Seeing beyond the fog: preserving San Francisco's cultural heritage in the Clement Street Corridor

PDF

Download

Open document

Transcript (if available)

Content SEEING BEYOND THE FOG: PRESERVING SAN FRANCISCO’S CULTURAL HERITAGE IN THE CLEMENT STREET CORRIDOR By Andrea Lorraine Dumovich A Thesis Presented to the FACULTY OF THE USC SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree MASTER OF HERITAGE CONSERVATION May 2018 Copyright 2018 Andrea Lorraine Dumovich ii EPIGRAPH But is that where you find the spirit of a place? In a row of buildings along Main Street…They can express spirit, but the buildings themselves came later. First there was the place itself…and then there is the dialogue that begins between the place and the people who are drawn to it, who choose it, for whatever reason choose to linger, choose to stay. I believe the spirit resides right there, in the continuing dialogue between a place and the people who inhabit it. James D. Houston, “Loma Prieta, Part One,” 1989 iii DEDICATION For my parents, Barbara and Rick, who have always encouraged me to follow my dreams and who gave me the gift of appreciating life’s wonders. iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This thesis would not have been possible without the support of many people and organizations. I would first like to thank my thesis committee. Thank you to my committee chair, Trudi Sandmeier, for being available around the clock to answer numerous questions, for guiding me through the research process, and being my heritage conservation cheerleader. Thank you to Shayne Watson and John Lesak for being on my committee and providing insightful comments that really pulled the research together and encouraged my critical thinking. Laura Dominguez, thank you for introducing me to the world of heritage conservation, including USC’s graduate program. Also, I am grateful for having the opportunity to work at the California Historical Society before attending graduate school and learning about heritage conservation. I would like to give a special “thank you” to the organizations that aided my research, including Western Neighborhoods Project, the Chinese Historical Society of America, SF Heritage, and the Clement Street Merchants’ Association. I am grateful for meeting Michael Busk, who provided a robust neighborhood history, and thanks to Cynthia Huie for taking the time to discuss the Clement Street community. Thank you to the City of San Francisco, including Shelley Caltagirone for providing critical information about existing and future cultural heritage protections. Lastly, a special thank you to my family, friends, and peers for your endless support during this process. Your encouragement has helped me stay focused and reminded me of the importance of this research. Thank you to my partner, Will, for enthusiastically standing by my side as I pursue my graduate degree, and thanks Sedona, the cat, for providing endless comfort. v TABLE OF CONTENTS EPIGRAPH ii DEDICATION iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv TABLE OF CONTENTS v LIST OF TABLES viii LIST OF FIGURES ix ABSTRACT xi INTRODUCTION 1 CHAPTER 1: Cultural Heritage 4 Introduction 4 Defining “Cultural Heritage” 7 CHAPTER 2: Clement Street Corridor’s Rich History 16 Introduction 16 Early History of the Richmond District 19 Clement Street Transit History & Early Development 24 Clement Street Merchants’ Association 31 Clement Street’s Cultural History 35 The Inner Richmond and Clement Street Today 47 CHAPTER 3: Clement Street: Existing Cultural Heritage Protections 50 Introduction 50 Richmond Specials—What Led to the Need to Survey 52 San Francisco Heritage Survey 56 Western Neighborhoods Project and Other Neighborhood Groups 62 Legacy Business Program 65 CHAPTER 4: Clement Street: Opportunities of Local Cultural Heritage Protections 72 Introduction 72 Japantown’s Cultural Heritage and Economic Sustainability Strategy 74 Purpose 74 Vision and/or Goals 75 Existing Conditions/Concerns 75 vi Strategy 76 Outcome & Future Recommendations 77 Sustaining San Francisco’s Living History 78 Purpose 78 Vision and/or Goals 80 Existing Conditions/Concerns 80 Strategy 80 Outcome & Future Recommendations 81 Calle 24 Latino Cultural District 82 Purpose 82 Vision and/or Goals 82 Existing Conditions/Concerns 83 Outcome & Future Recommendations 84 SoMa Pilipinas - Filipino Cultural Heritage District 84 Purpose 84 Vision and/or Goals 85 Existing Conditions/Concerns 85 Strategy 86 Outcome & Future Recommendations 86 LGBTQ Cultural Heritage Strategy 87 Purpose 87 Strategy 88 Outcome & Future Recommendations 88 Report Similarities 89 CHAPTER 5: Significance, Challenges and Recommendations 91 Significance: Why Clement Street/Inner Richmond History Matters 91 Challenges with Protecting Clement Street’s Cultural Heritage in Modern Day San Francisco 97 Recommendations for Preservation and Incorporation of Significance 102 Reports & Strategies 103 Surveys, Designations, and Historic Context Statements 107 Legacy Business Program 108 Traditional Cultural Property 110 San Antonio Living Heritage Symposium 112 vii CONCLUSION 114 BIBLIOGRAPHY 118 APPENDICES 127 Appendix A - Japantown Cultural Heritage and Economic Sustainability Strategy Appendix B – Sustaining San Francisco’s Living History Appendix C – Calle 24 Latino Cultural District Appendix D – SoMa Pilipinas Progress Report viii LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1: White and Chinese Population Census Data in San Francisco, 1860-2010 41 Table 3.1: SF Heritage’s 1993 Inner Richmond Survey 59 Table 3.2: List of Organizations That Work in the Richmond District 64 Table 4.1: San Francisco Cultural Heritage Reports 74 ix LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1: Maravilla Handball Court. 5 Figure 1.2: Harvey Milk in San Francisco Pride Parade. 9 Figure 2.1: Inner and Outer Richmond District Boundaries. 18 Figure 2.2: Richmond District, 1890. 20 Figure 2.3: Excerpt from The Richmond Banner, October 6, 1894. 22 Figure 2.4: Investment Ad for the Sutro Railroad. 24 Figure 2.5: Sutro's Electric Streetcar. 25 Figure 2.6: Clement Street at 6 th Avenue, 1906. 27 Figure 2.7: 1899 Sanborn Map, Volume 4, sheet 451. 28 Figure 2.8: 1913 Sanborn Map, Volume 5, sheet 442. 29 Figure 2.9: Clement Street Looking East from 9 th Avenue, 1927. 31 Figure 2.10: Advertisement. 32 Figure 2.11: Clement Street Parade, 1953. 34 Figure 2.12: Halloween Parade, 1958. Corner of Clement and 2 nd Streets. 35 Figure 2.13: Clement Street Between 2nd and 3rd Avenues, 1992. 36 Figure 2.14: Newspaper Ad for Homes for Sale. 42 Figure 2.15: 1937 Residential Security Map of San Francisco. 43 Figure 2.16: 1937 Residential Security Map of San Francisco Legend. 43 Figure 2.17: 1960 Chinese Population in San Francisco. 46 Figure 2.18: Commercial Businesses in the Inner Clement NCD. 48 Figure 3.1: San Francisco Historic Landmarks Map. 51 Figure 3.2: Richmond Special. 53 x Figure 3.3: A 1974 Clement Street Article. 56 Figure 3.4: The Inner Richmond Survey Boundaries. 58 Figure 3.5: Toy Boat Dessert Café. 68 Figure 3.6: Green Apple Books. 69 Figure 3.7: Hamburger Haven. 70 Figure 3.8: The Plough and the Stars. 71 Figure 5.1: The Clement Street Farmer’s Market. 94 Figure 5.2: Advertisement and Map of ClemenTime, 2015. 97 Figure 5.3: Clement Street Zoning Map. 98 Figure 5.4: Cricket Wireless. 102 Figure 5.5: Schubert’s Bakery. 