sub stake has ever come before you. i was astonished when i read the thereport. those are usually not the ones that go deep into the strongest reasons why preservation should be done. it was astonishing, you know. i knew it was important to the q lbgq district where i live in 69, really. when it was at the time it was appropriate for gay rights and the place where people from knob hill went, where everybody went from the community we women would have not gone to the gay bars. it is still there. it was charming. we understood it hasomething to do with a railroad car.

in 75 next door to it because there was the customers in the lbgq district at the time they added next door a charming dining room that is part of that era. the arguments made against -- by people opposed it the developer who bought it to teardown, obviously, were, number one, the dining room which was part of the lbgq era made the railroad car not important. then it was a lunch car. when i read about that it goes back to 1950 in that district. it mist have come directly after the earthquake. moving to the location where it is now before world war ii, been there ever since in the neighborhood. there have been changes to the

lunch car, which turned into our diner, you know, went from historic lunch carbs to the historic diner business, it changed things that any restaurant would happen. no restaurant has the same kitchen over 100 years of the same toilet equipment and minor changes like light fixtures at the top or things of that sort, you know. a charming place. in every other district all of the lbgtq landmarks are proposed everywhere except nob hill. it is play to play. we have the operation where you pay to get recommendation. these people were told the $1,000 unit for the building they planned to build were not enough because there was too much opposition. they had to pay more, $40,000

was recommended. i don't know how much they paid or did not pay for letters from other organizations. you know, because this had been an lbgtq welcoming place. >> your time is up. >> hello commissioners, i reside in calhara. i am calling about clay theatre built in 1912. the clay theater is one of the few remaining single screens in san francisco. architectural jewel original design from 100 years ago is intact today. supervisor catherine stefani who represents district 2 has introduced a popular land mark

resolution for clay theatre cosponsored by supervisors press kin, safai and preston and chan. after winding through committees this legislation was approved by may or breed and sent to you on august 12th. i believe up 180 days to decide. let me say that i hope the historical commission will get to the great theater before that. the current owner of the building does not appreciate the historical value and considering turning it into retail space. time is something of an issue. i wanted to make the commission aware. that is my comment. thank you very much. >> thank you. members of the public. last call for general public comment. press star 3 to be added to the queue. seeing no additional requests to speak. general public comment is closed. we can move on to department

matters. 1. department announcements. >> hello. elizabeth gordon planning department staff. no matters today. >> thank you. commission matters. 2. president's report and announcements. >> thank you. since we now have a full commission, i think we are now able to have an election. i wanted to see if all of the commissioners were okay by consensus to schedule this election of officers to take place at the next h.p.c. meeting scheduled for september 15th. it will be the election of officers. correct me if i am wrong. the president and the vice president. >> that's correct, commissioners. there is a little disagreement between myself and the city attorney's office, but to make

them happy i think we should schedule election of president and vice president. new election of officers to fulfill this remaining term of 2021. because you have the vacancy of vice president. today if you all agree to set that date, we can certainly have it on the 15th. >> do we need a motion? >> i don't believe we need a motion, vicky. if everyone agrees if there is no objection we will buy this announcement set that date on september 15th to hold an election of officers. >> so there is no question or uncertainty or anything, i move we hold the election at the next meeting of the historic

preservation commission. >> second. >> third. >> on that motion, then to schedule elections of officers on september 15th. commissioner wright. >> yes. >> commissioner nageswaran. >> yes. >> commissioner black. >> yes. >> commissioner foley. >> aye. >> commissioner johns. >> yes. >> commissioner so. >> yes. >> commissioner president matsuda. >> yes. >> that passes unanimously 7-0. thank you, commissioner john. >> i have one more thing, if i can. it was presently brought to my attention by a member of the public about the status of the murals. you know that this issue came before us as an informationalin issue because u.c.s.f. is under the h.p.c. jurisdiction.

