Transcripts For SFGTV Historic Preservation Commission 20240701

phone. when you are connected and would like to submit public comment for any agenda items, press star then three to be added to the queue. each speaker will be allowed up to three minutes. when your allotted time is reached, i will announce your time is up and take the next caller. best practices are to call from a quiet location. i'd like to take roll at this time. >> (roll call). >> first on your agenda is public comment. with respect to agenda items, the opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. you may address the commission for up to three minutes. members of the public this is your opportunity to call into the 415 area code access number. stress star and three to raise your hand to speak. i do see a number of hands. i'll call on the first caller. you are unmuted caller. you have three minutes. >> good afternoon, commissioners. >> i'm am likewise waiting to make comment on item 11. >> good afternoon. just to let you know on channel 78 is the building commission on watch it's not there. could you please tell the government channels that we can see this hearing. >> they have a lettered u alerte building commission is running late. this can be viewed on channel 26 or 78. they just put you on 26. >> okay. commissioners seeing no other general public comment, we can close general public comment and move on to department matters, item one director's announcements. do we have any director announcements. i don't see-director-we will move on commissioners to item two. past events of the commission staff report. i'll only report that the planning commission has held about 18 remote hearings and that they are currently on their summer hiatus and will resume next week on august 27th. if there are no questions we can move onto commission matters. item three president's report and announcements. >> thank you. i believe he was intending to be in the hearing today. i know the commissioner's have been notified. i was hoping he could speak a little. he will be leaving the planning department, i believe this week is his last week in the office. i just wanted to thank him for his service. he has been with us for eight years. he has done an amazing job. two of them are design elements as well as the-guidelines. and residential guidelines. he significantly improved the community out reach and engagement with our design community. it was very much appreciated by the design community. for our commission he has advocated for the city wide survey. that is now moving forward. we very much appreciate that. more importantly, he is really supported us in our cultural heritage programs. we thank him for that and wish him all the best. if he does end up showing up, i believe he'll have some things to say. >> he actually just joined us from another meeting. we might give him the opportunity to speak. apparently his video is not working. jeff, are you with us? >> can you call him in as a panelist from the attendee list, please. >> oh, i see. you should have full access now. >> thank you. can you hear me now? >> yes. >> thank you so much commissioners. i will tea take a minute if thas all right. no need to start a three minute timer. it will just be a mifn. minute. i'm truly grateful for my time here. the opportunity to support san francisco preservation efforts was the primary reason for relocating here three years ago. the offer was great but it was conversations with some of your predecessors-it consists of six planners and one manager entirely embedded in planning. their work now is the entirety of the staffing and the department. expectations for the preservation staff are higher than today. as a result of the commission to form advocacy. the commission has never had more five skilled commissioners. new best practices, elevated preservations, contributions not just here but across the country and beyond. as one example this was never more apparent than when they hosted the national press conference here. various members of our preservation here. that focus on cultural and tangible resources largely inspired by our pioneering work here is unprecedented in such times. it meaningfully changed the inclusivity. i'm proud to have helped in some small way towards these efforts. i wish you all well. thank you. >> thank you, jeff. it was a pleasure working with you. if there's no further comment from the president, i do see a member of the public requesting to speak. let me take that caller now. i'm going to guess they want to speak to a different item but-caller you have three minutes if you want to speak to the president's report. >> i'm sorry. i don't know when to press to speak for item eleven. >> you need to wait until i call item eleven. that's when do you that. >> commissioners that will place us on item four. we do need to amend those minutes. we inadvertently left out comments from kate howard on item nine for the standard environmental requirements for support of that continuance. that mat per is now before you and we should take public comment for the minutes. members of the public at this time. it's your opportunity to press star three for comments on the draft minutes. >> i see no request it speak. commissioners the matter is now before you. >> commissioners, any comments or perhaps a motion? >> motion. >> second. >> adopt the minutes as have been amended. (roll call). >> i'll start out, i have a disclosure i'll repeat for item 11 and 12, i believe. i have a tangential relationship with u c sf. not creating any conflict of interest for either of these two agenda items. i just need to let that be known. secondly for staff, i wanted to for the record request that we add the golden gate library landmark project to our work program. i don't know if staff can speak to it a little bit more in a general sense how it might be pulled into our program and the overall run down. if you're able to give us a brief update. >> hi. can you hear me? >> we can. >> related to the golden gate valley landmark. they have currently indicated that due to operational challenges with covid they need a little more time to get up to speed. the library several years ago, they are fixing the city, six have been landmarked. this one is not after some retro mitting sm the department is absolutely aware of this and also received a copy of a draft prepared by members of the public. this is on our radar. we think in a few months the library will have some basic certification on this. as far as the landmark works program, this is something that in the past has been analyzing and reviewing. we've had some staff capacity due to some community landmar landmark-if staff had been okay payed with task at hand. it's something we're regrouping on just last week. we're needing to come to identify some priorities. we're doing a little bit of back ground research. taking a look at the lands of racial and social equity work plan. that is something that i'll have a better idea of timing next week. it's not at the next space you'll-i can get an update on that plan when we plan to return. >> thank you. very helpful. any other comments or disclosures from the commissioners. i don't see any. i guess we can move on. >> we'll place this under consideration for continuance. >> we should take public comment for items proposed for continuance. enter the access code requesting to speak. p i see no requests to speak. the item is before you. >> do we have a second? >> second. the motion to continue item six. commissioner block. >> yes. >> (roll call). >> thank you commissioners on that motion to approve item seven under consent calendar. >> (roll call). >> thank you commissioners. that motion passes unanimously seven to zero. that places us on item 7a through f. 2020-006871lbr. for properties at 1663 mission street suite 225. these are all legacy business registry. staff are you prepared to make your presentation? >> i'm going to give a brief statement before katie begins. >> is katie with us? >> yes. >> i want to take a brief minute to inform you of department staff changes for applications. the primary preservation staffer here. i'd like to speak about her work over these years. she will continue as a policy person. she shifted the effort, katie will be presenting the examinations today to examination planner and coordinator for planning in collaboration with me. additional staff will be engaged. in future hearing, you will likely see katie alongside additional staff sharing these exciting nominations with you. thank you for your time. i'll let katie take over now. >> good afternoon. presenting six legacy business cases with you today. i'll allow time for the business owners to speak on their behalf. legal assistance to the elderly. a not for profit. the organization was informally established to meet and offer legal council in the jewish community center in the late 1970's. they relocated seven times but never ceased operations. lae's multi lingual and cultural staff served 1500 most vulnerable populations. staff is very supportive of the application and recommending the following two intangible features be preserved. provide compassion neat and free legal services and training and informational programs for community groups sm the next legacy business is medicine koorption. sf natural medicine. founded by the current owner drd for alternative medicinal practices. recommends the business safeguard the welcoming environment and education and training offered at the businesses location. the third legacy business is annies hot dogs and snacks. the original and current owner founded her first hot dog stand in the ferry building after relocating to san francisco with her then two year old son. when she opened a coffee cart and hot dog stand the decision was made to rebrand and more accurately represent the company as a local business. though the business was rebranded and many cart locations across the city, it's never ceased operations. today she has a com come kitche. she has been featured in several publications. served san francisco supplying walk up snacks. she is dedicated to maintaining the historical tradition of the business which staff supports. quick on the go-the original recipe created by catherine and her son david. next is the house of very quickly took off and it was soon famous for food and fast service. they began serving customers what he thought was best. reviewing a menu and ordering themselves. it has not slowed down at all during their operations. to accommodate demand they add logos it's iconic red white and back tile. they've been featured in many books and destinations. in 2007 they opened a new restaurant venture. it is within a category a resource building in a china town community business zoning district. collectively we recommend the following be preserved. the cuisine and red framed windows. the department supports the resolution to the business registry. the fifth business application is for jhw lock smith. a forty two year old lock smith business. staffed by his immediate family. it's a staple across the city and routinel routinely referrede not been able to do much marketing or evep event attenda. in addition to regular lock smithing needs. they also have a collection of 1880's era old that are no longer manufactured. it has remained open for i the entire forty three years of business. the department is very supportive of their business. our last legacy business application today is for the wok shop. located in china town. the original and current day owner cannin mrs. chan. the wok shop was originally located at grant avenue. various satellite locations across san francisco. including the deli and square. despite the various wok shop locations the business maintained a store front and strong presence within the nain neighborhood. the business is famous for it's extensive collection of chinese cook wear most noticeably the woks hanging in the kitchen. wok wednesday social media posts p. to reach and teach broader audiences. it's a staple for local cooks and tourists alike. it supports a resolution. this concludes my staff presentation. i'm available for any questions. thank you. >> thank you, katie. if there are no immediate questions from . >> we have helped people in every single corner of the city. we have a multi disciplinary approach. staff that has been there thirty five years or twenty five years that allows us to provide the highest quality of services. with that experience brings compassion and care. never has our work been more important than this covid time. our clients are isolated and scared. we are the only legal services organization that focuses solely on seniors. we believe it will help preserve our work in san francisco. thank you for your consideration. if anyone has any questions about legal assistance to the elderly i'm happy to answer them. thank you for your time. >> thank you. >> hello. >> sir, can you mute your computer or television. >> thank you. is that better? >> much better. your time is running. >> i first want to say that i appreciate the ability to apply as a legacy business. i'm so glad to hear about all the other businesses as well. i just wanted to give a couple of insights of what it was like to set up my business in san francisco. my wife and i moved to san francisco in 1985 after i fini finished my residency. i was in a position where i needed to practice legally. i started here in san francisco but became a founder of natural pathic medicine s. the people trying to seek the medicine i was trained to provide-i was awarded license number two in the state. as part of the legacy process, we were asked, how do you serve your community. we realize we serve several communities. one is our neighborhood on the hill where my business is located. doctors were moving out of the hill to be near hospitals and things. we became a base on the hill to seek basic medical care. additionally another community is my natural pathic medical community. the act to get licenses in the state of california so we could legally treat up to-thank you. i hear my bell going off. >> you have thirty seconds. >> i just wanted to say that we have been active members of the community. my wife has served on the merchants association as treasurer for a number of years. we tried to continue our business and keep offering people integrated medical positions. >> thank you, sir. that is your time now. >> this is jeff. i'm calling on behalf of jhw lock smith. i wanted to eco what was said on behalf of john and his business there sm juf want to provide a couplthere. his business is that kind of entity of serving the neighborhood. poo>> commissioners that conclus all business. the matter is now before you. >> commissioner johns. did you want to go ahead and speak. you might be muted. >> this is a wonderful group of businesses. it features really great businesses. the work up is very very good. i move that they be approved. >> commissioner black. >> i agree. fabulous group. it was very touching to hear legal assistance to the elderly. during this time of covid. the historic preservationist, i love that jhw lock smith still deals with turn of the century lock keys. we would embrace that. i'm a proud owner of the giant heavy carbon steel lock that my late mother bought in the 1970's. it's just great. i just wanted to give them a shout out. i second the motion. >> great thank you. commissioner pearlman. >> i want to echo what the commission err's just said. a big shout out to annies hot dogs. i've been there many many times. i want to identify and shout out to, i love that it's called honk. the house of man king. it sounds like a strange acronym for it. i've waited in line there many times. excellent food when i used to work in north beach. all of these businesses are excellent and represent the cross section of who we are as san francisco franciscans and the type of businesses we need to continue to honor. thank you everybody. >> thank you. i also just want to congratulate all the businesses. these are all fantastic small businesses. they contribute to the community in great ways. if we create a blog to our commission. if we do visit these places and we have individually and together. we can write about them and let everybody know how great they are. at this time when small businesses are so fragile i want to do whatever we can to support them. if we can do that and share our personal findings with commissioners and other people in the city. it would be a great way to promote the business legacy in general. >> we can get some direction from the city attorney's office. i'm not sure how much a blog would be necessary. we can add a page to our commission website. seeing no other commissioners wishing to speak. if you would be so kind. one of the public commenters is having technical difficulties. if we could have staff read her comments into the record. >> sure. i do have some comments. staff if you would want to read the comments. >> i'm going to read verbatim what she sent me. i'm hee here today to speak on behalf of my parents. [indiscernible]. i spent very little time out side of the restaurant with my parents as a kid. we've spent more time in our lives in this tiny family restaurant than anywhere else and continue to do so. it's much more than a restaurant. for my family-for some it's waiting in that infamously long line where you can indulge on pt sweet potatoes. it's a meeting place and a place where you can rub shoulders or engage with a tourist. house of man king is a slice of history for china town. it's an accumulation for people all across the world. so much so it was collected to be featured in a major hollywood movie this year. i believe that as much as it would feel different to see house of man king missing from san francisco. i'm fully committed to keeping house of man king on the map for years to come. help us with our goal as recognizing us as a legacy business to keep it here for generations to come. thank you for allowing me to read their public testimony. >> thank you, katie. i do have a couple comments. thank you katie, welcome