it's fascinating. i drive by jordan's bar. i haven't gone in to have a drink, but i think it's significant in our city to have these places. i wanted to agree with something mr. sugaya said about the issue because where the he land is where the roxy is so astronomical and to keep the roxy there, you know probably will not equal what a landowner can get in economic return for getting rid of these places and the gold dust was one of these places. again, i don't know what that is. if there is a little bit of regulatory action as opposed to a lot of regulatory action, but somehow, even if it's just a moratorium to allow a business to maybe initiate some

fundraising if it's a non-profit or someway to help. you are talking about june 2015. that's not a very long time between now and then to have a program like this instituted with regulations or not but however it shakes out is not a lot of time to save something like the roxy. the program in london had some regulatory. >> if the subcommittee could at least, obviously that's something to consider. >> if i can just respond to that briefly. in terms of the way we envision, places like the roxy already have protections. and also having a citywide designation program, if a cultural asset receives public assistance of some kind, we

believe it should have some regulatory role into the city to make sure that vichlt investment to that asset is honored. >> commissioners, any last comment? >> i like the idea about the workforce economic development. i don't know, have you gone to the mayor's office on this already? i think that would be very important. either we initiate something like that, we are all here on behalf of the mayor. >> we have not met with the mayor's office regarding this report specifically although we are working closely with oewed with particularly our work on 24th street and the mission and the mayor's office did participate in the 2013 community summit. so in this time between this preview and the release of the

report, we are planning to meet with as many elected officials including the mayor's office to discuss these recommendations. >> okay. i guess in terms of this coming out of the subcommittee, what however we are going to deal with it would be an important element to think about. >> okay, thank you very much everybody for your participation and time coming out. i think we'll move forward. sounds like we have consensus on a subcommittee. obviously we have never formed one outside. should we do this on a vote. city attorney is not here oovment >> my understanding of the rules i believe that the president has discretion to appoint members to a subcommittee without a vote.

>> for the secretary. >> maybe we can wait for next time to create the subcommittee? >> yes. i would like to talk about hpc and scoping out what hpc would be doing. if we can put this on the september 17th agenda for discussion and in the meantime get a little bit more info. okay, thank you very much. we have one last item? >> city clerk: commissioners that will place you on item 11. 2000.0630m s. caltagirone; 4155 558-66255 draft preservation element: objectives 7-9. request for review and comment on objectives 7-9 of the draft preservation element. the historic preservation commission will be holding a series of three 33 public hearings in summer 2014 to review a new draft preservation element. the preservation element will become part of the city's general plan. the document's objectives and

policies address the importance of preserving historic resources as essential to maintaining the character of san francisco. this third hearing will focus on objectives 7-9 of the draft element. please note that the hearing will be followed by a public open house september 10th that will provide additional opportunities to provide input on the document. the department will also present the document to community stakeholders during a rigorous public outreach campaign in winter 2014. the document will be revised based on public feedback. a final draft will be prepared for environmental review pursuant to ceqa. at the conclusion of the environmental review, the final policy document will be presented for endorsement by the historic preservation commission and the city planning commission. adoption by the board of supervisors is expected to take place in 2015. please follow our progress and learn about upcoming events sf 111234 >> thank you. shelley, i'm here to present the preservation element objective through chapter 79. this is the last set of objectives we'll be looking at in our series this summer and i will be coming back at your request inform review other parts of the presentes -- preservation element but we have not set a date for those hearings yet. i'm going to skip through first couple of slides. they are the same slides i have shown in the last two presentations. just giving information about

the preservation element project and how we got here. if there is anyone who has questions or anybody in the public who requires more of this information, please come talk to me after the presentation where i can answer any questions at the commission's request. i'm going to get to our list of objectives today to review. we have objective 7 which is due foster public awareness and appreciation. objective 8 to promote preservation and sustainable and objectives 9 to prepare for disasters. beginning with objective 7 reads foster public awareness and appreciation of san francisco's historic resources and the benefits of historic preservation and the quality of life and contribution to

our culture and economy. it promotes tools like lecture, tours events, websites and publications. staff is suggesting there are more participatory ways of fostering awareness and appreciation that would allow staff to contribute in our historic and cultural resources and we can expand this objective to promote a broader approach. the support policies of this subjective should also balance the needs of the city's visitors and the city's citizens and workers. and we are suggesting some policies to add supporting policies to add for the subjective that would more split italy addressed the stakeholders. this objective seven relates

to several other policies sprinkled through the preservation element exclusively policies 1.8 which states develop and maintain and official city register of identified historic resources and associated documentation which should be made readily available to property owners and government agency and policy related that we wanted to educate the public about and policy 11 which is to collect guidelines to protect artifact of the historical san francisco understanding of the environment that we collect this information and under objective 7 we can go further and talk about how to distribute that