109 xi ABSTRACT In San Francisco’s Inner Richmond neighborhood, Clement Street is a mixed-use street composed of mom and pop stores amidst a diverse, socio-ethnic community, most notably Chinese-Americans who relocated to the Inner Richmond in the mid-to-late twentieth century. Clement Street today maintains its original foundation as a neighborhood main street, which developed alongside transit lines in the late 1800s, and continues to serve the rest of San Francisco as a shopping destination. While efforts have been made by local organizations to recognize the value of the Inner Richmond as a contributor to San Francisco’s overall vernacular identity, little has been done to protect the neighborhood’s diverse cultural heritage, including institutions, businesses, restaurants, and events. A 1990 historic context statement analyzed a portion of the Inner Richmond, but focused mainly on architectural significance. There has yet to be an historic context written about the entire Richmond District, as well as an expansive study of Clement Street’s layers of history and cultural heritage, which are relevant beyond just its architecture. This thesis will try to bridge this gap by referring to existing publications and offer recommendations for protecting its cultural heritage. Ultimately, this thesis will explore the diverse cultural heritage of Clement Street, argue its importance, and offer solutions for protecting its cultural identity in a rapidly changing San Francisco landscape. The Clement Street case study can serve as a model for other neighborhoods in urban areas nationwide in developing an approach for examining and celebrating places rich in layers of cultural heritage. 1 INTRODUCTION Historic preservation is in the United States is on the verge of dramatically changing. Many cities and professionals are swapping out the restricting term, “historic preservation,” for a broader, all-encompassing term, “heritage conservation.” For example, the City of San Francisco is currently drafting a Heritage Conservation Element for its General Plan, which refers to a term that is already used throughout most of the world. 1 Broadly, heritage conservation means the inclusion of both tangible and intangible cultural heritage of a place and its people. Tangible cultural heritage is what has been typically associated with historic preservation in the past. It includes the physicality of heritage, such as buildings, monuments, landscapes, and artifacts. Intangible cultural heritage, however, is more difficult to identify because it includes ephemeral or fleeting traditions, most often passed down through multiple generations, such as parades, music, art, oral narratives, and ways of life. In 2018, San Francisco is leading the nation-wide heritage conservation discussion through its newly developed policies and plans for future cultural heritage protections, including that of intangible cultural heritage. In the past decade, the City has designated several cultural heritage districts, including Calle 24 Latino Cultural District and SoMa (South of Market) Pilipinas Cultural Heritage District, helping to sustain the cultural and ethnic heritage of these existing neighborhoods through policy, community celebration, and identification of the district as a place of importance. In 2015, the City established a Legacy Business Program (LBP) to honor local establishments that are valued within their communities, and to help mitigate 1 General Plans (which are planning policies that cities write and implement for their city), typically have a chapter on historic preservation titled the “Preservation Element.” The City of San Francisco is departing from this norm by referring to it as the “Heritage Conservation Element,” which acknowledges a broader and all-encompassing conservation of the City’s people, places, and heritage; Shelley Caltagirone, interview with author, February 2, 2018. 2 business displacement through designation on the Legacy Business Registry, as well as other benefits. The City and local organizations have also published numerous reports about San Francisco’s cultural heritage, starting with the Japantown Cultural Heritage and Economic Sustainability Strategy (JCHESS), the first City-sponsored report that aims to promote and protect neighborhood cultural heritage. While it is specific to San Francisco’s Japantown community, the methods and tools for assessing cultural heritage may be applied to other neighborhoods across the nation. Because intangible cultural heritage is difficult to identify and assess, the City is currently working on methods for how to inventory and document cultural heritage. Today, the City is planning its citywide survey. Similar to the City of Los Angeles’ SurveyLA, San Francisco’s survey will include an overview of its architectural assets. However, it will also include non- physical aspects of the City’s cultural heritage, which has not been previously documented in San Francisco or in most other cities. 2 By creating a way to identify and protect cultural heritage, San Francisco will provide a model for other cities to follow in protecting their own cultural heritage. I chose to write a thesis about cultural heritage in San Francisco, and use Clement Street as a case study, because 1) since moving to San Francisco in 2012, I have witnessed the City’s strong commitment to maintaining its architectural and cultural heritage, which inspired me to work in this field, and 2) my urban planning experience combined with my heritage conservation studies has helped me view the importance of Clement Street’s layers of history and its socio- ethnic diversity, which make it a unique place that is worth protecting, and 3) as a Richmond 2 Like the City of Los Angeles’ Historic Resource Survey Project (SurveyLA), San Francisco will also partner with the Getty Conservation Institute and utilize Arches software to help capture and identify its architectural and non- architectural cultural heritage; Shelley Caltagirone, interview with author, February 2, 2018. 3 District resident I see, firsthand, a special community that deserves to have a voice in the City’s cultural heritage discussions. This thesis begins with Chapter 1: Cultural Heritage, giving a broad introduction to historic preservation traditions and its policies, as well as an overview of how the field is changing to include cultural heritage. Chapter 2: Clement Street Corridor’s Rich History provides early Richmond District history and as well as specific Clement Street history and traditions that help maintian it as a commercial and transit corridor. Chapter 3: Clement Street: Existing Cultural Heritage Protections is an overview of what neighborhood protections have been instilled by the City and local organizations. In understanding what little heritage conservation attention has been given to the Richmond District and Clement Street, Chapter 4: Clement Street: Opportunities of Local Cultural Heritage Protections lays out the City’s existing protections placed in other neighborhoods. Chapter four is meant to illuminate existing tools and methods that may be applied to Clement Street. Chapter 5: Significance, Challenges and Recommendations analyizes why the Clement Street community is significant, assesses challenges it faces in protecting its cultural heritage, and ultimately recommends ways it can better protect its cultural community. Clement Street is assessed so that other communities may view it as a case study to help protect their own cultural heritage assets. 4 CHAPTER 1: Cultural Heritage Introduction Buildings saved by early historic preservationists primarily represented the nation’s founders: white, wealthy men. In turn, the stories of historic homes and sites preserved by these early efforts were lacking in diversity and often told one point of view. In Why Preservation Matters, Max Page elaborates on this imbalance, saying, “Preservation in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries was largely deployed as a means to ‘Americanize’ immigrants…the result was a landscape that erased and told false tales of the past in support of ongoing oppressions, of African Americans, of workers, of Native Americans.” 