to our legacy business protbram. program.i want to recognize-he n completely consumed in the emergency response. once he was given the green light he has moved six. i think all six are the cross section of why our city is so great. being a business that keam from new york i-congratulationsand we hard work. i think if there's no other public comment. we have a motion and have to take roll call vote. >> we have a motion that has been seconded. to a dropt recommendations of approval for all the legacy business applications. on that motion-(roll call). >> so moved. that motion passes unanimously seven to zero. that takes us to item seven 9a. we commissioners are forced to continue item 9b as there was a dr filed against the project. that variance will be heard before the planning commission by the zoning administer when that is scheduled. so commissioners 9b will be continued indefinitely which leaves 9a for your consideration. this is a certificate of appropriateness. staff are you prepared to present? >> yes. good afternoon. planning department staff. the application before you is a request for certificate of appropriateness. a contributor of the dog patch landmark district. located within an rh3 zoning district. it's improved with a three story rez den sharesidential building. most original fabric and windows. removed and covered with ass best ohasbestos p. restoring tht facade of the building during permitted exploratory-at the rear of the building an existing wood exit share would be reconstructed and a ground floor open air will be in build. an extended pair pedestria meta. a roof deck with a metal guard rail. it is set back thirty feet from the front facade. since the staff report was published. the staff has received two letters of support. first, that prior to issuance of the adenda, the project sponsor shall provide cut sheets for the proposed new windows, entry doors and metal railings for review and approval by department preservation staff. staff request to modify the second condition that currently appears in the draft motion in light of the recent filing of the request for discretionary review so that department staff may have the discussion to review and approve minor alterations to the project, which may occur as a result of the discretionary review hearing. the second condition of approval has been modified to read as follows: as part of the future review of the building permit by the department of building inspection or other city agencies, any required refinements to the project may be reviewed and approved by department preservation staff, particularly if these refinements are required to address building or life safety requirements, or if adjustments to the rear stair and or deck are necessary following the discretionary review hearing. if approved today, staff will modify the second condition of approval prior to publication of the final motion. this concludes my presentation. the project sponsor is also in attendance and will make a short presentation, and both the sponsor and myself are happy to answer any questions you may have. thank you. >> there we go. >> sorry, i was on mute. if that concludes the staff presentation, project sponsor, are you prepared to make your presentation? you may need to unmute yourself by pressing star 6. project sponsor, are you with us? project sponsor, are you with us? monica, i don't know if you see or can identify the sponsors. what's the name of the sponsor? monica? monica, you're on mute. we'll unmute you, monica. >> thank you. i couldn't get out of mute from presentation mode. i appreciate that. the sponsor is hail shatara. he should be on the line. i spoke with him earlier. obviously, jonas, up to you, but it may be appropriate to move to public comment and give him some time to join. >> well, i just got a message saying that he's muted, but i don't even see him. he should have been given access as a participant -- no, as an attendee. hold on, let me see if i can't find him. oh, i see him there. okay. sahil, you're unmuted. >> hello, commissioners. >> your slides are up. you can continue with your presentation. >> [indiscernible]. >> we can. you may want to mute your computer so we don't get the re-verb echo. >> hello, commissioners. sahil shatara, i'm on the project [indiscernible] this is a project that's been in this repair for some time -- in disrepair for some time. it had a pitched gable roof in the beginning. that's the whole slide from i think the '30s or '40s, and it suffered a fire and the gabled roof was taken off. an addition was done in the rear. we can't seem to find permits for it, and the addition was part of the original. now it's been there for more than i think 30, 40 years. it might have been built at the same time the fire occurred. the current building is settled on the south side, the right side, and we had gotten a permit to do some re-model work, and then after understanding the building had some deficiencies with permitting, we decided to do a little bit more extensive work there at the rear to repair the structure since it was so badly in disrepair. and so all the front facade is -- besides maybe the windows, the original facade has been covered over be asbestos shingles and trim. you can see the stairs are basically coming apart. our intention is to restore the building as much as possible, give the facade a new character, depict the original character of the building, facade and the neighborhood. we're trying to take advantage of [indiscernible] turning that into a deck at the third level, and we are putting, again, a rooftop deck for the upper unit since that will act as outdoor space to some degree, and the lower unit can have the benefit of the yard for their space. the upper unit is two storeys, and the lower unit is a ground floor unit. it did expand below the existing inhabitable space at the rear, which is unpermited condition, but since it's there, we decided to infill that area that's always in shadow and expand the living space to get more light and a better connection to the rear yard. this is a space underneath an addition in the back, and if you look at the site plan, you can see where the setbacks are in respect to the adjacent neighbor to the south and also the extent of our project. so if we're looking at -- this is a little greater than the 12-foot encroachment that's allowed, but it also extends to the third storey. that's basically my presentation. if you have any questions, please ask. thank you. >> great, thank you, project sponsor. if that concludes the sponsor's presentation, we should open this up for public comment. however, i see no requests to speak from members of the public. members of the public, if you do wish to submit your public comment or testimony on this matter, please hit* 3 in order to enter the queue. commissioners, the matter is now before you. if any member of the public does make that request, i will let you know. >> great, thank you, jonas. commissioners, any comments or a motion? commissioner pearlman? >> yeah, thanks very much. i'm sorry that mr. shatara did not show the drawings of the proposed. all we got to enjoy were the sad state of the existing house. i think overall this is a very good job. i know the site quite well. i have walked by that house many, many times, and having something that is consistent with the dogpatch historical district would be well appreciated. i did want to ask about the false historicism issue on standard three, because what i didn't realize was that -- and i didn't see it in the presentation -- i mean, in the packet, was that there is a photograph of the house prior the fire, and it is a typical form with the gable roof. it's a very typical form in that district, so the whole notion of, you know, doing the italian aid cornice actually is just making it a very different building. i mean, while i like it and i think the architect has done an excellent job in terms of its detailing, and overall i think it's a -- you know, it will be an extremely handsome building, but i just want to get some idea from the staff about, you know, why you thought this was the right approach. >> thank you, commissioner pearlman. excellent point. we did think about that quite a bit with this project. ultimately that felt that because the property had been adopted as a contributor in its current condition, which is heavily altered, it doesn't appear that anything remaining on the facade is original or even could be called historic at this point. we felt that this was a very unique situation where a simpler restoration that was based on adjacent properties as well as some physical evidence found under the existing asbestos shingle siting would be appropriate, and we also felt that because the approach was very modest and mannered, there would leave open the possibility to do a full kind of true restoration in the future based on the photo that was shown earlier. so that's kind of what our rationale was here. the point is well taken that there is a fine line between a good restoration project and false historicism, but again, because of the adoption of this building in its current condition as a contributor to the landmark district, we saw that as appropriate in this case. >> okay. yeah, i just wonder about, you know, the level of detail that's in that cornice is so authentic that i do have a little bit -- again, i think it's a very fine project, and you know, i'm ready to support it, but the idea that something would happen in the future to bring it back to the past condition probably is not ever, ever, ever going to happen once this project is undertaken because 20, 30, 40, 50 years from now this building looks like, you know, of the time of construction rather than 2020, 2021. so you know, i don't -- i'm just -- i wonder if any other commissioners have some thoughts about this. >> i just have a question for you, commissioner pearlman. are you suggesting that it's a different detailing approach than the original and that's why it may be more -- it's a false position and we may have more information to provide a more accurate representation? >> yeah, i think -- yes, exactly. i mean, it's not that there never was an italianate cornice with a flat roof like this. what we see in the historic photograph is that it had a gable, so it is radically different from what its original was, and i understand that it was approved -- i mean, it was approved as part of the dogpatch legislation for the historic district with a flat roof, so you know, in that sense you could say, well, you know, it is of this form at the time of it becoming a historic district in contributing to the district. so it is completely different. >> i get it. >> -- historicism at issue here. >> right, and may potentially end up losing floor area on that upper level if they go to a gable. >> no, i don't think so. i think it would just eliminate the roof deck. because it looks like the gable was above the upper floor, not encroaching into the upper floor. >> interesting. >> i'm okay with it. i would support it -- i didn't catch that nuance. >> well, i didn't know either until i saw this photograph in the presentation, because i didn't see that photograph in our packet material. >> commissioner black, did you want to make your comment? >> yeah, i was taken by surprise as well when i saw that black and white photograph, and it actually kind of makes sense. there was something funny about the [indiscernible] projection above the front door, and that just didn't seem right with a flat roof, and that explains why it's there. i think i'm okay with -- it certainly looks so much better, the proposed drawings look so much better than the structure now. i'm sorry that they are not doing the gabled, but i think i'm okay with the plans as they are proposed. >> sorry, commissioner so? aur on -- you're on mute. >> thank you for the clarification. it's a pretty tricky one, right, to kind of look at the [indiscernible] of the project sponsor and it just -- some a aerial photos and some pictures. i'm looking at the exhibit that's supported here on the material, and it does look [indiscernible] of the architecture, and i am not against it, and i wonder what is the design logic to take on to choose this particular style versus all the other styles that we have in san francisco. and i notice that in the staff report it mentions [indiscernible] features that were in the district, and i wonder if you or anyone had any images of that kind of to help myself to connect the dots between understanding better on the rationale of what style. because we're making history, i would assume right now. it is 2020. on this house. and once we do that, that becomes historical, so i want to make sure we do feel comfortable with this because i do agree with fellow commissioner pearlman and commissioner hyland that once it's done, it isn't exactly really historical anymore. lake it's pretty much a new take on it's the restoration. so yeah, i would like to know [indiscernible] this is a radical approach, right? it's a gabled roof [indiscernibl [indiscernible]. haven't even seen the material and color palette. that will be the next category of discussion. [indiscernibl [indiscernible]. >> my question is the concern on the form, and because they've not gone back to the gable there now introducing an italian detail on there that wouldn't otherwise be there, i mean, we wouldn't ask them to change the form, would we? >> no, i think that it's just the difference between -- and i know there are other homes in that -- on that street that have this particular form. there is a pre-dominance, i think, of gable-roofed buildings in the dogpatch historical, particularly over on tennessee, just behind it. i note that to the north side of that school there's a whole -- you know, there's rows of houses that do have the gable form. so it's that we are creating something that, as commissioner so says, it is a 2020 version of a historical building in the dogpatch historical district. so i think that is the only concern, because i think as everyone i think degrees that, you know, this is -- agrees that, you know, this is very well done, architecturally it's very well done. so it's just how we, you know, address standard three and say we're okay with that. i think that's the issue at hand. >> monica, would you like to comment? >> yes, i just wanted to kind of speak a little bit more from staff's perspective. to commissioner hyland's point, the building that we're looking at currently has a flat roof, and ultimately we felt that something that would unify the design was a terminating element at the roof line. i would like to remind you that we've revised the second condition to allow for some adjustments post-approval, so if there is a sense that maybe the elements of the cornice are a little bit too historicist, we do have an opportunity to pull that back a little bit in sort of consequent review, so i wanted to mention that. of course assuming that you all approve of that condition today. then i wanted to address commissioner so's comment. there is's a mix of the buildings up and down minnesota street. minnesota street also has an interesting context with the schoolyard next to it. it's actually quite diverse, and there are also industrial uses at the end of the block. so true to the rest of dogpatch, it is a very interesting landscape of forms and typologies. i think that staff felt as though adding the italian cornice would terminate the facade without dramatically altering the building typology and the roof form, which the only evidence that we have that we know of is that photograph. so an accurate restoration would have required a lot of conjecture as well. points are all well taken, but i wanted to provide some context and remind you that we have the ability to make some adjustments following today's hearing. >> i would add that i think the whole conversation around false historicism and whether or not you're able to tell the history of the evolution of the design and how that gets represented, i personally think flirting with the existing form, and if we're not taking it back, then the next question becomes how do you detail the building, and if we're detailing a new structure and trying to make it look like it was built, you know, 100 years ago, that's creating a folly, and certainly crosses the line and something we wouldn't want to do, and we've had cases like that before. i don't think this one does that. i think it's a nuanced discussion, and i think they've done a good job at what they've done, so i'm willing to support it as it's designed. commissioner pearlman? >> yeah, thank you. those two explanations, both from commissioner hyland and the staff member give me a little more comfort in the nuances of this conversation. i know this is an extremely hard thing to do as an architect. i've been challenged by, you know, having a planner say, hey, could you take that corner and maybe add some modern elements into it to make it, you know, clearly be of a different time frame? i know -- you know, and that kind of makes, you know, a sort of a bastard child between something that looks very authentic and then at the same time it's like, oh, look at that, oh, instead of a wood bracket it's got a cut steel bracket. oh, that couldn't have been done at that time. so you know, i don't think we need to go there, and i'm fully on board with supporting this as designed based on the conversation. >> so i would move to approve with conditions as modified by staff. >> mr. jones, did you want to comment? >> i wanted to make that motion, but now i'll do the second. >> very good, commissioners. if there's nothing further, there's a motion that's been seconded to approve this matter. >> it looks like commissioner so might want to have another comment. >> yes, a very quick comment, sorry. i'm for this project, and i think the staff and project sponsor worked really well together to come up with the proposed scenario. i would like to give monica and the staff the authority to follow through on the detailed choice on material and color so [indiscernible] successful. a good example for that dogpatch neighborhood, i understand is a very diverse neighborhood, but it's also very, very nice. thank you for the good work and i'm supportive of this. >> i would just ask does our condition two cover [indiscernibl [indiscernible]. >> yeah, thank you, commissioner so, for your words. we re-wrote that condition with the discretionary review that is impending in mind because the person who filed discretionary review was concerned about the existing non-complying rear stair. so while it does focus very specifically on those scopes, i think we tried to write it in such a way that we would also have the ability to look at other aspects of the building that need to be refined, for whatever reason. certainly if we are editing the language, we can edit it further than what was presented today if you feel there should be a little more latitude, but i think that as it's written we can probably make those refinements as necessary. i would welcome -- if he thinks we should change it any further. i think we do kind of have some preem with the way that it's written now -- freedom with the way that it's written now. >> i think we're good to go then. i would agree with you, monica. >> very good, commissioners. on that motion to approve this matter with conditions as have been amended by staff, on that motion, xhairgs black -- [roll call]. so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 7-0 and places us on item 10 for case no. 2019-021832coa, 300 bartlett street, also known as 3359, 24 street. [indiscernible] certificate of appropriateness. staff, are you prepared to make your presentation? >> yes, i am. >> the floor is yours. >> [indiscernible] good afternoon, commissioners. the application before you today is a request for a certificate of appropriateness for interior and exterior alterations on a two-storey over basement addition to the building located at 300 bartlett street, also known as munition branch library. one of the carnegie libraries, is city landmark no. 234, designated in 2002 for its association as a carnegie grant-funded project and for its architecture. the two storey public library constructed 1905 and designed in a [indiscernible] architectural styles and features a tiled roof, overhanging [indiscernible] roof, terra cotta applied features and is clad in terra cotta. the building underwent a number of interior alterations that resulted in the loss of the original stair and addition to the south side and other treatments. the current scope of work includes the following. restoration of the historic 24th street entrance, interior alterations to remove and modify much of the [indiscernible] in the '90s. re-introduction of the -- introduction of a new central stairway in the historic location. addition of landscaping and streetscaping on bartlett street, which include fronting and benches and landscape planters. and a two-storey l-shaped addition over the south and west side. the project was reviewed by the architectural review committee on march 18, 2020. the sponsor has addressed most of the comments provided by the arc, however, arc's comments related to bartlett street, specifically the height of the fence, and the new stair, materials and relationship to what the historic stair looked like were not fully addressed. this is outlined on page 3 of the report. some say that the proposed work is generally in conformance with the requirements of article 10 and the secretary of engineer standards and recommends approval of the certificate of appropriateness subject to the following conditions. first, that prior to the issuance of the building of site permits, the sponsor shall revise -- bartlett street comments provided by the a.r.c. prior to the issuance of the building site permit, the project sponsor shall work closely with staff on [indiscernible] that is the subject of the historic stairs based on documentation and in keeping with common [indiscernible] a.r.c. >> are you prepared to make your presentation? >> sorry. i want to share my screen with your power point presentation. >> you'll have five minutes. i'll let you know when your presentation is up. >> can everybody see this? >> unfortunately, we can't, stephanie. >> okay. >> if there are members of the public who are interest logos #-ed inspeaking on this matter s star three. thank you, stephanie. the slides are up. >> i'm an architect with the department of public works. we've had had five approvals to date. specific design review concepts through phase three. a review committee back in april. we have a lot of slides. i'm going to go fast. this is the original building exterior. a site entry to the left. next slide. the original reading room is shown here. that's the main stair that was demolishedemolished. showing architectural elements for the main stair and main entrance. this is the 1997 floorplan that shows the loss of the features. buildings on bar bartlett. this is a diagram showing the relationship to the property line. five feet to the front. thirteen feet adjacent to the building. next slide. the landscape had to do with the height of the fence. we were asked to consider reducing the height of the fence overall simplifying the design of the landscape. this is an overall plan showing bartlett street. new plantings in front of the buildings with existing street trees. we did simplify the design quite a lot and refined the functions within the plaza. this is the existing site. this is a diagram showing how the outdoor space would be used and ajacency to the community room. next slide. city standard paver materials and pallet. plant pallet. a little more detail on the proposed entry space next to the community room. sorry to be going so fast. this is a section through that plaza. the proposed fence and relationship to the windows. we did make an effort to correlate the fence to the-we simplified the design of the fence using a braided steel bar. the detail of the exterior. the detail is aligned with the course of the building. it's really a requirement of our program for the library to be able to manage that space with unintended nighttime activity and also stroller parking. some security is necessary for the function of this space. if this were lower our client would opt to not do this plaza. next slide. this is an elevation view showing that relationship. next slide. this is a diagram showinglet plans of the building. ours is a very restore active program. doing a lot of improvements to the infrastructure of the building. stephanie can you skip ahead to some of the exterior views. this is the view from the community room looking through the building. okay. >> can i request more time. i'd like to see the exterior. that's the big part of this project. >> i was under the impression we had eight to ten minutes. >> through the chair, you have two more minutes. >> this is a view of the proposed main stair with risers and dimensional lots done of future wall. thp ithis is a view inside the proposed expansion. the west facade within the proposed space. this is a diagram showing how we worked on the building and facade to incorporate the building data and rhythm. stephanie, if you can get to the exterior view. this is a view of the landscape showing the fence relationship to the building. a simplified courtyard. this is a view looking down vale cia street. an architectural concrete space. this is a front view from fourth street. this is looking down orange alley. this was a presentation from ar c back in april or maybe march. i think it was april. the next slides were connection details which were some of the questions in the ar c. thank you. >> okay. commissioners. that concludes the presentation. we should open up public comment. i have several from the public who are in queue. we will take the first caller and you will have three minutes. >> thank you for this opportunity to comment. i've lived immediately next door to the library for eighteen months. i want to call out that this is my first opportunity to comment on this project. before i even get started. i kindly request that the record is amended that no people from the community has made comment, which is clearly incorrect. i work solely out of my home on a full time business and will likely continue to do so for the foreseeable future. the end is uncertain that continues to go on. normal time i would be deeply disappointed by the poor communication. because of the pandemic it's my livelihood. the current plans include demolishing a wall that i can touch with my bare hands from inside of my own home. this is unacceptable. to me this suggests that i believe the project is-there is clearly insufficient reconsideration of the impact to quality of life in the current state of the pandemic and economy. second, i'm concerned that this project hasn't been thoughtfully conceived or planned beyond the borders of the library itself. for example, when i looked at the plans, was at first appreciate active there was an enclosed fence a little over six feet high. i was appreciate active to start with. i realized if you widen your view by just one foot just out side what the planning documents show. that six foot fence borders up a cement ledge. it's like someone designed a perfect stepping stone to get over the fence. areas much harder to get to that have regular encampments of the unhoused. for those reasons, i strongly suggest that the commission not rubber stamp this project. thank you. >> we'll take the next caller. >> half of our home shares a wall within this library. the other half is against a wall being propose dollars for rebuild. we received no out reach or communication whatsoever until mailings just last week. our newborn baby sleeps three feet from a wall being proposed to demolition. for the first three years of her life she will be exposed to the noise, air from demolishing a wall. my wife and i lost access to our places of businesses. we're not expecting to get them back in the foreseeable future. these are small spaces and we have to find ways to do our jobs in relative peace. we do not see that such impact has been properly considered. underground digging significant dmodemolition, noise pollutionsi don't know how you can have the necessary information at this time. please delay until the library or department of public works address our concerns. thank you. >> thank you. >> i appreciate the opportunity to comment on the plans for the mission branch library. i'm one of six owners in what is discussed in the packet of materials immediately next door to the library. our building is as close in someplaces as three or four feet. other places one foot. i was not aware of this project until an extremely noisily environmental activist took place. we were not aware of any construction until this last month. through a mailer regarding this hearing that arrived for some of us in the last week. i'm shocked that there's been no input from the community other than one e-mail. we still did not receive responses to a first round the questions. in theory too late to be included in the record. we have serious concerns about the quality of life issues and structural damage to our building. there had been no effort to fully explain structural impacts on our building. it includes demolishing an entire wall. i'm uncomfortable with this project moving full steam ahead given that it's a huge renovation in such a short timeframe they are after. pause this process and spend more time in planning and community engagement stage. at least until such discussions take place i'll be in opposition of this project taking place. thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon. i'm the city librarian for the san francisco public library. i'm calling in to express- >> excuse me-i'm going to interrupt. it sounds like you are for the project team. your opportunity to speak was during the project sponszor's ss presentation. you may want to call in to the architect in case the commissioners have any questions for you. we'll go to the next caller. >> hello. thank you for the opportunity to comment today. i also live in a residential building next door to the library. i also have an infant at home. i see the need for further consideration here. i would very much appreciate the opportunity to get more information and share concerns with regard to this project. covid 19 and the changes in our schedules during this time. it's important that we understand how this will be accommodated. i urge the commission to hold off absurd approval for now and wait until we've all had the opportunity to decline. >> commissioners that will conclude public comment. we have no additional callers. the matter is now before you. >> okay. thank you. did you want to speak or comment? >> this is rick principal prapper for historical preservation. i want to address some questions and concerns. the property located in a p zoning district, there's no other formal actions that the planning department needs to take beyond the certificate of appropriateness. most of the review that needs to occur is basically with pacific design and public works. the department's role on this project is to limit it just to the c of a and work that's before you today. anyone that has objections to the project, they have the ability to appeal appropriateness if it's- >> i'm also a neighbor of the library and opposed to the project. when you guys speak of the south facade that's the south of our building. we were not made aware of this project until last week. i have major concerns with regards to quality of life, structure, and safety. working from home. i also have an infant living in this building. this basically what's proposed considers an unliveable, unworkable solution for us. it creates a hardship moving forward. with regards to structural impacts none of our concerns have been addressed at this point. the structural integrity and foundation of our property-i waned to ensure it does not cross the alley which creates a problem for us to be able to come and go from our home. i'm concerned about chemicals and noise around renovation. having an infant in the building and two dogs that use the yard. please delay until further community involvement is taken into account. thank you so much for your time. >> thank you. commissioners, now the matter is before you. >> i do have a couple questions. either rich or public works. if you can enlighten our commission. the overall schedule. what is the start of construction that you are hoping to target? what has been the neighbor notification up until now? >> i was try to go get our client on the line as part of this-part of my presentation and not really able to do that since i'm speaking through web ex. we did do a lot of community out reach. i don't have the dates in front of me at the moment. i would love to hear from the city librarian. we had extensive numbers two different times of meetings we did. daytime meetings within the library. story time meetings. we did this a couple of times within the last couple of years. it was june when we had our last rowpped oround of meetings. we did do a lot of community out reach. the building elevations and proposed expansions. our schedule is we would like to be out to submit for building perm mitt in accept and good to bid shortly after we receive the permit. hopefully begin in late spring. that's our schedule. pr par >> just one other question specific to public comment. the existing addition. is any of the super structure remaining or is the entire structure coming down. >> it's coming down some of the old features aren't very good construction. i do have dates. we had three meetings in januar. march 2019. may and june 2018. we did at least six meetings at different times. >> okay. why don't we- >> i think you turned off your mic. >> my apologies i did the exact opposite. we'll go to commissioner comments. i have some but i'll hold them until the end. >> i did want to ask mrs. narrows if she-this is very concerning especially what we heard from public comment. >> i wanted to make one additional comment. per the noticing guidelines and the planning code. the project was adequately noticed. there was a mailing to the neighbors in the area. we did have, i bref i believe et posters posted up at the site. we've modified some of our noticing requirements. they were posted up at the site in time for the noticing. in terms of the mailing, i've heard of some issues with the postal sesh is pg delayed. in this instance we didn't receive mail ready notices until recently. for the purposes of posters, they were put up on time. >> there would have been the architectural review committee. >> we don't require notice for the ar c hearings. that's not a requirement under the planning code. >> what avenue do the neighbors have from here if we approve this, what is their path from here? >> there's a couple of different avenues for neabs sm assuming it fors througnotifications.the bod take into consideration an appeal. after that, i believe once the building permit gets submitted and reviewed-once all that plays out-i believe there's an opportunity for the building permit to then get appealed. >> for all those callers, i hope you just heard that. you have opportunities. also to explain, we are looking at the addition relative to historic buildings in san francisco. we typically are not the last authority body to approve something. this was actually a surprise to me. i did want to compli m the staff about the changes thacompliment. every one were addressed to make the conditions much more comfortable with the existing building. really compliment the line ups of window fills and alignments with existing, the west side with the addition. all of that has been real re successful sm i find this to be pp-i noticed the grills in the lower floor window have the element of the crossing bars with the diamond shape. i really appreciate that directly from the building you came up with something very modern. that actually is drawn from the building. i think the height at this point if the height is aligned with something on the building. the height of the fills of the next level windows or those level windows. obviously there's security issues and other issues. >> an appeal of a building permit which is available to the public. upon the issuance itself. given the level of concern hearing from the community, i probably advise that a lot of it sounds like it's construction and construction plan oriented. you know, one of the things the commissioners could encourage with the issuance of appropriateness would be to encourage community out reach with the surrounding neighbors and it's entirely appropriate and within the purview of the commission if they still wanted to state. just to make sure they review their construction plans since it's something that commonly does kur and i occur and is a cn within the city. it may help ameliorate the concerns that the community members are having with regards to noise and dust. all of those items are probably better under a permit appeal versus a appropriateness appeal. >> thank you. why don't we just have a conversation around process before we get further into some of the design responses. the reason i asked about the schedule was to help us as well as the neighbors to get an understanding of when or how far out this project will occur. no project is ever convenient for neighbors. it's kind of unfortunate but considering we're in a shelter in place environment there may be some latitude to work with public works and start it a little later. certainly that would be reasonable for that to occur. did any other commissioners want to comment on the neighbors at this point. >> i did see commissioner black requesting to speak earlier. >> thank you. i'll address the opportunity out reach component of this. i think there are several matters that can be looked at here. i really do understand the concerns about construction. having lived next to two projects under construction at two different locations. construction is awful. the noise-it's awful. having said that, it happens and if we were to prevent projects from being approved because of construction noise and complexities, nothing would happen anywhere. that's not a reasonable approach. it sounds like there was legal notice. obviously there's issues with the mailing service. these reported issues. i do think that mr.