We have for the commission, simply, the report format. If you have any recommendations for how we present the information. The level of information for different sections, if you would like to see more or less. The performance measures, if you have any recommendations for performance measures. And there are programs and projects. The landmarks designation also has a process section that outlines the process for designations. If you would like to see something similar, we can attempt that. Right now, theres not a clear process for Cultural Heritage district nomination, but we can take a stab at it. And look at what has been done in the past and maybe give a best practices guideline there. And then last, had some recommendations for other report sections you might be interested in including potential future projects, any Public Outreach work that were doing or planning on completing, and then any nondepartmental Cultural Heritage work if we have a Current Events section things that we hear about that were not directly working on. I would welcome your comments and thats the completes my presentation. Commissioners, first, i wanted to thank shelley and desiree for a great presentation, but also to point out to you that with shelleys presentation, there is a lot of detail that were showing you related to how were dividing that fte. We think its helpful and necessary because its a new position. As this is a growing area of concern and interest by the city family and the public. If there are future budgetary implications to expand the number of Cultural Heritage specialists we have, we hope that tracking it in this detail could make the case. Its not meant to inundate you with details, but if that information is helpful, we can include it maybe in the appendix or give it to you on an asneeded basis, but be aware that were tracking it closely for those reasons. Commissioner matsuda . Commissioner matsuda thats a really good idea to help desiree and shelley out in the future. I was going to mention the methodology for intangible resources, that would be such a hot topic for the National Trust and so when and when thats available to make those suggestive classes or discussions, i would like to see that as well as legacy businesses. And, actually well, the Commission Gets excited about hearing from legacy businesses, so if they could be a part of a discussion at the trust, i think that would encourage other communities, where there are a lot of small and medium businesses to think of similar legislation, so we can spread the word. Thank you very much. Commissioner pearlman . Commissioner pearlman thank you. I think the idea of the tracking is really significant, one, to see if theres growth. The other is just to see how it plays out. I mean, youve got these as place holders now and you are going to find that one area will be much more need much more time and then what do you do . And ho do you balance those needs . The other thing i was going to say, i was excited in desirees presentation, as im preparing for a talk i am giving in a couple of weeks, i was looking at the history of landmarks and i was looking by decade and how many. And it started dropping way decade starting in the 1970s to the 2000s. It was 20 someodd landmarks and i know we talked about this when i was first on the commission about how few we have and weve been trying to build and build, so i was very excited to hear that there were five or six just in this quarter. And then all the context reports. There was so much activity. So its very exciting that were really picking up the pace and the broadening of the scope of what we look at and what we care about is just very encouraging and exciting. So thank you for the work you guys do and congratulations, shelley, on moving into this new world, essentially, is a new way of looking at what we all do. Thank you. Commissioner johnck . Commissioner johnck im excited about Natural Resources in the program. Now we need another person, right . [laughter] andrew, youve i was spurred to more thinking about this because of your recommendation for the tree as a landmark. And so the cultural we have Cultural Landscape designation and we can recommend Natural Resources. As a cultural resource, there are several. We have parks. And we started a discussion with park and Recreation Department regarding the overlap of our interest and golden gate park. So theres a lot of relationship with social, cultural and Natural Resources. So how we do that, i dont know. Whether its tangible or intangible, its both. So i would like to figure that out. And identify the sources or whatever. I realize thats more work, but to me its important. Commissioner hyland a few, quick things. Can we sync this this report is a Quarterly Report and then richard rick does by monthly or is he quarterly . And then i cant remember if hes presenting to the commissioner he doesnt present to the commission. Its the cha, i think. Hes presenting to the Small Business commission for updates. We have requested that report from rick, but we could probably modify our request to keep it on the quarterly schedule, if thats more appropriate. Commissioner hyland i believe that weve asked him to present that report, but often the report is published, i believe it was every two months, but the last time he was here, i thought he said he was shifting to quarterly. If theres a way to sync it up i will check. The commission doesnt get his reports. They go to the cha. Right. Before are we at i forget now with the Cultural Heritage district legislation . Was it continued . It hasnt been scheduled yet, but the Supervisors Office asked for a little more time given the comments they had received. So i believe its scheduled for your next hearing, first week of february. Is there a draft . Not a new draft. We havent seen a revised draft since the original one introduced the end of