information. there is objective six which we looked at our last hearing, the entire objective focuses on promoting historic preservation through incentives and guidance. it's closely related to the intent of objective 7 with a slight focus. with that i'm going to jump to policies and we have 7.1, promote awareness of san francisco's historic resources. again, we have a terminology issue here. we would like to expand the term historic resources and replace it with historic and cultural resources. although, reflecting presentation that you just saw that we i think there is room to have a discussion about using

the term cultural heritage assets here and using that maybe consistently throughout the preservation element. i would like to hee your feedback more on the specific terminology for our document. and also this policy also only mentions signage as a method of promoting awareness of resources supporting tax policy is fairly narrow. it mentions signage and seem to imply that we are looking at ways to promoting resources within the built public realm. but we would suggest expanding a list of tools to include walking tours, paper and web base publication, events and exhibits, expanding the policy in this way may eliminate the need for policy 7.3.

i think these two policy are very closely aligned and maybe differentiate from them a little bit more so they can work harder. next we have policy 7.2 which is encourage participation in the historic planning process. we are not suggesting really a change in the intent of this policy, but we would like to make sure that we are encouraging public participation and many of the different types of planning that we do and so we would like to explicitly list the identification identification of historic and cultural resources and long range planning efforts and community sponsored landmark designation and historic preservation. that brings us to policy 7.3 which reads encourage activities that foster awareness and appreciation of historic events and resources.

so again, looking at the terminology i would suggest expanding cultural resources. also when you read the supporting text for this particular policy, it suggest the intent is to encourage participation and commemorative events. however we think this policy could be used to promote social heritage resources or cultural heritage assets including festivals and traditional practices not just commemorative events. so it seems to be a very natural fit appropriate to the more intangible aspects to certain cultural resources. so if we were to make that change, i believe the combination with the suggestions for making policy 7.1. 7.1 become more about visual architectural cultural resources in a public realm and possibly 7.3

becomes more about promoting interaction with and participation in cultural heritage activities. so that ends the existing policies and we have a couple of additional policies that we would like to suggest. the first is to engage communities in the stewardship of their historic and cult ural resources in policies to speak directly to promoting preservation by communities and managed and cultural resources. for example supporting implementation measure for this policy could include creating an educational program for property owners on how to maintain their historic properties and how to include educational programs for professionals and trades men within the city. the next policy we are

suggesting is to utilize city sponsored projects to interpret related historic and cultural resources. we also include interpretive measures when we are doing our ceqa review and we think it would be appropriate to include a policy in the preservation element that encourages automatically the city to interpret elements in the city's project. the last policies that we are suggesting is to support educational efforts in public and private institutions dedicated to the collection artifacts that are important to the historical understanding of san francisco's history and culture and you will know the language is very similar to the policy under objective to and i referred to earlier and this would just give us encouragement to actually not just collect in archives

documents and artifacts, but create programs to share those with the public. and so, as in the past i would like to take a break here to just discuss objective seven and we can move to objectives 8 and 9. >> commissioners? do we have comments on the new policies? >> commissioner john? >> on seven, initially i thought it was probably best to expand 7.1 and eliminate 7.3. however, i have rethought that a little bit particular fully light of your comments. so i think it would be a good idea to have 7.1 focus on buildings and 7.3 focus as u suggested. then going, i think your

suggested new policies 1 and 2 are good. as to the third one. that requires i think some analysis. i think it's a good idea to support educational efforts of public and private institutions dedicated to the collection of documents and artifacts. i would suggest after the word artifacts we insert the words in presenting programs. in the museum world collections of documents and artifacts is becoming somewhat pass ae museums no longer see themselves as collection of objects. now collected much more object stories presenting programs otherwise engaging people. there is less interest in going to a

room of chip and dale furniture than there was in my grandparents day. then what we must revise to eliminate what is clear but i think not intended meaning, we say artifact, we are going to do these things, collect documents and artifacts in our hope presenting programs that are important to the historical understanding of san francisco's history and culture. well, the historical understanding of san francisco's history and culture is that minorities were not particularly important and therefore should be ignored. i don't think that was the meaning. so i would suggest that this be revised to say that are important to understanding san francisco's history and culture. i did check back at 2.11 where the wording is similar but it

doesn't have the same effect because there we are talking about built environment. so those are my comments on have. >> commissioner wolfram? >> i greet with the commissioner's comments. on 7.6 i guess whether there or elsewhere we want to add something about the school system and the educational efforts of the school system could undertake to promote the same awareness, basically the same thing you are talking about the programs that would license -- happen in universities and libraries and we would want that as part of the school curriculum. >> it's not part of public institution. >> it is but i think it would be good to be more specific even in

the text, it could be easily missed. i think a lot of people don't think of the schools as public -- >> i absolutely agree. call off the schools. good idea. commissioner matsuda? >> thank you. i would like to encourage as you stated shelley about the inclusion about the discussion we just had about cultural heritage assets into this element and to figure someway to mesh our previous presentation into a lot of these elements that we are discussing because i think if we can kickoff the subcommittee and we can start to really focus on these priorities that i think a lot of these areas can become a little bit more concise and that we can further promote i think things that the commission wants to see.