to give you a summary last fall u.c.s.f. awarded a san francisco based firm to remove murals and preserve it. at the same time to create a task force for a new location. h.p.c. requested to be part of that and that was granted. h.p.c. also asked because a member of the public was interested in seeing the task force be expanded to other members of the community to consider other names submitted. we still have not received a response from them. in the interim, a legal suit was filed, injunction was filed by various groups opposed to the expansion of u.c.s.f. what that means is that everything stopped. meaning any preservation, any

plans to reuse the murals stopped. that will continue to be on hold. at the earliest the judge will determine whether just this part of the project can go forward at the next hearing in september. i wanted to bring that to all of your attention. >> okay. that concludes president's report. we can move on to item 3. consideration of adoption of draft minutes for the august 18, 2021 hearing. members of the public this is your opportunity to address the admission on the minutes by pressing star 3. no requests to speak, public comment is closed. minutes are before you, commissioner. >> motion to approve minutes. >> second. >> thank you. on that motion commissioner wright. >> yes. >> commissioner nageswaran.

>> yes. >> commissioner black. >> yes. >> commissioner foley. >> yes. >> commissioner johns. >> yes. >> commissioner so. >> yes. >> commission president matsuda. >> yes. >> so moved. that passes unanimously 7-0. placing us on item 4. commission comments and questions. seeing no requests to speak from members -- i take that back. >> commissioner nageswaran. >> i was listening to the public comment by mrs. chapman and the other person. i didn't get his name. i do know both buildings. i don't know the status of those two of the planning department, if they could give an update. i don't know if you know now or

at the next meeting the status for the grubstake and clay theater. >> could we ask staff to provide a status report at the next meeting? >> absolutely. i think you just accomplished that. sorry about that. >> commissioner so. >> i have two announcements. first i wanted to and i think everybody will know that september is the architecture and city arts festival. this year there is a lot of interesting events. i hope that everyone will participate a little bit more or just join in some of those conversations. it is packed with community interesting topics related to the city and architecture and

preservation. my second announcement is that some of you may have heard that i became one of the committee members for the memoir -- memorial advisory commission on the arts and human rights commission and san francisco parks department. it is just advisory committee to look into how we addressed the civic arts collections for the city. that is all my announcements. >> thank you. congratulations. >> any other members of the commission wish to make comments or questions? okay. i think we are ready to move on. >> okay. next item is consideration of items proposed for continuance. no items to be continued at the

time of the agenda and still. right to the regular calendar for 5. 2021-006260pca state-mandated accessory dwelling unit controls. this is a planning code amendment. staff, are you prepared for the presentation? >> yes, i have a slide deck for today as well. i am trying to load right now.

can i just confirm, first, that the slide deck is up right now? >> yes, we can see it. >> okay. great. thank you. good afternoon, commissioners, planning department staff. the item before you is the state mandated accessory dwelling unit for a.d.u. ordinance introduced by the mayor. today i am joined by our team manager and coordinatetor as well as peter from the city attorney's office. this is the same ordinance that appeared in front of you last year in november of 2020. some of the changes were referred to you that is why we

are back today. the goal is to align our a.d.u. program with changes to state law which clarified the ministerial review process for a.d.u.s. the focus of the ordinance are things we are required to do to comply with state law. the ordinance now incorporates recommended modification moved by you and planning commission to retain the preference to the objective architectural review standard. the ordinance now reduces the permissible site for a.d.u.s in response to planning commission concerns 1200 square feet would impact the space. lastly, this version of the ordinance includes clarifications for things required by state law. mainly one new bill requires the city to ministerially consider

application to consider a.d.u. on a lot containing an existing or proposed single family home. last year before this applicants to only choose one or the other. additionally, the ordinance imposes a new 16-foot height limit on certain a.d.u.s. original ordinance listed 16-foot height limit for attached a.d.u.s. to emphasize the 16-foot height limit is still required by state law and amendment would list this requirement out similar to how it is listed for detached a.d.u.s. under state law there are two buckets of state mandated a.d.u.s rebranded since the last hearing. first, state a.d.u. program