3 America’s multi-cultural immigrant population had no place in preservation. Their histories were considered inferior, if considered at all. 4 Far too many of their stories and sites remained unprotected and are now lost forever. Today, we recognize that early preservation efforts spotlighted a narrow view of history. By focusing on what was thought to be the nation’s common or shared history, preservationists largely ignored the stories of minorities and women. Furthermore, the field has maintained deep roots in traditional architectural preservation—foregrounding a building’s physical characteristics over its intangible cultural or social histories. In the twenty-first century, these limiting parameters for deeming something historically important are changing. The Maravilla Handball Court and El Centro Grocery Store in East Los Angeles is an excellent and recent example of a property preserved for its cultural and ethnic significance— something that would not have been protected fifty years ago. In a predominantly Mexican- American neighborhood, the two adjacent properties contain layers of history that are not 3 Max Page, Why Preservation Matters (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2016), 52. 4 Few early preservation laws were the exception to the rule, but only regarding National Register historic sites. For instance, Roosevelt’s 1906 Antiquities Act was the first law to protect Native American archeological sites on federal land. 5 obvious to people outside the community. The handball court was hand-built by East Los Angeles residents in 1928 and became the location where the men’s-only Maravilla Handball Club played for nearly a century. 5 (Figure 1.1) When Michi and Shigeru (or “Tommy”) Nishiyama moved to Maravilla after being subjected to life in a Japanese incarceration camp in Idaho, they bought the handball court property. For decades, they also ran the El Centro Grocery Store next door. The community knew it as “Michi’s” due to Michi working behind the counter day in and day out. 6 Figure 1.1: Maravilla Handball Court. Photo by ASM Affiliates. Source: “Maravilla Handball Court and El Centro Grocery Store,” Los Angeles Conservancy, accessed January 5, 2018, https://www.laconservancy.org/issues/maravilla-handball-court-and-el-centro-grocery-store. Once both Michi and Tommy passed in the early 2000s, the handball court and store closed, quickly falling into disrepair. The Maravilla Historical Society formed to bring back to 5 “Maravilla Handball Court and El Centro Grocery,” Los Angeles Conservancy, accessed January 5, 2018, https://www.laconservancy.org/locations/maravilla-handball-court-and-el-centro-grocery. 6 Stephanie Meeks with Kevin C. Murphy, The Past and Future City: How Historic Preservation is Reviving America’s Communities (Washington D.C.: Island Press, 2016), 2. 6 life these vibrant community resources. Ultimately, with some technical assistance from the Los Angeles Conservancy and advocacy on behalf of the National Trust for Historic Preservation (NTHP), the handball court and grocery store were nominated and found eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources in 2012. 7 This is an excellent example of how a community can assert control over the preservation process and define for itself what places matter. It also goes well beyond the scope of traditional architectural preservation, such as preserving historic residences as house museums. While socially and culturally based preservation is relatively new in the United States, other parts of the world have been thinking as such for a lot longer. Places like Europe and Australia have been leading the way in cultural preservation by including a broader, more diverse historical narrative into their preservation guidelines. Groups such as The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) continue to spearhead protections for an all-encompassing heritage. 8 More specifically, they are protecting and improving heritage based on public history and traditions, capturing the stories and histories of those ordinarily left outside of preservation’s purview, such as ethnic minorities. These organizations have also 7 The Maravilla Handball Court and El Centro Grocery Store were featured in the NTHP’s This Place Matters Campaign, helping to gain awareness of the resource. Even though the Maravilla Handball Court and El Centro Grocery Store were nominated for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources, the battle for insuring long term preservation is not over. In 2017, new owners began altering El Centro Grocery Store’s interior. The Maravilla Historical Society is currently trying to purchase the landmark and convert it into a permanent community center, to honor the local history. While the property was found eligible for listing, it is currently not a listed California Historical Resource in California’s Office of Historic Preservation website. “Maravilla Handball Court and El Centro Grocery,” Los Angeles Conservancy, accessed January 5, 2018, https://www.laconservancy.org/locations/maravilla-handball-court-and-el-centro-grocery; “Listed California Historical Resources,” Office of Historic Preservation, accessed January 5, 2018, http://www.ohp.parks.ca.gov/ListedResources/. 8 UNESCO’s 1972 World Heritage Convention provided the first document to identify standards for natural and cultural sites that may be listed on the World Heritage List. In 2003, UNESCO also held the Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage, which expanded its cultural heritage advocacy and protections. In 1979 Australia’s ICOMOS Chapter published the Burra Charter regarding cultural heritage management. The most recent Burra Charter was adopted in 2013. 7 broadened their scope of what is being preserved by including folklore and traditions passed down through generations. Defining “Cultural Heritage” In 1972, heritage conservation emerged at an international level. In that year, UNESCO’s World Heritage Convention took place, producing an unprecedented treaty that linked natural and cultural conservation together. In the journal, Current Anthropology, Lynn Meskell remarks that this treaty created a “major international instrument for safeguarding the world’s heritage,” as it was the first-time cultural heritage had been identified and defended on an international level. 9 The convention also established the definition of cultural heritage, and identified three category types of designation including monuments, groups of buildings, and sites. 10 Although ground-breaking, UNESCO’s original cultural heritage definition did not remain static. As UNESCO’s tools evolve, so does the definition of cultural heritage. Since 1972, the definition of cultural heritage has been modified and rewritten to be more inclusive of other cultures. In a 2011 report, UNESCO identified cultural heritage as incorporating the following: Cultural heritage does not end at monuments and collections of objects. It also includes traditions or living expressions inherited from our ancestors and passed on to our descendants, such as oral traditions, performing arts, social practices, rituals, festive events, knowledge and practices concerning nature and the universe or the knowledge and skills to produce traditional crafts. 11 9 Lynn Meskell, “UNESCO’s World Heritage Convention at 40 Challenging the Economic and Political Order of International Heritage Conservation,” Current Anthropology 54, no. 4 (2013), 483-494, doi: 10.1086/671136, 483. 10 UNESCO World Heritage Centre, Basic Texts of the 1972 World Heritage Convention, 2005 Edition, Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 2005, accessed January 2, 2018, http://whc.unesco.org/uploads/activities/documents/activity-562-4.pdf. 11 UNESCO, What Is Intangible Cultural Heritage?, 2011, accessed January 2, 2018, https://ich.unesco.org/en/what- is-intangible-heritage-00003. 