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 on the actual lp at some point. very glad that this is moving forward and that there will be an element. not only that, it's really important for the planning commission to have an element to look at and to guide themselves with too. it suspect just -- isn't just the preservation commission but the planning commission needs that element so they can say, hey, the preservation

element is this. lastly, he is on vacation, but i think he should always be on vacation. >> thank you, mr. sugaya. >> good afternoon commissioners, mike bueller with heritage. i would like to briefly note we strongly support staff's recommendation regarding policies in objective seven and in terms of commissioner matsuda's comments, there are numerous case studies in the report that relate to this section of the elements that we think are particularly effective and could perhaps be included in implementation measures such as youth led walking tours and heritage and cultural trails. i did no. see cultural heritage and tour programs, we have cultural and

tourism provided the community is interested. it is perhaps the largest industry in san francisco and certainly our neighborhood could benefit and cultural her the animal -- heritage benefits reach the efforts to promote cultural tourism in san francisco. >> thank you. any other members wish to speak on this item? we'll close this for now and go to item 8. >> shelley, that brings us to objective eight which is to promote historic preservation as a key strategy and add hear egg adhering to the principals of the environment. staff is not recommending any significant changes to the objective statement itself.

we think it's sound and well written, however we are concerned that this objective is only supported by one policy statement and we are suggesting to add several additional policies to the objective's reach. if kz the objective state quality of the historic preservation. we think it misses an at some point to promote sustainable practices within the field of historic preservation as well. the policies 8.1 promote rehabilitation and adapt reuse of historic resources as a sustainable practices consistent with the goals and objective for the sustainability plan. we would like to encourage consideration of particular

implementation measures that to support this policy. one thought that came up in discussion among staff this week was a creation of salvage program that both reduces construction ways to end, encourages the use of architectural materials, one circumstances that we are often faced with when we are dealing with the loss in resources that we try mitigate the loss with a salvage mitigation measure that there aren't any well established for retaining and using that material. i think a lot of architects would benefit from and more regulated systems for salvaged materials in san francisco. it also provides a supply base for the restoration of existing historic resources. and then that brings us to

the additional new policies that we are suggesting. the first is encourage the study of energy use for projects throughout the city as a means of better understanding the environmental benefits of preservation rehabilitation and adaptive reuse. we believe a policy as this could encourage better data and analysis in support of our mutual and historic preservation in ability goals. this conversation about green building and preservation is a hot topic in our field which you are probably aware and many of the conversations boil down to numbers and statistics in order to support that preservation is in fact does have material and financial benefits for projects. so, if we had a policy that encouraged better data collection, i think that provides more scientific

background for promoting preservation in this field. the next policy is to encourage the use of sustainable material systems and infrastructure for alterations to historic resources and within historic districts. so rather that focusing solely on the inherently sustainable practice of preserving our environment, this policy states using sustainable means of improving resources to ensure the long lived interventions. we believe this practice should in theory result in fewer interventions over time and better preservation of the resource and we believe that sustainable methods should be used in the approach for individual and historical resources and for district resources where materials, systems and infrastructure are more easily shared among sites and