adopted. [applause] commission hearing for wednesday, may 15th, 2024. just a quick note for those of you that are watching live, the building inspection commission is currently running a little long. and so our hearing is currently being broadcast on sfgovtv v, slash planning. so if you want to review to the hearing then you can just log on to the website. that way members of the public, we ask that you line up on the screen side of the room. each speaker will be allowed up to three minutes to speak. when you have 30s remaining, you will hear a chime indicating your time is almost up. when your allotted time is

reached, i will announce that your time is up to take the next person in queue to speak. best practices are to speak clearly and slowly and if you please, include your name for the record. finally, i want to remind everyone that members that the commission does not tolerate any disruption or outburst at of any kind at this time. i will take roll. commissioner. president matsuda here. commissioner vice president warren here. commissioner wright here. commissioner. vergara here. commissioner. foley present. commissioner campbell here. and commissioner baldauf here. great. next up on our agenda, our first up on our agenda is general public comment. at this time, members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission, except for agenda items. with respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting, we'll take people, in the hearing room first and followed by our reasonable accommodation request. good afternoon. there you go. good

afternoon. commissioners, city staff members of the public, richard carrillo, full disclosure, i am a city employee, but i'm speaking before you today as a resident of san francisco, as you may have read in the news, the classical revival style mccroskey building at 1687 market street as a designated historic building is proposed to be demolished. and i'm hopeful that we can save this building. i'd like to take this opportunity to thank the san francisco chronicle for printing my letter to the editor yesterday in the newspaper about this issue, and i appreciate the opportunity to speak before you today. the mccroskey building is one of eight buildings that comprise the market street masonry landmark district, which was approved by the city in 2013. according to the planning department, the eight buildings were identified as historic resources for their exceptional and remarkable intact, remarkably intact architectural character. the proposal is to

demolish the historic building to build a tower for affordable artist housing, while affordable housing for artists is wonderful and i'm 100% supportive, the location is completely wrong. why select the beautiful and historic mccroskey building for demolition when there are several unattractive non-historic buildings nearby that could really use this development? even better, why not seismically restore and adaptively, adaptively reused the brick tharp commercial school building at franklin and fell streets across the street from sfjazz to house the artists ? artists of all people should understand the importance of preserving our architectural works of art. the proposed demolition of the building is a direct result of state assembly bill 2011, which enables the destruction of historic buildings and will likely result in the demolition of many more historic buildings in san francisco and throughout

california. this is a major problem that needs to be corrected through our state representatives. i reviewed san francisco city charter section 4.135, the historic preservation commission, and i'm unsure if you're if you're able to advocate for revisions to state law. but if you are able to, that would be wonderful. it does say, however, that the historic preservation commission shall have the authority to disapprove or modify applications for permits to alter or demolish designated, significant or contributing buildings or buildings within conservation districts, so hopefully you can save them. mccroskey building that way, also, i would recommend friend to everybody, to read the death and life of great american cities, that was written by writer and activist jane jacobs in 1961. it was a critique of 1950s urban planning policy, which is not dissimilar from a lot of the planning policies we're facing today.

thank you for your hard work and advocacy in preserving historic resources in san francisco. thank you. patricia voy marina, cow hollow neighborhood merchants, as well as planning associations for divisadero, which is the umbrella association for 22 neighborhood merchants groups, i just want to advise you that some things are coming up in front of you concerning the marina and that we're working on now. one of them is fort mason. is the highest historical property in the city. on the other side, we've got the presidio trust, which is also a national trust. we have the palace of fine arts in between is the historical marina green. we are going to be presenting you with some papers concerning this. also, there's a couple of interesting ones that are coming up in that area. and one of them that i'm working on

right now is dimond number four of mosconi park. that's where joe and dom dimaggio and the seals played all their lives as teenagers. and dom dimaggio at that from dimond. number four hit a home run there that went all the way to venice avenue. and the older i think we have three left, the older baseball players from seal stadium really want this badly. the building's been condemned. i'm trying to work with park and rec to rehab it, and, it's coming up, but this whole area is a very important area historically. and i just want you to advise you that this is coming up and, probably be seeing us pretty soon on part of it, it's very interesting area, and we should not lose this for the city and

county of san francisco. thank you. thank you. next public commenter. hi. my name is jonathan pritikin, and i want to make comments about the mccroskey building on market street. my comments a little bit more emotional than richard carrillo, every time i walk by the mccroskey building on market street, i am so happy to see this wonderful building that captures the unique history, character, and charm that makes san francisco san francisco as richard said, this is one of eight buildings in the san francisco market street masonry landmark district, which, according to the planning department, is identified as a historic resource for its exceptional, remarkably intact architectural heritage. i am horrified to learn that this building is going to be torn down to put up yet another generic concrete and glass block, a dull, anonymous, boring

slab building. by building block by block, we are destroying the very things that make san francisco unique and special. i think we will become san jose or houston with hills. what's ironic to me is that this is being done by an arts organization, artists of all people, one would think, would appreciate the special beauty and esthetics of this building. once these buildings are gone, they are gone forever. there's no going back. nobody builds like this anymore. nobody creates like this anymore. it's all utilitarian. with a budget, we are mowing down what makes san francisco special and unique . what draws visitors? they come to see victorians and edwardians and turn of the century commercial buildings. they don't come to see yet another concrete and glass block. they have those at home. why would they come

here? the purpose is for housing. i agree with that. but there's tons of near empty buildings and very good shape downtown. why not convert one of those to a residence for artists or the building of the historic building that richard mentioned? it would save this wonderful building, and it would also be much better for the environment. instead of building a new ten story building by scratch. and it would be cheaper, i would be pretty certain i'm sure you get many. i'm sure you can get many of these buildings downtown incredibly cheap now. i can't believe that renovating and buying one of those buildings downtown would be more expensive than demolish, buying and building a brand new building. thank you, thank you. thank you. seeing no one one more public commenter. good afternoon, commissioners. woody labounty. i'm president and ceo of san

francisco heritage. i am also just going to speak briefly on mccroskey building, when ab 2011 came into effect in january, i was very concerned that if somebody had a 100% affordable housing project that the law allowed the demolition of a historic resource, whether it was designated or not, you could have a landmark that could be lost, i was sort of placated by folks in the preservation community that it was highly unlikely that somebody would privately fund 100% affordable housing on a historic resource, and that there'd be other mechanisms that would come into play if they were seeking federal dollars or other ways to get affordable housing. in, less than four months after the bill came into effect, that exact scenario of private money, coming in to destroy a historic resource has come up, and it won't be the last, the villain is not the charitable donor or

the, mercy housing anybody involved with this building. i'm not trying to cast blame on them. 100. affordable housing for artists is wonderful. we all want this, but this is one of these unintended consequences, is that i think a lot of the state legislature did not account for when they passed these housing bills in a rush to try to, like, address this crisis in the state and not pay close enough attention to what they're going to lose when they sort of open the barn door and deregulate a lot of these things that we had local control over. so i guess my only comment is that i want to keep raising the awareness of these state bills and the impact they're going to have, and try to sort of rally this commission and this community to talk back to the state legislature and say, you have to take into account historic resources. we can have housing, we can have affordable housing, we can have a vibrant arts community, and we can have

the places that are special in this city. we can do it. we just have to pay attention and work together. thank you. thank you. great. any other comment? public comments in the hearing room? let's turn over to our webex. hello caller. you're welcome to start your public comment. hello. what is the time limit? 2 minutes or 3 minutes? three minutes. and i'm starting your time. minutes. thank you. thank you, hello, this is michael petrilli's calling in, and i would like to address the, castro theater, quasi landmarking that took place with this, historic commission in recent years, i'd like for you to, revisit the castro theater, especially in the context of the promise they made the, another planet corporation made that they would be promoting local businesses, this promise has not

been kept. when you walk past the castro theater these days, there is no signage saying patronize these local businesses, buy a drink in a local bar, eat a meal in a local restaurant in the neighborhood. what another planet is doing on their frontage is, promoting concerts in the east bay. so, the message, the, another planet is sending is if you're in the castro, buy a ticket to a show at another planet venue in the east bay that is not helping the local businesses in the castro. i think that, a discussion is needed, regarding on another planet recently committed to only 75 nights annually for film

, 75 nights of movies is not enough in terms of bringing in patrons to the castro theater, for movie pleasures. as with, all that said, the, castro theater is, a landmark. and, the interior integrity has been destroyed. we do not know all of the ramifications of the renovation that is going on by another planet inside the castro theater. there's no transparency about it, they had a few tours of the interior, and that has stopped. we need to constantly monitor whatever another planet is doing at that theater. and i

hope that the merchants association would lobby the, executives at another planet and say, hey, put signage up that encourages people walking by to support local businesses. it's a simple message that another planet could send to help local businesses. now, thank you. thank you, thank you. last call for public comment. seeing none, we'll move on to department matters. good afternoon, commissioners rebecca salgado, department staff i have a few updates for you today. this past week at the board, the land use committee held a public hearing on the future of union square. also, the mayor has nominated former hpc commissioner lydia su to the planning commission. finally, you may have seen the news about ab 3068, which is a new state bill introduced by assembly member haynie that focuses on streamlining adaptive

reuse projects involving historic office to residential conversions. it should be noted that the california preservation foundation and yimby action, both expressed support for this bill. this concludes the department's report. great. thank you. i'm moving on to commission matters. item two consideration of adoption of draft minutes from may first, 2024. motion to approve second motion made by commissioner foley, seconded by commissioner campbell. okay, we'll take public comment on any of on the minutes. anyone in the hearing room? anyone on. oh, i see our webex has hand up for public comment. hello, this is michael boutros again. please do not start the clock. i wanted to speak on item b, department

matters, and on item c, but you didn't take public comment for item b, respectfully, we don't take public comment on department matters since it's not an agendized item, but we will take your public comment on item c consideration of adoption of the draft minutes for may 1st, 2024. okay i will file a sunshine complaint because you have itemized department matters. you did discuss it. you should take public comment on it. we will let the sunshine ordinance task force decide that matter. now. i will, be ready in just one moment to speak on item c, the draft minutes and let me get my stop clock ready and i'm clicking. hi, this is michael petrilli's, calling in yet again regarding the minutes, from your last meeting, they do not accurately reflect what i was

talking about. and i am now looking at the closed caption transcript from that meeting, and you can clearly see, that i was critical of the castro merchants association and also supervisor raphael mandelman, regarding the, flagpole in harvey milk plaza. now, i will speak on that later. but just about the minute, i am asking that they be amended, for your last meeting to accurately reflect what i was saying regarding criticism, about the control of the flagpole by the castro merchants over the years, and also know what motivations there were for mandelman to be making this effort, to landmark that flagpole. so please amend your minutes, to better

accurately reflect what i said. thank you. great. thank you for your public comment at this time . i'll call the roll, commission president matsuda. yes. yes, commissioner. commission vice president. warren. yes, commissioner wright. yes. commissioner. vergara. yes commissioner. foley. i. commissioner. campbell yes. and commissioner baldauf. yes. that item passes seven zero. moving on to your next item, commission comments and questions. any commission comments or questions for today's meeting? commissioner vergara, thank you. this is for miss salgado. just wondering if you have any update on, san francisco landmarks being added to the state register of historic resources?

