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 this is removing the

parts of the session forward or maybe objective 5 will be completely different. >> i haven't thought about it if we decide f this is an idea that belongs under objective 2 we will think about the restoration for the other but the changes is likely going to have to be looked in the boarder system. >> okay. thanks. uh-huh. >> so objective 2.1 explicitly to protect the historic resources and 2.2 protect the local state and national eligible historic and conservation districts similar to our comments under objective one to elevate those types of resources we don't think those

policies are adding any specific how to protect those two different types of resources. we would recommend being important specific stating to promote con forms with the secretary of interior for all projects effecting historic resources. policy also there's no need to have we don't feel to have a separate policy for individuals vs. historic district resources underlines the proposed management approach is different nicole if there's a different treatment the appropriate that is for individual resources that may not that a be separately but it's not clear in the current draft. so policy 2.3 the policy recognizes that not all

resources will be identified prior and the properties b will require slaeshgs, however, the statement seems for important for an implementations measure as it speaks to the resource specifically talking about uh our sequa procedures. so we have recommending either moving it to a separate part of the element documents or rewording it so that it's clear that the department needs to reflect on the importance of doing evaluations prior to the approvals. moving on to policy 2.4 paralyze the directive to recognize the value of frourz the past. and again unless there's a specific management approach

recommended for this resource we don't think it addresses clarify and for policy 2.5 unless there a management tool for significant interiors 0 there is no inform recommendation. policy 2.6 supports the designation of properties like article 10 this policy should be board end so it supports the prostitute of designations at the local, state, and federal level there's designations we want to promote rather than specifically focusing on 10 or

11 the next is clearly stated it recommendation two treatment options in the historic propdz property we ask you to consider the possible modification of policies 2 point 20th century 1 and 2 which are more general in beyond the scope to protect resources could be integrated with a more specific statement like 2.7. policy 2.8 says use enforcement powers to - we're suggesting to move this to implementation or deleting it because it simply directs you to enforce those the next policies are connected one is promoting designation at city owned resources and the other

talks about the soft green enter agency connection we have been talking about inform foster and collaboration with historic preservation in order to facilitate and design preservation and rehabilitation and policy 2.11 undermines the archive as part of the management program, however, we think this statement currently reads more like an action and like to see it rephrased to comment on the curation of the documents and artifacts as a preservation management tool. ultimately the concept might be addressed under a separate objective that deals with education and interpretation of historic resources.

that concludes my presentation. for objective two >> commissioner wolfram. >> first of all, i think that i'm not sure i agree that rewriting objective 2 conveys the same idea of preserve and protect if it identifies the resources it looks for ways to designate them so integrating them sound like a vague statement to me not you sounding we're going to looked buildings or not just to say we should be doing planning so that's a separate objective to me it doesn't convey the same meaning. i'm happy to maybe reword protect and preserve but the idea we should look for ways to

designate protect buildings by designating the districts protect the things we find in obviously one in objective 23. a couple of other things that just going through this i kind of think we want to have separate policies because we treat them differently when it comes to approval we treat it different than an individual landmark so it's important to have different policies. on 2.5 i think we should keep impervious and add it to objective one the set the record straight city has not done a good job in protecting impervious not many are protected and densities

disappear and finally in 2.9 the fostering city enter agency conversation that statement sound like a little bit weak but i'll let others - >> commissioner johnck. >> sort of along the theme we're dealing with the entire document strengthening the language to be wish i didn't wash i didn't and be more direct in what we want to do so i guess when i look at objective 2 i immediately said why don't we drop the two words the consideration of and put integrate historic resources as a major aspect of the cities planning and development activity after our comments awning drew, you know, maybe that's still weak we want to do

more than integrate the other point i want to make in general objective 2 we're already going to be expanding the list of resources that we're interested in preserving and protecting so they'll be a change in that how we in terms of there will be a list of resources we'll consider under our purview of the historic preservation commission and so then the other policy which sort of gets at i think let me see 2.6 with the idea that lets avoid the wish i didn't wash i didn't language to pursue formula designation of properties i mean do we want to

