could be a list of resources that recognize types is appropriate but f we feel it should be expanded to include social heritage and tangible resources and public interiors or cultural landscapes and stellar to policy 1.5 policy 1.7 explicitly addresses the need to recognize diverse or underrepresented resources. we feel there maybe an implementation that we should feel the need to did he prior itself so we need clarification open the prioritization is the consent. and the last policy under objective one talks about maintaining a city register

currently this is something you'll hear from me currently, the policy reads like an implementation measure it describes information will the historic preservation available to the public it could be moved to the implementation section of the document or modified to read something like the dissemination of information. the directive talks about promoting the policy and move to another objective that deals with education with that, i'll pause in the presentation and we can have dialog and get together our comments or gather comments from the public. thank you >> commissioner wolfram. >> first question so we went ahead with the suggestions i think a lot of them are good suggestions but my question what

would happen we'll have no policies left in this section all those implementation measures which are missing a policy they sit under or we have a few that are lonely it jumps to the cumber property owners and in their almost if we took those there's no policy left so do you have suggestions. >> yes. but when i went through my first read through i found i suggested cutting half of them. i think where we can build for policies into it well, first that's not necessarily a bad thing this is a long document and in order for it to be readable being short and to the point is not necessarily a bad thing. secondly, to i think there are policies that could be added. i think a specific policy that

deals with the nature of heritage is important the special heritage resources don't easily fall into the same categories there's a difference in the age and the tangible ability issue necessarily the issue to deal with. specific policies with social heritage it is important. also expanding or further defining the historic resources the city recognizes is important that's where we can add policy including the cultural landscape historic sites. there's also i think either we can build in policies about i'm sorry, i lost my train of

thought that's all for right now >> go ahead. >> i guess the follow-up question for example, in what was the policy 1.1 and 2 if those got moved to implementation do we need to be nested under a policy i guess i'm trying to understand the format of the document they need to be nested florida a policy statement; is that correct. >> that's correct. i haven't thought how to word the policy statement if you have any suggestions >> go ahead. >> commissioners just a to build upon what was outlined again, i guess just to summarize and suggestions based on policy existing policies 1.6 and seven

to identify those resources this may be a list of policies what types of of those resources like social and cultural are heritage and cultural properties of the recent past and respect diverse populations it essentially is a laundry list of the types of resources that we want to make sure we're recognizing in some way the second component is really the prelims measures and how do we do that that's maybe a matter of a context statement under a wide variety of topics and continue to do a citywide survey to make sure wear updating and recognizing those resources. >> commissioner johns. >> yes. i thought your comments were pretty good.

i do agree that policy 1.3 is redundant and policy 1.5 i don't know why we i mean city owned resources don't seem to be particularly different than historic resources and so if we're going to identify and elevate them that really a assumed under the first couple policies we're really talking about that but over policy 1.7 i puzzled over recognized the resources that are exemplifies is great where underrepresented population nate's what's that underrepresented where i mean it's a peculiar thing and if our policies are supposed to be

clear and avoid ambiguity if we can't clearly dipped what is an under represented population those are two words what we can save so and i do like our policy that on 1.8. commissioner pearlman >> thank you. i know this is exhaustive work on obviously one you talk about reworded it i'm wondering about tangible and intangible rather than built and cultural or something that separates the built environment from the social and rather than the word tangible and intangible that's the entire world so that's possible changes. i thought policies one and two

maybe i agree their implementation type policies but maybe rewritten and incorporate one .3 to identify the difference between a specific building as a historic resource or a district because, you know, that's those are the kinds of things we talk about all the time that we differentiate so may be one statement to incorporate those. let's see. i agree with commissioner johns on 1.5 we talk about the qualities of a historic property so why if it's owned by the public should it be more important than a significantly private building i don't think so that arrest on 1.6-hundred i agree that we should be identifying buildings that are

recent but define what recent is. you know, is that less than 45 years state that because that's actually, you know, something that separates it from, you know, the way buildings are recognized so we should know what recent is 20 or 50 years. then let's see you that's it thank you >> commissioner matsuda. >> i have general comments i like our year and a half the having recognition it's good for the general public when they read the historic element can more clearly understand what we're trying to get and support i encourage every time you use historic talk about history and culture they are different and

