district provides other benefits that you wouldn't have otherwise. the t.d.r.s for this district are an immense benefit that other historic properties in our city may or may not have. that's a really a great benefit. >> that's correct. >> we have a motion and a second. >> i did not hear that, thank you. >> very good commissioners. there's a motion that has been second today' to adopt resolutio initiate. commission black. >> jonck. >> yes, highland,. >> so moved, commissioners, that passes 7-0. places us on item 7 for case number 17. 011-5755 at 1942 sutter street. this is a se certificate of

appropriateness. >> good afternoon. the item before you is a request for certificate of appropriateness or horizontal addition and sod altercation at 1942 sutter street. contributor to the bush street cottage row landmark district. the two store over basement two-unit residents because designed in the italian eight style for the real estate associate in 1875. it's located in r.m.1. the proposed project includes the conversion of the basement level to habit able space with six feet at the first-storey of the rear of the east facing cottage row. with a new residential entrance to the existing second unit. extending the bay massing on the eastside up one-storey and installing a total of 16 new double hung wood windows on the

east facade. all alterations are on a secondary facade. staff is determined that the proposed records compatible with the charter defining features of the subject building in the surrounding bush street cottage row landmark district. all aspects of the historic character of the building would be retained and no spaces would be removed. as all work is proposed on the secondary facade. today staff has not received any public comment in support or opposition to the project. staff recommends approval as it meets the secretary of the interior standards for rehabilitation with the following conditions -- that following the issuance of permit the project shall provide a timeline. during this phase of the construction the they will contact department staff to

secretary site visit with the proposed demolition plans and determine whether stabilization programs shall be required to preserve the property. and the project sponsor shall complete a site visit with the staff prying to ak pansy in order to verify compliance with the improved project condition and conditions of approval. this concludes my presentation. the project sponsor and i are available to answer questions. thank you. >> thank you. commissioners, any questions? does any public -- >> you want to hear from the project sponsor? >> do you have questions? >> i'm mark english, i'm available to answer any questions you might have. >> great. that's what i thought. thank you. >> sorry. >> it's ok. >> so we'll take public comments on this item. does any member of the public wish to comment? if so, please, ex forward. seeing and hearing none we'll close public comment.

>> i will make a motion to approve with the conditions stated. >> second. >> thank you commissioners on that motion to approve this matter with conditions as read into the record by staff on that motion commissioners black. >> yes. >> >> yes so moved. motion passes unanimously 7-0. and if i may through the chair, we're going to pull item 9 out of order for case number 2018-004346fed at 3333 california street. this was for your review and "commoditiescomment but we did a request to have this continued on may 16th. >> we have a request to continue this item? >> yes, we received essentially two requests. one was from the nominate or

feeling that they would like some more time to be able to present to this commission on the proposed nomination, which we are amenable to and second director ram felt stronger he would like to be here during that deliberation of that nomination. given that the state commission hearing is not until the 17th, we have adequate time for this body to review it and forward those comments to the state commission before it is heard. >> thank you. so, commissioners, any comments? we'll take public comments on this item. if you could focus your public on continuance, but obviously it's on our calender. anybody wish to comment on this item? >> seeing and hearing none we'll close public comment. >> do we need a motion. >> we need a motion to continue. >> i move we continue until the

next hearing. >> thank you on that motion to continue this matter to may 16th. >> yes. >> yes. >> yes. >> yes. so moved commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7-0 and we will revert back to item 8 for case number 2018-003886coa the murphy wind mill certificate of appropriateness. >> good afternoon members of the commission. elizabeth of planning staff. the project before you is a certificate of appropriateness for safety upgrades and alterations to the murphy windmill. they are located in golden gate parka jays enter to the great highway. the property is within a public zoning district and it opens the district. the subject property, including the wind mill, cottage and

landscaped space around the two structure us was landmark 210 under article 10 of the planning code in may of 2000. the existing windmill is an eight-sided six-storey structure designed between 1905 and 1907. the windmill, as well as its companion was critical to the transformation of the area sand dunes into golden gate park. it continues to be a working mill until approximately 1935. authorized under a certificate of appropriateness in 2001, reconstruction of the murphy windmill and renovation of the cottage was completed in 2011. during the seven years since the reopening of the windmill, safety issues have been identified through operator experience and a city commission safety survey. these issues were not for seen at the time of the rehabilitation authorized in 2001. the project before you proposes safety upgrades to the wind mill designed to comply with osha