previously known as streamlined a.d.u.s. they also have the hybrid program previously known as ministerial. under this bucket we also have a new type of a.d.u. called junior a.d.u. which can convert 500 square feet of single family home. calling for each with a few highlights on the slide with different buckets in mind and our local program. property owner may qualify for more than one type of a.d.u., and in that case the staff will work with the applicant to clarify what they qualify for. ultimately it would be up to the applicant to decide what type of a.d.u. they want to pursue. ordinance includes a few big picture changes on the slide and discussed in the staff record. the primary reason this ordinance is in front of you

today is because it amends article 10 and 11 to explicitly say proposed state man datessed a.d.u.s in article 10 and 11 would be except from permits to review so long as they comply with state law. the change to article 10 and 11 is required. in this ordinance, there are three clarifications made to the local program not required by state law. these are all non substantive and clarifying of the code. the only change here that was not included in the original ordinance is that detached a.d.u.s located in the rear yard are measured from grade to

the top of the flat roof or mid point of a pitched roof. state law did not define how high is measured. this clarification requires us to measure similar to other structures in the rear yard. after the packets per published the permit received one e-mail which included general questions regarding the state law and urged support of a.d.u. construction within the rear yard. to close this ordinance covers the same item from last year which focuses on bringing our code in compliance with state law changes. staff recommends approval of the ordinance with modification and the modification is listed on the slide for you today. recommended modification relates to other local programs.

for some context, the hybrid program understate lawal laws up to two detached structures up to 16 feet tall with 4-foot rear and side setbacks. they need to require with the required program. after the staff report was published we realized this would be difficult to construct two detached a.d.u.s in the rear yard. the recommended modification today is to allow up to two detached a.d.u.s with the same height and set back parameters within the required rear yard. this proposed modification for the a.d.u.s under the local program to yield more rent controlled units. this concludes our presentation. i am available to answer any

questions along with the rest of the a.d.u. team on the call today. thank you. >> thank you. >> are there any questions or comments from the commission? anyone? commissioner nageswaran. >> i really appreciated your summary of all of this in the packet and also your presentation. it was very helpful. i think that the thing i am focused on it seems like between the state and the local programs there is the stipulation that the state does not allow for rent control. the other thing is the preservation part of it. this is sort of a question that

i don't know and if any of you can answer that would be great. are there any ways in which cities can petition the state to address rent control and preservation concerns specific to sf? you brought that out in the text of the packet. then, you know, at the end of it you said that you are thinking of things to incentivize the local program. i wondered and these are obvious. something related to property, taxes or, you know, promotion of property values with compliance, you know, the mills act for preserving properties to

encourage multiple ways in which people can get something out of it. even though they may not be under the rule for the state for the a.d.u., maybe they would be encouraged to kind of fit whatever they wanted to do within the parameters within the mills act. obviously, the big thing is streamlining the local program so that it can compete with the state program. i don't know enough about it to say that, but just putting those ideas out there. if you have any answers to those. thank you. >> thank you, commissioner. i will go ahead and start with general information for you. i will invite some of the team members to join shortly. i believe your first question

related to if there are ways to petition or lobby for the state to accommodate more rent control aspects here. for that question, we are able to lobby for general restriction where the a.d.u. would be allowed or not allowed on the property or any other input on height or setbacks. however for the rent control that is nonnegotiable for the state-mandated a.d.u.s. i will invite our city attorney to provide the technical response why rent control is not permitted then jump back in for the other questions. i will pause here for a moment. >> or even, you know, besides rent control, even petitioning

for preservation aspects. >> thank you. just quickly. for the preservation aspects, part of the reason why we elected to include the reference to the objective architectural review standard that is more immediate input, and as we described in the staff report the delegation agreement you saw earlier this month or last month, rather, incorporated those architectural standards applicable to a.d.u.s and other dwelling units really. the delegation agreement has resolved the conflicts between state mandated a.d.u.s and the state law.