mr. shoukry, would you i, i can actually, i can speak, yeah. we don't have any updates at this time, but we will update the commission once we have updates available. any other questions or comments from the commission? hearing none. we can move on to the next agenda item. all right, moving on to our next agenda item. consideration of items proposed for continuance. at this time, the commission will consider a request for continuance for items to a later date. you currently have one item on your continuance calendar. item number four for 2023, dash 008200 coa for 1027 hayes street. a request for certificate of appropriateness, which is being moved and proposed for continuance to june fifth, 2024.

a motion to approve continue. second. oh. before we before we take a motion, we should take public comment on items proposed for continuance at this time. do we have any public comment, on items proposed for continuance for 1027 hayes street. motion to approve the continuance. all right. seeing none, motion made by commissioner foley, second, seconded by commissioner campbell, at this time, we'll take roll, commission president. matsuda. yes. commission president. vice president. nageswaran. yes. commissioner. wright. yes commissioner. vergara. yes. commissioner. foley i. commissioner. campbell yes. and commissioner baldauf. yes. great. thank you. moving on. we'll now move on to item number five on your regular calendar for the rainbow flag, harvey milk plaza. recommend consideration to recommend to the board of supervisor.

landmark designation sponsored by supervisors mandelman dorsey, stephanie peskin, and chan. good afternoon, president. members of the commission. sgtv. i have a presentation on the laptop in the room. thank you, moses. correct. department staff, before you today is consideration to recommend to the board of supervisors designation of the significant artwork being the rainbow flag installation by gilbert baker at harvey milk plaza at the southwest corner of market and castro streets as an individual landmark in article ten of the planning code. next slide please. some background on the legislative process. the rainbow flag installation by gilbert baker at harvey milk plaza, which we will just simply call rainbow flag, was initiated by supervisor mandelman with co-sponsors by supervisors dorsey, stephanie peskin, and chan by resolution 170 dash 24, enacted by mayor breed on four, 12, 24. this designation meets

many of this commission's priority areas for designation, including property types associated with underrepresented social and cultural groups, artworks, objects, and things from our recent past, on this slide, you will also see that today's recommendation hearing includes the draft ordinance that would be introduced at the board of supervisors. that ordinance then gets referred to the land use committee, who makes a recommendation to the full board of supervisors at which body there will be two reads, followed by a mayoral signature, which leads to an amendment to the planning code, the rainbow flag qualifies as a traditional cultural place under national register criterion a, and as a significant artwork under criterion c, national register criterion g was applied for the national register for properties less than 50 years old. she's achieving significant

within the past 50 years, the predecessor to the historic preservation commission has adopted national register criterion, but not age requirements, and article ten has no minimum age requirement. next slide please. the significance of the rainbow flag and in this instance, what we're landmarking is capital r, capital f rainbow flag as an object, there's also the second thing, which is the physical manifestation of pride as a globally, globally recognized symbol. the lowercase rainbow flag is in the public domain. the rainbow flag installation is an artwork is significant under national register criterion c, gilbert baker's other artwork is in several museum collections, as well as the obama presidential library in san francisco. our rainbow flag is so big at 20 by 30ft that it's visible from many neighborhoods,

as well as from incoming aircraft. the rainbow flag installation at rainbow at harvey milk plaza is a large scale artwork dedicated to harvey milk, carries with it milk's legacy in several ways. the artwork represents three pillars of milk's values, which he taught hope, visibility, and power. it is a monument as detailed on the plaque at its base. there's a transcription on page 12 of the fact sheet. all to the elected and appointed lgbtq plus public officials that came after milk. the rainbow flag is the most widely recognized symbol. as the most widely recognized symbol, is evaluated as a traditional cultural place, or tcp. the evaluative framework is found in national register bulletin number 13 and is reflected in fact sheet beginning on page 13. the rainbow flag as a symbol is widely identified with the

global lgbtq community. since about 1980, a couple of years after the banners first flew at the 1978, gay freedom as it was then known, day parade. the international community's most enduring physical symbol, of unity as a symbol, the image of the rainbow flag has been transmitted down to subsequent generations and continues today as it was used by persons not alive at the time of its creation. additionally, the image of the flag has been applied to all manner of commercially produced products and clothing as a means of expression of belonging. next slide. the character defining features as presented in the ordinance, and i did leave a slightly revised ordinance, which, if we can go to that very

briefly, these character defining features are listed on page five of the proposed ordinance, which i left on your desk, the change from your packet to the proposed ordinance is in character defining feature number six. but what we have are the sighting of the flagpole at the plaza in alignment with market street to the ferry building. all necessary foundation elements required to maintain the stability of the plinth and the flagpole. flying at 20 by 30 foot. flag aluminum flagpole with an internal halyard. that's where the ropes are on the inside, the concrete plinth with beveled corners, the metal plaque mounted on the plinth, and a 20 by 36, 20 by 20 foot by 30 foot, six striped rainbow flag. and here's the change. we're naming the actual colors with the colors red, orange, yellow, green, blue, and violet. ownership of the artwork

is by the department of public works, but it may be added to the civic arts collection in the future, any alterations will also need to be presented to the arts commission, as defined in article ten, as an artwork on public property. it should also be noted that flags themselves were out. replacements happen about four times a year, and our anticipated and they're defined as ordinary maintenance and that there will be no process for that cyclical replacement of the flag itself, the rainbow flag is installed at harvey milk plaza, which itself is scheduled for some major renovations. the ordinance specific exempts changes to the plaza, but not the flagpole or the plinth. the design phase for the rebuild of the plaza has not yet identified a need to remove the flag, but if it does come to the point

where they determine that it would, then they would be coming to the arts commission. in this body for a certificate of appropriateness, and then lastly, some in the community wish to see other flags flown from the flagpole, so that was a consideration that came also from the castro cultural district that they wanted this body to take that into consideration, the proposed ordinance does make room for a certificate of appropriateness to be granted for such other flags. when the work was actually installed during the mayor brown's administration, it was installed from the time that mayor brown gave the green light to the project, to the time of the dedication was six weeks. an incredibly fast turnaround during that time, they didn't do a lot of paperwork, so there is

no maintenance plan. it has been done first by the artist, then by his friends and benefactors. tom taylor being the primary and since the passing of mr. taylor, it's been handled privately by the castro merchants association. so in some regards it's been up to whoever holds the key to the flagpole who changes the flag, but it has been maintained to the artists liking almost entirely during its time as it flies 24 hours a day, year round, so by default, because public works installed the flagpole, they bought all the material. it's on their property, it's public works property. i have had conversations with the arts commission, and they are taking it into consideration whether or not to add it to the civic arts collection. they will make that decision in the future, as i

said before, section 105 g. requires the art commission consultation when making changes to artwork on public property, and, the planning department in the gilbert baker foundation, were approached by not less approached not less than 17 neighborhood and community groups. we heard from, some in the community that the six stripe rainbow flag does not represent them in this regard, it was asked that the hpgcc consider what if other flags can be flown. next slide. the department recommends that the hpc approve the resolution to recommend the landmark designation of gilbert's flag, gilbert baker's rainbow flag installation at harvey milk plaza to the board of supervisors, and. i do want to

introduce adam tong, from supervisor mandelman office to give some additional comments. thank you. moses. good afternoon, president masuda and members of the commission. my name is adam tong and i, staff supervisor of mandelman on queer issues, thank you for hearing this item today. we're incredibly grateful the historic preservation commission is considering landmarking designation for gilbert baker's rainbow flag installation at harvey milk plaza. when supervisor mandelman first introduced the landmark designation resolution for this item, the timing was very intentional, gilbert baker's flag was first revealed during the 1978 gay freedom day parade in san francisco, as moses mentioned earlier. and how fitting would it be for gilbert baker's flag to rise above harvey milk plaza 46 years later, days before the pride parade, as a landmark site and forever thereafter serving as a permanent fixture in our city's historic and cultural cultural

identity since inception, gilbert baker's iconic rainbow flag has come to symbolize more than just a flag, but a symbol of hope, resilience and pride for the queer community. however, as you know, commissioners in the backdrop of today's conversation across the country, the lgbt community is under attack. right wing activists and legislators threaten trans rights and lgbtq books and curricula. more than 50 towns and school districts across the united states have banned the rainbow flag. seven in california alone. but in san francisco, gilbert baker's rainbow flag installation at harvey milk plaza has become a physical beacon of hope for both the residents of san francisco and visitors from around the world. on behalf of, my boss, supervisor mandelman, we'd like to thank the gilbert baker foundation and gilbert baker foundation board chair charlie beal for expressing interest in the landmark designation of gilbert baker's rainbow flag

installation at harvey milk plaza, of course, moses caret from planning for conducting all the wonderful preliminary, interviews and preparing this report, deputy city attorney andrea ruiz esquide for preparing this legislation before you, and the dozens of community organizations and lgbt leaders who are many who are behind me and many who are not here, for providing letters of support and expressing their enthusiasm for this project. on behalf of the supervisor, we kindly ask for your positive recommendation. thank you so much. thank you. all right. at this time, we'll take public comment. if you're interested in providing public comment on this item, please line up on the screen side of the room. we will take public comment from the hearing room first, and then move on to our reasonable accommodation, whoever is ready to provide their public comment, please step up to the mic.