requirements. no alterations are proposed to the cottage. the project sponsor has a brief presentation but in brief, alterations proposed including, an increase to the gallery handrail to 42 inches, utilizing wood extenders. addition of a four inch high toe-kick where it meets the gallery deck. replacement of the gallery deck level, wood entry doors with weather resistant materials. insulation of l.e.d. lights at the main door at the entry. tie offs and cables. additional bracing at the fan tale deck. replacement of the fan tail ladder of the same size and appearance. replacement of the existing interior wooden stairs with steel stairs, hand rails and guard rails and paneling. removal of small sections of the surface on all levels to allow

for vertical head clearance and removal of the concrete water pump beds in the base in anticipation of creating space for an interpretive exhibit open to the public. both the removal of the water pump beds and redesign were approved in 2001, but were not implemented for budgetary reasons. in revealing this certificate of appropriateness, based on the requirements of article 10, staff has determined that the proposed work is compatible with the character defining features of the landmark and recommend approval with conditions. however, staff is concerned about the proposed steel for the interior stairs and paneling proposed and finds this element of the proposal is not in keeping with the character of the historic structure. staff believes this aspect of the project should be revised and recommends the metal stairs be replaced in wood or clad with wood and the mesh paneling should be of a different but compatible material.

and this continue is concluded in your motion. therefore, staff recommending the following conditions of approval to the certificate of appropriateness. prior to the issuance of building permits, the final material including the replacement of materials for the metal stairs and mesh paneling, will be forwarded by review by staff. the interior stairs should be replaced in wood or alternate low be clad with wood and the steel mesh panel replaced with wood or another compatible material. this concludes staff's presentation and i am available for questions. i'd like to introduce dan mower of the rec and park department who is part of the project sponsor team as well. thank you. >> thank you. would you like to come forward, mr. mower. >> good afternoon commissioners, dan mower with the recreational and rec park. i want to thank elizabeth for putting such a great presentation together. we've been working with her on this the last several months and have found a lot of common

ground moving forward on this project. i've been working on this project a long time. i started back in 199 1998 whee started to renovate the windmill when it was delap tated and pieces were on the ground. we had private partners on this project. over many years we were able to bring together a terrific design team and funding from a whole host of different sources public and private to bring the windmill back to its glory and i'm happy to report back in 2011, after you had approved the project we put the cap back on and operating the windmill. subsequent to that, our statiostationengineer team opere windmill. there's not too many people that can operate the windmills in san francisco. during that course of six or seven years they point yo pointt safety issues. they brought in our heath and safety officer for the department.

we conducted a thorough property of the structure and looked at ways of making it a safer structure for the operators of the windmill. so we have a long laundry list of miscellaneous items. the ones elizabeth brought up, were the ones considered as significant enough to be heard today. we did conduct that report and now looking forward to moving forward, had the necessary funding to make these improvements. so i'm happy to hear that all the improvements that are being recommended for your consideration staff feels are appropriate and should be able to move forward with. elizabeth brought up the issue about the stairs and the cladding of the stairs, which was something we tossed back and fourth over the design and design development at this particular element. originally, we reconstructed stairs back to the original configuration and used some of the original materials part of the windmill staircases.

unfortunately, they didn't meet code and they created some safety hazards for staff that had to climb up the six-storeys on a daily basis to maintain the wind i will mill. we brought together a brand new project team, architects from offices here in san francisco and i also recommissioned my historic architect that worked on the project originally to help us work through some of these issues. they're here today to answer any technical questions you may have on this particular item. in any case we looked at staircases and we wanted to make sure we got as close to code compliant as possible. it meant we had to refigure the staicases. in doing so, we ended up looking at when we started to design that and do it, we found there was a lot of infrastructure that was being proposed on the ground floor to host all those decks