>> commissioner pearlman. >> yes, on 7.2, i like to comment on the cultural heritage as the social things that happen and about a particular culture but then not think about cultural heritage as being the tangible asset of a historic resource, a landmark building, something like that. so i'm not sure what the answer is. one is to just say what you suggested, shelley which is historical and cultural resources. one historic resource in our jarring

jargon is a building and the wult -- cultural resources is public thing. i'm not sure the public would understand the cultural heritage asset as a term that includes all of it. i know mr. bueller, you know it's a great explanation about tangible versus intangible but no. i don't know that the public would understand that. >> commissioner johnck? >> what is said earlier about the preservation. i have been thinking a lot about daniel berm an and nobling citizenry that is patronizing for the public. but i'm thinking about it where we had these words foster public awareness and appreciation. i'm thinking more about foster prides

or instill pride. the city of france has this magnificent architecture. this commission has been set up to with experts and all of us are talented in many different areas but we spend so much time in the planning department and trying to take care of it and the citizens of the city we are really working towards the sense of how proud we are in what we have and how we are taking care of it. this is stewardship and maintenance. i guess pride is something that is considered integrating something whether it's here or earlier. i don't know whether any of you might agree with that or whether we ever enough words to describe that. anyway that's my thought. other than i agree with with the comments to date and what the staff has been recommending here.

>> thank you. we'll take public comment. any member of the public wish to comment on policy 7? >> i'm raymond, retired psychiatrist neighborhood homeowner speaking for myself and others who have talked to me on the preservation committee. i liked the element in 7.1 in implementation about creating a property recognition program that encourages preservation of historic facade from exteriors. but because i understand it of a victorian household structure something like 13, 500 exist and about hatch of -- half

of them have been remodeled in the journal, as best as bestos, shingles, stucco and things like they apply puddy and stone that you make your mom and vase in kindergarten, all kinds of things. underneath there are valuable historic structures that can be restored especially when there is a historic program. my colleagues from alliance mentioned asking each project bhert -- where the building facade had been remodeled to consider preserving it. for example the house next to jim

segal's house and you can see the shadows and the possibility. i hope they are going to do some of that, it's pretty far down, the stucco is down and hope they are restoring it to the proper portions. i don't know that all people contractors and owners realize that they even had a victorian building. my house at 584 page street was built in 1894 by daniel einstein and it's stucco and very deco and has a two 2-car garage. but someone who didn't know thinks it a deco building and it was published on hate raegs showing this cottage. that's public

awareness about victorian buildings and considering incentives for people to considering restoration if they are doing a major project. thank you. >> i'm jim more shall. i appreciate dr. blot knee's comments bringing up my previous statements about mitigation to foster historic preservation that is very near and dear to my heart. i like that all of these things are talking about increasing public awareness and appreciation of our historic assets, getting broader participation in a much broader approach. these are all very very worthwhile objectives. anything we can do to increase our signage, increase education,

knowledge is desirable. so all of these considerations are very worthwhile and it really brings to mind, we have something which is trying to get off the ground is a history preservation center and i agree with commissioner john that the last thing we want is another musty museum but how we can mobilize our forces to have something that is a dynamic education living history center. what can we do in we have a hotel tax that fosters education. why not have all this development that is going on throughout the city have some of it go into funding a preservation center, an education, a center, a very living one,

not a bunch of old dusty relics. it maybe on the scope of item 7, but within the concept of fostering greater public awareness, greater engagement, greater sentist. -- incentives. i would louvre for us to think about how we can build something and fund something that really accomplishes all of our goals. thank you. >> bill sugaya, i was here on the previous item. it's more of a general comment, not about this item. i think what you all know and mr. frye can claire fee -- this will be going before the planning commission at some point and i believe you should have a joint hearing at some point. i think you would be really

good get your comments before then and vice versa. i think that also applies to the, this is going to be off topic but i'm going to pretend it's public comment. i think that would also be good with respect to the, i think i don't know where this is but i think staff is contemplating changes or appropriation -- proposals with respect to the implementation part for pdr uses, i think commissioner permanent -- pearlman is interested in that. i have been pushing that myself. on the other hand i haven't always trying to get more incentives for historic resources because we are not very good at that kind of stuff. you about but now we are faced with a kind

of policy consideration and places taking effect especially south of market and i think there is a need to address that head on and that might be another opportunity to hear or to have the two commission consider that jointly at some hearing. and i think other commissioners on the planning commission would appreciate that also. i think they are looking for pinto from -- input from the commission. i would encourage staff to do that also. as far as the element, hey, it's been going on forever, you know. back when i was on the landmark's preservation advisory board, we were looking at an element various people have had their hand in it you know from vin september marshall and staff to others that were