8 Today, such “traditions or living expressions” are known as intangible cultural heritage, a subset within cultural heritage formally explored during UNESCO’s 2003 Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage. This convention produced a new doctrine specifically focused on intangible cultural heritage and its protections. Section I, Article 2.1 defines intangible cultural heritage as: The ‘Intangible Cultural Heritage’ means the practices, representations, expressions, knowledge, skills – as well as the instruments, objects, artefacts and cultural spaces associated therewith – that communities, groups and, in some cases, individuals recognize as part of their cultural heritage. This intangible cultural heritage, transmitted from generation to generation, is constantly recreated by communities and groups in response to their environment, their interaction with nature and their history, and provides them with a sense of identity and continuity, thus promoting respect for cultural diversity and human creativity. For the purposes of this Convention, consideration will be given solely to such intangible cultural heritage as is compatible with existing international human rights instruments, as well as with the requirements of mutual respect among communities, groups and individuals, and of sustainable development. 12 Due to UNESCO’s pioneering work, there are now two distinct cultural heritage classifications—tangible and intangible—which can be understood as: 1) physical or tangible artifacts and 2) intangible or impermanent attributes. Examples of tangible cultural heritage include things found within the built environment such as buildings, monuments, landscapes, artifacts, etc. Intangible cultural heritage includes ephemeral traditions that are usually passed down from generation to generation, such as festivals, parades, music, folklore, oral narratives, craftsmanship, or ways of life, etc. For instance, The San Francisco Pride Parade is an example of intangible cultural heritage. (Figure 1.2) 12 UNESCO, Basic Texts of the 2003 Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage, 2014 Edition, Paris: UNESCO, 2014, accessed January 2, 2018, http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002305/230504e.pdf. 9 Figure 1.2: Harvey Milk in San Francisco Pride Parade. The Pride Parade is an example of intangible cultural heritage. It occurs once a year and is specific to San Francisco’s built environment, providing a sense of identity to those who participate in it. Given its impermanent nature, it is tough to assess and protect intangible cultural heritage, unlike buildings or other tangible cultural heritage resources. Source: ONE National Gay and Lesbian Archives, accessed through USC Digital Library, January 5, 2018, http://digitallibrary.usc.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/p15799coll4/id/5298/rec/39. While intangible cultural heritage is not a new concept (anthropologists have been studying it for far longer than conservationists), new ways of thinking about it and protecting it are groundbreaking within the heritage conservation field. As UNESCO defines it, intangible cultural heritage gives people a “sense of identity” that links them to their built environment. 13 Given the fleeting nature of intangible cultural heritage, it is difficult to critique and protect on any level—national, state, or local. Therefore, tangible cultural heritage has remained at the forefront in the American historic preservation field since its early founding. 13 Ibid. 10 Existing national parameters do not entirely protect intangible cultural heritage nor are there clear standards to identify and designate intangible aspects of heritage that states and cities could also use. The National Park Service’s National Register for Historic Places (National Register) is the nation’s official list for historic places established in 1966 by the National Historic Preservation Act. Today, the National Register maintains its historically narrow criteria, limiting what types of properties may be listed. 14 Currently, a property is considered for the National Register if it retains historic (physical) integrity, and meets at least one of the following significance criteria: a) associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history, b) associated with the lives of significant persons in our past, c) embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction, or d) yielded or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory. 15 Where in the national criteria do things such as historic businesses, communities, or annual social gatherings within ethnic enclaves fit? The answer is not straightforward. Using San Francisco’s annual Pride Parade as an example, Market Street could be nominated for its association with the parade’s historic route under Criteria A (events). However, its significance would be based on the parade itself, which is intangible. Utilizing Criteria A and B to nominate intangible cultural heritage is possible. However, the National Register’s integrity requirement, which many states and local municipalities also follow, is difficult for both tangible and intangible heritage to meet. The integrity requirement essentially prohibits out-of-character alterations to a building and ensures strict outward appearances are met. Integrity insists that buildings maintain their 14 The National Register criteria and terminology has been largely adopted by state and local government agencies nationwide. The criteria does not include intangible cultural heritage protections. 15 “National Register Bulletin,” U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, accessed January 7, 2018, https://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb15/nrb15_2.htm. 11 original look while upholding most of the seven aspects of integrity: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. Yet many buildings that are significant for their intangible cultural merits have been altered over the years or the surrounding neighborhood has drastically changed. Therefore, a large percentage of historic resources that meet the National Register criteria are found still ineligible based on integrity. According to Vince Michael, executive director of the San Antonio Conservation Society in Texas, there are three problems with the ways in which integrity is judged: 1) integrity is the wrong word. Internationally, “authenticity” is used to allow a broader significance context that is less focused on the architecture itself; 2) integrity is too black-and-white, meaning the property has integrity or lacks it. Instead, integrity should be assessed on a gradient scale (A, B, C, D, etc.) to not eliminate buildings that have changed over time and; 3) “the most crucial problem is that integrity is defined architecturally even if the significance of the property is not architectural.” 16 Heritage conservationists are measuring culturally-significant buildings based on architecture, which is the wrong unit of measuring cultural significance. Additionally, defining the period of significance can be challenging for cultural heritage nominations because it relies on the building’s physicality, such as its date of construction. Lastly, the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, which includes ten architectural standards, can be difficult to interpret, particularly so for cultural heritage properties. It is up to state historic preservation offices (SHPOs), cities and policy-makers, advocates, and consultants, to more frequently utilize Criteria A and B for nominating social/cultural heritage and to implement a new way of thinking about cultural heritage so 16 Vince Michael, “Diversity in Preservation: Rethinking Standards and Practices,” Forum Journal 28, no. 3 (2014): 5-12, https://forum.savingplaces.org/HigherLogic/System/DownloadDocumentFile.ashx?DocumentFileKey=f04a6056- 5e84-a1d3-94d2-812344eaa98a. 12 integrity may be adjusted for those kinds of properties. Currently, there are limited protections at the national level for intangible cultural heritage. 