charlie beal, president of the gilbert baker foundation, president matsuda and honored members of the san francisco historical preservation commission. i'd like to thank you for giving me this chance to speak about landmarking, the rainbow flag installation at harvey milk plaza. when gilbert baker created the lgbtq plus rainbow flag in 1978, i doubt he realized just what a monumentally important global symbol it would become. according to jim ferrigan, the vice president of the north american vexillological association, it is the eighth most recognizable symbol in the world after the american flag. the french tricolor, or the british union jack. the mcdonald's arches, the nike swoosh. well, i think you get the picture. but the rainbow

flag is more than just a prominent political symbol. it is an important work of art. i was with gilbert when the flag was added to the permanent collection at the museum of modern art in new york city. it is now in the permanent collections of almost a dozen museums around the world, and more are being added every year. as a work of art, i think it stands on its own and deserves landmark status. but our foundation, the issue has gained even greater importance as our great symbol has been under attack across the globe. vladimir putin has vowed to wipe the rainbow flag off the face of the earth in china. you can get arrested now for displaying a rainbow flag, whereas a few years ago that was not the case. and as adam mentioned, over 50 towns and school districts across the country have already banned the display of the rainbow flag on public property. and in the state of california, there are now eight towns where the rainbow flag once flew

proudly, but now it has been erased. just across the bay in sunol, california, teachers and students are fighting to just have a rainbow flag in their classrooms, and they are being denied that, right? that is why our foundation created the save the rainbow flag initiative. we've managed to reverse some bans in california. new york, florida and maryland. but the bad news just keeps coming. so even as you consider landmarking this cherished, cherished work of art, please remember that across the globe, people look to you and the rest of san francisco, san francisco, as stewards of this cherished global beacon of hope and liberation. at the gilbert baker foundation, we are trying to save the rainbow flag across the country and the globe. i implore you, please save the most important rainbow flag in the world by landmarking this great work of art. thank you. thank you. commissioners, thank you

for letting us have an opportunity to speak today, my name is donna sachet, sometimes referred to as the first lady of the castro, and i rise in enthusiastic support of the landmarking of gilbert baker's iconic rainbow flag installation in harvey milk plaza. i've lived in san francisco for 30 years, over 30 years a san francisco that offers me extraordinary respect and opportunity, largely because of the work of those that i never got to meet. i never knew harvey milk or sylvester or sister boom-boom, but i did know jose sarria, marcus hernandez, and gilbert baker. i know firsthand how proud gilbert was to accept harvey milk's personal request that he create a unifying banner for our community. i know how proud he was to see his rainbow

flag become the international symbol of the lgbtq plus community, and i know how proud he was to see locals and tourists alike gaze up at that flag for the first or the 51st time. as projects like the film milk and the television series when we rise broke into mainstream success. i clearly remember asking him, do you still think you'll be forgotten? a sentiment he had sometimes expressed not as long as that giant flag waves in the castro, he said. please vote to approve landmark status for gilbert baker's only permanent art installation. thank you. good afternoon, commissioners. my name is ralph hibbs. i've lived in san francisco since 1994, when i came here as a newly out gay man. i'm on the board of the community castro benefit district and its treasurer. i reside at castro market directly

on top of harvey milk plaza and under the rainbow flag, on behalf of the gilbert baker foundation, i'm submitting ten letters from san francisco queer leaders in support of landmarking, the gilbert rainbow flag installation at harvey milk plaza that expands on the set of 39 letters from international queer leaders on may 6th, 2024. letters include solis barry, founder and former ceo of out and equal workplace advocates andy cross, mr. powerhouse leather, 2013. mr. s.f. leather, 2013. international mr. leather 2013 john neumeier, activist and fabulous party host, san francisco, california, doctor betty sullivan, co-publisher and editor of the san francisco bay times and founder of betty's list marc rhodes, lgbtq plus community event organizer, san francisco ray tilton, mr. san francisco leather, 1990 1990, past board member of folsom dori castro street fairs and executive commissioner of the san francisco gay softball league gary, virginia, past president of sf pride in 2014

and 2015 and president of prc. mr. sf leather 1996 and founder of crude kink charitable club john weber, mr. gay, san francisco in 2017. emperor 36 alfred norton, 2008 2009 and chair of the imperial council of san francisco in 2017 emmanuel manny, uk activist and owner of manny's community meeting and learning center in the mission and one additional community group, the gay men's chorus. thank you, thank you. how do i. high commissioners, it's an honor to speak in front of you, everything you hear today, i just want to second. it's all true, but i want to just drop an extra little seed, which is this. we talk about gay flag, and we see the gay flag. we see

the pride flag all over, and we see the iterations of it. but this flag that is in the castro, it's not just a gay flag, it's the gay flag. that's really cool that we have the gay flag, the actual one, that everything else is a replica. and this is such an easy win because you guys have really hard decisions in front of you. like housing or landmarking. that's tough. i'm glad i'm not you. this is four square feet. it's not going to move. there's no housing that's going to get displaced. there's not a whole lot else we as queens could do with that four square feet better than the gay flag. so it's a super easy win. and i just want to very, very quickly speak for a few people who couldn't be here today. i don't have an official list. i'm not as organized as my pal ralph, but the people i want to speak for are every kid who comes to san francisco looking

for his field of honeybees. if you're from the 90s, you know what i'm talking about. looking for a place to belong. and when they fly in and when they muni in or walk in or come out from the underground for the very first time and see the gay flag flying, it's an experience i had personally when i was about 17, and all those kids who can't be here today because some of them haven't even entered this world yet. vote for them. save the flag. thank you. my name is terry aston bennett, and i'm the president of the castro merchants association. and co-owner of cliff's variety, as the steward of the flag, it is very important to us that we see this flag landmarked and maintained as a beacon of hope into the future forever, it was a personal request from tom taylor and gilbert baker. to me,

i was the president about 11 years ago as well, that this flag fly 365 days a year, 24 over seven at full mast. it concerns me greatly that the line is being put in to have other flags fly on the flagpole. having been through, human rights commission hearings and working with theresa sparks at the time, it was made clear to us that if it was not only the one rainbow flag flying, that it opened the possibility that any flag, including a nazi flag, could end up flying on the pole. so i would caution against opening it up for other flags to fly. but, all in all, the castro merchants are fully in support and we are so proud of our stewardship of keeping a bright, brilliant rainbow flying above the castro. thank you.

good afternoon, commissioners, my name is jeff sheehy, and first of all, i want to thank you for your service. i've been on the other side of the fence, and i know you're all volunteers. and what you do for this city and other commissions, commissioners on commissions. here is one of the strengths of our democracy here. so thank you, i was there with gilbert when that sunny october afternoon when he spoke with mayor brown and this art installation was launched. mayor brown at the time was was trying art installations up and down the city. i don't know if you guys remember the peace sign that was planned for the pan handle, or the foot giant foot that was planned for the foot of market. the mayor was really dedicated to public art, and we do have cupid's bow now on the bay. so first and foremost, this is an art installation and the art installation and i would

second, terry's comment is supposed to be the rainbow flag, six colors flown in 3365 days of the year, 24 hours a day. that was gilbert's conception. that was what he spoke with the mayor about. that's what got put up in six weeks. this is what the intent was. this is an artist work of art. gilbert reiterated several times that this is a art installation with the rainbow flag on it. and then, you know, so i would ask that you make sure that it is the six color rainbow flag that flies there because then it's not an art installation, it's a flagpole. but the second thing i want to talk about is the necessity of capturing this moment in history. you know, you go back the queerest city in the world was berlin in the late in the 20s, right? cabaret is now back with some fanfare on broadway,

which is a memory of that time. at that time, the community had the institute for sexuality, it had, a tremendous queer community, lgbtq plus. yeah within a few years, that institute was burned to the ground. the director had committed suicide, and that community was either exiled and gone into hiding or where many of them ended up, were in concentration camps. we are not a community that gets remembered . we're a community that gets erased. and i think that has to be at the forefront of your consciousness as well. the memory of us ebbs and flows, and that's why the purity of this art exhibit, of this art installation needs to be maintained, because we will be forgotten. there will be other flags flying there if you do not

landmark this as it sits that was gilbert's intention. that was mayor brown's intention. and i think i'm out of time. but, please, please, please, thank you. good afternoon, commissioners woody labounty from san francisco heritage. when my daughter and her partner hung up a small rainbow flag outside their unit, i had such incredible pride to tell them that i was here for the first one. and that the man who made it made it here in san francisco , and they were they just. they didn't know they were young. they're still young and they just didn't know, so how moving and gratifying it is to have, a historic icon emerge and gain significance worldwide significance in your lifetime. so often we deal with things

that are 50 years old, and we may not have been here for them, but this is one that i think has had a big impact on everybody, not only in the city but across the world, and, you know, you have, blade signs for movie theaters. come up here for your consideration. you're dealing with the palace hotel sign landmark, you're dealing with, residential houses that have artistic expression that you're having to sort of adjudicate whether it's worthy of a landmark designation often, but this should not be anything you have to think about. this is one of the most important, icons, like i said, in the world right now. and as the other speakers have so eloquently expressed themselves, it's more important than a flagpole or a flag. it's a whole, it has meaning to history and to people from before and people in the future. so please, we recommended san francisco heritage. you give this a positive recommendation. thank you. great. thank you.

anyone else in the hearing room that would like to provide public comment on this item? seeing none, we'll move to our remote. speaker. remote speaker. you're welcome to start your public comment. yes, i'm ready. hello, this is michael petrilli's calling in yet again. i first want to address the landmarked, rainbow flagpole in hillcrest. in san diego. it's a wonderful example of how the merchants work with the community regarding public property, where the flagpole is, installed in san diego and when it's trans day of visibility, the merchants of hillcrest have a public ceremony. they invite trans people to come raise the trans flag and encourage

everyone to go to local businesses after they have a flag raising ceremony. so the argument about nazi flags will soon be flying in the castro if you don't landmark it as bogus. if san diego can raise the trans pride flag and the bear flag and the american flag on special days, i think we should be able to do that at harvey milk plaza, i must point out, historically, there has been a 15 year campaign by the public to regain control of public property that is now controlled by the merchants. the man who made the introduction talked about how whoever controls the key to the lock box controls the flagpole that's on public property. i think harvey milk would be screaming about that. harvey was about engaging the public to use public tools, but what we have

here, with the merchants refusing to work with the community, over the years, the healing has really not begun, because of the merchants and how they've been controlled. queen's about what flies on that flagpole. you're going to landmark it? yeah. big deal. whatever landmark it already. but let us keep in mind that raphael mandelman maintained and lied about neutrality regarding landmarking on the interior of the castro theater. he did nothing for two years to help preserve the interior integrity of the castro theater because, he said, the matter would become, before the board. but now we see pulls out all the stops to landmark, you know, a metal pole and some fabric. and speaking of the flag, which i very much like, and i declare myself the rainbow ambassador.