and levels and stringers. and so in order to try to minimize that, they brought forward a proposal to do these stairs out of steel. one, it provides a higher level of accuracy on the development of the stairs, rise and runs rather than relying on craftsmanship. it allieviates issues for our maintenance staff moving forward. and it would remove some of the clutter created by some of the staircase elements that the flat forms would identify and so as part of that, the architect team came back and said let's doing this out of steel and hanging the stairs where possible off beams on the floor above. one, it would remove the clout you arclutterand be a more durae and material to maintain overtime. and it would be co compliant

with regard to ocsha requirement and the building code. i know that staff's recommendation is to look at considering either going to wood or cladding the stairs in wood. the department's position is we would like to go ahead with steel but as part of that, we spoke with planning staff and elizabeth and looked at options of maybe doing wood and steel framework. we have samples. hopefully the package was thorough enough to understand what we were doing and trying to achieve in this space. and if not, staff here -- project team can answer those questions more specifically. >> ok, thank you. >> thank you. >> at this time we'll take public comment on this item. does any member of the public wish to comment on this. hearing none we'll close public

comment. commissioners, any comments? the stairs are not visible from the exterior, they're only visible on the interior of the windmill? >> right. >> they're being reconfigured anyway so to me it seems like a steel stair would be reasonable. i don't know what other commissioners think. >> i'd like to comment on that. as long as it's internal and it's only seen by staff and not by the public, it seems to me that the safety and the maintainance and long-term use of the building -- >> safety for the staff going up and down if they have to go up six-storeys every day that makes sense. it doesn't make sense to clad a steel stair. that seems like a waste of money and an odd -- it would be an odd structure in my opinion. i agree that i would think that it would be a fine alternate.

>> thank you. >> i agree with you two gentlemen, however, i can understand the desire to preserve the look of the thing and so since there's going to be potentially a display on the ground floor, is there someway that you can have photographs of what it looked like before? in other words, can you photograph the wood stairs and have that as part of your display so if someone wanted to understand what was there, it would be easily available and then go ahead and make the steel staircase? >> not to get into the weeds on this, but the funding we're using was actually going to be the third phase of this project, which was to replace the pump mechanism and make an educational exhibit at the first floor. part of that and the vision is to open the first floor up through the threshold of the building, as approved by code,

and have photographs and also monitors that give history of the windmill, wind power, renewable energy and talk about golden gate park in more detail. the end goal of this is to do a interpretive exhibit there, which can talk about the windmill history, its materials, design and where it's been. >> so the short answer to my question would be yes. >> absolutely. [laughter] >> the reason i pose that is because hopefully i am back in front of you to execute this last phase of the project. >> thank you. >> i conquer with my fellow commissioners on the points here. my basic approach is this is interior for the safety of staff and to bring us up to code it should be steel. >> thank you. >> the interpretive would be great, yeah, i would love that. >> thank you, commissioner black. >> yes, i conquer the steel

stairs makes sense. cladding them seems unnecessary. i support showing the photographs that exit now and also in the past as part of an exhibit because it's a really charming building that should be enjoyed and fully understood throughout its history. i am in support. >> thank you. >> commissioner. >> i guess i am the outlayer. [laughter] can staff explain a little bit more about where -- what is kind the conclusion on the wood stairs so we can understand a little more about the thought process and maybe also explain what is involved in the cladding? i didn't quite understand if it's just providing wood treads or is there more than that? >> well, i think we would be working with rec park staff, if

it would be tread materials or some alternative compatible material. i think in terms of the configuration changing and the openings in the floors of the windmill staff thought they would retain the integrity of the structure, but that the differration from going from the wood to the steel. i think that is in your packet on page 6 where the pretty big difference. the interior of the landmark, this is an interesting landmark designation so it was together. it wasn't one of the more recent deg i guesdesignations. the interior is part of the landmark. it's interior is part of the landmark designation. there was just concern that it may not be compatible. >> right. and the wood stairs are a significant character defining feature of the windmill? >> they are. >> are they the original stairs? >> they're not the original

stairs. they were replaced in the renovation but they were replaced in the original configuration and that was due -- and dan can talk more about this, for budgetary reasons. the reconfiguration and the change in the stairs was approved in the 2001 certificate of appropriateness but it wasn't undertaken at that time as part of the 2011 final approval. >> even though -- if we were to replace the stairs with wood stairs, they're still going to look pretty different. my concern would be that they actually, because they're going to be more clunky, then a steel stair would be better. >> i wouldn't support cladding the whole thing in wood. i do think that having wood treads would be a good compromise. >> would that be solid or vainer? [laughter] >> solid. >> that's good. >> not vainer. >> could i ask a question about