-comments about doing some community out reach that is oriented towards construction might be an option. there are ways of mitt dpaiting construction, stop and start hours. some people want this on weekends to get it over way and some people want their weekends. i was on the ar c. i have design comments that i'd like to enter later. >> we'll come back to those design comments. >> thank you sm i just wan to reiterat.i just want to reiterat commissioner black said. construction is never pleasant. we can't stop construction. it seems like from a tiny perspective we'll probably get this thing under construction q one or q two of nesm year sm my hope is-i understand the neighbors not liking construction next door. i don't think that's a reason that we have to stop what we're doing. thank you very much. >> can you hear me? okay great. i was sitting on the ar c to review this project. prayer to that i was in the arts commission which is the specific design vee view to review this project. we do fully aware of all the meeting notifications as being publicly announced in our city website. i think our staff rich and stephanie pointed out there's a lot of revenues to follow through to make sure-well there has been announcements but maybe perhaps something could follow through a little bit more. i think that i would like to encourage public to follow the information on what is the next proap jurisdiction that coulnexs comfortable and happy with what we all want to do to make the city a better environment for everybody at large. having a better library to allow more children to have more access to. and the community to have their function is an important factor. i, myself, am in the mission. i understand the quality of life. i understand we're in stressful times. bear with us. we're in our jurisdiction of what allows us to do is appropriateness for the structural defining features. it's mostly addressed a lot of our comments. it was really great. the librarian of our city is on call here. i agree with staff that we need to follow through with the dine progress on the bayer case. we should look at it with more detail. in general, i would support this project moving forward. i also like to bring up the fact that, like president high land mentioned, further the effort to facilitate community out reach and make sure that the stake holders that are impacting their life through construction their concerns come up with the appropriate plans with department of public works and also the lay brary to move this thing forward. it might come further down the road. we're going to have to be very patient with the library and the community. those are my comments. >> thank you. i do have some if the commissioners have said what they'd like to say. specific to the size and scale of the addition specifically at the property line. i believe the new addition is ifing to be pretty similar to the existing condition. i was there. as far as life and impact to the neighbors, it's going to be pretty much the same. it can be difficult to add an addition to them. since it's a stand alone building, having very narrow side yards on two sides, this creates for a very limited volume in order to add what i would have hoped to be a more appropriate addition and keeping with the form of the building. public works has responded to the ar c comments. i have a couple comments that maybe we didn't address in the ar c. i'll read through them and maybe department of public works we can have a dialogue around them. the doors are single. the original doors were pairs. i'm wondering if we could-i know the state billing code allows for-the building would be better suited if both those doors were pairs. they would have to operate together for ada access. you did a very good job on east addition-sorry. let me see here. the west addition you've done a very good job at detailing it in a very modern way that responds to the hes stori historic build. i'm wondering if there could be a little more attention detail to the window addition sm the two sides o?the two sides of thg don't look like the same building anymore. the last thing is on the corn is and the roof. we didn't give you enough time to go through all the detames of th -it's pretty stark and minimalist. we've all been in many beautiful libraries. you have this modern design interior. you feel like you've gone into a time warp. i don't know if there's an opportunity to provide more connection between the-it can be contemporary but a little more attention to the feeling. maybe how the feeling is could havered around that stair. >> par pa>> it's not the intent to do this where we're not doing community out reach. we all appreciate the concern of the neighbors. we've been receiving e-mails from them over last couple of days and trying to respond and give good responses. we will work with public works and our project management team to do the best job we possibly can to make this a good process for the neighbors. >> thank you. i see that commissioner black has some design comments. >> thank you. i want to agree with my fellow commissioners in particular commissioner pearlman. i believe the changes are improved from what we saw from the ar c. i thought about the fence long and hard. it was one of my biggest concerns last time. i actually think the height is okay. i went last time and went this time to the site. both times, it's pretty interesting from a homeless population tanned point. i can absolutely see support along that fence. one thing i wanted to talk about to my fellow commissioners. the new addition is covered with a much darker material than we saw at the ar c. i think it makes it more noticeable. one of the things i thought is good about this design is that it relatelates to the existing building but clearly different language. you know all is that in line. this color is so significantly different that i wanted to take a look at it and see if any of my fellow commissioners shared my concerns. i understand architect's desires to make-it's our job to make sure-can we get that shot back by chance? >> can you allow me to share my screen. >> there's also an image of the material itself. if we were meeting in person we would have the real material in front of you. >> there was a slide that show showed-yeah. you can see the difference between this and the proposed. >> it is indeed a little bit lighter in the ar c. >> i agree with you commissioner black. >> i also agree with commissioner black's observation. >> i think the lighter one is much better. >> yeah. >> this is andy from public works. we'll look at alternative materials for that. >> i think the question i have for stephanie. we're making a lot of comments. i think we need to figure out how to incorporate them into the motion and the condition. >> i do have one more comment. >> was that all you have commissioner black. >> yes. i like the changes. i was going to say the double doors were something that i brought up at the ar c but was told it wasn't possible to do it with double doors. if it is possible to do, i think it would be more charming than the original. >> i've done it before. i know it's possible. the building code allows it and i believe they still allow it. i agree about the-i wanted to talk about the stair a little bit. the addition. i'm sorry we didn't get the renderings in our package. at least i didn't. i couldn't find them. this is the first time i'm seeing them. the stair is interesting. unless we're recreating it from old photographs, the fact it's a modern insertion we don't have any views what it would be lake from the library interior. that's another way to see this space. i think that the fact that it's quite modern is appropriate because it's also consistent with when you see the inside of the addition. where it's starkly modern compared walking out of the reading room. this addition is clearly quite modern. you're meeting the stair to the fact that, you know it wasn't there before. certainly anybody who knows the library will see that there's this new stair here even though they won't know it was removed in the 90's. i agree with the starkness of the entry level. i think the stair is okay. i think that if there were when you walked in those front doors and if there were some trim or moldings. >> exactly. >> i think that would help. having the stair-i appreciate the cut stone. the lime stone on the west side of that stair, i think would be beautiful. all details are well and modern. it would fit in. you open up those hopefully two doors and you're in this very stark sterile kind of space. i wanted to really emphasize that that space right there. that entrance is critical to the whole building. >> if i could add onto exactly your point. i agree with you. i'm not suggesting we go and change the materialality at all. i think the modern material choices are fine. one addition might be the ceiling finish. i don't know if we're to that level of detail yet. how does that feeling terminate that opening of the stair above and that termination is what he think knees to have some relief. >> just raising a copper over the entry area for material for the ceiling plane would imply the structuralness of the thickness of that floor which would be appropriate. >> i think i understand those comments. we can go back and do more work in that area. >> okay. if i haven't missed anyone. stephanie, now we have to figure out how to figure out the comments. comments about the clr which we have pretty good consensus on. pairs of doors on the entrance . and the interior detailing that we just spoke about. did i miss anything? >> there would be the bartlett side addition. if we could do something about that window. >> i would like to add-i don't know if we can do that. i can add conditions of more working closely to panels through community out reach for the logistics of construction timing and pieces. >> okay. commissioners, if i'm understanding correctly i'm just going to repeat these so i have my notes clear. you want to see the color of the to look at the bartlett side and to have it relate better to the property at large. there's agreement and consensus to continue refining the interior stair and looking at the ceiling as being proposed to that area. outreach. but certainly that's items on design for the sponsor to continue working with staff on. so i think we've got it clear, commissioners, if anyone wishes to make a motion. >> so moved with the additional conditions. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners. seeing no further comments from commissioners, there's a motion that has been seconded to put this matter with conditions as has been amended to the design conditions to address the [indiscernible] exterior cladding to be lighter, that there not be wholesale removal of the [indiscernible] to look at to be [indiscernible] and for the [indiscernible] window 24 street separate systems for community outreach [indiscernible] on that motion . . . >> yes. [roll call]. so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 7-0. >> thank you. jonas, i just want to poll the commissioners. i know we don't want to be here longer than we need to, but do we need to take a five-minute break? or do people want to just power through? >> those of us with headphones can walk away by turning off their cameras. >> i have a hard stop at 3:25. >> okay, let's power through, then. >> okay. >> very good, then, commissioners. powering through will place us on item 11 for case number 2020-006641des, history of medicine in california frescos, 533parnassus avenue. this is for your recommendation to the board of supervisors for landmark designation. staff, are you prepared to present? >> yes, i am, thank you. give me the power. >> i will. >> thank you. >> i got to get used to doing all these things. okay, you have the ball. >> all right. >> your screen is up. >> okay, let me -- present slideshow, hopefully. okay, can you confirm that you are seeing a full slide and not the presentation view? >> i can, yes. >> okay. thank you. good afternoon, commissioners. before you is a request for a recommendation for landmark designation for the history of medicine in california frescos, created by artist bernard zack history of medicine in california and his assistance from 1936 to 1938. the frescos are located on the walls of toland hall auditorium and uc hall which is at 533 parnassus avenue on the university of california, san francisco parnassus heights campus. on june 23, 2020, supervisor peskinin introduced a resolution to initiate landmark designation for these frescos. both the land use committee and the full board of supervisors voted to approve this resolution which became effective july 31 with the mayor's signature. >> so i'm not sure if you accidentally hit mute, but you're no longer audible. >> okay, i did not hit anything, but i did try to page down. >> okay, we can hear you now. >> okay. there we go. the art work is xroefd of 10 pictorial panels and two descriptive panels on the wall. the frescos depict california medical history with diverse images of lab scientists and other medical professionals, as well as suffering and recovered patients. the details in the fact sheet provided by planning staff included in your packet, the history of medicine in california frescos are significant for their association with the history of the works project administrations federal art project and as the work of master artist and muralist. there is high historic values and the painted characteristics of mural artwork. the period of significance would be 1936 to 1938. bernard zackhiem was one of the leading artists in san francisco who has created murals under the auspices of the art program. he was born in warsaw in 1898. after serving in world war i and being imprisoned as a prisoner of war, he came to the united states where he found work and then opened a customer furniture shop in san francisco before being invited by the great artist to study fresco painting in mexico city. after studying he traveled briefly in europe to continue his art education. he returned to san francisco in the early 1930s. zakheim organized exhibitions of jewish artists and won a competition to create his first major fresco at the jewish community center on california avenue in 1933. this piece was later successfully removed and re-installed in the existing jewish community center building in 2004, when that was built. zakheim was also one of the artists who created the murals [indiscernible] which represented the first art deal project in the nation and he completed his piece entitled "library" in 1934. he was also credited with getting many of his fellow artists hired for federal art program projects as part of his involvement in organizing artists' collective unions in the period. also in 1934, zakheim created two frescos for the -- emergency hospital which is today's san francisco landmark no. 272, and those shown here are those are sort of features of that landmark. the work is entitled community spirit and growth. his last commissions were two oil on canvas murals for post office buildings in texas. the art center project attracted the attention of staff and administrators, two doctors. ucff and the works progress administration through the federal art project commissioned zakheim in 1935 to create two murals on their campus in cole hall, which has since been demolished. these murals were removed from the hall prior to its demolition in the late 1960s and relocated to another building on their campus. following on this project, zakheim was commissioned by the same group to brighten and enliven another hall described at the time as a dark area to create medical students on the history of their field. the history of medicine california frescos was the result. you'll note in several