>> i don't mean to jump in. i am not sure if that answered commissioner nageswaran's question? i think it was more specific to related to preservation issues. how can this be challenged? how can our city preservation policies be clear about how to protect historic resources can be in concert with what we are mandated by state law? >> i did understand what she said about the objective measures that were in the packet and how that was helping with preservation. yes, i mean i still, you know, would like to understand better

how -- i don't know if heticiann is the right word -- petition is the right word. how we interact with the state for specific issues in the city different than other cities for what we are dealing with, but maybe the city attorney can answer that. >> high, commissioner. commission hi,commissioners. do you want to address the general issue on this question of preservation and i can tackle rent control issue? >> sure. this is victoria wong from the city attorney's office. there is a general process

whereby the city can lobby to the state for policy changes that it desires. there is a centralized process that can occur, and i believe often the mayor's office coordinates that. i don't think that is necessarily the only way. that is often the way the city makes its position known to the state. there are mechanisms in place to make city views known on state legislation and requests for amendments, you know, where the city feels it is appropriate. that does occur. is that what you are getting at? >> yes. i don't know to what degree the city is willing to do that. that definitely addresses how it is done and, you know, if there

is a possibility of it, that is good to know. >> staff can probably assist you and explain the process further if that is what you are interested in finding out more about. >> thank you. >> deputy city attorney. i will address the question of rent control imposed on a.d.u.s. the background is that state law the rental housing act generally authorizes residential property owners to set the rental rates for their properties and prohibits local jurisdictions from imposing those rates or regulating them in many ways. there is an exception in the housing act for rental rates when there is essentially a contract entered into between property owner and local entity

in exchange for direct financial contribution or some other benefit that the local entity is providing to the property owner. if that benefit is there, there is a contract, bargain between the property owner and local entity, then the local entity can impose rental rate restrictions on that property pursuant to that contract. in order for that to work, the city has to have authority to deny or modify the proposed project. so they have something to bargain with with the property owner. otherwise it wouldn't be a valid contract between the property owner and local entity. that works in the context of the city local a.d.u. approval because that is discretionary. city has authority to deny or

condition or modify construction of those projects. in the case of the state-mandated a.d.u. programs, the state is requiring the city in this case to approve these a.d.u.s. the city doesn't have the discretion to denay or -- to deny or modify those. the city doesn't havevally consideration to provide as part of the bargain on the housing act. that is why the city is limited in its ability to impose rent control on a.d.u.s approved under the state-mandated programs. you can do so under the local program. >> thank you. i am still absorbing it. it was so helpful to get that background. it is really helpful. thank you.

>> commissioner black. >> thank you. i just want to start out very quickly by giving a little shout out to staff. one of the challenges of being a planner in california is the every involving state laws that we are required to comply with. the process of compliance of each of these changes is complicated. you have seen several attorneys involved and there is this roundtable or whatever departments in the city. this stuff takes a lot of staff time and takes them away from other important programs. in the past code and policy changes related to housing related every five to eight years as the housing numbers were to each city. in the past three or four years this stuff is coming in so fast and these are just housing

changes. there are other state mandates staff have to manage. still they are cranking out routine applications and developing problematic changes. they took over a.d.u. review from the department of building inspection last fall to help during covid. having said that, it is what it is. we need housing and these changes are definitely needs especially in communities resistant to changing single family laws. they really resist even a.d.u.s. i appreciate the pilot program for using state funds to add a.d.u.s. that is the target we should look at. i support a similar city-wide program to look for other funding sources as the state funds will deplete for.