october. Okay. And, lastly second to lastly, are we going to calendar or agendaize our piece of the legacy business legislation so we can talk about lessons learned, how to do the capture the stories better . Theres a whole series maybe this commission or cha. Commissioner johns, i think, was interested in hearing and getting a dialogue. We could get a report from the cha, because we havent gotten a report on how the committee is functioning. We can do both. Yes. Maybe sometime in a few months or something. Maybe mid january . Well check with rick and see when hes available because i believe he presented to the cha in mid november, correct . Right. Shelley caltagirone. And i wanted to report that i met with rick yesterday to go over future programs and projects outside of processing and cautions. So now would probably be a good time to hold such a hearing and he can come and share the other work that is being done and well try to get that calendared in the next couple of months. If we wait until march, i think well have a good idea about the logo. Thats true. Commissioners, i will caution now that were offtopic and this is not an agendaized item. Its Cultural Heritage work item. [laughter] all right. Its about whether we want the report and how we want it presented. All right. Last thing. Back on topic. The last thing is, i want to thank you and no good deed goes unpunished. When you created this beautiful thing, we asked you to add more information to it. Well continue to do that with this one. Thank you. Any member of the public wish to speak to this matter . Seeing and hearing none, well close Public Comment. Any other comments . Thank you for the reports. Hearing adjourned. Good afternoo to the San FranciscoPlanning Commission regular hearing for thursday, january 18, 2018. Id like to remind members of the public that the commission does not tolerate any disruption or outbursts of any kind. Please silence your mobil devices that may sound off during these proceedings and when speaking before the commission, if you care to, do state your name for the record. Id like to take roll at this time. [roll call] commissioners first on your agenda is consideration for items proposed for continuance. Item one, at 1439 to 1431 south van ness avenue. Discretionary review is proposed to continue wants to february 1, 2018. Item two, at 3314 cesar chavez street, conditional use authorization is proposed for continue wants to february 8, 2018. Item three, at 1713 yosemite avenue, conditional use authorization is proposed for continue wants to march 1. Item four, at 479 28th street. Conditional use authorization is proposed to continue continuance to march 1, 2018. And case number five at 1815 mission street. Large project authorization has been withdrawn. I have no other items proposed for continuance and i have no speaker cards. Great. Thank you, jonas. Any Public Comment on the items being proposed for continuance . On sfgov tv overhead, please . Hello. Frank gladstone. This is regarding four, 28th street. I represent the property owner. Were requesting continuance until march 1. Im pleased to tell you that the adjacent neighbour whos most opposed to this by the name of annemarie zabala was kind enough to write this email to the staff. And its here on the overhead, indicating her agreement to a march 1 continuance. The plans were shown to her. The plans arent totally final. She would like to see them in final. We havent seen them to the planning staff. I think there is a possibility with a monthss continuance that there is some settlement on the design with the next door neighbour and know that the Commission Hopes to have these things taken off their calendar. And were hoping we can do so. My client, who is the homeowner who lives there and is the architect and she got this email from planner nancy tran which indicates, quote, that the march 1 hearing date is confirmed. She took that to mean that it doesnt need to go to commission as it is today. There was funeral back in tennessee. She went to it this week. She is not available today. We we finally have some design changes were talking to staff about and we look forward to getting the plans back to them to see if staff and we can come to an agreement. There is no staff report out. We havent seen one. It is not on your agenda. And so we would appreciate if that date works, we could have that continuance to march 1. Thank you very much. Thank you. Any additional Public Comment on the items being proposed for continuance . Seeing none, commissioner . Move to continue items one through four to the dates specified. Second. Thank you, commissioners. On that motion to continue, item as proposed [roll call] so moved, commission kerrs. That motion passes unanimous 4ri60. Commissioners, that will place us under commission matters, item six. Commission comments and questions. Seeing none, jonas can we have the election of officers . I know commissioner johnson is on her way. Can we hold off on that until she arrives and take the next item out of order. Very good. That will place us under department matters. Item eight, directors noumentzes. Good afternoon, commissioners. I wanted to make a few comments related to the condo conversion rules in light of the hearing last week. And kind of talk to you a little bit about what we do and dont do with arent to condo conversion analysis, if you will. In general, when we do the analysis with public works and know of an eviction or buyout, that can, in itself, cause the project not to move forward before it even gets to you. As a reminder, you review only a five and sixunit condominium conversions. So, and it depends on the type of tenant evicted when the tenant was evicted and so on and so forth. We just, as a reminder, were whats called the referral agency. D. P. W. Is the lead. The d. P. W. Accepts the application and we receive that referral from