it is the flag around the world that the people embrace. it is not the location of any flag in the nation. so, just bear that in mind. and, really look to san diego about how we can use that flagpole all to honor our trans brothers. great. thank you for your public comment. at this time, our public comment is closed on item number five. commissioner foley, so this is pretty awesome. and i just want to do a shout out to gilbert baker foundation for the work that you do, around the united states and around the world. thank you very much. i also want to give a shout out to mayor brown, when he got this thing done in six weeks. so thank you to everybody. commissioner vergara. thank you, first, i

just want to say i'm grateful for the fidelity that the castro merchants association has shown in the care and maintenance of that flag. and i have a question , the ordinance says that there was a possibility a proposed ordinance says a possibility of up to seven days displaying the original eight, color flag. do you know what days those might be, we do not know. the ordinance is written in anticipation of should there be a movement to attempt to try that, what the procedures would be and that would involve a staff level decision? thank you. thank you, commissioner warren, i just want to, you know, address all the wonderful comments here and just, i think diversity is at the center of society. civility requires it when you have something that symbolizes inclusion, it's

different than something that's divisive. and it should be part of society to have inclusionary symbols. this is also know, as one of the speakers said, an artist's installation, one that stands at whole with the flag, the pole and the base. and it would stand as a landmark with those three things, and the other character defining features, and speaking, you know, in the historical sense, when we review for landmarks, we look at the criterion, the four criterion, and under criterion a, which is for events and the historical background that this has is hugely important. it's something really at the core of the 20th century, end of the

20th century for our city. so it really is a huge thing. but then hearing as well that it's a nationwide, worldwide phenomena, it also, reads into criterion c, which is for a design, and the designer gilbert baker and noting his, you know, that he is a artist of merit, for his recognition or for the recognition that he's received, and as an artist and broadly as a social, statement. so i feel like it's an easy, yes. for a landmark designation, i do and it speaks to also our racial and social equity, initiative in the city as well. obviously and again, with the combination of

the character defining features, i'm not sure if another flag would fly on that particular flagpole. and perhaps if the community or the city were to endeavor to do other flagpoles in the area, maybe those would carry different flags, but and then as far as maintenance goes, i'm, i'm not totally sure how to address that. it sounds like the and correct me castro merchants association person, is the one that's currently, maintaining it. that is correct. the replacement flags are purchased and hoisted by the merchants, and so, and you mentioned something about the four year period four times a year, the, the, the fabric of the flag is replaced because it does wear out from sun, wind, other things like that. and you, you don't

see any issue to not having that be part of the landmark designation to have maintenance. and i'm sorry if i missed it. it is defined in there as something that doesn't as it's as simple as like painting your house. so you don't need to let historic preservation commission or planning department know when it's time to paint your house. you paint it, right? okay. very good. thank you so much. thank you, commissioner wright. yes. thank you. i want to, say that it is very clear, based on the documentation presented and, that the artist's intent was to display the six stripe, six color flag, on this flagpole, i, i do also, though, want to touch

on the fact that i understand that some in the community don't feel, completely represented by the six stripe flag, commissioner vergara was mentioning, the original eight color, eight stripe flag, which also included a pink stripe and a light blue stripe in addition to the other colors that are listed in this. and it sounded like. and i might have missed this, but that there there is an allowance, for display of the original eight color flag, there's also mention in the documentation that, the baker produced variations on the theme of the six stripe rainbow flag for different anniversaries and events, so i, i understand that

the intent for this flagpole was to display this six color flag, but i also, wonder, about the ability to display, the original version and the variation or more recent variations, even of lgbtq plus pride flags, that the entire community may feel more represented by, you know, i'm just kind of posing this for discussion and others thoughts. but, moses, you also mentioned that that, there is a certificate of appropriateness process that would, be used to it wasn't clear to me if that's the process that's used for only

the eight color version of the flag or other more contemporary, expressions, take offs of this flag, and maybe you could just, discuss for the commission and for the public's benefit, the process. yes. that would be used. sure the original artist, gilbert baker, started this installation with a six color flag in at at least one occasion documented in the year 2000, which is a replica painted on the cover of a book about politics in san francisco's castro district. he is shown hoisting the eight color flag from his flagpole installation, which is why the ordinance, as drafted, if i could take a step back for a moment, there are two

levels of applying for requesting change. one is at a staff level, which is an administrative certificate of appropriateness, which has a notice to this commission for 20 days, which then allows this commission to full ask for a full hearing. and then there's the full certificate of appropriateness, if there was a movement, and if it were under the advisement of the arts commission, that, that a, applicant wanted to fly the eight color flag, then that would be handled by a staff level at an administrative certificate of appropriateness. and there is in the ordinance a time frame for how long that could be, flying for on a staff level decision. a more significant change, which would be something that is a different flag. for example, a philadelphia pride flag or the

quasar program flag, those would be discussed at this body through a traditional certificate of appropriateness, and this body would make that decision based also on the, guidance provided by the arts commission. the artist gilbert baker himself, as well as other, social criticisms in the time since recognized that the community that this flag is representative of is not always inclusive of each other, and i think that is the basis for the desire for other flags to be flown, part of my report, discusses an essay by, a queer writer, leo herrera, and his he he had an article in a book which was recently published, which is called a flag not yet

earned. and that is a message to the larger lgbtq plus community to remember to be inclusive of ourselves as. thank you. that's, very helpful. thank you, commissioner baldauf. thank you. i'm curious if i have a very strong memory of the pink triangle flag flying at least at one pride parade, and it was accompanied, i believe, by the pink triangle up on twin peaks at the time. and i'm just curious, is there a record that the merchants association has kept of different flags being flown at different times? we

don't have an official record. i do know that after nine over 11, the leather pride flag was being flown for a period of time to celebrate leather week. the trans pride flag did fly one time, at and all this happened. we stopped flying other flags because the human rights commission was brought in and they advised us that it was really all or nothing. so it was only the rainbow flag all the time or it opened the door for any flag to be flown at any time. if anyone so requested, can i guess i want to follow up and understand from the city attorney who actually owns the right to fly a flag here. good

afternoon, andrea ruiz, esquire, deputy city attorney. i understand the properties, the department of public works. so it's the city's and if the arts commission ends up taking ownership of this flag, will it then transfer that authority of who who has a flag on the pole to the arts commission? i defer to staff. i understand they have oversight over arts in the arts commissions jurisdiction, but i defer to staff as to how the exact process would go, moses. correct. department staff, as, the castro merchants previously explained that there were possibly two incidents where a different flag had flown, and neither of those cases was the arts commission consulted. so so in that regard, the arts commission article ten talks

about reminding the planning department and this commission that the arts commission is involved with artwork on public property. they're involved with artwork on public property outside of landmarks. right. they were never consulted. as the city charter would require them to have done. so. that was that didn't happen, i think, that was one of the, oversights of the brown administration. and when i interviewed mayor brown about that, he said, oh, if i had you know, if we had thought about that down the road, we would have left a clear paper trail. but we were just moving on to the next project, i believe that should the arts commission take possession into the civic art collection of this flag, that could simplify some

things, but they are, nowhere near making a decision at this point. but to change the flag would require a certificate of appropriateness. the owner would have to apply for that and then make that presentation to the arts commission. and this body, the owner being the merchants association. no public works at this point. and is there a process by which, members of the public or the merchants association make such a request of public works, i believe a phone call or an email or a public testimony at their. i think there's carrier pigeon. no. but so i'm, i'm trying to

understand does any san francisco resident have the right to petition to fly by a different flag from this flagpole under this, as they would with any artwork in, golden gate park, for example? what you mean that i would have the right to say i want to polish a statue? i don't understand when you're saying that. i think it's a very different situation. if you wouldn't mind restating your question. i'm saying we're acknowledging that there's a right under this draft to have a different flag being flown from the flagpole. and i'm trying to understand the process of how how something would even come before this commission on how someone would initiate that and who would initiate it. that's

what i'm trying to understand. it would be getting the attention of the i would assume the director of department of public works. okay. thank you. thank you, commissioner campbell , thank you. i want to thank everyone that's come out today in support of this landmark designation, and the preparation and care that the city staff has put into this, it shows, to me, this is i live two blocks from this flag. i've been raising my kids the last 14 years. we walk under this flag every day on our way to harvey milk civil rights academy. i think it's bold and elegant and an unwavering reminder of hope and everything it stands for. to me, this is an object, an artwork. i do find the conversation around what goes on this artwork and our our ability to change that as intended by the artist, as provocative. i appreciate the process that's put in place in this, in this ordinance to

address that, so, thank you. thank you, commissioner vergara, just a quick question. do i understand correctly then, that a certificate in order to fly a different flag than the six stripe rainbow flag would require a certificate of appropriateness regardless of the positions of any other commission besides this one. arts commission, for example, that is correct. the arts commission is advisory to this body as described in article ten. thank you. so, i just to, i guess, further clarify your question, commissioner vergara, if this commission decides to vote to landmark the flag, it provides various protections to make sure that this flag is flown as stated in the resolution. is that correct? that is correct, because i think that this flag is more than just an art installation. it is

definitely a piece of san francisco culture, and culture is something that this commission is definitely interested in protecting. and preserving. is this the first mister suki, landmark designation that we have that is not permanently affixed to the ground? we have had other similar ones, in essence, remember we still have to tie it back towards physical features, so for example, like cloud of witnesses is one where it's the building as well as the artwork, but we allow for the artwork to progress based on the artists that's there. in particular, in this case, this is one that has the particular physical features that we have, as well as the symbology associated with the flag. and but that's inside a building, this one kind of stands alone. we have things, for example, like half of gold, is a landmark city landmark. so the light stanchions along

market street are all city landmarks, right? but very few correct. thank you, commissioner. right. yeah. just one follow up question for mr. correct if this is approved as, drafted, i've heard some discussions and concerns about, warnings, so to speak, of from the human rights commission and, and, if this is, is approved as drafted and there is the certificate of appropriateness processes, whether it's, the administrative level or the full certificate of appropriateness process that you've described, does that quell any concerns, for flying different flags, that

have been raised by the human rights commission, only at the hearing today have i heard, about the human rights commission, warnings. so i am not prepared to answer that question. okay, maybe, it might be helpful to, to, you know, even if this is approved to follow up on that, there's, you know, just to be prepared, in the instance that a certificate, a full certificate of appropriateness or an administrative certificate of appropriateness, would be sought . thank you. commissioner warren , and please correct me if i'm wrong, but if this were to come before us for us an alternate flag, i would apply the

secretary of the interior standards and, say that whatever alternate flag was, there is a temporary change and that maybe it has a time constraint on it, and then the flag would be returned. is that something? that would be that would be within the realm of the jurisdiction of this board? yes. right. okay. thank you. i think to follow up on that, it would also then be seen as a reversible temporary change. thank you. are there any other comments or questions from the commission? second. second there is a motion and a second. great, as i understand, hand moved, the motion was made by commissioner vergara. seconded by commissioner baldauf. at this time, we'll take the roll. commission president matsuda. yes. commission vice president nagasawa. yes. commissioner.