the weather out there and the weather tightness of the interior where the stairs are? i mean, is it -- do you have weathering problems on the interior? i assume it's not conditions safe? >> it's not a conditioned space. we haven't had a single leak since 201. 2011. so we're concerned about the dome and copper cladding on the dome as a weak point on the structure but so far so good. so, it's not a condition space so -- >> i'm just asking about wood and the people -- the people working there and walking up and down if there's moisture on the stairs ever or is it always dry? >> it's always dry. >> my perspective it's been dry. >> ok. thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioner hyland. >> yes, that was a comment on

the stairs. my proposal, and we get to a motion, i was asked the commission to consider the wood treads as a compromise. i do have a question on the railing. is the public -- does the public have access to this level where the railing is or is it all -- ok. so what is driving the raising? first of all, i do a lot -- i have done a lot of these and i would not have come up with this solution. this is a good solution. i wouldn't have considered this, so i think it's creative. but we're not -- we're not accommodating the four-inch -- we're not preventing anything further than just raising the

railing. so my question is, is this necessary? does this top rail need to be replaced because it's in bad condition and can it stay at its existing -- >> so to answer that is we're trying to meet requirements as closely as possible but still trying to maintain the framework of a historical structure. the problem we had on the handrail is we had the cap dome and sale stocks being reconstructed in the netherlands while we constructed the tower here. when we tried to bring the two together we had to coordinate to make sure when the sale stocks were spinning we missed the railing on the deck. we had a tolerance of 18 inches during the design phase and now that it's constructed, we can actually see the spinning of the sparse. we know what our tolerances are and we can raise the handrail up to meet that code compliant. even they we don't have a open, they require we have 42 inches and i believe it's no more than 16 or 18 inches between the rails. >> it's a maintenance.

the four inches isn't required. >> beer tryin we're trying to ge as possible. given we know the exiting conditions, we want to achieve those goals. >> all right. thank you. >> commissioner, any further questions or do we have a motion? >> i would move that we approve with the condition or change the condition to wood treads. >> steel with wood treads. >> yes. >> i second. >> we have a motion and a second. >> just quickly -- >> can i ask a question about that. i'm still trying to get with this because i'm really concerned about the safety for the staff on this. i think they've met all the historic requirements that are important. so i guess i'm just trying to get my arms around these treads

and what it means. >> they had some examples or if you could speak maybe to -- >> i real it was some discussion. >> any concerns about safety with the wood tread and -- >> can you speak to the microphone? >> so in the play box we have a sample of what would be a steel tread that would allow water and material to run through and also a sample of a solid wood, possible tread material. >> do you have any concerns about the wood treads? >> we talked about that, you know, wear and tear with people walking with work boots. we talked about doing a metal edge on that. i believe there's a sample in the box there as well. >> i see it. >> yeah. so, it's blending materials. i'm willing to accept whatever

you folks feel is appropriate along with staff. we want to make sure we have something that is durable and safe for the operators at the end of the day and compliant. >> all right. >> so i think -- our first option would be to do steel to keep within one medium. i'm happy to good wood if everyone feels it's appropriate maneuver for the project. >> can i add some additional comments. >> i think it's -- the treads are a significant mass in the stair. so having wood would really help tie back to the original stairs. i think the use and the patina that will come on the stair will add to the character. so that is what -- >> can i ask a question. are these stairs that will be visible in the first floor where you have public access eventually? >> will they be visible? >> yeah.

>> what about having the stair with the wood tread from the first flor to the second floor but the remainder just being a steel stair? i'm just asking whether you might consider that.

