definitely lead a way in coordinating this effort pie following what heritage is recommending. we are not talking about the public keeping dying things on life support. we are talking about having our cultural assets that aren't rolling in money and be less affected by the boom bust cycle. that's where i'm coming from. >> thank you. any other members of the public wishing to speak. please come up. >> good afternoon. my name is isabella, director of the roxy theatre. i'm here to support the recommendation by the san francisco heritage. to let you know a little bit about the roxy. it's the oldest running theatre in san francisco and also in the country,

started in 1909. we became a non-profit in 2009. over 60,000 san francisco and bay area residented come to see movies. hope some of you have been to the roxy as well. we are community icon and cultural heritage asset. unfortunately our lease will be ending next june and with the boom cycle that was just talked about, our landlord feels that our rent should go up which means probably 25-55 percent increase which means we probably won't be able to afford. we are excited to see the strategy no. 4 which is a financial incentive and property acquisition for students. i

-- stuart's. i think it can benefit from programs like this if they are create soon enough. it would be a tragedy to see the roxy become a gym. please promote social and cultural heritage. if there is something we can do, please let us know. >> thank you. anymore speakers? >> commissioners, i'm safely say, sugaya, i'm a resident of san francisco and that's it. [ laughter ] anyway, i would like to thank heritage and the commissioner and the department for a really great job in bringing together the whole concept of cultural preservation which actually extends way back even beyond the

tonga room to sb 3078 which was at least 15 years ago. commissioner matsuda will remember that well. that was a legislative effort that funded cultural resource is surveys. the forerunner of what happened in japan town back when that term was not even being used by anybody else. that resulted in is surveys in los angeles, san jose and san francisco and i think the city here now is the furthest along, there may be other initiatives that i don't know about in los angeles and san jose. the ghs program was a direct result of that. that said, i think it's really important that the commission get it's handle around all of the recommendations in the report

just to counter a little bit of what the discussion or the direction has been going in. i think you need some sticks just to purely try to depend on incentives and that kind of thing. i think it's a good idea, but it also has to accompany a little bit process and at least somewhere the city can implement things. i think it's also highly economically driven in terms of incentives and other kinds of assistance that the city can provide. i think that's where you have to expand the concept a little bit and try to get the mayor's office of economic and workforce development involved. they do have a neighborhood initiative going. they have a sign by japan down. in any case, that's where some of the economic muscle lies. i woulden currently you to

communicate with them at some fashion and also support what mr. martinez had to say. >> mr. sugaya, do you have time now to serve on the subcommittee? >> i just got my weekends. >> we are not talking weekends, we are not talking all sorts of reports. >> sure. >> thank you. any other member of the public wish to speak on this item, seeing none, >> carl. >> i want to make a point that at the rocky theatre tomorrow night. >> okay. we'll close public comment. mr. frye. >> commissioners, tim frye. i want to show you the support of the report. we work closely with heritage and appreciate them keeping us involved in the development of the report.

we think it's great document. certainly support creation of a subcommittee and agree with the recommendations and think there is a lot of potential there that we can come up with some really creative ways to further the goals outlined in the document. >> commissioner wolfram. >> it looks like i missed it, your priorities for hpc action on the slide, is that in the packet as well? >> it is not. >> maybe we can get that. it's kind of hard to read on the slide. >> okay. sure. >> there is one copy. i don't know. >> maybe we can get that. >> sure. >> commissioner pearlman in >> thank you. 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