of these images i've identified the fresco panels by number. they don't have individual titles or panel numbers, but just for clarity, for this landmark designation, i have applied numbers, and those images and a key map are located in the packet. faculty and librarians assisted and help guide the artists, research and choice of subject matter for the frescos, phyllis -- at that time assistant and later his wife conducted much of the research for these frescos. history of medicine california depicts founders, scientists and educators [indiscernible] and revolutionary breakthroughs in medicine. artwork also respectfully included healing practices and knowledge of native people, including [indiscernible] medicinal plants. it acknowledges the skill and recognized expertise of african american midwives and slaves who is shown attending to a malaria patient, another medical practitioner in los angeles. frescos were created in a fresco buono, a method reaching back as far as the italian renaissance in which ground pigments are applied to fresh plaster and that makes the work an integral part of the plaster wall. the character-defining features of these frescos, which are listed in the fact sheet and draft ordinance, includes the structural support for each panel and the layers of plaster and pigment that form the artwork. in 1948, ucff covered the murals with wallpaper, and then they were uncovered in the 1960s and underwent conservation treatment by the artist's son who is in this image. and jennifer walker in the 1970s. and then bernard zakheim is also shown in this image on the left. he passed away in 1985. with the exception of several areas of damage from water infiltration, the frescos are currently in good condition and maintain integrity -- received three emails and one emailed letter in support of this landmark designation. designation of a history of medicine in california frescos meets one of the board preservation commissions four priorities for designation. property types are under-represented among the city's landmarks. the department believes that this artwork meets the established eligibility requirements and that landmark status is warranted. the department recommends that the commission approve the recommendation for landmark designation of the history of medicine in california frescos which will then be forwarded to the board of supervisors for further action. thank you, that completes my presentation, unless you have questions. i also have a presentation when it's time for the ucsf to speak, and they are on the line, and i would also like to thank sf heritage for allowing me to use sort of the bones of a presentation that they created. >> thank you, pillar. is the project sponsor prepared to make their presentation? you i unmuted your phone. is that what you wanted, mr. newman? >> can you hear me? >> we can hear you. >> okay. >> if you mute your computer, we won't get that echo. >> i just muted it, thanks. >> thank you. your presentation slides are up. is five minutes enough? >> okay. thank you, chair hyland, and members of the commission. my name is brian newman. i'm senior associate vice chancellor and vice-president at ucsf in charge of real estate. it's a pleasure to be here today to talk about the murals and this landmark designation. to be clear, we're officially neutral on the resolution, but i'm happy to provide some context and inform you of our current activities, as well as answer questions. so next slide. to provide context, i want just to describe the planning process that we have engaged in over the last two years related to the future of the parnassus campus, to parnassus is our historic home, and the planning effort, the comprehensive parnassus heights plan was really an attempt to re-envision the future of parnassus, to prepare for reinvestment and redevelopment. it's a constrained site, and all of that redevelopment occurs on the footprint of the current buildings, but it's a nice balance, we believe, between investment and current facilities and construction of new facilities over a 30-year period, and what you see in front of you is obviously not design. it's just showing you the future massing of future buildings as we implement the plan. next slide. there are many themes that came out of the plan, and i don't have time to really speak to them at length, but integrated opening space, opening accessible connections to mount suitro, revitalizing parnassus avenue as a true main street, creating a new front door on irving street, a welcoming entrance on irving street for people who are using transit. opening up the west side of the campus to housing and community amenities were all elements of the plan. it's not just about expanding our mission. it's about creating a place that people want to spend time and enjoy, and that's not -- that's something that is lacking today. next slide. so initially, this is an image, this is a 30-year plan. initially we're focusing on four what we call initial phase or initial sequence projects. number one is the replacement of uc hall with a new research and academic building. and that is current location of toland hall and the murals. two off the map is densifying aldea housing, which is a housing development that's part of ucsf property. three is the irving street arrival, creating a new entrance on irving street and bringing people up to the parnassus level in a much more welcoming and open and aesthetically pleasing well, and four is the new hospital, which has seismic issues. there's a 2030 deadline to continue to provide acute care at parnassus. next slide. i'm telling you all of this just to provide context at a very high level, of course, on why we're replacing uc hall, and it's part of a larger plan. uc hall was built in 1917 as our original hospital. and it is significantly deficient, not just seismically, which obviously is a concern, but also from just a functional obsolescence perspective. it just does not meet the needs for future program, including research space, which is what we have intended as the replacement of that building, a new research cutting edge research building with academic space as well on parnassus avenue. that will be a beautiful replacement of that facility. next slide. but as part of that effort, we of course documented all of the potential impacts of the redevelopment of parnassus avenue, including impacts to historic resources. the murals are in uc hall, and we engaged both the architectural research group and paige and turnbull to kind of advise us on the means and methods and risks associated with re-moving the murals prior to demolition of uc hall. and it was certainly clear to us from those reports, as well as talking to other experts, that it's not without risk, and so we wanted to document, obviously, that risk and the potential damage to the murals as part of the environmental impact report, which is required under state law. but that does not mean that we are intending to demolish the murals. in fact, we are undertaking an effort right now with stakeholders and with the community to determine how they can be saved and the process to do that. but it's not -- it's a huge undertaking, as can you imagine, and this is not our core competency. artwork and art preservation is something that we don't have inside expertise on, so we've relied heavily on outside experts and the community at large. next slide? and so right now we're a little bit in a waiting game. we have gone through the process of releasing an rfp to qualify teams of art preservationists, as well as general contractors, for design/build bids to actually remove the murals, do some conservation work in place, remove the murals, and then to relocate them to a storage facility. the second question on what happens ultimately to the murals, whether they get re-installed and where, will be a separate process, but we're focused primarily now on that first step because the timing of the construction project on uc hall, and hopefully if they are removed safely, then we'll have some time to work with the community and with other stakeholders to determine their future. >> how much more time do you need? >> i'm wrapping up, 30 seconds. and so those proposals are due back to us on september 11. we've got several parties that are interested in this work, and we will know more about the cost, the means and methods and the risks when we review those proposals. and finally, last slide, next, we've engaged all kinds of stakeholders. i won't go through the whole list, but that includes descendents of betty mason and the betty mason foundation. the zakheim family, the board of supervisors, obviously, the general service administration, which has a role in this because they funded the creation of the murals in the first place. and we'll continue to have those conversations as we go through this process. but with that, because of out of respect of time, i'll just close and see if there's any specific questions for me. thanks. >> thank you. commissioners, if there are no immediate questions for the project sponsor, we should take public comment. i do have several people in line waiting to speak. caller, you'll have three minutes. >> commissioners i am from san francisco heritage. i gave an informational presentation on the background and significance of the mural cycle for the board of supervisors land use and transportation committee. i will also comment on the draftee when that comes up on the agenda, but i just reiterate here that the history of medicine in california is exceptionally rare, one of only a few frescos in the san francisco bay area, and that it's important to acknowledge, recognize and undisputed including by ucsf. heritage encourages your recommendation of the landmark and we -- site-specific intent behind bernard zakheim's mural cycle. the overarching purpose of the program was to create public and publicly accessible art. ucsf now has this rfp out to remove and store the mural cycle, but it has no plans right now to reinstall it on campus. the history of medicine in california needs to be conserved, preserved as a cycle in its entirety, and available for public view in the context of its creation at the ucsf parnassus campus. so we hope city landmark designation will raise awareness of the ucsf plans and a lack of some of their plans and thereby increase pressure on the university of california to be good stewards of the treasure they hold. thank you and i'll be back for the next item. >> thank you. caller, you have three minutes. >> good evening, commissioners. i am a great-great-granddaughter of bridget betty mason. my concern is the fate of the toland hall murals, which my great-great-grandmother is depicted in one of the panels as the central figure attending to a malaria-infected patient. stories like this are not plastered throughout our history books because they are virtually unknown and not recognized in this society where the truth of black history is yet to be told. in his depiction of grandmother bridget, bernard zakheim, a polish immigrant, fashioned this fresco to honor her as an accomplished black woman in the field of early medicine. as a teaching hospital, i am perplexed as to why ucsf excluded these historical murals in their plans for the new hospital. today as we begin the healing process of our past, we need subjects that generate conversation around inclusion and positive race relations. i feel the toland hall murals accomplish this because once freed my great-great-grandmother accomplished so much. in 1891 she died a well-known nurse, midwife, philanthropist, business mogul and millionaire who was dearly loved throughout the communities. ucsf, the opportunity is here on your campus. by preserving this mural, your actions will assist in providing a sense of pride for african americans like myself and the rest of my family, especially african-american youth. let's not continue with omission and destruction of black history because the time is now for recognizing the real truths about african-american history and knowing that being enslaved is not what defines our historical stories. at this time many african-americans who i have contacted throughout the states are aware of this, and they are hopeful that you will decide on inclusion. so when inclusion rather than omission or destruction is an option, the opportunity is yours to be on the right side of african-american history by including and implementing an inclusive plan to protect and preserve the toland hall mural. i will end as saying i'm a descendent of bitty mason, and there are many of us, her youngest daughter had eight children, and i have not received anything as a stakeholder, so i do expect something in the mail sometime soon. and i want to thank you for your time and certainly for your consideration on this matter. thank you. >> thank you. next caller, you have three minutes. >> hello, my name is carol denny and i support the landmarking of the new deal zakheim frescos, and i agree with the los angeles times and "the new york times," there's a great story in the university of california's plan to destroy this historic artwork. i find it notable that they once covered these murals with wallpaper, especially considering that laura boycen george's patient research discovered featured this notable black nurse, bitty mason, born enslaved in 1818 who went on to play such a large respected role in california history. it's a false choice, to me, to imply that our community has to choose between priceless artwork and new construction. i know that's never the case. i used to work construction, and the talented contractors and architects i worked with all looked forward to challenges exactly like this in order to not create false choices for people who didn't need to make a choice between one and the other. we can honor our history and also accommodate anything that ucsf needs, but there's extreme irony in this particular case, and having bitty mason's sterling contributions to early california only recently revealed by the dedicated research threatened by the proposed to build, of all things, a research center. i'm a university of california alumna convinced that this absurdity, among others, shows the need for new leadership in the uc system so that it can straighten out its priorities, and you commissioners should be aware of this larger picture. please recommend keeping the zakheim murals in place, where they belong, so that the artwork can be seen the way it was intended to be seen, by the students and the faculty for whom they were created and who, in fact, are the owners of this art, which is a new deal project belonging to all of us. we are losing so much right now, we need these anchors in our sense of history, in particular the moments in our history when art, science and public health were considered in alignment by our people, by our community, and by our government as well. -- an inspiration of what can happen when we do the right thing. thank you very much for your consideration. >> thank you. >> hello. my name is adam gotstein. i am the grandson of artist bernard zakheim, and our family was informed by a letter from a law firm that the family had 90 days from the date june 4 to submit a written proposal as to how we would remove the panels at our own expense, having brought in two outside engineering firms, ucsf determined that the cost of removal could be in the neighborhood of $8 million, as stated in the letter from their law firm. the expectation that the family would have that kind of money is ludicrous at best, disingenuous at worse. i note there is no confirmation of reinstallation on the part of ucsf at their parnassus campus. if those murals go into storage and never see the light of day, then we will have lost the murals after all. now that the general services administration has asserted an ownership interest, an rfp has been put out by the ucsf medical center as mr. newman has already stated. however, that was not the case initially. as was previously noted, bitty mason is featured in one of the frescos. in our current climate, it is worth noting that diversity and black lives mattered in the 1930s, according to my grandfather. prior to the gsa's involvement, they indicated that the murals, they being the g.s.a., were on loan to ucsf due to the fact that the 1930s project had been funded by the w.p.a. ucsf's original offer to the family was to remove the murals at our own cost in short of our ability to do so offer the general public that same opportunity. if both of those offers were not acted upon, the university then offered to digitally photograph the murals before destroying them. it is egregious to me that people today assign themselves the moral right to decide what should happen to these historic and irreplaceable pieces of art. to destroy them was to wilfully ignore what was taking place in our world and arbitrarily erase significant portions of our history and our evolution. without a firm commitment by ucsf to reinstall the murals, should they end up in storage indefinitely, they might as well have been -- [bell ringing]. -- thank the commission for their consideration and ultimately the board of supervisors for their decision as well. thank you very much. >> commissioners, that concludes the public hearing part. the item is now before you. >> thank you. commissioners, any questions or comments? you need to unmute your mic. >> am i there? okay. just to cut right to the end, it seems to me that these murals are so important that we really don't have any choice, not that we want to choose to not preserve them, but i think that we should approve the landmarking and hope that the board of supervisors will do what supervisor peskin clearly wants them to do. i don't think that -- i may be wrong, but i don't think that we can put a condition that they have to stay in place. that's something that may be taken up in the next item or other commissions or bodies will be in the position to make that decision. but i do think that we should move forward with landmarking these murals. >> okay, thank you. commissioner