17 Additionally, the National Register may not be the right tool for cultural heritage protections and instead an entirely new way of identifying, recording, and ultimately protecting cultural resources could be explored by heritage conservation leaders. Cultural Heritage Moving Forward Intangible cultural heritage is largely centered around the community it is located in. It is a place-based history greatly tied to memory. For the last fifty years, American preservation has predominantly put an emphasis on saving buildings before people. When it comes to protecting cultural heritage, it is urgent that the National Register significance criteria be revised to include guidance for designating intangible cultural heritage sites, events, and people. The difficultly, however, with including intangible cultural heritage on the National Register (or state or local level), is that there is not a one-size-fits-all evaluation for things of such an elusive nature. Intangible cultural heritage cannot be measured as easily as tangible buildings. It cannot be judged for maintaining its integrity in the same manner. While a plaque could be placed where a property once stood, representing past intangible cultural heritage, wayfinding techniques are not equivalent to maintaining the physical representation of the intangible cultural heritage. A gay bar from the 1950s may be considered significant for the 17 Within the National Register, a Traditional Cultural Property (TCP) may be listed. However, requirements for TCP listing exclude protecting intangible cultural heritage alone (it must be tied to a physical place). TCPs are discussed in greater detail in Chapter 5: Significance, Challenges and Recommendations. Protections for intangible cultural heritage, the United States has a few Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) who work to safeguard intangible cultural heritage such as oral traditions, performing arts, social practices, traditional craftsmanship, etc. Existing NGOs in the U.S. include: The Center for Traditional Music and Dance, established in 1968; the American Folklore Society, established in 1978; and the International Organization of Folk Arts, established in 1979; UNESCO, “Accredited NGOs Located in this Country,” accessed January 13, 2018, https://ich.unesco.org/en- state/united-states-of-america-US?info=accredited-ngos. 13 safe space it once provided (as an example of intangible cultural heritage), but if the bar is torn down then the physical connection with its cultural significance would be lost. In some cases, a plaque may be appropriate, but right now there are not enough protections and support to help a building representing intangible cultural heritage endure. How, then, will intangible cultural heritage survive and move forward within the heritage conservation field? In America, heritage conservation is a relatively new concept that is not yet fully embraced. It is not concerned with preserving architecture for architecture’s sake; it moves beyond the scope of America’s traditional historic preservation standards. This makes it an outlier or what some may call “radical.” However, new global terminology and doctrines are moving the heritage conservation field forward in the United States. The University of Southern California (USC) acknowledges the field is shifting to include a broader definition. In 2012, USC changed the graduate historic preservation degree name to heritage conservation. It is currently one of the only few programs in the United States that offers a master’s degree in heritage conservation. People like professor and author Max Page are also thinking differently about historic preservation in America. In his book, Why Preservation Matters, Page argues for preservation beyond the sake of saving old buildings; he argues for it as a means to create more equitable and just communities. To do so, preservationists need to include difficult histories. Page writes, In the age of voluntary and forced migration, in which nations that may have seen themselves as diverse find they are now far more multicultural than ever before, and countries that saw themselves as relatively homogenous are being forced to confront the diversity within their midst, preservation of controversial places is a crucial tool for achieving reconciliation and consensus. 18 18 Page, Why Preservation Matters, 163. 14 Preserving difficult and controversial places broadens and enriches the field. It allows other community histories to be shared that were otherwise ignored when historic preservation first began. The field of historic preservation in the United States today has an incredible opportunity to expand its definition. It has the chance to include peoples, places, sites, infrastructure, landscapes, handball courts, etc., that were previously overlooked. Slowly but surely the field is adjusting to this mindset, as exemplified by the Maravilla Handball Court. But it is going to take more time and effort for this to become a dominant way of thought. In a Preservation Rightsizing Network article, Michael Allen underlines this notion, saying that the field needs to start “developing serious conservation strategies for vernacular building stock that might not come in the tidiest, architectural history textbook-friendly form.” 19 To do this, additional engagement is needed from all parties—community stakeholders, civil leaders, government agencies, planning departments, teachers and universities, seniors and youth, etc.—to expand the reach of historic preservation. The National Register criteria needs to also change to allow such significant and rich history to be saved. Today, cultural heritage is slowly taking a seat at the table alongside traditional architectural preservation. San Francisco’s Clement Street Corridor is a significant cultural heritage site currently unprotected. Many layers of history representing numerous user-groups can be found along Clement Street and within the greater Richmond District. In the San Francisco Chronicle article, “For the Real San Francisco, take the 38 to Sixth and Geary,” Carle Nolte expresses this sentiment by stating, the “Richmond District [is] a place where so many cultures – Chinese, Irish, Italian, Russian, Vietnamese, and plain, white-bread American – all 19 Allen, “Is the National Register,” Preservation Rightsizing Network, November 12, 2014, https://rightsizeplace.org/is-the-national-register-of-historic-places-helping-or-hindering-legacy-city-preservation/. 15 exists side by side.” 20 Clement Street’s diversity will be explored in Chapter 2: Clement Street Corridor’s Rich History. 20 Carl Nolte, “For the real San Francisco, take the 38 to 6 th and Geary,” San Francisco Chronicle, February 1, 2009. 16 CHAPTER 2: Clement Street Corridor’s Rich History Introduction “I hardly ever went out of this neighborhood. It never occurred to me that there were other neighborhoods around. It’s like a small town,” states Michael Busk about his experience growing up on San Francisco’s Clement Street through the 1940s-1960s. 21 Busk is a previous longtime Inner Richmond resident with deep roots tied to the Clement Street Corridor. 