wright. yes, commissioner. vergara yes. commissioner. foley i. commissioner. campbell. yes and commissioner baldauf. yes. great. this motion passes 7 to 0. thank you. commissioners. thank you. thank you for coming and sharing your thoughts with us today. okay. we will move on to our next item on our agenda item number six for the ladies protection and relief society at 3400 laguna street. this is consideration of a community sponsored landmark designation nomination for an individual. article ten landmark. before we begin, it looks like commissioner right? i would like to request a recusal from this item. is there a motion to recuse commissioner? right. motion to recuse. second right. motion to recused made by commissioner foley, seconded by commissioner vergara, on the motion to recuse commissioner, right from item number six.

commission president matsuda. yes, commissioner. vice president. warren. yes. commissioner. wright. yes commissioner. vergara. yes. commissioner. foley i. commissioner campbell. yes. and commissioner. baldauf. yes. commissioner wright, you're now recused from this item. good afternoon. i have a slide presentation. bring that screen up. platte valley planning department staff, the item before you today is consideration of whether to add the former ladies protection and relief society buildings at 3400 laguna street to the landmark designation work program. the subject property was nominated through a community sponsored landmark application submitted by christopher preservation consultant christopher verplanck , who also prepared the draft designation report that is in your packets, mr. verplanck was working on behalf of the neighbors since your packets were distributed last week, the department has received seven letters in support of the

proposed nomination, including from the property owner. located in the marina district, 3400 laguna street, which is currently a private retirement home known as heritage on the marina, was originally a convalescent care facility for women operated by the san francisco ladies protection and relief society. this 1.6 acre site includes five buildings, parking and landscaping. just for background, this isn't part of the hearing today, but as background, the property owner is currently applying to redevelop portions of this site. this proposed development project is being reviewed, by the department for potential environmental impacts under the california environmental quality act, and as part of this review, the, the property has been found to be significant under both criterion one and criterion three, and is considered a historical resource. in the coming months, staff will analyze impacts to that resource

as and impacts of the proposed project through an environmental impact report. the ladies protection and relief society, founded in 1853, hired noted architect julia morgan to design a new brick building at the corner of laguna and bay streets in the marina district. this new building reflected a change of the society's mission as it transitioned from a home for destitute women into a convalescent home for paying clients, as well as a handful of retired women. in the mid 1950s, the society merged with the crocker old people's home and the property, and then the property became a coed retirement facility, which continues its operation today. the department agrees with the applicant that the property is significant under criterion a, or one both for its association with the ladies protection and relief society, san francisco's second oldest charitable organization and the first to be

established by and for women. furthermore, the subject property is also significant under criterion c or three as an excellent, rare and well preserved example of the of a style, and as for association with architect of merit julia morgan. the item before the commission today is the consideration of this community sponsored landmark designation, and we ask you to consider whether one the property is eligible and should be added to the landmark designation work program or the property is not eligible and should not be added or there. if there is insufficient evidence or if further research should be done to determine the property's eligibility, or to address additional information needs for should the property move forward on the designation program. the department believes that the property meets the established eligibility criteria and recommends that you add the

property to the work program. should it be added to the work program. this will then be scheduled for an additional hearing to move forward with initiation and then from there it would move to recommendation again, both of those at this body. that concludes my presentation. i answer any questions you may have. also, christopher verplank is here as well as property owner representatives, and i believe they have a few words as well. thank you. thank you. good afternoon, president matsuda. commissioners christopher verplank verplank, historic preservation and consulting, i have to admit, i was really surprised when i first found out that this property had no formal historical status. somehow, it avoided being noticed in the

1968 here today, survey or the 1976 architectural quality survey, and finally, no random architectural historians such as myself has bothered to nominate this property in 50 odd years, i think it's a bit of an oversight. and i just, you know, you have the report. i'm not going to go through the entire thing, but i just wanted to point out some, you know, interesting tidbits that i think may be of value, first off, 3400 laguna street was designed by julia morgan. morgan scarcely needs an introduction, but suffice it to say, she was the first woman to earn a civil engineering degree from uc berkeley, as well as the first woman to earn, a certificate or baccalaureate in architecture from the ecole des beaux-arts in paris. and finally, the first woman to receive an architectural license in the state of california. these are all incredible achievements, and

i was also curious how many other julia morgan landmarks there are in san francisco. and i may have missed one, but i think i've got them. and i'm just going to go through them quickly. the first is the donaldina cameron house in chinatown, landmark number 44, the potrero hill neighborhood house, or the knabe landmark number 86, the chinatown, ywca number 122, the fremont hotel. she did the. she did the rebuild of the interior, 1906. and that's landmark number 185, japantown ywca number 291 and saint james presbyterian church in visitacion valley, which was just landmarked pretty recently. that's number 308. there's at least one article 11 building, also designed by julia morgan. the hearst building at church, i'm sorry, at third and market street. and there are many others listed in the national register, my second point i want

to bring up is 3400 laguna street, is associated with the oldest surviving women's nonprofit organization in san francisco. that's also nothing to sneeze at. for decades, this organization cared for destitute women and orphans, and of course , as pilar mentioned, the mission has changed over time. but the history, i mean, the building is still owned by the same organization. this goes back a long time. this goes back to the gold rush. third, 3400 laguna street is a very rare example of the jacobethan revival style in san francisco. i know it's kind of an obscure reference point, but architectural historians such as myself get excited about these things, there's only a handful of residences i know designed in the style. i don't know of any other institutional buildings in the jacobean jacobethan revival style, so yay, next point i'd like to bring up is the landscaping around the perimeter of the site. although it's been impacted by later construction, provides a gracious setting for the building, i'm still trying

to get to the bottom of this, but apparently john mclaren had something to do with it. he wasn't the landscape architect, but apparently he consulted. i'm trying to figure out exactly what that was, and i'm still digging into it. and it complements the other open space around it. for example, fort mason across the street listed in the national register. and as we talked about earlier, lobos square, aka moscone recreation center, where, you know, baseball history was made and, and also the marina branch library is located and then takes me to my phone. my final point, the marina district is by under no circumstances. and under-resourced community, but there are only three landmarks in that neighborhood. you might be amazed to learn, and they include the palace of fine arts, maryville antiques, which was the pga. i'm sorry, the gas company headquarters, on buchanan street. another brick building. and finally, the marina branch library that i

just mentioned, which was designated, i think, 2000, so that's it. i'm going to wrap up my presentation and thank you. thank you. great. at this time, we'll take public comment on item number six. if members of the public would like to speak on this item, please line up on the screen side of the room. whoever is ready to go. first, please welcome up to the mic. president matsuda, vice president nageswaran commissioners, thank you for hearing this item today. it's always humbling to go right after christopher plank. so thanks for the good and detailed history, chris, my name is carolyn kernot. i'm an architect with page and turnbull, and i've been working with the owners and representatives of heritage on the marina at 3400 laguna street, my role has been to identify and advise on the historic features of their their property as part of a larger team. i'm here today to register the owner's support for adding the building to the city's

landmark designation work program, and i also emailed all of you a letter of support from the owner earlier this week, i'd be happy to answer any questions you might have, and i look forward to your discussion and, additional insight from from chris. so thank you. thank you. hello. my name is tanya albuquerque, and i just wanted to say that i fully support the commission adding this property to its landmark designation work program, and i was really pleased to read the hpc staff report recommending its addition. and i wanted to address just one of the concerns raised in that report, which was whether it would advance the goals of hpc resolution 1127. the staff report specifically said the proposed landmark designation produces few, if any, opportunities to advance

racial and social equity, although it does expand the represents of women's history in the city's landmark program. i have to say i was surprised i was even a little upset that the contribution of women in general and julia morgan specifically a trailblazing architect and engineer, was treated as of being of so little importance. and i don't read resolution 1127 to exclude women from groups that are owed equity by the hpc. i i have reviewed the resolution. it does provide a really clear definition of racial equity. it provides no definition of social equity. and i didn't find any other planning department document that actually provided a definition of social equity. i didn't see any document that said women's contributions specifically should be excluded from consideration under hpc. 1127

and then but what it does say is that it explicitly includes, sorry, sexism as one form of discrimination condemned by the resolution. it also includes women's history and therefore women in the list of groups to be included in efforts to safeguard san francisco's built environment, and therefore, i felt like the language of the resolution itself provided a strong argument that its goals of advancing social equity are synonymous with and advanced by promoting and protecting work by women. as a quick aside, i would note that doctor karen mcneil, an expert on julia morgan, that the property owner is hired to create a history of the site, made a point in her presentation to the heritage that's on their website of saying that julia morgan actually had one of the most diverse architectural practices of her day. am i out

of time? so thank you so much for your consideration of this landmark nomination. thank you. commissioners. thank you. my name is terry peckham, i'm here today in support of the landmark designation of, granting landmark designation to the julia morgan designed, mansion cottage and grounds, these two buildings are san francisco treasures, they weren't protection due to their historical, cultural and, educational significance. you know, as many noticed, i have noted that julia morgan was the first, registered architect license in california for. and the buildings are just really such a brilliant, representation of her. com combining beauty and function and usability, i think it's also unique and that the galileo academy of science and

technology, the, the city's science high school, is just a few blocks away. and i think that for girls and young women pursuing sciences, architecture and stem related that this building really is sort of a monument. and it's a reminder of how far women have come in architecture and in all the facets of, of life, so for that, and for many reasons, i just want to say that i fully support , granting the, designation to the heritage or to the, to the 3400 laguna. thank you. thank you. good afternoon, commissioners. my name is mark herman. i'm a 25 year resident of the marina, i support, i support you giving this property landmark designation for two main reasons. one is the location, and the second one is

kind of a kind of a too big to fail financial reason, which is a little bit nitpicky, but i'll go into that. the location is pretty obvious. this is, is a very prominent location in the marina. there's a lot of public access and public viewing of the gardens and the building, fort mason, which is federal property, is right across the street, and on the other side is, is mosconi park, which we've talked about, which is city property and a lot of people can see this building from a lot of different, different vantage points, including the gardens and, you know, this is, it's a it's an area for all the public to enjoy, we think. and the second topic is i'm a financial analyst by trade. and i looked at the numbers of the company running this building, which is their represented here today. and it just made me think, you know, they have if you look at their their numbers for 2022, they have revenue down 39, assets down 19. and i'm not saying that this is you know,

they're having financial problems, but as a as a commission that is protecting the building, i think you need to think about possible future uses of this building. if the current owner were to were to change hands. right. so and i think it's phenomenal at the building 100 years after it was built and designed, is still being used for the for the reason that it was designed as a convalescent home, which is great. and, you know, i mean, talk about diversity. this is a neighborhood with drunken 25 year olds walking around and you have the heritage house, you know, providing an elderly population like myself in to make it a little bit diverse. but, you know, thinking about what could happen if this if this business had to move, your, your statement here says that they own over 50% of the, of the, of the city block. in fact, it's a lot more than that because they own. you've hit your time. okay sorry. thank you. thank you. high commission.