>> item 9 has been continued. places us on item 10. this is a legacy business application. >> hello, commissioners. preservation staff. today we just have one legacy application for your consideration.

that's for knights catering located at 255mendell street. the indian basin industrial park. they are a family-owned business founded by ed and maggie mcgovern and their neighbor ozzie smith. it was purchase outright by them in 191 1969. then in 1996, the business was transferred to their son and daughter. this 2004, the daughter, maureen and her husband, bought the business and are currently the sole owners. so the business continues to be a family-owned business. knights began as knights restaurant in 1963 at 234 mcalester street. this was a popular eatery in the civic center area. in 1978, the knights moved the restaurant and catering business to a larger location on golden gate avenue. then in 1989, the business was

again moved to 550 alabama street. in 2001, the business was moved temporarily down to south san francisco. that move lasted several years, but by 2004, they were back in the city at their current location. knights catering qualifies for the business registry in staff's opinion. we wanted to note the roots are in the irish community and they traditionally have served irish cuisine and participate in parades and events. staff is recommending that the physical features and traditions that define the business be listed as the full-service event catering and production coordination for presentations and events and drop-off catering service for large and small scale activities.

then the team of wedding specialists, the nonprofit coordination, and the white indicate arerring trucks -- catering trucks. we did not have any additional recommendations. staff is recommending support of this application, and i believe one of the business owners is here to answer any questions. thanks. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm maureen kelly. thank you for taking time to see me today. does anyone have questions? i don't know what to do. [ laughter ] >> most of the time, you can tell us a little bit about -- it can be brief. there's no obligation. >> i want to thank you for taking the time to see us today. we briefly were founded in 1963

by my parents. we have relocated within the san francisco a number of times as the city has changed and evolved. for the past 55 years, we have considered san francisco our home. we provide services to many community organizations, fill on thropic charities and individuals in the san francisco and greater bay area. i am joined today by two of my three children who work with me in the business. my son, danny, and my daughter molly. molly will actually be graduating san francisco city college hotel restaurant program in another week or two and join us full-time. i am proud to call this beautiful diverse and ever changing city our home, and our humble to be part of the small business fabric within the city. and very grateful to be considered for this opportunity to be considered for the legacy registry. >> great. >> thank you very much.

>> you did very well. >> thank you. >> and i really want to thank the team at the legacy business who have been amazing. thank you again especially for all you've done. >> any other member of the public wish to speak. we'll close public comment. >> i believe you catered my wedding in the green room. i can vouch for their quality of service. [ laughter ] >> any comments from the third generation? >> you want to come to the -- >> my name is danny. really quickly, obviously for as long as i've been alive, knights catering has existed.

my aunts and uncles worked there. my parents took it over. i have worked there since i can walk helping out in whatever way i can. i notice this would mean a lot to my mom and the business. thank you. >> thank you. >> my name is molly. i, too, have been a parted of the business my whole life. i've seen my grandparents turn it into something. i remember being in a side office when i was small and watching them change. moving forward, i plan to work with the business and work alongside my parents. it would be a great honor to have legacy business as part of our name and recognition moving forward. >> great. thank you. >> thank you very much. any other public comment? >> we'll close public comment. commissioner hyland. >> congratulations to the family. i'm supportive of this. i have one question that i'll ask staff, but having you come out and actually just speak helps us really understand what's important, and it's really hard to capture that in

writing. we're -- with our cultural heritage assets committee, we're trying to figure out a better way to capture the living histories. so thank you for coming out. the question i have for staff is, this is the first legacy business that isn't really associated with a building that has much significance. is that correct? i think there was one on ocean. >> we've had other ones. >> most of the them have been in pretty -- okay. >> no. there have definitely been others. >> yes. i believe there have been a couple of others, although my colleague desiree and tim may have more institutional memory. there have been several, i think. >> this is exactly the type of business that we want to support with this program. >> thank you. >> commissioner. >> well, i was a customer in 1968 until 1971, when i

graduated from hastings. i remember it quite well. so i am very enthusiastically supportive of this business. >> thank you. commissioner black. >> i very much think it's wonderful that there have been three generations involved in this business. it's very clear knights has been significantly involved in many events in the past 50 years, including a number of charitabe organizations and events. that's greatly appreciated. i strongly support this. >> thank you. >> i think this is just terrific and thank you for coming out. talk about patronage. i remember my team from state building on mcalester and my team from golden gate, that was our staple. talk about homegrown and home center. i'm glad that you're still operating and we're really happy to endorse you for a legacy business. >> thank you. commissioner pearlman. >> hold on a second.