22 Fascinatingly, Busk’s observations remain relevant today. In 2018, the Inner Richmond’s Clement Street offers the feel of a small, twelve-block main street in the heart of a major metropolitan city. 23 There you will find almost everything you could possibly need: abundant restaurants, mom and pop shops, cultural diversity, local character, access to transit, short blocks and walkability, etc. It’s the kind of street that preeminent author and planner Jane Jacobs advocated in her book, The Death and Life of Great American Cities. Jacobs would have most likely agreed that Clement Street is an excellent example of a livable neighborhood based on her formula, which includes mixed use buildings, small blocks, and aged buildings, among other 21 Michael Busk, interview with author, January 10, 2018. 22 Michael’s father, Ernest Busk, was president of the Clement Street Merchants’ Association for several years. Ernest and his wife Mary opened Busvan Moving and Storage in their dining room at 2 nd Avenue and Clement Street in 1946. The business grew and eventually added a store for selling used furniture. It became well known throughout San Francisco as Busvan For Bargains, a popular discount-furniture store on Clement Street (three blocks from Busks’ rented house on 2 nd Avenue) with a larger location on Battery Street in downtown where people could find good deals and hunt for exotic items. Michael Busk became Busvan president in 1977. By 2003 Busvan closed operations, however the storefront is still maintained by Michael with unique displays, such as clown heads from historic Playland at the Beach. (See the Richmond District Blog’s article, “Playland Clown on Clement Street, ‘distressing children in the Richmond,’” for more details: http://richmondsfblog.com/2012/12/28/playland-clown- on-clement-street-distressing-children-in-the-richmond/) The store’s original signage remains as a relic of early Clement Street. 23 The number of streets included in Clement Street’s core commercial corridor vary depending upon who is asked. Geographically, the Inner Richmond’s Clement Street runs from Arguello Boulevard to Park Presidio Boulevard, which includes twelve blocks between. But there is a slightly different dynamic from Arguello Boulevard to 6 th Avenue compared with 7 th Avenue to Funston Avenue. More of the New Chinatown businesses tend to operate past 6 th Avenue. 17 facets. Although not formally educated in the topic, Jacobs used her New York city observations to advocate for improved cities. It is remarkable that Clement Street maintained its local charm and vibrant character for so long. How did this neighborhood corridor come to be; how was it maintained through time as the city developed around it; what cultural heritage aspects were established and sustained over time? This chapter will attempt to answer these questions by first analyzing the Richmond District’s overall neighborhood development (Early History of the Richmond District). It will then focus on transit infrastructure, which led to Clement Street’s earliest development as a commercial corridor in the late 1800s - early 1900s (Clement Street Transit History & Early Development). Next, this chapter will examine the cultural heritage contributions of the Clement Street Merchants’ Association, a neighborhood group that enhanced the street’s commercial vitality for over a century (Clement Street Merchants’ Association). Chapter two will also closely study one aspect of the neighborhood’s multiple cultural heritage identities: its recently formed Chinese community (Clement Street’s Cultural History). This section will look into the history of the Chinese migration into the Inner Richmond and speculate why Clement Street was the epicenter for this cultural transition. Lastly, this chapter will close on reflections of the neighborhood as it is today (Clement Street Today). By understanding Clement Street’s history and its deep connection with the current neighborhood, this thesis will advocate for stronger cultural heritage protections of the commercial corridor. By protecting its cultural heritage, the neighborhood will be better supported to conserve its local ethnic and commercial diversity as exorbitant costs of living spurred by real estate speculation and gentrification continue to rise. Location 18 The Richmond District is a neighborhood in the northwestern section of the City of San Francisco. (Figure 2.1) While its boundaries vary depending upon who you ask, it is loosely defined by the Presidio and Lincoln Park or Lands End to the north, Golden Gate Park to the south, Arguello Boulevard to the east, and the Pacific Ocean to the west. The City’s official boundaries for the district do not include the Seacliff neighborhood or Lands End adjacent to the Outer Richmond, and its Inner Richmond borders extend from Arguello and Geary Boulevards to Masonic Avenue towards the west. 24 Park Presidio Boulevard divides the Inner and Outer Richmond neighborhoods. Clement Street and Geary Boulevard are the two main streets that run parallel, through the length of the Richmond District. Both are commercial corridors of San Francisco’s west side. Figure 2.1: Inner and Outer Richmond District Boundaries. Source: “Neighborhood Groups Map,” City and County of San Francisco Planning Department, accessed January 11, 2018, http://sf-planning.org/NEIGHBORHOOD-GROUPS-MAP. 24 “Neighborhood Groups Map,” City and County of San Francisco Planning Department, accessed January 11, 2018, http://sf-planning.org/NEIGHBORHOOD-GROUPS-MAP. 19 History discussed in this chapter will begin with early Richmond District development. It will then lead to close examination of the Inner Richmond’s Clement Street history, including its commercial and transit development, and post-war Chinese community. Outer Richmond history will not be included in the later section of this chapter. This thesis will focus primarily on the Inner Richmond’s history, policies, and future recommendations. Additional scholarly research will need to be made on the Outer Richmond in the future. Early History of the Richmond District Spanish explorers in the eighteenth century recorded one of the earliest histories of the land that would eventually be named the Richmond District. They noted the land ’s simplicity, composed mostly of expansive sand dunes. 25 (Figure 2.2) Architectural historian Christopher VerPlanck paints a picture of this land once “considered San Francisco’s Sahara—wind-blown, arid, and almost entirely uninhabited.” 26 With so much vast open space located far from downtown San Francisco, the land proved attractive to agricultural and ranching purposes. Its first non-native settlers, mostly Irish immigrants, arrived between the 1850s and 1860s and began transforming the land to dairies and farms. William Issel and Robert R. Cherny, authors of San Francisco, 1865-1932, note, “The Irish arrived among the first [in San Francisco] during the gold rush and remained numerically dominant throughout the nineteenth century.” 27 Of the very few people inhabiting the land that would become the Richmond District in the mid-nineteenth century, their ethnicities were almost 25 Christopher VerPlanck, “Social and Architectural History of the Richmond District,” SF Apartment Magazine. December 2000, 2, http://www.sfaa.org/magazine/archives/2000/dec/1200.verplank.html (site discontinued), accessed via San Francisco Public Library. 26 Christopher H. Nelson, “The Inner Richmond,” The Foundation for San Francisco’s Architectural Heritage, Heritage Newsletter: Inner Richmond Supplement XV, no. 2 (July 1987): I-VIII. 27 William Issel and Robert W. Cherny, San Francisco, 1865-1932, Politics, Power, and Urban Development (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986), 55. 20 certainly Irish. 28 Other major ethnic groups that may have resided on the land that would become the Richmond District would have been “Germans, including Protestants, Catholics, and Jews,” who had populations, at that time, just shy of the city’s large Irish population. 