i support supervisor mandelman's proposal mentioned in the report. i like the junior a.d.u.s as a means of providing additional housing types for extended families. that works for lower income families and those who need caregivers and those who need to supplement their income. obviously, i share the disappointment concerning potentially inappropriate modifications to landmark buildings. you know, with the intent of trying to get a lot of housing built and built quickly, matters like preservation take a back seat. it would seem to me based on the conversation we had with the city attorney and staff, it occurs there could be collaboration between san francisco city leaders and some other city leaders to lobby the

state to address preservation issues. advocacy groups could get involved and use our local representatives to achieve that. you know, preservation is not a front burner matter, but it could be incorporated properly with smart people that we have coordinating with other smart people making it easier for the state to make this change. just my two cents. >> thank you. commissioner so. >> thank you for the report. thank you for being so -- this is a long work in progress. it is amazing. thank you to everyone involved. i am sure there are more than one or two staff here today. it is a teamwork process. i agree with commissioner

black's point and i want to focus on a few questions i have. noticing that like the state and the local a.d.u. allowed this to fast track. i wonder how about these local neighborhood guidelines that many of us are familiar with depending on which neighborhood you are in. are those -- if a homeowner has to do something it won't trigger a specific of appropriateness. would they still need to ascertain all of those much strictter neighborhood design guidelines part of the planning code? i am pointing one as an example. there are a lot of different

neighborhoods. that is my question. then the other question i have is that the second requirement. i wonder if and i am pretty sure everyone involved including the department of building and inspections and the fire department. don't they always like to do five feet set back to keep fire ratings? i am wondering. are we saying that now the planning requirement allows you to do four feet set back. if anyone wanted to do four feet set back then the homeowner will need to know that also. if they need to do that they need to pay a lot more money to get everything fire rated properly and go through different hurdles with the building department and fire inspection. that is just one of the two

discrepancies that we haven't discussed, maybe just on the public hearing. i am sure you had already been through it. i would like to hear your take on this. thank you. >> thank you, commissioner so. i will go ahead and respond to the more recent question regarding the setbacks. i want to emphasize that all of these a.d.u.s are starting to comply with the required building and fire code so the fire separation or setbacks, whether it is three feet or five feet depending on the occupancy type, which planning we are not experts on. they would need to comply with those by setbacks. part of the more resent changes

also include concurrent reviews for sister agencies that have their eyes on these projects at the same time and be that does help reduce that back and forth or potential added fees or just changes to the projects. it is four feet for these attached a.d.u.s under the state law but they will still need to comply with all safety codes locally. then i believe your other question related to the design and guidelines and also i believe you mentioned preservation aspect. i want to go ahead and invite our manager, a.d.u. coordinator and preservation planner. we are lucky to have her available on the call today. thank you. >> thank you. good afternoon, commissioners.

planning department staff. i would like to address some of the questions you have raised. in regards to the topic of preservation, since state law requires we approve the a.d.u.s in administrative process they are not subject to ceqa. state law does allow us to impose standards that prevent adverse impacts on any real property listed in the california register of historic places. they are not required to go through the process they are required to comply with the standards, specifically for real properties listed on the california register. we also can recommend and often do the design modifications. even though applicants are not required to comply. we suggest recommendations to

improve quality of the communities. we can recommend these to preservation standards. lastly, in regards to fire rating which was covered very well. state law does require at least four-foot setbacks which may be enough for fire rating depending on occupancy. applicants can choose larger set back to eliminate the need for fire rating. thank you. >> thank you. to clarify you mean be the neighborhood design guidelines what they have more strict limitations onset backs with this ordinance with the a.d.u. programs and hybrid programs, the project sponsor allowed to

actually do this without having to comply with those really strict neighborhood guidelines? >> yes. >> thank you. thank you for the clarification. >> thank you. commissioner wright. >> yes, thank you. i may be asking what some of the other commissioners have been asking about. i am trying to wrap my brain around this. i was not on the commission last year, but i did go back and look at the resolution 1041. at the time it was the intent of this commission to have preservation protection. it seems that this change is stripping the preservation

protection. even for article 10 and 11 properties and i want to point out that these are most significant resources. maybe i am restating or re-asking the same question in a different way. what options do we have for meeting preservation review and preservation standards? i just heard a little bit of discussion about adverse impacts triggering something. maybe you could clarify that a little more. thank you. >> thank you, commissioner. specifically, state law allows us to apply standards to a property that is listed in the california register which most of the time article 10 and 11 properties are. it allows us to impose standards to mitigate add version im --