my name is larry albuquerque. i live in the marina. i've lived near or in the marina for over 30 years. i've raised three kids there, two of which are girls and, you know, as you see on social media, math, science, engineering, it's a struggle with girls, to get them to embrace, achievements in math, science and engineering. and i think that, the mansion that julie morgan created at 3400 laguna is a great example of, you know, what women can do. and she was obviously a true trailblazer, as everybody is, you know, agrees with so that's one of the things that, you know, one of the reasons why i, why i support the nomination in and, you know, frankly, i was just shocked that, it didn't have a landmark designation.

i've lived there forever. i had no idea. and you just look at that building. it's beautiful. and it's, you know, the, when the ladies relief society, whatever it's called, the 100 years ago commission, this building, they had so many budget constraints, they had so many constraints. but one of them was a big budget constraint. and when julia morgan designed the building, it was built to fit the environment . it not only built to fit the environment, but it wasn't typical to build that type of a building in that style. a lot of them were mediterranean style and art deco, and so she built it in that brick. and, and anyway, the style to it was designed for the open space. it was designed with the gardens in mind. this was one larger vision that julia morgan had. and that's the part that also has to be protected. it's not just the building, it's the gardens. and

i don't think there's anywhere else probably in the city or maybe even in the world where you have a national park and a city park adjacent to, you know, such a treasure. so it really is like it's all about the space. and frankly, it's one of the reasons i live there. i i walk by it every day. i mean, it's, it's hard to deny. and, you know , the last thing i'd say is, is in addition to what julia morgan's vision was, is to integrate with the environment, if this commission had existed in 1957, there's if you. well, if you look at the, the pictures, there's a couple of really ugly buildings that were built in like the late 50s, early 60s. it destroyed a lot of the vision. julia morgan's vision and the gardens. and we need to preserve those gardens and how it integrates more wholly with the parks and the

larger environment and landscape. thank you. thank you. good afternoon, commissioners woody labounty from san francisco heritage, i want to commend the property owners for reaching out to heritage early, about san francisco heritage, about this early, and we have been in discussions with them to talk about their future plans. but there's no doubt in heritage's mind. san francisco heritage is that this should be a least included on the landmark work program, and we ask for your positive recommendation to do that, the organization behind this building is, as mr. verplank mentioned, in the very early days of san francisco, and you can see its previous building and so many historic photos, so just the through line of this organization, through the entire history of the city makes it worthy of investigation. and then you talk about an architect of merit,

such as julia morgan. i don't i think it's a no brainer to put it on the work program. thank you. thank you. good afternoon, president masuda. members of the commission, i'm steve williams. i was retained by the same concerned neighbors to help with their efforts to preserve not only the building, but to help to assure that the building remains, the entire property retains its context and significance. and that's why the neighbors come to the commission, and we ask that the application be moved along just as quickly as possible, given the pending project, in the past, all new additions to the site have followed a pattern the additions of new buildings at the site in 1957, 1963 and 86, the health care clinic and the perry building. they didn't detract from the significance of the main building, these later additions are nondescript, utilitarian type structures that were specifically designed not to call attention to themselves

and in fact, were designed to be deferential and referential to the styling and the architecture of the morgan building. these buildings are small, clad in the same red brick, and intended to remain in the background and not negatively impact the visual significance of the morgan building and that is going to be crucial for this hearing and for future hearings, with the additions, careful attention was paid to the landscaping and the surrounding gardens. have you heard other people reference the landscape architect, which is there currently was casey, kawamoto, he designed that, for the grounds. can i have the overhead, please? if you go to the website of the berkeley college of environmental design, where he graduated, the plan for the landscaping at heritage is listed as one of his most. please a little concerned, i'm losing my time here. all right, i'll give you a couple extra. thank you. as of gov, can you

please turn on the overhead? one second. i'll pause your time . wasn't even on. so, as i was saying, he graduated from the college of environmental design in berkeley, the plan for the landscaping. i printed this off their website this morning. it's actually listed on the website as his most important work. that's from the covid website. the, these the new buildings that were put on the site and

the landscaping are all slated for demolition with the new project and the new proposed project is casting aside the sensibilities that have been used in the past for additions, and they're proposing very large, very modern looking buildings, which will be so tall as to obscure a large portion of the julia morgan building from from any view. and in fact, the entire facing, southern facing facade is going to be obscured. other parts of the morgan building will also be obscured, the project is nearly 60,000ft!. it's going to almost double with the current built square feet at the site, we have concerns because last week, may 8th, the department reissued the notice of preparation of an eir for the heritage project. the new notice eliminates from consideration esthetics. let that sink in, we're not sure how or why the

department decided to do that. because they don't explain it, what i'm assuming is that the site was reclassified. the project was reclassified from institutional use residential care, which this site has always been. and all other applications say that's what they are. and that's principally permitted at this site to a mixed use residential project. and under section 21 099 on sequa that creates a blanket exception and holds that esthetic impacts are not to be considered a significant impact on a project. regardless of the real world impacts. and so that's where we are with this, almost all the comments that we submitted and, last fall, when the notice of the eir first came out, were esthetic comments about what these new modern structures would look like. your time. thank you. i'm available to answer any questions you may have. patricia. voy. marina.

hello, neighbors and merchants. this is. a historical building that should be preserved. but what i'm more concerned about is the proposed development. that may not be for the use that it was intended for. and this bothers me to the my little american flag, the heritage i've worked with for 30 years up until when mrs. reynolds retired. they took in people that weren't necessarily wealthy . they took in some wonderful wealthy people. in fact, arlene francis died there. if anybody knows who arlene francis was, she was on, what's my line on tv

, it was an interesting group of people. they come to the neighbors neighbor, the ones that are still mobile can come to chestnut street, go to safeway, go to the park and the reason for the parks around that building is the ones that can't be mobile, have a way to have open space. and this is extremely important for people our age, from someone who had to move with the backyard and now was in an apartment and there's a psychological thing about this. and i think it compromises can be made, but unless we have this historical designation, then we're can be lost and that makes me very sad because they've been part of this neighborhood. they go to our bookstores, they go out for coffee just like the rest of us,

and have been included. and we have. we're very proud of what we've done with our outreach to them. and i want you to consider the not only the architecture, which i think is fabulous in the gardens, but remember, the people who live there are in their future, and they have a right to live and die the way they want to. and this is something that this city right now is forgetting about. the seniors. thank you. thank you. last call for any public comment in the hearing room on item number six for the ladies protection and relief society at 3400 laguna street. just verifying if any of our remote panelists want to provide public comment, seeing none, commissioners, commissioners, before we take commission, comments. i just wanted to

remind all of you that this agenda item focuses on the landmark designation nomination. commissioner foley. thank you, president matsuda. so i actually have a long history with this building, my son used to sing in it to the seniors every christmas, so i've been there a lot, and i think that seniors deserve to live in a great place. and i think we actually need to have more space like this. and as much as this is only about landmarking and i think it should be landmarked, i kind of want to i kind of want to bring up some of the comments of some of the people that have spoken earlier, i think when i dug into the project again, because i've been in this building, got my son sang in it for ten years straight when he was a chinese american international school, the idea of having, this project getting bigger in the future is a great idea. it's going to make it more financially viable, around the land marking, i think it's i

think it should be landmarked. and i think the landmarking should go hand in hand with the rest of the project, i think that's all i have to say. thank you very much. thank you, commissioner baldauf. thank you. i, have always loved this building. i have known it since i was a young child. because of the intersection it's at. and i even before i was an architect, one thing that struck me as being very, very interesting about it was that you had this amazing brick building that i had known was by julia morgan, but you also had this amazing board form concrete building that then connects to the perry wing at the back of the building, and, i didn't know at the time that it was designed by warren perry, who'd been the dean of architecture at berkeley, and that the other building that is part of the

complex was by clifford may, another very noted san francisco architect and i don't know anything about the development proposal, but what i think is very important is if this is going to be added to the work program for, landmarking status, that the entire site needs to be evaluated, because to me, we often talk about the importance of how we do additions to historic buildings. and here we actually have a wreck, a historic record of doing additions to buildings. and sometimes some people think that these aren't as elegant. and i and, you know, they're very different styles brought to bear. i think of arthur brown's, art institute building with the modern additions that was done in a very sort of brutalist architecture. but now we look at these as being actually

incredibly interesting, combinations. and i don't know what the right answer for this is, but i don't think you can look at this site as a cultural object, because i think it is not just about julia morgan. i don't think julia morgan's architecture was ever just about the building. i think that her buildings were about institutions and institute additions, live and breathe. and they go into the future and additions are made to them. and i think she herself would celebrate that fact. but we have to start with the facts. and so i think the department i strongly support doing this work, but i think it has to be a total work. you can't just do part of the site, you have to do the whole site. thank you. thank you, commissioner campbell. i think obviously this is a remarkable building, granting it the landmark designation work

program status is overdue. i clearly julia morgan is amazing, as a california licensed architect, we all stand on her shoulders. and you think about the time when she practiced, you know, she would have had to have been twice as good as the men around her to even have a seat at that table. and the buildings she designed show. so i think this is great. thank you, commissioner warren, for the items that miss lavalley, had outlined for us, whether it's eligible. yes, it's eligible, second, whether it's not eligible, which we know the first, and then additional research, i would encourage that the complex look be looked at as a whole, including the buildings and the open spaces, and then documenting the, you know, importance of the facades, because we know that different

facades will, you know, be treated differently and, and then, obviously outlining the character defining features and then, carefully noting the changes over time for the areas and buildings that are on the property. so we have an understanding of the layering of history, that would be very helpful, and, and i wanted to just quickly address the comment on the racial and social equity. i agree with the commentator that, julia morgan, being a woman architect and a very, early time, is an important, distinction as well as the aged community and the charity organization that has supported them for a long, history of that. if not like one of the second, charity organization in san francisco. i think that's

commendable. i would, encourage a amendment to that resolution, thank you. thank you, commissioner vergara. i'd just like to say that in addition to its architecture and its connection to julia morgan, any building that arlene francis lived in is worthy of landmark status. thank you. are there any other comments or questions from the commission commissioner baldauf? yes, i just want to understand it. if we have to add anything to this, work plan that makes it clear that we would like to look at the entire site and not just the julia morgan portion of the site, commissioners of the valley department staff. so i would recommend that you do two things. one, when you take an action that clarifies that you are adding this, you are recommending adding this to the

work program or that you do want to add it to the work program, and then two, that you direct that the department in our evaluation and analysis and preparation for bringing this back to you for initiation, that we do additional research and documentation and analysis of the entire comp webex as such, including all the additional buildings, and include that as, as, rationale for identifying a character, defining features, period of significance, etc. okay. so that would be, we would make that motion and then we could include that as part of that motion. and in fact, if you wanted to sort of take what commissioner nageswaran described as part of your action, as part of your motion, i would recommend that as well. so, commissioners, do i hear a motion? i'll make a stab at it. okay i'm not the most eloquent

here, but, motion to approve with the addition of. we direct the department to look at the whole site, including anything that's proposed, with the project sponsor, along with adding in commissioner warren's comments. i've just got a head shake from the city attorney. deputy city attorney, andrea rusedski. which project sponsor are you referring to? the project sponsor. the ownership of the of the site. so they have a they have a project, they have a they have a they have a proposal to increase the size of the right. that's not before you today. what's before you today is whether to add this, building as it is, absent any proposals for the future to the landmarks, list. correct. but we, we want to have we want to look at the whole project as one whole project. so when it comes when they when they finish the landmarking, we want the landmark to come in front of us, along with any proposed changes they're making to the project.