the coming comment about under representative this was a term i was familiar with at the state level it's refers to population that are not publicly or well known as or not recognized as well as other periods of history or communities that have excited. for example, the chinese-american community hadn't been represented in textbooks so provide various specifics example >> commissioner hyland and yes. i agree with commissioner matsuda and commissioner honda the agent orange only other comment identifying the city

owned properties separately and dingly this city leads by example so by making that statement within the context because we can't necessarily force we lived only encourage property owners where we can actually insist the city doesn't this so having it separately is important. >> commissioner wolfram. >> okay. i have a bunch of comments. on objective one i agree will be the culture and built rather than the tangible and non-tangible on 1.2 add the districts then delete one .3 it's important when you speaking of a survey to mention not only the district we know that district are included we have to

be careful to not to use jargon so i would say incorporate district into 1.2. on i have a question been 1.6 and seven to preserve and protect the offer arching objective is to identify the document but those 1.6 and seven say recognize maybe reworded to say identify we're not talking about landmark or doing anything by only research so i think we should be clear we stay with identification and looking to identify those in our research we define those buildings that are underrepresented is populations i don't think you want to use the word recognize

that's more identified and i would agree with commissioner hyland i think calling the city owned buildings is saying something the city is criticized for not treating properties in a certainty way to make sure the city leads by workouts >> mr. fry. >> commissioners to follow up you'll see as we go through the objectives the city owned property the intent is so how that the city can lead by example and so stewardships how we lead by example. i wanted to mock a quick comment

this is some of the old language before this body reviewed and amended articles 10 and 11 so as i recall in article 10 you added language that says the commission will come up with its oppose criteria and threshold for determining when a building is significant there's something in the code that outlines this body will direct a criteria we use the national criteria as a fall by the way, but you may want to see what kinds of criteria not only to update the code but the general plan >> commissioner johnck. >> good actually i'm not going to repeat everything by the way, i agree with every single thing that was already in my note i want to

highlight two things this is i don't very much support your point about including archaeology and a good reference is the historic resource code it does a pretty good job of outlining resources. so then i agree with tim, i kept thinking we're developing criteria local cc&r criteria based on our past presentations and weighing we could be cross referencing our discussion >> commissioner wolfram. >> one other overarching comment i don't want to make it word i didn't but maybe language and a neighboring maybe this is in the policy section but we've often found people that are afraid of survey what's the

point of a survey it will people property owners to understand their values and some of the things maybe an overarching estate why don't a survey in the first place there will be a lot of people wanting to know why this is useful. >> i agree i did delete the information some is in the supporting text i think it need to be more explicit so it's in the policy itself. >> commissioners we'll open up public comment on this

objective. >> my name is dr. raymond i live near but not in the alamo historic. i've lived through the period of my you historic districts being designated but if you through out policy 1.3 without integrating the policy of identifying linkages or contingent of building sites or obtains you'll loss something it's going to have the linkages and i'm a member of victorian alliances we'll encouraged the sign and we've paid for maps to distribute to tourists and encourage tourists to see the

city with culture historic and we haven't exhausted them all without building them into the boarder definition they're might be some underrepresented areas we have to despite i read about negligence the national trust like slave cabins and other things there are other things we've neglected it should be an objective to encourage approximately i'll hope you'll consider that >> thank you. >> good afternoon. my name is is jim i'm with the victorian alliance preservation committee i'm interested in discussing

policy 1.3 in particular properties that are not significant but therefore be identified as historic resources. it's very important piece to be sure that we leave in and if anything i want to see a way to expand on that. you know when we get massive stacks of planning documents of buildings that are coming up for review we see a lot of old building well, it could be a contributor to a neighborhood it wasn't all that significant in the first place so alter it i want to see us elevate the