adverse impact. even though the applicant would not be required to apply for the certificate of apappropriateness t that is delegated to staff without submitting entitlement. we would make sure it aligns to make sure it can be approved. what state law limits in this case is the fact these standards are specifically to mitigate adverse impact and limits ability to apply standards on real property listed in the california register, which i mentioned the 10 and 11 properties are listed so we would be able to apply preservation review at staff level. >> thank you. just to clarify. you said we can apply the

secretary's standards but did i hear you say previously that we are still limited on design review? how does that work when we are reviewing a design for meeting the standards but not reviewing a design? >> sure, i can clarify. we are able to apply -- to do design review in terms of preservation access on these properties. we are talking impacts and standards. we are talking design review not the regular design guidelines or neighborhood specific guidelines. we are only able to apply preservation standards in regards to the design limited to the qualifying property. >> thank you. >> i think the city attorney

wanted to make a comment. >> this is deputy city attorney. i want to clarify for a.d.u.s approved under the state mandated programs the standards that the city can apply are related to architectural review or any other must be ministerial. those are projects the city must approve. the standards we apply are not subject to insignificant discretion by the h.p.c. or staff or any other city decision-maker. the city's ability to impose standards and review on the state-mandated reviews. >> out of curiosity, city attorney. has any municipality, local town or city filed any kind of legal action against the state

regarding this on behalf of particular issues that requires this new state mandate? >> i am not aware of any municipality or local entity that filed action against the state. the state hcd, housing community development, has issued letters explaining how the a.d.u. ordinances are not in compliance with the requirements of state law. there may be litigation stemming from that sort of enforcement. i would certainly have to do a check to make sure i am presenting this accurately and if there are any lawsuits currently filed, i can check that. >> in your capacity, i was interested if somebody may have a citizens group or preservation

group or other association challenging. this strips away a lot of local authority. i see a lot people not happy with this. >> there are none that i am aware of. maybe they are, but i am not aware of any legal challenges. >> thank you. commissioner foley. >> i would like to reiterate what commissioner black said about all of the work that staff has to do for this, but i also and what you said about supervisor mandelman, but i think senator weiner and supervisor mandelman have taken a lot of heat for trying to get housing built. one of the reasons we are in the housing crisis and homelessness. as much as they can control local groups is not such a great idea this a.d.u. plan how they have laid it out is pretty well

thought out. i think it will help solve the housing crisis or be a piece of it. i want to call out senator weiner and supervisor mandelman for taking the initiative to take a lot of heat. they take a lot of heat in sacramento to get this done and supervisor mandelman locally for what he is trying to do. we have to get away and figure out how to build housing, affordable, work force, at risk, youth, everything. we need more housing. that is all i have to say. thank you very much for letting me speak. >> any other questions or comments from the commission? thank you. >> if there are no additional questions from the commission, we should open public comment at this time. members of the public this is your opportunity to address the commission on this item star 3.

seeing no requests to speak from the public. public comment is closed. this matter is now before you. this is an action item. there is a request to adopted the recommendation for approval. >> adopt recommendation to approve. >> second. >> thank you. on that motion commissioner wright. >> aye, yes. >> commissioner nageswaran. >> yes. >> commissioner black. >> yes. >> commissioner foley. >> aye. >> commissioner johns. >> yes. >> commissioner so. >> yes. >> commissioner president matsuda. >> yes. >> so moved. that passes unanimously 7-0. i do see deputy city attorney requesting to speak again. >> sorry if i missed something.

