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 community activist local to purchase this property which they did in this case. ivy house was the first pub to be purchased through the community right to bid program and funding came from a variety of sources including

a grant for about two-thirds of the purchase value from the architectural heritage fund, other grants and then 371 individual shares purchased by members of the community. and this program has been particularly popular for addressing pubs to which many are tlentsdz -- threatened with closure. the next one is in buenos aires. this is for the restaurants program. the difference being that the program was introduced by the city. it's an official designation of the program to recognize bars, cafes, billiard halls for architecture has rendered them worthy of preservation.

these businesses are eligible to receive grants for conservation project and like the window decal program and businesses are promoted actively by the administration of culture and non-profit group to increase patron acknowledge of these businesses. on the far end of the spectrum is the program. i'm just going to call it that in paris which in paris is as many of cultural uses were faced with closure and displacement such as book stores, artisans, the city enacted this to allow their department to purchase hundreds of property in predefined neighborhood for lease for specific uses. the agency then sells the property to the tenant or a real estate

subsidiary with a covenant for a particular use. final two examples, one here in san francisco and i'm really happy that lisa beckham is here. we have an exciting model in our own backyard cast that was established last year specifically to secure long-term space for arts organizations in the tenderloin and mid-market. cast was started with a $5 million grant from the kenneth foundation and it has acquired two properties already. the luxury store gallery pictured here as well as 1007 market street and then 80 tush street. basically the cast follows the similar model as the paris program,

they end into long-term leases combined with technical assistance to help build capacity for those organizations to purchase those buildings. cast is also being creative in identifying funding sources such as new market tax credits and safely tdr for the property. this is page six of the report. we are not going to go, this is our summary of all of our recommendations for moving forward in this area. some of the recommendations relate to the historic preservation commission and the planning department and many do not. i want to emphasize that especially in light of the conversation we had in reference to the work program. another important point to note is that we are recommending an senti iv base approach to sustaining these types of

resources. we are not recommending layerering on restrictions. i think that's important to understand. we are going to next highlight just a few of the recommendations that we feel where we feel the hpc can play a role in moving some of them forward. & >> okay. so our recommendation no. 1 for identifying documenting cultural heritage assets is something where we do see the hpc having an important role in supporting and ushering that project along. the agency did adopt in december of 2012 a motion to support this very recommendation already. so we would like to see is some concrete steps taken to formalize the

methodology that began during the japan town process. on the screen we have the social heritage developed during that process and we believe that could be applied citywide. similarly, historic context statement are great tools for identifying potential cultural heritage assets and we would like to see the department and the commission support additional cultural context. one more thing. with the preservation element under way, we feel that the hpc can play a critical role in helping to expand the preservation to include cultural heritage assets and also ensure that meaningful policies related to cultural preservation aren incorporated into element.

our second recommendation which would support cultural heritage conservation initiatives and particularly the suggestions to question a morning i received a -- morning i received mayoral directive. as you know mayor lee earlier issued a directive for affordable housing as a result a multi-group was formed to make policies and administrative action that would support development of new affordable housing. last month we learned about this directive about the may or's office of housing $30 million to purchase small residential buildings from proneers -- property owners for renting at a reasonable rate and some can be around the cultural preservation.

finally our recommends no. 6, the last one we wanted to highlight which is much more long-term goal but to establish a citywide historical preservation program with targeted benefits. we believe that a designation program would better enable the city to identify resources for the government sponsored assistance program and financial initiative incentives. it's also important to note that there are models of the designation program for intangible group heritage for the intangible groups of social and humanity, barcelona has a resource cat categorical heritage and japan since 1950 s and san francisco's

designation program would be able to fit the needs. >> just to wraup up our presentation. much can be done immediately to lay the groundwork for a comprehensive citywide program. first of course as desiree mentioned social is the preservation element that cultural heritage and social heritage resources be encompassed within the policy in the

preservation element and heritage has also testified regarding places where we think these policies are incorporated where we can continue doing it later on in the agenda. desiree mentioned a morning i received -- mayoral heritage and other related agencies that can provide benefits, support to these types of resources and look at the problem more comprehensively. short-term maybe a little bit aspirational within six months and with the cultural and heritage aspects we think it's not unrealistic

for the hpc to endorse a consistent methodology that can be applied citywide. heritage is eager to work with the commission or the department to develop recommendations on the most effective incentives and available funding sources to build on existing programs such as cast to provide additional fundings for property acquisitions or financing it's. etc. then from a communicate perspective and if you read a report a real emphasis that we try to make throughout is that these efforts are ultimately steered by the committee themselves. so given the work that's been done by the department and resources that are available already, we think it would be enormously helpful to have a web page compiling information and resources that areva