the department of public works when they determine that they that the application is the project is eligible for conversion. Now under current procedures, the referral does not include the eviction history per se. But it does include an affidavit from the owner stating that there have been no evictions. This is similar to any application where the applicant signs that everything is correct and true and all that good stuff. So, as you know, for the subdivision code, the commission, quote, shall deny the application if there is elderly or permanent disabled tenants displaced or discriminated against in leasing the units or evictions have occurred for preparation to preparing the building. The challenge is the it doesnt define what an eviction is. Its clear it goes beyond what the rent board sees. As you learned last week, the definition of when an eviction actually occurs, can be a little bit of an undefined. So, we are working with public works to try to see if what we can do to correct this, to prevent the kind of situation we had last week from even geting to you to begin with. And what were going to do is, first of all, work with public works to see if we can dig dig deeper into the actual eviction history rather than only relying on the affidavit. And number two, we will include a copy of the actual application affidavit in your report so that you can see the actual information thats submitted. Because that was the crux of the issue last week where there was a concern that the that there was a discrepancy in the application from actually had happened. So, ill continue to report to this on this issue as we move forward. The good news is this hasnt come up very often with the condo conversion process. But i dont think any of us want a repeat of what happened last week. So, well do our best to prevents that from happening. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner richards . At some point, director haram, if you can let us know why we approve if its some holdover from some prior law. Im not understanding why its just that very specific five and sixunit building. I can get you that information. It had to do with the condo conversion ordinance that was passed i think about three years ago. And it specified that number. I cant remember the rationale behind it, butly get that for you. Thank you. If there is nothing further, commissioners, we can move on to item nine. Review of past venezuelas at the Historic Preservation commission. There is no board of appeals report today. Good afternoon, commissioners. Tim frye, department staff, here to share with you a couple of items from yesterdays Historic Preservation commission hearing. Notably the commission proud review and comment on three National Register nominations. One was to amount the coit tower National Register nomination to clarify its national significance, primarily under criterion c for art as the largest or the single largest public works art project in the country. Also pekt aspects of life in california from 1934. The Commission Also provided a positive recommendation for the National Register nomination of the womens building. That is listed to the National Register specifically as for its association of second wave femininism in one of the late 20th centurys most consequencial social movements and as a location for where the struggle for womens rights was linked to Additional Community struggles including those of marginalized, racial and ethnic communities, lgbtq people, imgrands and others. And then finally the commission provided a positive recommendation for the National Register nomination of 220 golden gate avenue, also known as the historic ymca. This is in completion of a 2012 tax credit project. Where the National Register listing is a final requirement of that project. The ymca is significant as the area of education for its association with the golden gate university. One of the few universities to grow out of the educational programmes offered by the ymca. And as a fine example of renaissance revivalstyle architecture. Other than that, the commission decided to continue its election of officers to its february 7 hearing. That concludes my comments. Unless you have any questions. I think commissioner richards has a question. One quick question, mr. Frye. National register nomination, or actually on the register versus local landmark, if you can very briefly, what is the difference in terms of level of protection that the resource has. Great question. The National Register doesnt provide any sort of local binding protection other than through the ceqa process. However, as a certified local government, our Historic Preservation commission provides review and comment to changes to those buildings. Or to list those buildings on the National Register. We send our comments to the state commission for review and comment. So, is one of these buildings, the womens building, eligible for the state register now because it is on the National Register . That is correct. Well, once a building is listed on the National Register, it is automatically listed on the california register. Ok. And those are protected well, through ceqa and through the federal and state regulatory processes. A local entitlement would not be required such as a certificate of appropriateness until theyre designated at the local level. Ok. And that was like housing accountability, density, all of those kind of laws exempt california register properties. Correct. Yep. And if i could, just to follow up, there are controls that would come into play if there were federal or state dollars used for the project, right . Not that often. For example, if it is a public building, we might have federal or state dollars attached and there is a level of review that would kick in. Correct. Commissioner . I was going to just correct me if im wrong, doesnt this being on the federal register