand there is a new architect so they will be coming up with a completely new approach. Would that be something that would then come back to the a. R. C. . That would be our intents, yes. I dont know if we want to wait until then to sort of see what theyre planning. And i agree. I mean, i dont anticipate theres any new information relative to the report. The case report. I dont know if we want to suggest two meetings out, three meetings out. The first one in march, the first hearing in march. Commissioner highland . I think that the designation and the proposed project are two separate processes. And out of courtesy, i wouldnt be opposed to continuing this for a hearing or two. But as we talked about on the peace pagoda, the landmark designation will provide a lot of guidance for the new team and the design. So waiting for that project shouldnt be syncked up, in my opinion, with the designation. Maybe march then . March 7 or the 21st are your options. March 21. 7th. 21st. [laughter] hands up. I suggest the 21st of march. Well at this time, we need to take Public Comment on this item. Does a member of the public wish to speak to this matter . If so, please come forward. Hello, commissioners. My name is meryl easton. I want to remind the commission and the public that there is a great deal of public support for the landmarking of this property and there is a number of us that show up at every continuance. Thank you. And thank you for coming can. Any other member of the public wish to speak to this item . Seeing and hearing none, well close Public Comment. Do not close it yet. Good afternoon, commission. My name is robert pritchard, one of the parishioners at sacred heart and also the Vice President of the sacred heart gospel choir and with the save our sacred heart preservation. There is a large contingent that is very much in agreement for Historic Preservation and landmarking. Were not all here because this continue wants keeps happening and people havent been able to show up. Believe me there is a large amount of and the Western Addition that are still dedicated to the preservation of sacred heart. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for coming can. Maybe we should ask the public about what we should have done. [laughter] whats convenient this actually has been continued before . Yes. I think we continued it maybe twice before, is that twice. Twice, yes. From july 19 and then again from october 18. So, this will be the third continuance. I would suggest march 21. Do i have a motion . Yes. And does it come back to us a second time . For landmarking, it comes to us twice, right . So we would initiate it and then it could come back again. Nothing in the designation report or the application will change. This is the recommendation. That you initiated earlier on this item last year. So this would be the recommendation. Oh, all right. This is the second final. Yeah. Ok. Thank you for that clarification. All right. I move the item be continued to march 231. March 21. Thank you. Second. Thank you, commissioners. If there is nothing further, theres been a motion sected to continue this matter to march 21, 2018. [roll call] so moved, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously. And places us on item nine at 363920th street. 3639 20th street. Good afternoon, planning staff. Before you is a request for a certificate of appropriateness to make exterior and ulteriour alterations between guerrero street and valencia street. The Supreme Court located within the article 10laverde hill landmark district. It includes the existing gabled roof at the rear of the building to build a new roof deck, the double hung window sashes at the 20th street facade.