29 Figure 2.2: Richmond District, 1890. Photo of view facing southeast, looking across the Richmond District towards Golden Gate Park. Source: FoundSF, accessed November 22, 2017, http://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=File:Sevw890-across-richmond.jpg. During the nineteenth-century, people informally referred to this land as “Outside Lands” and “Point Lobos District;” it was outside of the city ’s jurisdiction, far from downtown San Francisco. As the city grew, the “Official Map of the Outside Lands,” published in 1870, extended the city’s grid from downtown and the Western Addition out to the Richmond. 30 This extension propelled subtle growth in San Francisco ’s western region; a handful of homes were constructed and neighborhood associations formed. 28 The “Irish Mile,” a concentration of Irish pubs along the Inner Richmond’s Geary Boulevard (adjacent and parallel to Clement Street) alludes to the presence of a significant Irish community in the Inner Richmond. 29 Issel, San Francisco, 1865-1932, 55. 30 LaBounty, “Naming the Richmond District,” Western Neighborhoods Project, accessed May 25, 2017, http://www.outsidelands.org/gt-marsh.php. 21 As the neighborhood developed, its newly settled people convened, demanding a permanent and more noble name. George Turner Marsh partially influenced its selection. Marsh, born in Australia, had a fascination for Japanese culture and he worked as a Japanese tea importer-exporter. 31 When his family moved to San Francisco, Marsh joined them and took a job in downtown. His store located in the Palace Hotel, “G.T. Marsh and Company: Japanese Art Repository,” provided great success and wealth for Marsh. 32 With his riches, he decided to build an eccentric, grand home at 12 th Avenue and Clement Street, naming it the Richmond House in honor of his native land in Richmond, Australia. 33 By 1890, San Francisco officially designated the Richmond as such. 34 Marsh’s impressive home and the naming of “The Richmond” provided a sense of community pride. The Richmond. It rang boldly. The neighborhood and its people no longer represented a sandy no-man’s-land. The land with few homes sprinkled throughout could now be developed. Real estate promotion took flight. A weekly newspaper, The Richmond Banner, began publishing self-aggrandizing ads to bring people out west. (Figure 2.3) The paper routinely made bold statements such as this one published in 1894 claiming, “Its topography and salubrious climate alone is sufficient to induce investors to realize its importance as a residence locality.” 35 The way people perceived the Richmond dramatically flipped—or at the very least it flipped for land speculators and developers. 31 Ibid. 32 Ibid. 33 Renee Renaud, “Why Is It Called Richmond?,” Richmond Review via FoundSF, June 1990, Accessed September 20, 2017, http://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=Why_is_it_called_%22Richmond%22%3F. 34 San Francisco Ordinance #2309 legally named the land between First Avenue (now Arguello Boulevard) to the Ocean, and Fulton Street to the Presidio, as The Richmond District. However, from 1917 to 2009 the Richmond was legally named “Park-Presidio District” to prevent further confusion between the San Francisco neighborhood and the city, Richmond, California. In the early 2000s, few people knew the Richmond was still legally named Park- Presidio District. In 2009, the name was legally changed back to the Richmond; LaBounty, “Naming the Richmond District,” Western Neighborhoods Project, accessed May 25, 2017, http://www.outsidelands.org/gt-marsh.php. 35 The Richmond Banner, October 6, 1894, accessed: San Francisco Public Library. 22 Figure 2.3: Excerpt from The Richmond Banner, October 6, 1894. Source: San Francisco Public Library. Although unapologetically boosterish, The Richmond Banner also advocated for general neighborhood improvements and well-being. The Richmond lacked many basic necessities other San Francisco neighborhoods had at the time. To grow the neighborhood and better connect with the rest of the city, the Richmond needed to improve its minimal transportation infrastructure. Its first road —The Point Lobos and the San Francisco Toll Road —served horse carriages and omnibuses along a private toll road to San Francisco ’s most western point: today ’s Lands End (now known as Geary Boulevard and Point Lobos Avenue). 36 Wealthy citizens followed Point Lobos Avenue from downtown San Francisco to Ocean Beach every Sunday by horse-drawn stagecoach, with the main seaside attraction being the Cliff House. 37 The Cliff House began as an exclusive retreat—only the well-heeled could afford the expensive and extensive journey. 38 Once they arrived, the Cliff House did not disappoint. Although the original 1863 building was “a modest one-story wood frame structure,” its perch 36 “Vestiges of Point Lobos Avenue,” National Park Service, accessed October 28, 2017, https://www.nps.gov/goga/learn/historyculture/vestiges-point-lobos-ave.htm. 37 In the 1970s, The Cliff House and adjacent land became acquired by the National Park Service as part of Lands End and the Golden Gate National Recreational Area. Today, the Cliff House is not officially considered part of the Richmond District; “Cliff House History,” National Park Service, accessed October 28, 2017, https://www.nps.gov/goga/learn/historyculture/cliff-house.htm. 38 The original Cliff House opened in 1863, perched atop coastal cliffs on the immediate edge of San Francisco’s Outside Lands, facing the Pacific Ocean. 23 atop the cliffs overlooking Seal Rocks and the Pacific Ocean made it an attractive destination. 39 Several United States presidents visited as well as San Francisco’s upper echelon families—the Stanfords, the Hearsts, and the Crockers. 40 In 1881, millionaire Adolph Heinrich Joseph Sutro, miner, real estate speculator, engineer, and eventual mayor of San Francisco, bought the Cliff House and its surrounding land. 41 He rebuilt the Cliff House after it burned down, making it into a wondrous, seaside Victorian resort in 1896. 42 The National Park Service elaborates: The new building was a grand, eight-story tall castle-like structure with turrets, decorative spires, fanciful roof dormers and an observation tower. The new resort, designed specifically for dining, dancing and entertainment, had several private dining rooms, parlors, bars, and kitchens at the ground level. Private lunchrooms, a large art gallery, a gem exhibit, a photo gallery, a reception room, panoramic views from large windows and an open-air veranda were all located on the upper floors. 43 Unfortunately, the Victorian Cliff House did not survive for too long, burning down in 1907. However, Sutro’s other investments in the Richmond District proved more lasting. Sutro developed the Richmond from farmland into commercial and residential space. He saw potential in the Richmond and worked to aid in its popularity and growth. His venture in Lands End, including building the Sutro Gardens and Sutro Baths, encouraged greater interest in the city’s growing seaside economy. More and more people wanted to visit San Francisco’s western end. Sutro’s steam-powered railroad, known as the Ferries and Cliff House Railway or the Powell Street Railway (which required a transfer to get to the Cliff House from downtown San Francisco), operated from today’s Presidio Avenue and California Street, and wrapped 39 “Cliff House History,” National Park Service, accessed October 28, 2017, https://www.nps.gov/goga/learn/historyculture/cliff-house.htm. 40 Ibid. 41 VerPlanck, “Social and Architectural History,” 3. 42 “Cliff House History,” National Park Service, accessed October 28, 2017, https://www.nps.gov/goga/learn/historyculture/cliff-house.htm. 43 Ibid. 24 around the cliffs at Lands End, ending near 48 th Avenue and today’s Point Lobos Avenue. 