[ laughter ] >> you make a motion. >> thank you very much. i agree with my fellow commissioners. i work with an irish organization, and being jewish, i have no connection to the irish community, but i asked them to call me johnny o pearl when i participate. i'm impressed with your events. there was one at city hall in the rotunda that's dramatic. i want to comment on the generational aspect of this business. i think that's one of the things we've seen in a few of the businesses where the business gets passed down through generations, and now the kids are moving up into positions that will likely result in them taking over the business at some point. so that is really the spirit of the legacy businesses. so thank you very much for being part of san francisco and making san francisco what it is. thanks. >> you want to make a motion. >> and i'll make a motion to

approve this. >> a recommendation for -- adopt a recommendation for approval. >> second. >> thank you. >> if there's nothing further, there's a motion that has been seconded to a enforcement a recommendation for approval. [ roll call ] >> so moved. it passes unanimously 7-0 and my sincere congratulations. >> congratulations. >> commissioners, that will place us on item 11 for the designation and cultural heritage work program quarterly report. >> good afternoon, commissioners. desiree smith department staff. the item before you today is a quarterly update on the status of the landmark designation work program in from this past quarter january 1st through march 31st, 2018. i'll summarize the items that have come before you. those that are expected to come before you in the next few

months. i'll give you an update on the survey team's other projects and the performance measures we're tracking. during the reporting quarter, shall the landmark designation for a hall was approved and signed by the mayor. the landmark designation for the diamond heights safety wall which you voted to recommend for designation last december was heard by the land use and economic development committee. the committee then forwarded the nomination to the board of supervisors but without a recommendation. the board subsequently referred the item back to land use committee where it remains. staff currently is working with supervisor sheehy's office, the department of public works, and the arts commission to come to a resolution so that it can be reintroduced to the land use committee. landmark designation was recommended, the property has been added to the public works maintenance list and the arts commission has also indicated that it intends to add the property to the city's public

art collection. we will continue to update you on the progress of the landmark designation. also during the reporting period, you voted to recommend landmark designation of the phillips building which has been transmitted to the board of supervisors. you voted to initiate three landmark designations brought forth as part of the plan including a hotel, local number 77 union hall, and the hotel utah. you voted to initiate article 10 designation of the warehouse historic district as part of the central soma plan. that summarizes the items that have come before you this last quarter that are on our work program. in addition to the work program, department staff also serves aztec in this case al support to the historic preservation fund committee. they are working with the hpfc on the reports. the landmark designation report for sacred heart complex which

is the hpc anybody nateed designation in october -- initiated in october of 2016. it will come before you again at a later date. the new dealer a historic context statement and three associated landmark designations, the landmark designations have been forwarded to the board of supervisors with your recommendation for approval. the next project we're reviewing is the residence parks historic contact statement which will come before you. the african-american historic contact statement which staff is still working on or making edits to the document in response to community comments, and we will bring the report back to you after it's completed and renoticed. the latino historic contact statement which there will be a draft submitted at the end of this month. and the ocean avenue historic resource survey during the

reporting quarter, they provided communities to project consultants on the documentation submitted so far. once that is completed, we will bring that to you for adoption at a future date. lastly, to better track the status of article 10 and 11 designations, the following performance measures were established. first, to prepare landmark designation report within 150 hours. the hours have not increased during this reporting quarter. new era hall at 233 hours continues to be the only property that exceeds that amount. new era hall is the most recently completed designation and is san fan landmark 277. the second performance measure was to prepare an article 10 and 11 designation application and that was posted to our website. we continue to receive community driven landmark nominations. third, to provide comments to the landmark designation applicants reporting the completeness and or schedule

each pc hearing for all community response ored police station within 30 days. the most recent example is 42 -- 2731 folsom street. that was brought to you 30 days after it was determined that it could be presented to hpcd has since been approved as landmark number 27 *76. the project will come back to you july 18th to present the next quarterly report. this concludes my presentation and i would like to now introduce shelly who'll summarize progress and activities on our cultural heritage work. >> hello, commissioners. i'll be brief.