black? >> thank you. so i struggled with this for quite a bit. i recognize the need to -- for hospitals to constantly modernize and adapt for technological and programatic changes in medicine, patient care, and i support most of the changes along those lines. but i disagree when it comes to these murals. i think this is such an important collection of murals, and i use the term "collection" because it's not a one-off mural. this is a collection, and collections such as these are constantly under threat. we know this from the murals at george washington high last year, from different reasons they are under threat. i encourage everyone to log on and watch a really interesting lecture given in the 1990s by a guy named robert chu who i think is a medical historian. anyway, he's associated with ucsf. it's on the ucsf website, and he talks about the murals, and he did a ton of research on them. and it's completely fascinating. one of the things that he makes very clear, and i think is important about these murals, is these murals talk about the evolution of medical practice, including showing native americans and how they provided medicinal practices, and then obviously we've already heard about the work by bitty mason, enslaved black person, followed by other important medical events. drs. toland and cole who essentially started the parnassus campus from where toland had been located elsewhere. i am strongly in support of preserving these murals, if not in place, at least in a publicly available place on the ucsf campus, which in itself is an important component to the city of san francisco. and so i strongly will be supporting the landmarking of these murals. >> commissioner so? >> hello, thank you. when i first got the letter from our secretary that is coming from the communication department from ucsf, it kind of striked me, right, that was happening probably around in may. part of their mitigation process was about to basically digitalize these murals and we consider that as a legitimate way of preserving the mural, and as -- as an architect myself, and also as part of the arts commission, i do understand that implication. i actually have reached out to some of the expert in the field of art. virtual representation of a mural is an actually exact way to properly restore the mural, at least there is a chance for the public to see. so moving forward i think i remember last time in our public meeting i did actually emphasize to have staff to look into if there is any way in our jurisdiction to do something about it, considering we understand that ucsf is on its own jurisdictions. now i am just personally thrilled and happy to see that everybody is here to support and advocate for the importance of the history of medicine for california, and also carry on the legacy of all the family members of the bernard zakheim artists and also ms. bitty mason fami family. this is important. to me as a minority person, it's really important for us to respect every community, culture. i really applaud heritage for providing all the information -- in the land use committee, i am in full support for the recommendation for landmark destination for these murals, and i am really happy the family here representing the artists and also the historic significant figures of ms. mason is here in advocacy, and my heart goes out to all of you. i would love to see all these murals be restored and be in public for be displayed and viewed. i have my daughter, and i really wish that for her and her kids and grandkids later on to actually have -- and be proud and understanding what makes san francisco great and also in the view of medicine and inclusion. it's long due. i am in support of that. i hope that ucsf is actually also has the best heart and interest to integrate these major history san francisco into their future generations of extensions. and i think we all have the same heart, and we need the experts to guide us to do the right thing and handle it properly. thank you. that's my comment. >> thank you. commissioner? >> thank you very much. i was thinking of an interesting analogy back in the '70s. the thing that one -- one of the things that really kicked off the entire historic preservation movement in the united states was the threat to grand central station in new york city, and one of the things that was, you know, i was reading about this at the time, i was in college, and one of the things they talked about was extensive photographs of the building, and then they tear down the building and build a new modern high-rise building on that site, and fortunately jacky onasess and others rose up to stop that from happening. so here it seems to me here is an opportunity -- i mean, this is one of the most significant groupings of art that, you know, we have in california. not just san francisco, but it represents something far beyond just san francisco because it's about the history of medicine. and ucsf and, you know, before it, poland, ucsf has been on the forefront of the development of medical care internationally. so here's this mural that, you know, represents that up until that moment in time, but then also -- i mean, the moment in time that we're in with black lives matter and the recognition of diversity, of all cities in the country that is about as diverse as could be, san francisco, in san francisco the notion that the representation within these murals of native americans and not only a black woman who had been born into slavery but a black person, a black woman who ended up becoming, you know -- doing such significant things, you know, right here in san francisco. so i think -- i mean, i agree there's just no question about there this should be a landmark or not. it's already a landmark, and we're just signifying that by our vote today. the thing that i found interesting, and i can't remember the gentleman's name who presented from ucsf, but his comments about the plan were, you know, these buildings are not designed yet. they are just representations of kind of the massing of what they could do there. well, given the fact that they are not designed yet, isn't that a good opportunity to suggest that maybe uc hall is torn down, but toland hall is not? there's a great challenge for a good architect to incorporate that space into a brand new building. i mean obviously it wouldn't be inexpensive, but if it would cost $8 million to remove them and put them somewhere else, why not invest $8 million in altering the foundations around, you know, the building that they are going to design? so i think there's some incredible opportunities here for ucsf to be the hero and not the villain in this story, and i think that's pretty substantial because, again, you know, they have to go through the whole process of our next item of which we're only a small part of the decisions that get made about how ucsf evolves over 30 years, the next 30 years. but the fact -- the idea that they would go into storage and disappear i should hope is a non-starter for our board of supervisors and the regents of uc, that even if they are not here in -- if they are not kept in tact in this building, that one of the new buildings or one of the spaces, the new spaces, especially around millbury union, could be designed specifically for the installation around space that would accept them in a very public location, like the public spaces of ucsf. so i think there's a lot of opportunity here to have a win-win-win for everybody, you know, to save these murals. thank you. >> commissioner pearlman? i'm sorry, commissioner matsuda. >> yes, thank you. number one, i'm in full support of landmarking this, but -- and i was going to comment on and kind of further elaborate on what commissioner johns says about kind of next steps and looking at ways in which we can keep the murals in place, or thinking about other ways of protection. but what commissioner pearlman just said is i think a really good idea, to really not close the door, keep this idea open in finding ways in which we can possibly landmark tollman hall and keep the murals in place or at least figure out a way in which they are viewed and appreciated by the ucsf community and the community at large. ucsf has always been seen as the cutting edge of research, but one thing they cannot and should not forget is their history, and they have a great history that is depicted in these murals, and it's an inclusive history, and that's something they should be proud of. it shouldn't be hidden and it shouldn't require us to go to our phones to look at a digital website of what is -- should be, you know, something that everyone should view and it should be part of the san francisco unified school district field trips about what -- you know, and to show how important and proud we are as san franciscans and californians about the history of medicine and how inclusive the image of the history of medicine was back then. i think that ucsf needs to think about being a better steward, about how the murals will be used and how they will be remembered and how they will continue to be preserved and promoted and to really consider what commissioner pearlman said, about figuring out ways since we are not looking at a done deal, about incorporating them. >> great, thank you. so i do have a couple of comments to add. i was very struck that we were landmarking a set of murals, and so i got curious and i did a little research to see if there are any murals on the national register, because it's been my history or my experience that the murals are what contribute to a building being landmarked and listed. and lo and behold there are five murals on the national register. there's one in san diego. there's one in detroit, another one in brooklyn, another one in new hampshire, and probably the most famous one, in puerto rico. and so i thought, wow, okay, we can landmark a mural. but in the landmarking and for the continuity of the landmark, the integrity of its location is always very important. so i think that we have other murals that have contributed to our landmarks. we had actually our consent agenda item today was a hospital which has a beautiful mural in it. there's a mural at the mother's building and at the washington high. all make those buildings very significant, and so i think these murals at uc hall and toland hall, toland hall is within uc hall, i believe. it's what makes these -- this building and the original building of the campus, the oldest building on the campus currently, significant. so i would definitely strongly support the nomination of landmarking this, or i should say landmarking this, the curious process we're in. i do believe the recommendation that woody labonti asked for us to include, it is within our purview to include a note that it's appropriate that these landmarks remain in situ along with this nomination for this landmarking. did you want to respond? >> i did just want to -- a couple of points. i believe that robert churney was trying to speak but was not able to make public comment. he did send me an email with a couple of clarifications. let me just find that quickly. one was that bernard zakheim was born in 1896, not whatever year i said. i don't have that right in front of me right now, but sorry about that. and then also just to mention that -- so toland hall is a structure that projects from the south facade of uc hall, so it's not visible from parnassus avenue. but in all of the descriptions and construction, it's described as a part of uc hall, and it was always intended to be, you know, an auditorium to that, but technically speaking it physically does -- is sort of its own little element that projects in-between the sort of finger ward wing that also projects from the building. so those were the two clarifications. now i guess in terms of your comment about -- commissioner hyland, about adding a note or recommendation, i'd like to defer to maybe the city attorney about how we would be able to do that in this process to go back to the board and the commission's recommendation about the [indiscernible]. >> and i don't know if this was pointed out in the presentation, maybe it was, but these buildings and these resources are not within the city purview. this is an action that we're taking that really doesn't have much weight as far as directing uc. they would take these under advisement. ms. wong, are you there? i thought i saw you. did you want to . . . >> i am here, and i had a little bit of difficulty of hearing the end of her comments, so i just wanted to confirm, the question is whether the resolution can be revised to add a recommendation that the murals remain on campus in place? is that correct? >> i think that's -- i think that is part of the -- yeah. i think that's correct. i think we should clarify as well, though, that the designation i believe in the draft ordinance as is drafted currently is for the murals as a collection of sort of as an object, a collection of features. it's not necessarily for the toland hall as a structure, correct? >> yes, the ordinance is -- in your packet, commissioners, is for landmarking of the murals specifically, not for the hall, correct. so yes, so i think your materials, the packet materials don't talk about qualification of the hall for landmark status, so that would be a different issue i think to bring back to the commission on another date, if you wanted to consider landmarking the entire hall. >> yeah, this is definitely not about landmarking the hall. i was just referring to the recommendation that what makes these murals landmarked is their context and their location. so just having, you know, a recommendation that our commission would prefer them to remain in situ would be our preference. it's not going to change the landmarking artery of the murals or the building. >> yes, so the commission is free to revise the draft resolution to add your recommendation that the murals remain in place and to discuss the fact that the murals [indiscernible]. >> great. commissioner pearlman? >> yeah, in reference to that, it seems like it should -- i mean, i think all of us agree that they should remain in place within the ucsf parnassus campus rather than -- i mean, if we say in situ, that really means kind of specifically there where they are now, but if we're going to add something to this motion, i would just recommend that we -- that we recommend that they are -- that they remain available to the public on the campus, the parnassus campus. that gives them a lot more leeway relative to where they might end up. >> or perhaps the recommendation is that our first priority is in situ, and if absolutely required certainly within the campus. >> yeah, something like that. >> well, how about they should remain together on the campus? >> commissioner so? >> i would like to chime in for this. i'm sort of leaning towards what commissioner pearlman was understanding of sometimes there are some inherent technical infeasibility of the current building itself where the murals are. not exactly sure all the details of the building and engineering part, but again, life, safety and public welfare is kind of what i'm interested in. so perhaps maybe in situ would be the most dreamed desirable thing, but practically i'm happy with what commissioner pearlman had emphasized, that in -- within ucsf campus nearby accessible to the public with the proper acknowledgement on the historic significance of these artworks, i'm sure once it has designated as a landmark, it's required to have a pretty good description of the significance of the mural so everybody could have a real good transparent understanding of the meanings of these paintings. i do want to say that my heart is very sympathetic to ucsf as well, so i want to give them some flexibility in terms of looking at their campus master plan and the safety of the new building and the old building and also keeping these murals. of course it would be in the integrity of the wall itself apparently according to the report of the historic historians is actually good, right? i'm not as fixated about the in situ part as well as essentially going to be still within public access and in ucsf campus. >> great. what's interesting is that we'll get into our next item when we're talking about mitigation measures, impact on historic resources. to relocate these and maintain them as an interpretation would be a very unique opportunity that we probably don't have. we're usually making plaques to try to tell the story. >> exactly, right. can i just say a quick comment on that? >> sure. >> one of the buildings they want to create is this whole irving street public entrance that goes from irving street, goes up over to parnassus, and they're going to have this big public space. i mean, what better location where everybody who ever comes to the campus will see them and enjoy them, and then it's right there. i mean, it's as close to in situ as you could have so that -- because right now the public doesn't really see them because toland hall isn't really, you know, a general public space. so i just think of the opportunity here if we just emphasize that they should be kept in tact, as commissioner johns says, and are somewhere on the campus, some public space on the campus. >> to the extent we can give latitude to ucsf, of course we want preservation of things to be in situ. given the preservation of things on the campus, i think it's a great opportunity to find a new location for this collection. they should remain as a collection, and they should be publicly available, and i think there are lots of opportunities. commissioner pearlman just mentioned one that i certainly hadn't thought of, and i think that's -- now is the time. they have a long-range plan filled out in the next 10 years, according to the eir, so this is the opportunity to incorporate these murals into the design. >> your mic is off. >> commissioner johns, i'm sorry. >> just one small point. i wouldn't go too far pushing that these have to be publicly accessible and available because they aren't now and as far as i'm aware they never have been. you don't just trot yourself in to the lecture hall at ucsf, so just, you know, let's -- i'd maybe be a little cautious about that. >> yeah, the thing to remember is that all we're doing is making recommendations. we're supporting the landmarking of the mural, and i think it's important for us to express our commission's concerns and recommendations on what next, and if they cannot be -- the building can't be incorporated into the new development, asking them to think hard about how to incorporate murals into some public space i think would be completely appropriate. it's just a recommendation. there's no -- we're not creating any requirements. >> as you put it, i'm fine with that. i think that would go down much better with the regents than us telling them what to do with their property. >> yeah. >> so do we need a motion? if so, i move that we recommend that these murals be landmarked. and if you want to put your suggestions in, that they be kept together on parnassus, that would be great. >> is that an official part of your motion, commissioner johns? >> it is. >> second. