have it ready in december and bring it to the commission as soon as possible. for the other building, the ladies home, there is very little historical information beyond the general outline that i provided. so a landmark designation report would be required. if the commission is interested to add it to the work program that could be added to the cue. there is approximately 15 or 16 buildings currently on the work program and the commission could prioritize it or not on the work program. >> okay. and while you are at the mic, are either, are there any projects coming forward on either of these addresses? >> not that i am aware of. >> okay. commissioner hyland? >> i just have a concern and that is that, i'm totally in support of adding any appropriate project to

the landmarks program, but we don't seem to have enough resources in order to process these and just learning today that we did not get the one head count in order to pursue this forward. do we need to agenda ized further discussion to have a further conversation about moving this forward. we have made several projects on landmark but they have been initiated. we need some resources to identify this progress. >> mr. frye and i have spoken on this previously outside of this chamber in how do we track and follow our monthly allocation, and what i always worry about is that we have staff that is doing both active, private

enterprise projects as well as landmark background research for the work program. and, everyone is hot to get these other projects done because there is a time issue for our sponsor but then our history k program sort lags because there is not on the front burner if you will. i think we do need to come up with a way, is it that one staff person has pulled and put per quarter through one work program or like one 1 year? what is that? we need in put the from staff on that so how do we do it so one 1 person is totally focused for a good period of time just on the landmark program. i think that's the only way we are going to roll this off this program and going forward because right now we keep adding to it and we are not adding enough to be taken off

it. >> we have one fte. >> not added but under prehistory k landmark designation is one. >> that's right. it's not one dedicated person. it's through a several members of our is survey. they are also working on is survey, historic preservation historic committee, there is a wide variety of other commitments aside from designation. >> currently how do we split this us? is there a certain number of hours that we are doing towards the work program that we track or anything like that? how are we doing this now in >> we are tracking it through the quarterly reports that you receive and as mary went through the quarterly report in july we have identified some new performance measures to

help that we will be showing you at the next or the first quarter now that we are in the new fiscal year which i think we will be bringing that in the first nearing october, middle of september. the next hearing september 17th we'll share those performance measures with you and see how the commission would like to track this fte in the future and maybe we can have a discussion about how that fte is allocated. one small comment that i have regarding these proposals here is like other permit review or other time sensitive review, we may want to capitalize on the momentum that these projects have already gained considering we have support from a wide variety of constituents including the

supervisors in each of these districts. it may make sense to prioritize theme. we are making progress on the other properties listed on the program. as you know, there isn't a time sensitive nature other than trying to get them to you in a timely manner. here the property or the tennants and own done some of the legwork for us and we may want to capitalize on that since we can move these forward a lot more quickly than oochlts >> it it is good to have that already done. i agree. >> the landmark designation, that is for the work program exclusively, right? because the is survey is under a separate category, it's still

under the work program. >> that is correct. >> then we have 1.5 for the privately initiated. we have 1.15 for our work program, basically. is that a correct reading of that? >> yes. for the line no. 5 item for that budget for the historic fund preservation committee project. we have work in excess of that fine committee. a small portion used by that allocation for use by the committee with a proposal such as this one. just to clarify again, line item 8 and line item 4 and line item 5 are pretty much done by the three staff members we have as part of the is survey and designation team. >> right. because i think it would be

helpful to have the work plan then if we looked at it in all the projects instead of identifying let's say if you took this number of hours and started looking at how many hours it takes with the schedule that relates "the hours" with the fte's that we have then we'll get some sense of how quickly we might accomplish the plan. because otherwise it's like yes, it sounds like a plan. i would say i'm very supportive of adding these two to the work plan. the goldberg building is fantastic and it's a great building. the ladies home is a property tax that we don't have on the work plan. the fact that it was a home for seniors for very low income and even in that part of the city are very few landmarks and i'm very supportive of both of those.

>> commissioner john's? >> i think we should have this issue placed on the agenda to get the proper focus that it needs and there may be some folks in the p be who would have some suggestions or some observations about how this really should be accomplished. >> commissioner hyland? >> this is a question for staff. in your staff report you said the one fte that we requested had not been additional. >> that would have been in addition to that and we were hoping that was going to be dedicated. >> that's the question i keep asking. >> so there is one existing ft exterior wall that -- f te that has been budgeted for the last three 3 years. staff requested one

additional fte that was granted and working on solely one dell nation. -- designation. we are working on our finance and admin team to find responsibilities around to achieve that without adding another person. i think at the september 17th hearing we'll be able to give you more concrete information on that. >> maybe that's where we can take it up. >> i do think we need to focus on this on a more formal way. >> it sounds to me on the point of clarification. we'll bring this program back to you and maybe there is cause to reprioritize on that. >> and i'm sorry. i have to reread this. we are not voting, just recommending. we know we are going to add these two and recommend to the list. exactly. we will take that as a