my report on the cultural heritage work program. in the last quarter, you reviewed and supported 12 legacy business applications. concerning cultural heritage district designations, staff continues to work with supervisor ronen's office and with mohcd on the proposed cultural district program legislation. the hpc was tentatively scheduled to hear that legislation on the 16th of this month. it looks like that date will probably move possibly to june. there will be a hearing at the rules committee of the board of supervisors next wednesday concerning that program, and tomorrow at the budget and finance committee, the board of supervisors, there will also be mention of the project. let's see. and then concerning several of the districts, we're continuing to work on the -- and track

several different districts. we are working on the lgbtq cultural district legislation -- i'm sorry. let me start over. so one of the first districts that we're tracking is the leather and lgbtq cultural legislation. that passed on tuesday bit board of supervisors. so it's now been established. we've also tracking the bayview african-american cultural district. that name is still in the works. there have been several community meetings, and oewd is working with the community to organize cultural district there. the castro lgbt cultural district. legislation is pending, but we expect to see legislation probably in the next month. and the community is working directly with our supervisor's office. and then there are no updates on

transgender cultural district or japan town. i believe last month or at the last report, we did note the community business development district has been approved. the staff at planning continues to work on the lgbtq citywide cultural heritage strategy. we had anticipated a hearing at the board of supervisors committee in may. however, we're going to delay that until either late june or july. we wanted the opportunity to do more outreach with the community and also give our peer advisory group a chance to review the draft document. and there's been -- the last quarter, there was no work on the soma cultural heritage district. concerning grant activities, staff did have a kickoff meeting

with grant, the lead weather or of the chinese-american experience in san francisco historic context statement n march, he submitted a 50% draft, and we provided comments back in april. concerning historic preservation committee projects, we did submit a proposal and were approved just in the last week for a $30,000 grant to support the lgbtq cultural heritage strategy report. then concerning some and other cultural heritage work program items, we are developing a legacy business assistance project. i'm going to work with usf students in june that will be going out and interviewing several potential legacy business applicants and helping them prepare the narrative for their applications. rick and the office of small

business will be assisting me with that. hopefully this will be a successful program that and we can repeat it with some other usf classes. the legacy business branding project is also still in the works. we're selecting a logo and the marketing strategy will be developed in the next month or two. we should have, by the next quarterly report, some final products to share with you. concerning our performance measures, we spent about 50 hours working on legacy business registry applications. that's about an average of 5.42. that average is down slightly from our previous report. we did not spend any staff time on the cultural heritage district as i noted before, but we have been spending quite a bit of staff time on the lgbtq cultural heritage strategy. then concerning the survey

methodology, we're currently reviewing a proposal by place economics to assist staff with preparation of survey methodology that would include documentation and evaluation of intangible cultural heritage. i'll conclude my presentation and i'm available for questions. >> thank you. commissioners any question for staff? commissioner matsuda. >> i had a quick question for shelly about the chinese-american experience, the historical context statement. is grant still the executive? >> i don't know the answer to that, but i can check. >> no. that was just a quick question, but i thought if he was, we could make sure that some of the angel island history is definitely included in the historical context statement. i know that the state had a

grant with that organization quite some time ago, but there have been several books published, and i just thought of some that should be included in this if he hasn't already included it. i'm glad to see that usf students are going to participate. is this with the -- when we first started talking about legacy businesses, there was a specific family within the school of business. there was a specific family center that focused on small businesses. is this with that -- desiree, you were at that meeting many, many decades ago. are they with the same department? >> no, it is not, i believe you're referring to the gellards. she is with nicole jackson. she teaches a class on business culture and philosophies. so it's a short class.

i think it's six weeks for the summer semester. but we may be able to repeat it in the fall or in the string semesters as well. >> mamaybe she could present at our cultural heritage assets. >> okay. i can contact her about that. >> what do you think? >> absolutely. yeah. >> i think that would be great. >> okay. >> then i had a question for desiree -- is it okay to move on to you -- about the landmark. the windmill reminded me of golden gate park. then i was looking on our designation page 39 and it shows that the case report is almost complete or -- like the green line is getting closer, but then i also remember when they came before us and we decided to put it on hold and then rec and park does not support this designation. i'm just wondering -- >> march 2011 is had it --