potential for encouraging resources to be rehabbed there's a shift to the focus to say that you know when we are doing a major project approaching the developer and returning to a historic resource is something i'll really welcome our looking at and consider options to accomplish. i think of that fits the character of attributing builds and helps to us build the ethic of actively preserving the good of restoration so making it economically feasible and encouraged is something i'd love to see as an expansion of the

statement within 1.3. thank you >> thank you is there any public comment? at this time. >> hello this is desiree smith from san francisco heritage. so since the last hearing on this item in april weighing we're pleased to see the progress addressing some of the issues we revised on the cultural and heritage resources we want to offer some suggestions or comments on objective one and two first, we agree with the department staff that objective one should encompass the tangible and

intangible resources maybe it's easy to use the archeology and technology we think that perhaps the language in the document rather than referring to historic presently might use the term cultural heritage being used and adapted globally but also in the united states by various academic to reflect this boarder approach. we also suggest adding an implementation measure under objective one it promotes the historic context statement that incampus cultural and social themes with this context that will be important to document and identifying cultural and

social heritages. similar with the policy 1.1 to develop and maintain a cultural and heritage thooemz theme st. is important eaten the question of prioritizing resources like city owned resources and recent construction resources that represent underrepresented population we support the prioritization of those in addition to the others that have been mentioned the cultural landscapes and the tangible resources and interiors. and one other thing i wanted to respond to the oh, yes, the topic of heritage actually pretty concerned about publicly

annoyed resources that's a focus into in next year we'll have that as a priority for the city. thank you >> thank you. is there any additional public comment seeing none, brikz i have one comment the department does demonstration we have a public outreach on a month square with their programs it seems like like a policy could be a public outreach slash visitor outreach goal. with implementation section also identifying such items as that sunday streets or other actions that were already doing it maybe

some goal actions. is that - >> objective 7. >> oh, jumping ahead. two meetings from now. okay. very good any other >> commissioner pearlman. >> yeah. i venezuela have one term provide intents how we define as opposed to defined and i think that's a question of staff to us. >> no, no, no i'm trying to determine whether what does it mean when we say prioritize we keep take the opportunity let's prioritize those resources 99 number one over the rest what does it mean the staff will push those at the top.

>> tim frye department staff that's our preliminary question does it apply the prioritization or a way to craft the language as a matter of saying we're going to identify those properties the goal is not to show we're prioritizing them but should they're important. >> that's the word. >> yeah. >> so that's the discussion. >> right. >> well, you know, everybody likes to prioritize things but frequently when people say that they have no idea of what they're talking about they have the vague it idea they're only saying this is important. if you're going to prioritize

something that means 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 that means we will decide it something is more important and have the priority over something else i don't know that's something we particularly want to do. because some different people on the commission and different members of the public can have vastly different ideas about that and you might say that well, who's to say really which is more important than someone else so if everything has priority nothing has any priority. i think we really have to be careful of those terms and if we're going to say that all those things are important let's just say they're all important but not get into language that we might end up using to say

something we didn't mean or haven't thought-out kaufrl >> commissioner wolfram. >> thanks following up on what commissioner johns says perhaps a implementations then the policy should be something like that city resources the city want to be a model for historic preservation commission or something that states why we make that implementation clearly states as a policy the city will take a lead in demonstrating historic presently. >> going on to objective number 2 please. >> thank you for those comments. >> you guys keep switching the mike's. >> so on to objective two

protect and preserve historic resources. again, we think that is currently of current language readers more like an implementation measure than an objective so we are building be that an be objective should speak to the managing historic resources rather than relying on the term protect so the staff is suggesting we reword the objective to read integrate the considerations of historic resources as a major aspect of the cities planning and developing activities to be honest, i borrowed thisful from the city of riverside preservation. i included a link with our list

of links published no california you'll see the diversity in the way their structured and it's most appealing personally. so get back to objective two we also feel the supporting policies for objective 2 rely on protect this is two vague we think the policies should describe the historic resource management like interpretation and restoration and rehabilitation and reuse those policies maybe restructured to create a hierarchy of management tools. with that, i'm going to get down to the policies >> can i interrupt. >> i'm wondering does that mean because objective 5 integrate the goals into the land making process so