consensus and bring this up again when we have a broader communication about prioritization. we are going to close on these two items. mr. frye, you have one more comment? >> sorry, tim frye, department staff. if the commission can clarify, would you like us to do some additional research on the ladies home? it appears to me several of your objectives for your work program, but we don't have a lot of information so we don't know definitively whether or not -- >> is there a priority for this? we have a number of projects that have been sitting on that list that i think deserve attention. if there is a priority, then, i think we should. >> the question is that it doesn't even qualify for the work program. >> i think it does. >> i think the staff wanted to do more confirmation. >> we can visit the site and

have additional research on the property and have the information for the next hearing or have some discussion. i would like some direction from you all. yes, you are right it will take away the time we are spend frth existing work property. >> how much time? >> i will defer to miz -- ms. brown on how much time. >> it depends on how much you want. i haven't been inside of the building. it's probably part of the landmark report. we are obviously very busy with the many different competing projects. i think there is not a pressing need at this point other than that what tim pointed out in what the building that is support of supervisor david campos, there were 200 signatures in preserving the building. >> i would recommend the

check. you don't want to go back in six 6 months and talk about the exteriors where they happen to be gone. >> i think it comes back to resources. i would like to be able to encourage anyone from the public to suggested added resources to the program. i don't think we should be spending time evaluating whether they should be added to the program. let's add them to the program and let's talk about how if there is support for a specific property then some resources need to come from somewhere to move that forward so that would be part of our conversation at the next hearing as to how to incentivize people to bring resources to bring these issues forward. >> that's great because i was doing

the lobbying from the office and seeing support now from supervisors it would make sense that i approach the supervisors individually now and talk about why we need this fte. here we are pushing for priorities and we don't have the funds for that. >> and david campos constituents. >> because there is no permits being filed, anything going on on either of these properties, how about we get a recommendation from staff on these two, both of them at the september 17th. we are going to talk about these anythingany -- anyway. nothing is going to happen with them and gives me a chance to talk about it with the supervisors. >> we talk about prioritizing and i think it's almost meaningless. to me when you prioritize you list an order of preference, 12345.

and we, i think it would be, it's been a long time since we've looked at the properties on our list and i think this would be a good time to go down there and we could prioritize maybe 350 university is no. 16 on the list or maybe no. 6 or no. 4. i don't know. but i do think that rather having these out there, let's go down the list and decide that it maybe that one property might be bumped higher on the list because there is a couple supervisors who are currently involved in the process. let's make a list and do it in a rational way. >> in that before we go to the september 17th meeting and talk about this again we weigh out what

resources are available for a project. is there someone involved to help this move forward. we did this before and we had commissioner alumni martinez here and did this before as we figure out how to get this off the list and which have the resources on a volunteer basis from the public. eye >> i would suggest we add it to the list and not add additional staff time. >> would you mind if we move to september. >> fine. >> thank you. with that we'll close for these two items and if we could then, because we have a conflict. >> i make a motion to recuse commissioner pearlman. >> second. >> there is a motion and a

second. commissioner hyland, yes, commissioner johnck, yes, john, yes, commissioner matsuda, pearlman, commissioner hasz, that passes 7-0. >> we heard and did not comment on the 199 carl situation. do we have any questions for staff at this time? seeing none. public comment on 199 carl? seeing none, we'll close public comment. and commissioners, i imagine we'll do the same, we'll wait for recommendation from staff. >> i think that's a great idea. one comment while it looks like a lovely house, in terms of the priorities established in terms of trying to find resources less recognized or in other parts

of the city, this doesn't meet. we have a lot of victorian structures and structures like this that are already designated and i think with this type of ceqa review that we go through the city that it's unlikely that something terrible would go to the house and i think it would put it lower on the priorities. >> this is a mills act request in the end. we don't know that because the owner can put effort forward because they are not in support of it from what we understand. >> but if it is in question, maybe they can go forward. >> commissioner? >> i don't know why it was requested to be put on the list and by who and there appears to be a pending project. >>

i think the concern was that the property was recently sold and sole property ownership and there was a question about potential changes. i have not heard any proposal or ideas about proposals. >> okay. no other questions or comment, we'll close this item and grab commissioner pearlman real quick. & >> let's go ahead and move on. >> commissioners that will place you on item 10. item 10: t. frye; 4155 575-68222 architectural heritage cultural heritage assets report - sustaining san francisco's living history. san francisco architectural heritage will give an informational presentation of its report on strategies for conserving cultural heritage assets. sf 101234 informational presentation.