>> yeah, yeah. yeah. i remember that. >> we probably have to put those questions to tim probably since he was -- >> right. right. i'm just wondering. we've had this on the list for quite some time, and there are a lot of great resources in that park. >> there certainly are, and we -- i mean, i'm sorry to say we haven't worked on it, but proposed nomination in quite some time mainly because of rec and parks is reluctant to move forward with the designation. we still have the pending boat house designation you could recognize as a property within golden gate, but it's certainly your prerogative if you would like us to elevate it or reopen those conversations with rec and parks. i would say that in the last few years, we have been moving more quickly on districts. we have funding from the

committee for the ash bury district, which will be the district we begin after russo. if we were to prioritize it, i guess the long answer is, it will just -- it's t. still may not happen within the next -- >> right. right. >> but we certainly agree. it's listed on the national register. we're hoping we can -- hope one day we can reach a resolution that makes everybody comfortable with a local designation. >> being on the national register for at least 20, 30 years. >> yeah. >> and then got a lot of state bond money. >> uh-huh. >> and then here we are in the city and county of san francisco. okay. i'm just saying. >> yes. >> commissioner pearlman. >> ms. smith, i just had a quick question. could you tell us about the diamond heights safety wall? what was the issue that it got sent back. >> sure. it went to land use committee

initially and they decided to move it forward but didn't have a recommendation either way. i think one of the concerns is about the funding, it being a sculpture and whose responsibility is it to maintain it. it has implication that's need to be preserved, maintained. who is responsible for doing that? how is it going to be paid for? so some of the issues hadn't been resolved. so we're -- designation helped to get some of those answers from other city agencies. so we've been able to determine that yes, it is city owned. we got that confirmation from the department of real estate. then as i mentioned t has since been added to dpw's maintenance list prior to this process -- to initiation. it was not on their radar. then i guess the most recent update is arts commission.

they've agreed to assume management of it as well. we still need to do tightening up around, i guess, the specifics of that and how it will all work together and we're trying to figure out, does the ordinance need to be amended? does it need to come back to hpc? yeah. i guess that's kind of the update. >> commissioners, if i could follow up a little bit on that. the dpw prepared their own sort of structural assessment of the safety wall, and they did concur with the arts commission's evaluation of at least the physical, visual condition. they looked at the site primarily and agreed there should be some remediation of the site in terms of some buckling of the sidewalk and a tree that's leaning on the structure, et cetera.

so i think the main concern was who is responsible for the esthetic qualities of maintenance and who is responsible for like standard site maintenance under city jurisdiction. so just to further what ms. smith was talking about, we're trying to figure out what we can put in the ordinance or somewhere where there's an understanding that dpw naturally is responsible for some aspects just because it's city property, but then a conservator somebody brought online for consolidation of the redwood features to prolong their life. everyone seemed amendable to the approach. we haven't taken it to that next step. >> it would seem like this is not uncommon where there's a sculpture and a sidewalk around it. >> yeah. >> and the arts commission and the dpw would be working in concert. it seems like that should be resolvable. >> i want to follow up on ms. smith's comments and just

remind you that the civil rights grant we received from the parks service did expire and western e able to fill the objectives. the three most important are the national registrations where the city will be the sponsor with the property owners. we had consultants prepare each of these nominations. the parks service has reviewed them. we've responded to all of their comments and so we hope to bring those before you shortly and then we will submit them to the state so we can move on those. the recognition of those properties. finally, while the three pending local schools are at the board, we haven't made any action to move them forward given that we were sort of at a standstill the last time we talked to the facilities committee and the full board and their concerns about local designations.

so we're still hoping that maybe after we've dealt with central soma and a few other bending things on your -- pending things,ing we can delve back in and see if there's a middle ground here so we can move those two at the full board. >> great. thank you. any other questions? this was just an informational presentation. so there are no further items, we can adjourn the hearing. >> thank you.

[ gavel ]. >> the health commission will now come to order. i will call roll. [ roll call. ] >> i'll note that commissioner sanchez, i believe, is on his way. welcome, everyone. the second item on the agenda is the minutes of the meeting of april 17, 2018. >> have my colleagues had a chance to read the minutes from the april 17 minute -- meeting? do we have a motion to approve? >> so moved. >> second? >> is there a second? >> second. >> all those in favor, signify by saying aye. >> thank you. item three is the director's report. >> good afternoon, commissioners. just wanted to g a