were there planning staff recommendations modifications included in the motion? >> there were staff modifications in the recommendation. >> planning department staff. there was that additional modification recommended modification that i shared with you today. it was not included in the draft staff report for you last week, but i just wanted to reiterate that the modification does relate to allowing more a.d.u.s within the required rear yard and essentially mirroring the state mandated a.d.u. allowance for up to two detached a.d.u.s 16-foot high

four-foot side and rear programs within the required local program. commission secretary i don't know procedurally? >> let me make the maker of the motion was your intent to include that staff modification? >> yes. >> seconder? >> yes. >> thank you. if there is no objection from any commissioner, i think we can include that staff modification. is there any objection from any commissioner that voted yes? if not that motion passes unanimously 7-0. thank you for the clarification, deputy city attorney. commissioners that means we can move to the final item on our agenda. 2021-007060des. at 200 rhode island street landmark designation

application. staff are you preprepared. >> i am a board member of the charitable foundation. i do not receive compensation i participate actively in the foundation. i need to recuse myself from this item. >> motion to recuse. >> second. >> on that motion, commissioner wright. >> yes. >> commissioner nageswaran. >> yes. >> commissioner black. >> yes. >> commissioner foley. >> yes. >> commissioner johns. >> yes. >> commissioner so. >> yes. >> commissioner. >> yes. >> i will log off.

commissioner matsuda, there is no need to come back since this is the last item. i will remind you you need to file with the ethics commission. >> i filed this morning. thank you. >> thank you. >> alex. the floor is yours. >> thank you. good afternoon, commissioners. can you see my screen? >> yes. >> alex westoff planning department staff. the item before you is community sponsored land mark nomination for 200 rhode island street also known as the trading company. it was prepared by architectural resources and the property owner supports the nomination. the light industrial property is located within a flat triangular

parcel within the south of market neighborhood -- market neighborhood. the triangular parcel is bounded by 15th street to the north, road island to the east and former railroad line to the southwest. the subject property includes original building with three later additions all connected. the five story brick building was designed by the architect g albert landberg. later additions by ownerships including the steel frame shed to the south. two sorry concrete warehouse and office building and three story brick buildingen casing the loading dock. in 1965, the subject property was purchased by japanese

american entrepreneurs and philanthropists. following displacement from japan town due to redevelopment. the property served as headquarters for the takahashi trading company for products from japan. porcelain, pottery and folding screens for more for sale in san francisco on grand avenue and geary boulevard in gee ardeli square and saw soily to in new york city. the trading company has been credited with introducing japanese goods. in 1985 the takahashi along with the sister established the henry charitable foundation. head quartered at the subject

property. the foundation supported a variety of cultural organizations including the japanese wing of the san francisco museum, the museum in florida, documentary films on pbs. cherry blossom festival, stanford school, japanese cultural center of northern california. in 2010 they received the order of rising sun gold and silver award from japan for their contribution. department staff agree with the sponsor's assessment the property is significant under criteria one, two, three. one, association with japanese american post war settlement and san francisco redevelopment. two, significant for association

with the takahashi family as prominent japanese business people and three, it is an early example of the work of architect albert landberg and his warehouses. staff recommends adding the property. staff finding it closely meets two work plan priorities specifically it is located in a geographically underrepresented area as there are few other landmarks in the nearby vicinity south of market. the subject property has a strong cultural association. only two existing landmarks strongly associated with san francisco's japanese american community, specifically the japanese ywca women's building. if designated the subject property would be the third association with san francisco

japanese american community and first outside of japan town. i will pass it to erica shuttle for a -- for a presentation to answer any question. >> you have five minutes. >> mute one device. you have an echo. >> we can hear you but you need to mute one of your devices. you are coming in through two different devices. is this your phone number 415602. >> yes. i unmuted your computer then. >> okay. >> good afternoon, commissioners, erica shuts with architectural resources group.

the property sponsor could not be here today. i will present an overview. the property was first developed in 1912. the company commissioned albert land bury for the five-story building on the northwest corner of the property. it was a warehouse with offices and showroom. he was an architect in public and private buildings. the warehouse is early project distinctive within his overall body of work. there are sharp concorners and details. it represents the early work of the master architect.