so we actually look at one whole project because that's that's the problem, right? the problem is we look at these things piecemeal. what i was referring to, commissioner, is that in the agenda for today's meeting, the only thing that was agendized was your consideration whether or not to add this to your landmarks program. so the public is not under notice that you may discuss any proposed project. so you cannot your action today has to be within what was agendized. so yes or no and maybe yes, but changing it to the full site that's all within what was agendized. okay. got it. but the project is not before you today. thank you. you're welcome. there's hope for me. so just to clarify, commissioner foley is making a motion and in addition to making the motion to add this to the landmark designation program, he also would like the full the entire site to be reviewed by planning staff. correct that is. and that is within, our area of jurisdiction

today. and the comments that, and excuse me and commissioner nagasawa's comments, i second that is that correct? that is correct. thank you i second that. great we have a motion by commissioner foley, a second by commissioner campbell, we'll take a roll call vote at this time, regarding the motion to look at, to add the property to our landmark designation work program as well as examine the entire complex as part of our work on the designation report, commissioner president matsuda and commissioner warren's comment and including commissioner warren's comments. so yes, commissioner masuda says yes. commissioner matsuda. yes, commissioner warren. yes, commissioner. vergara. yes, commissioner. foley i commissioner campbell. yes. commissioner. baldauf. yes. great. that motion passes 6 to 0. thank you. so, commissioner wright, you can come back to the front for our next item. we're welcoming commissioner wright back, and we're, excusing

commissioner foley from the last agenda item. okay, so we're moving on to item number seven for the sf survey community engagement framework, which is an informational presentation by staff. thank you. rich. i also have a slide. okay. good afternoon, president matsuda. commissioners i'm ashley lindsay, planning department staff. i'm here to discuss the draft community engagement framework for the san francisco citywide cultural resources survey, which i'll refer to as sf survey. throughout this presentation. i'll start with an overview of sf survey for those who may be new to the project, i'll cover details of the community engagement framework, then discuss our current progress and conclude by outlining our next steps. first, let's start with an overview of sf survey. i just wanted to remind the commission that this

is an informational presentation . is that correct? correct. so they can ask all kinds of questions. correct thank you. president matsuda, before we proceed, let's contextualize the project within the broader framework of historic preservation. preservation aims to honor the places and traditions integral to our collective identity while fostering dialog during change to safeguard what holds meaning for present and future generations opens by embracing diverse histories and values, we enrich our shared sense of belonging and deepen our understanding of the city's heritage. sf survey is a collaborative multi year effort supported by the san francisco planning department. our primary objective is to identify and document places and resources of cultural, historical and architectural importance. while our focus primarily centers on the tangible elements of our cultural heritage, such as the built environment, we recognize the importance of also

acknowledging the intangible aspects that contribute to san francisco's identity. sf survey's methodology consists of five key components, each informed by robust community engagement. citywide historic context statements, field survey research and evaluation. when presenting findings for adoption at the historic preservation commission and maintaining the sf cultural heritage site. through this approach, we systematically capture, update and document the planning department's understood funding and knowledge of historic and cultural resources. the goals of sf survey are twofold. firstly, to empower communities through partnerships, programs and the identification of sites for historic preservation incentives. secondly, it seeks to facilitate the evaluation of historic resources for regulatory processes such as sequa building permits and

development projects. this project aims to streamline the evaluation process for around 120,000 parcels across the city. in addition to the primary goals, we anticipate several key outcomes. first, ensuring that the planning department's efforts are informed by an understanding of what holds meaning for communities. second is informing policy recommendations aimed at incentivizing businesses, protecting community spaces and interpreting significant sites. last introducing new dynamic tools to support the work of community history advocates and city planners. we are a small but dedicated team of full and part time staff, supported by a large internal and external network. this includes contributions from our community partners, consultants and the general public, and youth. the historic preservation commission

. over the next several years, sf survey will span across san francisco, focusing primarily on previously unevaluated properties eligible for assessment being 45 years or older by the survey's conclusion. to maintain accuracy and uphold current standards, staff have been conducting audits of evaluating citywide the current sf survey phasing map can be accessed on sf cultural heritage and the san francisco property information map. our initial focus for conducting fieldwork and outreach is directed towards neighborhood commercial districts, as outlined in the planning code and zoning map of san francisco. so currently fieldwork has concluded in the following areas, denoted by the numbered areas one through four. moving forward, the selection of future locations will depend on factors such as community readiness, status of historic context statements, and staff

capacity. following the completion of field work in neighborhood commercial districts, our attention will shift to residential areas. now that we've covered what sf survey is, let's shift to how we're engaging with the community. the historic preservation team is tasked with managing preservation efforts, guided by both regulatory frameworks and community knowledge. this consists of navigating existing regulatory structures, often rigid and static, alongside community insights into what holds meaning. historically, preservation evaluations have overlooked the values of underrepresented communities, resulting in an incomplete narrative of shared heritage. conversely, sf survey is an effort to expand our collective sense of belonging and understanding of the city's history by better reflecting the diverse histories and values of san francisco's communities. in line with the 2020 resolution,

we are committed to centering preservation, planning on racial and social equity, focusing on innovative strategies to honor cultural heritage and enhance community participation and leadership in the preservation process. this shift necessitates deeper collaborations with community partners and a transition from data centric to meaning centric preservation practices. our community engagement framework, developed with insights from erika rebay of incommon, is a direct response to the historic preservation commission's commitment to equity. it incorporates community feedback from ongoing planning department initiatives such as focus groups for sf surveys, intangible cultural heritage methodology. this framework serves as a roadmap to expand engagement with underrepresented communities, co-create inclusive processes as foster dynamic partnerships, and enhance community agency through living tools. the community engagement

framework prioritizes connecting with community members across various participation levels, employing strategies to inform, consult, involve, and collaborate on community led cultural empowerment efforts. it emphasizes partnership development with community organizations, cultural districts, legacy businesses, culture bearers, and faith based organizations. this adaptive framework comprised of core strategies and strategic partnerships, enables us to continually refine our approaches based on evolving community needs, ensuring responsiveness to emerging challenges and opportunities while striving for a comprehensive understanding of our city's cultural resources and i'll elaborate on these strategies on subsequent slides. so the internship program focuses on creating pathways for priority communities within the

planning department, particularly in cultural heritage and preservation planning fields. it involves providing access to resources, career development, training, and knowledge sharing opportunities to support the advancement of individuals from these communities. next, we have community briefings which involve convening meetings with organizations and community partners to share information about sf survey efforts in their neighborhoods and enhance capacity in areas of community interest. these capacity building efforts may include familiarization with the evaluation criteria and processes, as well as introduction to resources such as the sf cultural heritage site and community stories form to date, we've conducted briefings with more than five organizations, as shown at the bottom of this slide. another strategy neighborhood chats, enhances fieldwork activities by combining technical work with

community engagement, ensuring a more accessible and friendly survey process. we have a dedicated staff, team or community partner available during field surveys to address neighbors questions and engage in conversation. neighborhood chats have been conducted with japantown task force and japantown community benefit district. we also participate in collaborative groups and workshops which focus on building capacity within communities, forming partnerships, and collaborating with organizations and community knowledge and culture bearers in various aspects such as the development of historic context statements and evaluation of draft findings. by enabling communities to shape and inform workflows and practices, we ensure a more inclusive and representative representative process. this strategy has been conducted with organizations like the african american arts and cultural district, the san

francisco human rights commission, and the latino historical society. we've leveraged digital platforms such as sf cultural heritage site, community stories, form, the planning website and newsletter to facilitate community engagement. these tools are being applied by usf and japantown cultural district, with ongoing efforts to incorporate community stories into collaborative groups like intergenerational programing. public programing and community forums involve, co-create events, programs, or projects to support community led cultural efforts, promote cultural awareness and honor the contributions in histories of underrepresented communities. this strategy engages both the general public and priority communities. we've partnered with organizations such as the booker t washington community service center, doctor george w davis senior center, western

neighborhoods project, the internet archive, and both sides of the conversation. the last strategy is presenting sf survey updates and project progress at historic preservation commission hearings to facilitate a living document, program and approach to findings. this strategy not only supports all workflows of sf survey, but also ensures that the general public remains informed about the project's developments. the community engagement framework is continually updated to enhance outreach efforts and collaborations with partners. updates include improved integration of work streams, community recommendations, and strategic partnerships. additionally new processes and tools like the memorandum of collaboration, the sf survey, community engagement guide, and community input dashboard have been developed to support our engagement practices. next, i'll

cover our progress to date and how we're actively monitoring and evaluating our engagement efforts. the community engagement framework tracks progress based on criteria anchored in community recommendations for an updated approach to historic preservation and to advance racial and social equity. these criteria encompass partnerships, knowledge sharing and cultural awareness, accountability and transparency, which i'll cover in the next few slides. in collaboration with city agencies , community based cultural organizations and culture bearers, we've achieved multiple milestones with approximately ten community partners to support a multitude of efforts like advancing first voice review for the pan latino historic context statement and oral histories for the american indian historic context statement, including the events shown on this slide, which have