say designate properties determined ineligible or if that policy was getting at are we supporting fonts efforts lib nonprofit organizations are we supporting their efforts or but if we really want to designate properties that's what we want to do i significant looking at some astrologer, you know, language there. i guess that's about it for the moment >> commissioner matsuda. >> yeah. i agree with commissioner johnck and commissioner wolfram about making the first objective a little bit for stronger the consideration it weakens the whole i think policy you're trying to prompt you're trying to promote the preservation or the importance of cultural and historic resources you just to consider it doesn't strike me as

something you'll make as a priority and under 2.7 that promotes the rehabilitation and the resources i would recommend some stronger language not to see rehabilitation and an active use as an afterthought you look at a cultural or historic property and noticeably also finding this rehab and adoptive use as our number one objective and then move down the line i don't know how to do that but it went to public comment earlier let's make it a pro-active approach to show we really want to appreciate those resources. >> commissioner pearlman. >> i agree with commissioner wolfram. it seems like we are that talking about objectives should state our values but the word

protecting it's an active verb but at the same time that's our value as a city we're saying let's protect those things it's important to, you know, get it statement as everyone said to be very strong about it particular action to you agree with with that. the other thing you've worded this as you say the consideration of the major aspect of city planning we're now overlapping with the actions of planning commission because the historic building are a subset of all of planning and, you know, by saying it's a major aspect of city planning now there's an overlap i know i don't know if this has happened with the planning commission and the had a reputation has had joint sections because maybe

because this preservation element is an important piece to as we look at the entire, you know, citywide surveys we're looking at the entire city maybe a working group or this planning commission can have this same conversation or at least have them contribute if we're having this significant thing in 1.1 and 2 you talked about the standards which is critical and what everyone uses and we're in the midst of having a conversation how do we use those standards it seems like when i was looking at the schedule of how we want to move the presently element along and how we talked about the talking about the secretary of interior standards and what they mean to

us this is a slower place then the preservation we're talking about a year and a half effort that's a conflict that ought to be resolved so that seems like it's important scheduling and how we have those conversations and making sure we view them is in place before we falsify using them >> if i could speak to that comment we're aware of the interpretation of the secretary of interior sorry of the standards and how that project would run in parallel are the presently element and review it's different to make a policy statement that the standards should be relied upon in the way we treat historic resources and then actually develop the interpretation and the design

guidelines that's at the implementation of the policy so in a sense the policy needs to be mr. in place before there is consensus around the policy before we move forward with the implementation measure that is to develop the guidelines. >> sure. commissioner johns >> thank you. going back to the comments made i think commissioner wolfram started out and commissioner pearlman continued on the objective. i rather like the objective as it is now stated. the suggestion of staff to rewording it seems like to be more of a policy and if you were going to say i it would sigh the policy needs to make historic resources an important aspect of the cities planning permitting and development activity. that's seems like to be a good

way >> commissioner hyland. >> commissioner johns you beat me to it i'm rewording that and mine is more worder but the sxhefrp and protection of the historic cultural is a major aspect so making it an accurate statement yours is nor succinct. >> commissioner wolfram. >> just a couple of other follows up people didn't mention which were that i agree that 2.8 makes sense to delete and that there's another one that nobody talked about that - and 2.6-hundred i agree that that adding the different levels of

designation. >> i might shorten 2.8 and not talk about demolition but we have a new position in the department to enforce unauthorized altercations i might keep that i might want everyone to know that's a position as such now i would proposed to get rid i have demolition by neglect that's a tough wound to pinpoint we have a position we have an enforcement position. commissioner hyland >> did you want to respond to that. >> oh, yeah commissioner johns. >> we're creating those policies at this moment and we haven't had a position and

efforts within the department but this objective each of those objectives with living for quite a bit and insuring we're supporting those activities well into the future. >> commissioner hyland. >> yes for 2.9 and 10 we've proposed combining them but i wonder in 2.10 is boarder than the city owned properties if that's an objective to get more conversation that's a general theme overall. >> commissioner wolfram. >> yeah. i think from taking what commissioner hyland just said 2.4 should standard loan and related to the objective one

about prioritizing city owned resources they should be identified but we should make efforts to reuse them and 2.10 can be boarder increase other federal government that owns historic properties and other the port is a city agency but other entities that the city or the state for example, the city didn't have jurisdiction or the school district there's other entities that the planning department and the h pc didn't have jurisdiction over but important historic properties. >> mr. fry. >> commissioners tim frye department staff we definitely hear you to the words the designation is something to protect the building we want to convey that but go back to the