next page. in 1965, henry purchased the property at 200 rhode island for offices for the trading company and charitable foundation. she and her sister were born and raised in san francisco. japanese festivals and events and graduated from the university of california in berkeley in 1937. 1941 she married henry and followed him to california with his family. he attended moda college he on o pamoda college and settled in san francisco. shortly after married they along with 120 japanese americans were in internment camps. it was the relocation center

in utah. two children were born. upon being released they moved back to san francisco. in 1947 they purchased the building in japan town and opened the takahashi company. following the war. the company expanded importing japanese goods and dishes. they elevated the status of japanese goods and helped americans develop appreciation for the goods. after the building was demolished they moved retail business to jackson square and new york. at the height of the business

the trading company retail and wholesale goods across the united states. they also received elegantly designed housewares in 1945 seen on the left. several trading company items were included in the exhibition in new york. the warehouse property was purchased in 1965 for corporate headquarters. they added the office building in 1968. seen here in the middle. three sorry brick warehouse and office building in 1976. they added signs to the building takahashi to signify their success.

the sister joined the business and handled the finances. there by contributing to the success of the company. she later helped establish the charitable foundation for the culture in san francisco. 200 allen street it was the commitment to support the japanese community. the subject integrity given the long-term stewardship from 1965 do 2019, the brick building is unaltered exempt for the windows. in 1968-1976 they have not been significantly altered. video tails and the signage. that concludes my presentation. i am happy to answer any questions. thank you. >> great. thank you. members of the public. this is your opportunity to address the commission on this

item. press star 3. no members of the public requesting to speak, public comment on this matter is closed. it is now before you. >> thank you. president matsuda is not here. i would like to say, first off, that family and what they have done is truly amazing. in the 1960s what redevelopment did in the japan town answer western addition was tragic. i make a motion to approve. >> second. >> for clarity we are the motion is to add it to the landmark designation program. >> commissioner wright. >> yes. >> nageswaran.

>> yes. >> commissioner black. >> yes. >> commissioner foley. >> why he. >> commissioner johns. >> yes. >> and commissioner so. >> yes. >> so moved that motion passes unanimously 6-0. that concludes your brief hearing today. enjoy the rest of your afternoon. >> welcome back. >> thank you. >> good-bye everybody. >> thank you.

welcome to the w challenge. we will be here to celebrate women's equality day today. so, are you ready to celebrate! awesome energy and the sun is bright today. so now i will talk to my m.c. for today and also one of the cofounders of "the w challenge." san francisco administrate carmen choo. >> hello, the sun is shining in san francisco. happy women's equality day. for folks who may not know, in 1971, women's equality was established by congress in order to commemorate the

passage of the 19th amendment which really provided for the beginning of the women's ability to vote. now, last year, we celebrated the 100-year anniversary of this time period, however, it was covid-19. there were many changes in our life. how we did work. how we interacted with each other. but, what we did see during the pandemic was an incredibly difficult time. it was a difficult time for many of our workers and many of our most vulnerable, our seniors and we also saw that it was a time which really exposed and laid bear some of the inequities that we face as women. women we saw had greater levels of unemployment during this covid-19 time. greater economic instability, and often being many times the

primary care gives of also having to make some of the most difficult trade off decisions or going out to work. it was especially during this time we see how important it is to not only make sure we recognize women's equality day, but also to continue to support efforts like this "the w challenge" that really seeks to uplift the voices of women. we know that when women vote, when women participate, things can change. [ applause ] >> so today, we have come together in a call to action. many people may not know, september 14th is an election

our challenge to all of you is to go out and vote. that deciding the future of your city, your community let's make sure we also get the people around us to get up, to step up and vote. today, we have a number of speakers who are here, who are just amazing leaders in their own right. i'm going to be recognizing a number of people that have joined us today. one of the most amazing leaders we've gotten today is our very own speaker, nancy pelosi. she needs -- she truly needs no introduction, but if you indulge me. i remember when she first became speaker, we saw the newspaper articles and it said "madam speaker" plastered on top of it and i can remember thinking wow, things are going to change.