consisted of community briefings, evaluations, review workshops, community forums, and open houses with the san francisco public library. so our focus on knowledge sharing and control cultural awareness aims to transmit and sustain cultural heritage, particularly among younger generations and underrepresented communities. examples include strategic partnerships with the san francisco public library, ongoing efforts to catalog the recently adopted african american historic context statement, development of cohesive and accessible outreach materials in collaboration with community partners to organize community forums. our goal for accountability and transparency involves dismantling knowledge sharing barriers by ensuring access to information and transparent engagement processes . we strive to manage community

owned information collaboratively and improve processes to uphold accountability and respect for the agency of cultural, cultural bearers and communities. as the engagement strategies discussed earlier have played a vital role in advancing various projects within sf surveys. interconnected components. these efforts have contributed to a progress across historic context. statements, fieldwork, research and evaluation, and other ongoing efforts like developing intangible cultural heritage methodology. to close, we'll cover next steps in sf survey engagement efforts. i'd like to take a moment to review recent events and upcoming activities which have been integral to our ongoing engagement efforts since january 2023. primarily focused on the richmond and sunset neighborhoods, along with the citywide initiative, these events highlight our commitment

to inclusive community participation and sustaining future programing. as we move forward, i want to extend sincere appreciation to the dedicated sf survey team members and our invaluable community partners whose commitment has driven the success of our engagement efforts through meaningful dialogs, positive interactions, and celebrations of cultural contributions. we've fostered strong relationships. looking ahead, our focus remains on implementing the strategies outlined in the community engagement framework, prioritizing partnership development, exploring collaborations with key city agencies and institutions such as the san francisco arts commission and san francisco state university. additionally, we aim to enhance the digital user interface of sf cultural heritage and community stories, expand participation through initiatives like oral histories, and further develop the

community input dashboard. while we're not seeking formal adoption of the community engagement framework, it will continue to evolve alongside sf survey with ongoing input from our community partners. this concludes staff's presentation, and i'm available to address any questions you may have. thank you. commissioners i'm sorry. public comment okay. we need to yes. at this time, we can take public comment on item number seven. so for any members of the public interested in speaking on this item, please come up to the mic. i am. really upset. i have been working with 40 neighborhood associations over the last six months, and i have never heard about this survey or this program. i am very concerned that citywide is doing

a what we want this and we're going to gerrymander it to get what we want. and a perfect example that i just i've had a horrifying issue on is lombard street and in the marina we had a master plan. all of a sudden nobody can find it. and i want to make sure that this thing is on the legit. and i want to make sure that the, the, the people that are need to be addressed to this are addressed to this throughout the city. my little american flags up again, i just want to make sure that it's a program. and i'd like to have a meeting with this woman. i'm going to stop in a minute and ask her. say i want to. i want to see the files. because what happened on lombard street shouldn't have happened. and we had it really planned to be either. like the marina

barcelona. i remember the plan. it was just before my time, and all of a sudden we have slack, terrible architecture that has come on. we fought it every single time and it's just been ignored by the commission. and i want you to make sure that the throughout the whole city that this isn't a gerrymandered thing from citywide because i worry about citywide all the time. they have their own agenda. so i think this is a good program. i think she started it and she does. but i heard some buzzwords that made me start coughing. i got so upset and just just, you know, i will be all over it and be back with you on this because i'm not hearing anything and i'm on neighborhood cleanups. i'm on the crime thing. if you ever want to talk to me. we did something in original throughout

three neighborhoods. now i've been successful and the historical and i have put several historical buildings up and got them through this commission. thank you, thank you. any other members of the public? great. not seeing any further public comment. let's just check our remote at this time. if you'd like to provide remote public comment on item number seven, seeing none. commissioners commissioners are there, commissioner baldauf? yeah all right. i, applaud all of the effort and energy that's being put into this, and, and, but what i'm curious, and this is going to be a much bigger question that i really need to

have you send me some stuff because i think what's what's really interesting is that you're trying to really create a whole new methodology here. and, and i the, the phrase that jumped out in your presentation to me was data centric to meaning centric, and, and i sort of i believe i get what that means is and i think all of what you described is trying to get to that. but in the end, does it become a bunch of different data and how do you actually create this new vision of understanding ? and i guess what i'm curious about is sort of the intellectual road map. what what is the intellectual process other than making it up as you go that you're following along to do all of this? and i'm sure

it exists. i'm just saying that i don't really understand it as like what the footnotes are, for this process. so maybe just you can email me and send me some stuff, but i just that's my only question because i appreciate all of this and i think i'm getting it all and everything. but then i step back and i sort of say to myself, well, okay, how do you make these kind of decisions? and i think we trip ourselves up in this stuff. and i think that's what we heard in the previous, sort of brushing aside of julia morgan in the way of thinking about a district, all of a sudden started to happen, which i think was very not appropriate. and i think we have to be very, very careful about labeling. and that's what i'm trying to get to, is how do we not fall into that trap, yes. so, commissioner baldauf, this

is, a project that has we have been in this, i guess the proper the, first, the citywide survey started a while ago. it started with a little bit of money, and we got a little bit more, and it took us a while to even get to the point where he had planning meetings to talk about methodology. and we're finally kind of at that stage where it's a it's an iterative process. i don't want to take away from you, lindsey, but i have been with this project from the beginning, and so i think it would be great for you to have, maybe a an overview or an introduction with staff to understand how we got this far. it's not, you know, we're the citywide survey is exactly what it is. it is a citywide survey. so it will go around the entire city and county of san francisco serving. so i don't think any

community needs to feel that they're going to be left out of the process of understanding and being a part of the discussion. so i'm sorry just to jump in like that, but i did want to provide some kind of context that this is not something that was, quickly created. it took a long time. i think there were a lot of brainstorming sessions. and i think what we wanted to do was look beyond what planning has traditionally done and include voices that have not been included before. yes. thank you, commissioner baldauf, for your question. thank you, president matsuda, for the additional context, i think just high level. i don't believe that this the community engagement process and the information that comes out of it isn't meant to take away from our existing preservation practices. we will still continue to, refer to past historic context statements as we do our development review, but we are also just looking to

incorporate community's input into that process to also understand what is meaningful to them, just to make sure we are not leaving out any vital information, but again, through our engagement efforts, what we hear from community, we are putting it into a community input dashboard that helps lift up themes that we are hearing. and we are developing, recommended actions to address the concerns that we are hearing from the public. and so that is one way that we are kind of taking this meaningful information and converting it to data for us to continue to track our progress and make sure that we are responding to community needs and concerns, but staff is happy to schedule some time to provide an overview and briefing of sf survey and then the engagement strategies that support the sf survey framework. commissioner warren, just to elaborate on that, you know, i

was in i've been in preservation for 28 years now, my first building that i worked on reviewing was city hall when it was being seismically retrofitted. i spent two years here walking around the building and getting to know it during construction and reporting to the state office of historic preservation. so i'm i'm pretty well versed in the practices that the city has done in the past, the survey is super important because what it does is, define what the historic resources are. in the past, we've had consultant teams do, surveys, as buildings were being developed, hoped to decide whether they are historic resources or they're not historic resources. this survey, noting all of the development

that is upcoming and has been done and also noting the social, racial, social and racial equity and noting all of the histories that we've developed over the past 100 years, plus in san francisco, is trying to coalesce mass areas. and so they go step by step as you would with any project to go to different areas , talk to the community, developed that context statement, develop the research, look at each property, decide whether it's a resource or not, and document that. so it's been going on since 2020. and if you also look at, the backlog of our commission hearings, you'll see that they present to us at least twice or three times a year, if not more on the survey progress. and that might help alleviate some concerns, as it is for the

benefit of the community. and, everybody, in order to have that background so that when development projects come up, we have already established what is valuable in our neighborhoods and all of that. but it does take time. and, you know, they've done a lot of work. they're using a system that is electronic that is also combining all the research. so if you go to the website and look on there, you can connect online and see, oh, where are they in the survey. what properties have they evaluated. and then you know, the framework that they're using and collecting. also from the community, information that otherwise we wouldn't get from libraries or other sources. so it's super important what they're doing and sort of taking in a broader history of the neighborhoods, that includes the community. thank you. and i was

wondering, ashley, if you could just share with us some of the findings or some of the comments that you are getting from community. i know that this is the first time for many people to actually participate and have direct dialog with the planning department, so, anything you'd like to share would be, i think, of interest to all of us. sure i can recall just from some of the events, certain themes that we have heard, we received names of particular individuals within communities who may have been the first african american doctor, first african american nurse, different community organizations that helped contribute in their specific geographic areas. we've also heard a lot of reference to redevelopment and what has been lost and how can the city work with community to help recognize

and acknowledge some of those past harms, but also also kind of help redefine how we want to commemorate what some of those sites and how can we reconcile that moving forward. so that i know that's just very brief, but those are just a couple of the themes that come to mind for me from our past engagement activities. great. thank you. commissioner baldauf, did you have. oh, okay. sorry, commissioner wright. yeah thank you. i just wanted to thank staff for all the great work on, on the city wide survey and on the community engagement, you know, i know it's been a long time coming, and it's just really heartening to hear, all the progress and that you guys are just pushing forward every day. so thank you. thank you, commissioners. thank you. any other questions or comments from the commission? okay. hearing none i think, that concludes our hearing for today. thank you

[music] >> sarah duncan the honeer chef here. alexa and i own this location

today. we are wem omen in business. we started this location in san francisco about 5 years ago, and previous--had a kitchen in the back on geneva avenue. we moved over here about two years into that venture and opened this one november of 2019. i grew up in east texas and [indiscernible] bbq venture and wanted to do something different here which is our new orlean style. gentilly is a district in new orlens that remeans we of the excelsior. [indiscernible] i lived out here for 17 years. alexa also lived in the neighborhood and we wanted to stay in excelsior. we think people enjoy. there isn't a lot ofication food left in the city.

there used to be before covid so we wanted to do something the city wasn't already flooded with. gumbo is your traditional style new orleans style stew. we have a nice dark rich broth. pulled chicken, shrimp [indiscernible] the other popular items are fried chicken, a grilled mac and cheese. cajun green beans. number two seller. san francisco is a special city. it got a very big food driven industry. it is very hospitality friendly. i feel like especially in the restaurant industry, me being a chef it is a pretty male dominant world out there, and i think it is really special the two of us have been able to

come together as women and open this restaurant four months to the day before shutdown and keep the doors open still. we put a lot of love into this place. we try to make it feel you are walking into someone's living room where you are comfortable. we are at 482 mission street. welcome to check our lovely environment and have a cocktail