drawing board to reword that that will definitely bring to you at a further date and let's move to. any public comment on that item on objective 2. >> jim and victorian alliance many of your comments are gratifying to here i was regulated to hear commissioner pearlman bring up when we get to the heart of the issue the secretary of interior standards and having clarification so we know what we're dealing with i wholeheartedly encourage that commissioner johns your reworded was excellent that makes sense. and in terms of the specific

sections 2.5 i think commissioner wolfram is correct we have very few significant interiors that are protected and there's a great benefit to continuing to protect those that are either public or publicly assessable. so i support that very strongly. in terms of commissioner johns concern about how we're phrasing the judge support which sounds vague and again, i do building, you know, there are indicators and sticks and what we're trying to do is really do lots of indicators so the feeling we're trying to get a gauf encourage

and have mechanisms that make it in people's interests to do good preservation and take it seriously. in terms of 2.7 i do think it's important to specifically call out the rehabilitation and reuse as very strong objectives so thank you commissioner matsuda for your comments on that. and last negligence of 2.8 the enforcement poufrz prevent and the demolition by neglect i wish my feelings were this is something you know the jackson square if he csa act what

developers let something fall apart and have a safety issue they, sir vent the whole system my understanding this is something pits alive and well, before we get rid of this before we get rid of anything how we handle our enforcement >> so i'm raymond speaking again, i'd like to speak to the 2.57 that was suggested it be deleted i think you guys dpementd this morning on the 350 bush project how you care about the projects i don't believe where that belongs but we need to find a way to show the kind of care each of you showed and

very detailed ways about the impact of on adaptive use whether the public placement it needs to be many here so if we delete it it needs to be in an objective one the delights in san francisco are some of the wonderful interiors we're in one, you know, downstairs people come to see our city hall the way we preserve that fantastic interior and the crusader of the char ton and the work on the pied piper and the bar over there. i think their hundreds of others i was recently in the pacific 12 lobby people are drawn to the lobby to appreciate the space to pay attention to the interiors

don't lose it and thank you for your work on 350 bush >> is there any additional public comment. seeing none, we'll close that and go on to objective 3. >> objective 3 if i could get the slide show. objective 3 states preserve arc local resources in san francisco as an irreparable thing in the past we ask you to consider how obviously 3 should relate to obviously one and two that identifies the protection of resources and the arc local resources are understood to be under the umbrella. keeping it a separate arc local objective helps to us find more

detailed tailored effect, however, integrating arc local resources into the first two objectives may supported an holistic approach for all resource types and staff is suggesting keep that in mind the policy under the objective to promote more educational and interpretative use of the cities arc local resources specifically policy 3.1 asks the city to develop and maintain anarch local geographyal system and staff is suggesting this policy may better live within an prelims go measure partly because the statement is specific in calling out on a technology and knowing how

technology g a s may not be the system we want to rely on it so it makes it more flexible how to record and document arc local resources. so 3.2 talks about insuring preservation and appropriate the treatment of resources discovered during the projective we don't have recommendations for that policy. policy 3.3 refers to indigenous arc local sites they have been please step forward and again, we don't have suggestive changes and policy 3.4 the preservation district it preserve arc local prey prehistorically

interrelated we are not asking to change the substance but the language could be traekd so it's understood we have promoting the designation of those types of arc local resources so the language is consistent throughout the document and with that, that wraps up all the objectives. we have we'll continue to go through each suggestion for objective 3 but then we're also asking the commission to consider further structural or conceptual changes to the document we haven't suggested and last to make recommendations how's how you want to receive the information in the future it's american people unwe'd likely document to discuss so it you have recommendations how you want the information we'll appreciate it >> thank you commissioner johns.

>> i think that there's some merit in keeping objective 3 dealing with arc local resources separate from others they're a little bit different but so that we make clear their although they have separateness they should be treated the same we could make the policies that are set forth in objectives one and 2 applicable to objective 3 unless there's a particular reason that they just don't fit so i'll like to suggest that. so far as what you should do in a future presentations i think although i have misgivings your presentation was good and efficient today it - you might consider r