>> all right. good afternoon commissioners, mike bueller of san francisco heritage. thank you for the opportunity to preview our forthcoming report sustaining san francisco's living history here today. we are planning to release the report in early september and it's really a culmination of really the last year 1/2 of work on behalf of heritage but more importantly the work of the planning department and historic preservation commission in identifying the need to explore issues surrounding traditional uses and culturally significant uses. i'm here with desiree smith who has done work on the heritage

the along with developing the report before you. desiree and i will switch on different slides. first of all, i just wanted to provide some background as to why san francisco heritage is taking on this topic, this very complex topic and the need for it. basically we've been faced with reoccurring issues surrounding displacement of heritage businesses and traditional uses in neighborhoods across san francisco threats that a landmark designation is ill equipped to drae. as you well know, you discussed it very recently here with the pdr ordinances, many long time businesses and cultural institutions are placed with displacement and challenges and other factors that threaten

long time institutions. i have up on the slide before you examples just a few examples of cultural resources, culturally signature resources that have been threatened with displacement or displaced in recent years due to such factors such as this. we are referring to these types of resources as cultural heritage assets in our reports. what are cultural heritage access. tangibles defined to practice in a particular community, cultural maybe land, building, artwork and land may include organization, institutions, businesses and cultural activities and events. basically we are referring to traditional uses and businesses that are not protected by landmark designation.

the goals of our report are to basically is survey the problem, define the problem and identify challenges to conserving local cultural heritage assets and summarizes existing efforts to cultural and heritage assets although many have been done assets to a coordinating program. our third goal is to create a common language that will advance public policy and neighborhood level cultural heritage conservation initiatives by providing domestically and internationally of what other major cities have done to attempt to maintain the cultural characters of their communities's particular uses. as i mentioned earlier the planning department and the city of san francisco has a leader in this area and initiated

several neighborhood based efforts to cultural conservation beyond just buildings in a community. here are a list of both examples of initiatives under taken by the city as well as non-profit such as heritage. of course the japan town adopted last year is really the first comprehensive document to look at neighborhood conservation at a holistic level that's been adopted by the city. also incomplete efforts in soma, the lgbtq community, social heritage districts proposed but not yet adopted. those are two earlier efforts. of course this commission in 2012 passed a resolution endorsing cultural heritage designation program separate from article 10 separate designation and our own legacy bars and restaurant programs a very fun initial

foree into this area but also has challenges by these types of institutions and finally most recently this year, latino cultural district sphere headed by supervise campos in collaboration with heritage with latino historical society. i will hand it over to desiree. >> i'm going to provide a recap of what heritage has done in the past two 2 years now in regard to cultural heritage conservation. as oomph you know back in 2012 we created an organizing committee to coordinate a citywide committee summit which is san francisco's living history on that committee matsuda participated and historical preservation alan martinez

and staff member participated along with local neighborhood representative. we had some folks from ohp, sponsor the event and the planning department cosponsor the event as well. the purpose of the summit in 2003 was to bring together the various communities and organizations and community groups that had been working on cultural preservation initiatives to face the challenges they were facing and look at the coordinated citywide action. then during the summit some of the challenges that were brought up included aging building stocks, construction and defacement of murals in the city, diminishing number of cultural practitioners etc

and panel included family, business and cultural preservation to bring solutions to these identified challenges. following the summit we wanted to provide a summary of all the information learned during the event but also to get one step further and conduct research on potential solutions and case studies from around the globe. and during that process, we found that on an international scale, looking at preservation in a holistic way was really something that wasn't really new. it might be new to us here in the united states but on a global scale many other countries have adopted charters that look at preserving heritage that includes tangible and cultural heritage. some examples here, one

important convention took place in 2003 and that was led by lens skoe and that has adopted that convention on their own. here in this slide we have an image of flam co- that is added to the list of intangible and cultural humanities in 2010. in the report, we include a concise background that recaps much of the information i just discussed with the purpose being to make the case that the evolution of preservation in san francisco is in keeping with what's happening globally particularly among other international cities. with that background i would like to share with you information that we have in the report from

opportunities with the government sponsorship programs, public private partnerships. i will turn it back to mike. >> so as mentioned by decemberary, desiree. it includes wide case studies and we are going to highlight the next few slides to show you some of the note -- innovative programs that have been introduced in major cities throughout the world. the most interesting i think is the assets of community value -- designation program in london which introduced the local act in london a few years ago. it basically enables

communities to nominate properties with social interest for this status. it's not a landmark designation. it's an alternative landmark designation with properties with social interest and social interests is defined as cultural, recreational and sporting interest nominated and be eligible for specific planning procedures and benefits through the city of london. one of those benefits is associated triggered with this designation is the community right to bid program. so if this particular pub, the ivy house was designated an asset of community value and that triggered a six 6-month moratorium on the sale of the property to bid the program where by a local xhoount group of comm