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners. if there's nothing further, there is a motion that has been seconded. to adopt a recommendation for approval to the board of supervisors of a landmark designation of the [indiscernible] that the murals be kept together on parnassus. on that motion, i will call the roll. [roll call]. >> could you please mute yourself, please? [roll call]. so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 7-0. commissioners that will place us on item 12 for case no no. 2020-005090oth for the ucsf comprehensive parnassus heights plan, draft environmental impact report. please note that the draft environmental impact report was prepared by the university of california san francisco for the purposes of the regents of university of california's elite agency and the san francisco planning department as a responsible agency. testimony received from the public at this hearing may assist the commission in formulating their comment on the draft dir, but it's not considered public comment for the purposes of the draft eir public review process and will not be addressed in response to comments. for more information on how the public may formally submit oral and written comments, there is a link on the agenda. you may go through the ucsf.edu website for additional information. staff, are you prepared to make your presentation? >> yes. >> great. the floor is yours. >> okay, are you able to see the slides? >> we can. >> great. okay, good afternoon, president hyland, members of the commission. my name is yoland clemen, senior preservation planning for environmental review. joining me today is a team manager at the planning department. diane wong, principal planner for campus planning at ucsf real estate is also available to answer questions at the end of the presentation. at the request of the commission, planning staff is presenting the draft eir for ucsf's comprehensive parnassus heights plan for cphp. the commission members were provided with the public link to the draft eir on august 12, 2020. the draft eir was prepared by ucsf for the purposes, the reasons of the university of california is the lead agency in the san francisco planning department is the responsible agency. under -- the duties of a responsible agency include providing comments. separately, the planning department and other agencies have prepared comments on the draft eir that will also be transmitted to ucsf. and as jonas mentioned, testimony received from the public at this hearing may assist in formulating comments but is not considered public comment. members of the public interested in submitting oral and written comments can find more information at ucsf.edu, and this information is provided on the slide that's currently being shown. to assist the board in its review, planning staff will provide the following brief summary of the relevant sections of the draft eir that deals specifically with hopeful resource. of the 71 individual buildings on the parnassus heights campus site, 25 are identified as historic resources. this includes 17 individual buildings and eight contributors to the potential third avenue historic district. additionally, two cultural landscapes are identified. these evaluations are based on a number of surveys and historic resource and inventories sponsored by ucsf. identified historic resources proposed for demolition under the proposed cphp include toland hall, langley porter psychiatric institute and a housing buildings 8, 10 and 12. additional identified or presumed historic resources that could be physically altered include saunders [indiscernible] and boundary, health sciences instruction and research buildings east and west and the medical sciences building. because of the specific details of proposed alterations to these buildings are not currently known, the draft eir conservatively presumes that the alterations will result in significant impact. thus, the draft eir states that implementation of the cphp will result in significant and unavoidable impacts to known historic resources as well as buildings that may become eligible historic resources by the time of the full buildout of the cphp in 2050. the draft eir also states that the plan in combination with past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the vicinity of the parnassus heights campus site would result in a cumulatively considerable impact on resources. the draft eir identifies a number of mitigation measures that would lessen the severity of impact, although not lessen the impact to a less-than-significant level. mitigation measure -- requires the identification of character defining features for any known or presumed historic resources proposed for demolition. according to the draft eir, "the identification of character-defining features is necessary for complete documentation of each historical resource, as well as appropriate public interpretation and salvage plan." mitigation measures for -- requires documentation of all historic resources prior to demolition or substantial alteration. mitigation measures -- requires ucsf to determine if a building's character-defining -- if the features can be salvaged, the qualified professional will present ucsf planning staff with a salvage plan. additionally, ucsf will prepare a plan for interpretive displays prior to the demolition or alteration of any historic resource. the final permanent interpretive display will be installed in a publicly accessible area of the project site. mitigation measures cul1 dprks would require ucsf to work with a conserve tor to implement a virtual protection proposal for the murals in the hall. the digital recording shall be made available to the public online and the interpretive virtual reality exhibit shall be installed on campus within six months of the murals being digitally recorded. as required -- alternative one a is a version of the plan that is envisioned no project and no development of any kind. 1b is a no project alternative that envisioned development as previously approved under the 2014 long-range development plan. alternative 2 is a reduced development alternative. alternative 3 is the same as the cphp but with a 19-storey new hospital and 4 is the time but with a phased development approach to the new hospital. of these five alternatives, only alternative 1a, no project, no development, would entirely avoid impacts to cultural resources. alternative two, the reduced development alternative, would preserve architecturally significant resources but proceed with the demolition of buildings as identified as historically significant for their cultural significance. impacts to historic resources would be significant and unavoidable. alternative three and four would slightly lessen impacts to the -- open space reserve and identify cultural landscape. otherwise, impacts to the historic resources under these alternatives would be the same as under the cphp, that is significant and unavoidable. briefly, regarding impacts to archaeological and tribal cultural resources, the draft eir assesses the project area as having low sensitivity for the presence of pre-historic and historic period archaeological resources, tribal cultural resources, and human remains based on the absence of known resources, topographic setting, distance from the bay, archival records and the fact that most of the area has been disturbed previously. nonetheless, the draft eir identifies four impacts, including cumulative impacts, in relation to archaeological and human remains and tribal resources. to reduce these impacts, the draft eir lists two mitigation measures, the first one requires training and establishes protocols for the inadvertent discovery of archaeological and tribal cultural resources. the other establishes a protocol for the inadvertent discovery of human remains. with the implementation of these mitigation measures, the draft eir concludes all potential impacts to archaeological resources, tribal cultural resources and human remains would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. this ends my presentation. city staff and ucsf staff are available to answer any questions you may have. thank you. >> okay, if that concludes the presentation, we should open this up for public comment. i do see one caller in queue. caller, you have three minutes. >> hello again. this is woody labonti from san francisco heritage. i think a lot of what i was going to say was talked about by the commission in the previous agenda item. as part of this process, heritage will submit its own extensive public comments on the eir, but i just want to point out to this commission the impacts reflected within, specifically on the history of medicine in california mural cycle. as you probably just heard, ucsf draft eir did not analyze a reasonable range of alternatives or mitigation measures to reduce or avoid significant impacts on this historic resource. it proposes re-maufl of the murals without a commitment or plan to reinstall them on public view. as i think was alluded to earlier, ucsf doesn't have an architect or plans for the proposed replacement building. it seems there should be an alternative included in the eir that keeps the mural cycle on campus, and as also talked about, this is an opportunity. ucsf publicly says it values its artwork and it's been publicly entrusted to them. it just needs to commit to it in this eir and in the plan forward, something that protects and display it is history of medicine in california on the campus. so i think you guys have touched on it. as president hyland, commissioner pearlman had some great ideas. we've all been talking about it out in the community, different ideas, but really this is our opportunity in the draft eir to get our comments in there about what we value and what we want ucsf to value going forward. real quick, you know, they had a fundraising campaign that began in 2013 that's already raised $4.2 billion, and they raised $1.2 billion in 2018 alone as part of this whole effort, so i think the money's there. it's more the will and having the community say this is what we want. thanks again. bye. >> thank you. commissioners, i have no other members of the public in queue wishing to submit their testimony, so the matter is now before you for your review and comment. >> commissioners? any comments? questions? commissioner pearlman. >> yeah, thank you. i can safely that i did not read all 2,146 pages of this eir. it was -- it's very extensive and enormous in its scope. in terms of what mr. labounty just said, i do think it's important. we just commented on it before, but it's important in terms of the comments that we convey about the eir, that we express exactly as mr. labounty just said, that we believe that this has not been covered in the eir about what to do with the murals and how to move forward. so i think there's something that has to be done there. overall i certainly would never pretend that i would know anything about the needs of the buildings that are required or the kind of services that are offered relative to the buildings and the space they have. i mean obviously it's an intense -- it's a tiny site relative to the amount of square footage and the need that's there. the couple of buildings that were considered significant relative to the new hospital, the langley porter and the moffat and long hospitals, you know, personally, i don't think are as significant. and if they are renovated and still do not meet the requirements, that seems like a significant problem and mistake. so i think the alternative that include -- and again, i don't remember the sequence of them, but i don't think we should endure -- that i wouldn't feel comfortable endorsing an alternative that would reduce services in any way so that the comprehensive plan versus i think it was the alternative with the 19 storey new hospital building seems to me to be -- you know, between the -- that would be the only alternative that would not compromise future service and that i think in general the respect for adjacent neighborhoods along 3rd avenue and 5th avenue was incorporated in the comprehensive, and the last two alternatives. but the last alternative, the one with the phased building of the hospital also does not -- you know, seems to compromise service availability from, you know, for ucsf in general. so i do think that the incorporation of what we think would be the most important historic resource on campus, the mural cycle, is definitely not addressed and should be addressed in this. thank you. >> if i could just interject, just to give us some direction on how we are preparing our comments, this eir was different than what we've done in the past because we're not the lead agency. we're not approving the project for a project sponsor. so what would be helpful for mr. kleeman is reframe our points as questions for ucsf to respond to in their response to comments. that would be the goal. so if, you know, there is evaluation of the alternatives missed something or we don't feel it's adequate or we feel that, you know, they only looked at their buildout and completely disregarded the x, y and z buildings in their analysis, is there something that we think as a commission based on how we reviewed these in the past, make the draft eir review of alternatives a little more adequate? >> well, the question would be how does the eir address the significant cultural resource of the mural cycle relative to the overall plan or any of the alternatives? >> commissioner matsuda? >> yeah, i agree with what commissioner hyland just formulated as a question. my question was more on process. because we're not the lead agency and the uc system is kind of its own entity, and there was some discussion in the draft eir that noted that ucsf is california eligible. what effect would that have on a property like this? i don't know, so i'm just wanting to -- >> do you want to take that, mr. kleeman? >> -- when we're reviewing our own draft eirs in that, you know, it identifies -- the identification of a property as eligible to be on the california register does not protect it from demolition, but it does require that under ceqa we prepare one of these eirs. so the status as a california register eligible building does, in part, contribute to what triggered the eir, but it doesn't necessarily confer any protection on the building. >> and if i could add on, and you can correct me if i've got it slightly off, but the property owner needs to approve being listed on a california register, unlike the national register. so while it might be california registry eligible, the property owner would have to agree to have it listed. and one of my comments is that the evaluation done in 2003, wouldn't it make sense that that evaluation needs to be updated, especially with the understanding of how these murals work within the context of our current history, our contemporary knowledge of what's going on and what's happened since 2003. you know, there's a potential that it could be nationally registered eligible if it was evaluated again. >> you're muted. >> that's what i was getting at in terms of the next level. how would we incorporate that into our comments or concerns? >> i believe we can get to this. we could say that you would like to ensure that the murals have been evaluated recently and that you want to confirm that they have been evaluated following the most recent standards, and have they been updated since 2003. and you'd like to consider whether or not they have been fully evaluated for the national register. >> and specific to uc hall. it was uc hall that was last evaluated in 2003. are you done, commissioner matsuda? >> yes, sorry. >> commissioner john. >> with that very helpful clarification, and it comes by commissioner matsuda and of the staff, but i would think that in addition to that we should -- would want to say that the question that they should consider is how can these murals be preserved together and available for viewing on parnassus heights? that really seems to me -- there are a lot of buildings there, and my general impression of the root of the commission's comments is that the commission doesn't particularly want to focus on that. and that's just fine with me because i think that the one thing that is most important there are those murals, and so our question ought to be directed to those. that's it. >> commissioner black? >> i want to say that i concur with my fellow commissioners. i think it is the murals that are the most essential for us to focus on. mr. kleeman, i'm no ceqa expert. my understanding is that this is a programatic eir, and we are a responsible agency; is that correct? >> right. so does that -- so the eir -- what i was reading last night indicated that comments from the public, and presumably, you know, obviously we're not the public, would not be forwarded -- comments from the public from today would not be forwarded formally as part of the comments that would be addressed in the response to comments. i just want to make sure that our comments today would be. >> yes, they will be. i will draft up a letter and summarize your comments. i will submit it to commissioner hyland for review, and then once that's finalized, it will be transmitted. >> i am confident that between the two of you, you will get it right, so thank you. >> commissioner pearlman? >> i did want to make one comment, because we are kind of avoiding the buildings, and i think that's probably just brought up by commissioner johns that we don't seem to have any interest in the particular buildings. i think the only one of kind of architectural value and historical, real historical value is uc hall. i think the others, the aldea housing is just kind of modest, simple, you know, not very interesting architecturally. as i mentioned before, even reading the comments that the historical reports about langley, porter, or the hospital buildings, you know, architecturally they are not all that significant, and they are significantly deficient for the future of the medicine and the campus. and then the denl building, which i think -- dental building which i think was built in 1979 is a rather ordinary, decent, pedestrian building, again not architecturally significant in my opinion in any way. so i think we are -- well, i -- and again, i think uc hall is the only one of substance, that has substantial historical value relative to both its design and its value as the first building on the -- you know, the historical first building on the parnassus campus. but that one, again, i think is significantly difficult to adaptively re-use given current standards. so i did notice in the presentation that the ucsf, and again, i don't remember his name, but he made -- he had a quick photograph of the old uc hall, and next to it was a rendering of the building, the research building as they wanted to put there, and what i did notice was that the form of the building was extremely reminiscent of the form of uc hall, which i found -- i know that's not a -- that's not the existing -- it's not a given design, but i do think that that bodes well relative to the fact that we are losing these buildings, but you know, that potentially those buildings are gone but some kind of future reference to them could be included in the architectural design of the replacement buildings. so i do think that we are focusing appropriately on the murals as the most substantial piece of all the cultural resources in the report. the only other one was really the mount sutro itself as an open space, and it seems like the only impact that the plan will have is a widening of the road, the medical way, that is up against it, which doesn't have a significant impact on the overall mount sutro open area that's considered a culture resource. thank you. >> okay. i would agree with most of what you said. i do think we ought to be concerned about the buildings. i think that there is a long list of buildings that are being tossed aside. i mean, quite frankly, i don't -- based on the evaluations that are at least included in the draft eir, there hasn't been much evaluation on what would it look like, what would the project look like if some of these resources were maintained. we basically have a development that says this is what we want to build. as a result, we're tearing these buildings down. if we don't tear this building down, we can't build this one, but the whole purpose of evaluating the alternatives is to see if there's an alternative design that actually can accommodate the program without tearing down the building. so you know, it's kind of the classic thing that we've run into all the time, is do you start with what you want to build and see what you have to tear down, or do you start with this is what we have to keep, how do we build our project around it. and i don't think this draft eir has done the latter, so i think that would be something in addition -- i would -- that would be one of my comments specific to uc hall i think the 2003 evaluation needs to be updated. and i think there was one question that i had. is there someone on with uc, ms. wong? was there a ms. wong? >> yes. >> one question i have is: is there or will there be an m.o.u./m.o.u. a. with chipo, and how is the section 106 review process handled, assuming that there's public money in there? however that is. but i'm pretty sure there needs to be some kind of understanding with shipo. do you have that to share? is that done? is that available? >> thank you for the question. this is diane wong at ucsf campus planning. our relationship with shipo is that we've sent them notification regarding the project, but i'm not familiar with section 106 applying to this project. this is not a federally funded building. >> okay, thank you. >> aaron, could i make a comment on one thing you just said about -- >> sure. >> i think there's one difference here between all the other eirs that we look at in that the developer-driven eirs are, you know, i want to push the envelope to as big as i can possibly make it because that's, you know, how i make the most amount of money. and i think the difference here is that, you know, the hospital is -- you know, having the hospital and a medical research campus, you know, is really for the public good, and there are such refined technical requirements that, you know, have to be met for there to be a useful campus that -- and i agree, we always start off the wrong way. we start off with, oh, here's what i want to build, not here's what you have to keep, and i think that's a really great point, but it does feel like this one has a twist because it's a significantly important public agency. so saying that we don't want a 19-storey new hospital, we want a 16-storey new hospital, but that's going to eliminate, you know, 50 beds at a time when we need them seems, you know, like that's kind of out of our purview in terms of our job in terms of what we should be recommending. it's just my opinion about this particular one feels a little different. >> and while i agree with you, i think the specific of uc hall and understanding how in its current state it can accommodate certain programs. i mean, we know of many successful projects, both hospitals and laboratory projects, that have accommodated and have incorporated -- [indiscernible] children's hospital oakland research institute is an old high school. it had to be abandoned because it didn't meet the code for high schools. it's now a laboratory, and it was creatively adapted to accommodate that. so i haven't -- i don't have any information in front of me that shows that it was even looked at. >> totally agree, and i think that should be a comment. >> i think -- are there any other comments? mr. kleeman, who we have you completely confused yet? or do you have your running list of comments and questions? >> i think i've got it. >> great, commissioners, if there's nothing further, this matter is not for your action. simple for your review and comment. seeing no other requests to speak, we can move on. >> before we move on, jonas, i just wanted to thank ucsf for participating in both of these agenda items, for doing it in front of the public outreach, and we appreciate the dialogue. thank you. >> this brings us to our final item no. 13, 2016-0033351cwp. this is the phase two portion and this is an informational presentation. claudia, i know you had to leave, but it seems as though you may still be with us. did you want me to put you as the presenter or miriam? >> it will be miriam because i have to leave in, like, five minutes. >> okay. miriam, you have the ball. and claudia and miriam, you have the floor. >> are you able to see the presentation? >> we can. >> thank you. commissioners, i am with the planning department. sorry [indiscernible] won't be able to join us, but i hope i can address your questions. i know you have been powering through this hearing, so i would like to give you an overview of how we are responding to the resolution that you passed recently, that the planning commission and you have recently. as you know, your resolution is allowing us to prioritize equity at a global level across the department, expanding resources, and i will elaborate on that, and strengthening community engagement. at the staff level, we are building on some of the foundational work that equity plan has already created from hiring to recruitment to youth engagement. in terms of policies and strategies, as you know, we're addressing equity through the preservation work as far as phase two. there are also two major areas of work. one is the housing element entered around racial and social equity, and we are focused on the economic and housing recovery with other agencies. you are also asking us to develop analysis and metrics, so we are revising the budget tool, and we have developed a racial and social equity assessment tool that can be applied across projects. in terms of community engagement, which has been a central focus of your resolution for this fall we are gathering the input that we have been collecting since before covid-19. we are also convening community leaders in an effort to find more specific input on racial and social equity and to inform the phase two of the plan. and there are various ways through which we are expanding our community engagement strategies. i should say it is a lot of effort. it's also extremely challenging given the competing tensions and stress within our communities of the current health, economic and racial crisis we're experiencing. this is an overview of the new community equity division. this is a division within the planning department which role is to support and collaborate across all divisions. the purpose of this division is to elevate community equity, is to ensure we're prioritizing key tasks. this is not a permanent division. it is our expectation that once equity has been vetted across the department, this division can be closed in five or ten years. this community equity division has three major teams, three major areas. the equity plan, which is the foundational piece. that's what claudia flores has been working on. community engagement, that is a new team, and we're hoping to bring a community engagement manager with community experience to help us across the department. and then policies and strategies. this is challenging work that will require us to bring new knowledge, so as most kitchen cabinets of four to five experts can help us bring the new knowledge, the new expertise that we need within the department. close collaboration with our elected officials, planning commission, historic preservation commission, office of racial equity. we are also -- this is where we also are collaborating with community leaders. as you know, we completed the phase one and we're drafting phase two. we are -- we need to complete phase two by the end of the year. that's what the office of racial equity is requiring, but the implementation will be ongoing. i can give you more details, but this is an overall picture of what we have been accomplishing and what we are expecting over the next few months. this work is essential -- the coordination with the office of racial equity is essential, and we're taking the lead in terms of how we transform our systems to support the collaboration of indigenous people, people of colour in san francisco. these are part of the priorities in phase one, training, recruitment and guidelines for our managers. in terms of phase two, we are getting input at this point in terms of how to prioritize specific tasks. we want to make sure that we are able to accomplish concrete deliverables rather than a long list of tasks. we have been including additional resources, but we want to be mindful of the capacity that we have, again, to deliver the milestones. in terms of some of the preliminary community feedback, you can see some of the points. you have been hearing some of this directly. more than ever, the getting to our communities is challenging, and our folks are asking us to make our meetings more accessible, to increase cultural competency and to make the equity voice more prominent. we also got comments in terms of regulatory and design review process. as you can see, very -- flagging specific components that recognize the inclusion of our disadvantaged communities. in terms of preservation, as this hearing has demonstrated, they want to highlight and expand under-represented communities. we also have feedback in terms of the coordination across tasks, across strategies, and the diversity among staff commissioners and community advisory. so in terms of the next, we are planning again to convene the community leaders will be bringing back -- will be bringing to you the phase two draft framework, and we will bring you an update on the implementation of phase one. we continue to focus on high-impact tasks and to build the capacity within the staff, as well as within the organization of the department. i very much appreciate your time in walking with us through this brief overview. i'll be happy to address any questions. thank you. this concludes my presentation. >> thank you, miriam. should we take public comment, jonas? >> sorry, i was muted. hold on. now why can't i unmute myself? okay, sorry, i was muted. yes, members of the public, this is your opportunity to get in to queue for public comment. i have no one in queue requesting to speak, so commissioners, why don't you deliberate, and if i see anyone enter the queue, i will notify you. >> okay. commissioner matsuda? >> hi, miriam. i think this is great, and you're clearly hitting on point all the things that i think that hpc was trying to articulate into that big resolution that we passed several years ago -- i mean several weeks ago. one thing i wanted, and you did infer to this, about increasing cultural competencies, continuing education, and to maybe do some more staff development. because you know, issues arise every day, and you know, there are lots of things that are happening around the state and around the country that i think you could benefit from in terms of policies and in terms of inclusion, and sometimes we don't take the time to actually educate ourselves. so i want to make sure that that's kind of an integral part of the whole kind of next steps when we look at social equity and kind of the tools and policies that are out there. but thank you. this was great. >> thank you. i really appreciate you flagging that. >> commissioner black? >> i concur with commissioner matsuda's comments about ongoing education. i think it's essential. i also want to just tell everyone that i think you did a really nice job, and both the members of the community who participated, but also staff. this is really hard work, and it's hard work gathering all sorts of opinions from so many different sources, so you did a nice job of that, and you did a nice job of incorporating our comments from a couple months ago, so thank you very much. >> thank you. >> commissioner johns, i believe you had something to add? >> yes. i just wanted to add my support to what commissioner matsuda and commissioner black said, both to the need for continuing education as things develop and as i think the quality of the presentation. so thank you very much. >> thank you. >> commissioners, if there's no further deliberation or comments, it was a longer hearing than we're accustomed to. >> it might be our longest. >> it may be our -- it was certainly our longest remote hearing. sna. >> it was the longest i can remember in 12 years. >> i'm sorry, i have one more question for miriam. just in terms of what's the next steps for us as a commission. like, how can we continue to be involved? you know, what can we do to help push an agenda? is shelley going to be kind of our main person? or is that expanding to claudia? i know everyone's tired. this is my last question. >> [indiscernible] competency and education. that is -- so i'm taking that as one of the core inputs. if there is any other area that you feel needs to be prioritized, we would like to hear it. [indiscernible] community leaders as well as various staff within the department, the need to elevate substantially. we're expanding our resources, but time and staff is still limited, so we want to make sure that we can address your priorities and schedule our progress accordingly. we are trying to identify. in the fall we will bring you what is the plan for the next three years in terms of implementing out of the multiple items that you have flagged, and hoping that that will meet your expectations. but we'll have another round of discussion, and we'll have a round of community input. >> and sorry, shelley will continue to be your point of contact. she's also, as you know, spread very thin, but we're hoping that even that the cultural districts in the component in her work [indiscernible] equity division that will be able to support that work as well. >> excellent. thank you so much for all your work. it's a heavy lift. we appreciate it. so i guess we are adjourned. >> thank you. good job, commissioners. >> thank you. ♪ ♪ ♪ >> the meeting will come to order. we welcome to the thursday, august 20 meeting of the government audit and oversight committee. i'm gordon mar, the chairman of this committee. joining me is supervisor aaron peskin and matt haney. mr. clerk, do you have any announcements? >> clerk: yes. thank you, mr. chair. in order to protect city employees, the board, and the public during the covid-19 emergency, city hall and the board room is closed. committee members will participate remotely in the conference to the extent as if they were physically present. sfgo i

Related Keywords

New York ,United States ,Mount Sutro ,California ,Brooklyn ,Oakland ,Texas ,Washington ,China ,Mexico City ,Distrito Federal ,Mexico ,San Diego ,San Francisco ,Puerto Rico ,Tennessee ,Italy ,Hampshire ,North Beach ,Poland ,Warsaw ,L67 ,Italian ,American ,Toland Hall ,Bernard Zakheim ,Claudia Flores ,Betty Mason ,Diane Wong ,Gordon Mar ,Los Angeles ,Langley Porter ,Robert Chu ,Kate Howard ,Jennifer Walker ,