44 (Figure 2.4) This changed everything. By initiating transit in the Richmond, Sutro paved the way for future transit lines to be developed and for further connectivity with the rest of the city. Figure 2.4: Investment Ad for the Sutro Railroad. Source: The Richmond Banner, November 17, 1894, accessed through the San Francisco Public Library. Clement Street Transit History & Early Development After Sutro’s steam-powered railroad line was absorbed by Southern Pacific and the fare was quadrupled, Sutro opened a Clement Street electric streetcar line in 1905 at five cents per round-trip ride, to fight for lower fare prices. Sutro eventually won and five-cent fares became universal at that time. 45 People were excited to ride Sutro’s new route along Clement Street. 46 (Figure 2.5) The streetcar facilitated social and demographic change in the Richmond throughout the twentieth 44 Melinda Breitmeyer, “Neighborhoods: The Richmond District,” Pacific, (July 1980), 19, accessed via San Francisco Public Library; LaBounty, email correspondence to author, March 15, 2018. 45 Sutro’s electric streetcar line is also referred to as an electric trolley by other sources; Breitmeyer, “Neighborhoods: The Richmond District,” 19. 46 Breitmeyer, “Neighborhoods: The Richmond District,” 19. 25 century, particularly along Clement Street. Sutro’s streetcar led initial neighborhood investment by steadily bringing people out west and connecting the Richmond with the rest of the city— putting the Richmond on the map, so to speak. In doing so, the streetcars acted as a long-term conduit for capital and growth, shaping Clement Street into the commercial corridor it is today. Figure 2.5: Sutro's Electric Streetcar. It ran on Clement St. and is today’s 2 Clement MUNI route, which follows this original line. Source: FoundSF, “Clement Streetcars,” accessed November 26, 2017, http://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=File:Richmond$sutro-rail-road-cars.jpg. Sutro ’s electric streetcar provided the earliest connection with downtown San Francisco and the city ’s far-most western region. Just as Sutro’s tracks were being laid down, in 1896 the San Francisco Chronicle wrote, “It is the pioneer trolley line, and will without doubt be one of the great factors in Richmond’s future development. It is expected that houses will spring up along the line of the Sutro road as rapidly as they have within the region.” 47 While this turned out to be true, development was slower than anticipated. Slowly but surely, the Richmond’s 47 “Progress of the Richmond District,” San Francisco Chronicle, January 31, 1896, ProQuest Historical Newspapers. 26 immediate proximity to Sutro ’s seaside development along with transit infrastructure combined to form the basis for the Richmond’s initial growth in the late 1800s and turn of the century. 48 From the late nineteenth century through 1906, new residential development increased in the Richmond, though not quite as rapidly as the San Francisco Chronicle predicted. Still, speculative development sprung up near transit lines along California Street, Geary Boulevard, and Fulton Avenue, spearheaded by developer Fernando Nelson and realtor Greenwood and DeWolfe. 49 Clement Street, too, began to take shape as a commercial-transit corridor. A 1906 photograph of the intersection at Clement Street and 6 th Avenue emphasizes the correlation between existing storefronts and newly-laid transit tracks. (Figure 2.6) Immediate transit proximity largely dictated Clement Street’s early commercial character. 48 There were several neighborhood associations which fostered the Richmond’s growth. The Point Lobos Improvement Club, founded in 1886-1887, was quite influential. Each week a column was printed in The Richmond Banner, discussing their weekly meetings and what was on the agenda for neighborhood improvement. During their early years, the improvement club advocated for upgraded transit routes and roads, and they helped bring sewage and power lines to the Richmond. 49 VerPlanck, “Social and Architectural History of the Richmond District,” 4. 27 Figure 2.6: Clement Street at 6 th Avenue, 1906. Source: SAN FRANCISCO HISTORY CENTER, SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC LIBRARY. The avenues adjacent to Clement Street also began to fill with residential development. (Figure 2.7) Although vacant lots still dominated the Inner Richmond in 1899, the commercial corridors of Point Lobos and Clement Street started to fill. According to Issel and Cherny, after the turn of the twentieth century, “new neighborhoods developed in the Sunset and Richmond districts as families followed the streetcar lines into what had shortly before been sand dunes along either side of Golden Gate Park.” 50 50 Issel, San Francisco, 1865-1932, 58. 28 Figure 2.7: 1899 Sanborn Map, Volume 4, sheet 451. The Inner Richmond District along Clement Street, between 5 th and 7 th Avenues and Point Lobos (Geary Boulevard). This block is mostly vacant. Nearby lots are slightly more built-out, but still have several empty lots. Source: San Francisco Public Library. While Sutro ’s transit helped ignite the Richmond ’s earliest housing development, the 1906 earthquake and fire rapidly propelled its growth. As fires and fear consumed the city, thousands of terrified and displaced San Franciscans found refuge in the Richmond District, far away from the downtown fires. The city quickly assembled wood-frame refugee shacks on city- owned park land. 51 Given the neighborhood’s vast amount of undeveloped land and its adjacency to Golden Gate Park, the Richmond became the prime location for post-earthquake recovery. After the rubble cleared and the smoke dissolved, many of those affected by the fire decided to 51 VerPlanck, “Social and Architectural History,” 4. 29 stay in the Richmond and start anew. Seemingly overnight the neighborhood transformed from less-populated to well-populated. It became a place for people to rebuild their lives. Only a few months after the earthquake, a substantial community blossomed. The speedy transformation of the Richmond after the earthquake is evident when comparing pre- and post-earthquake Sanborn Fire Insurance Company maps. The 1913 Sanborn map shows a post-earthquake boom in residential and commercial development along transit lines—with dense commercial corridors developing on Clement Street and 6 th Avenue, and predominantly residential buildings appear along the Avenues. (Figure 2.8) Figure 2.8: 1913 Sanborn Map, Volume 5, sheet 442. There has been greater development since 1899, as almost all of the lots have been filled in. Source: San Francisco Public Library. 30 By 1913, every lot on Clement Street between 5 th and 7 th Avenues featured a commercial building, as those lots faced the trolley line. Parcels along Geary Boulevard also saw an increase in commercial development due to San Francisco’s Municipal Railway’s (MUNI) first electric lines introduced in 1912. 52 Between 1899 and 1913, the parcels lining 5 th to 7 th Avenues between Clement Street and Geary Boulevard had filled in with considerably more residential buildings ranging from single-family to multi-unit flats. Census data shows that by 1920, the neighborhood no longer served single brave souls; families and larger households now lived in the Richmond. The increase in residential units on the surrounding streets supported the growth of Clement Street as a major commercial corridor in San Francisco. By the 1920s, Clement Street had grown into a bustling and vibrant commercial corridor of small-scale mom and pop stores and abundant transit options linking a thriving Inner Richmond community to the rest of the city. (Figure 2.9) Shortly after this time, in late 1930s, the Richmond District had a diverse community with thirty-two percent of the city’s Jewish population living in the Richmond District. 53 52 Breitmeyer, “Neighborhoods: The Richmond District,” 19. 53 Issel, San Francisco, 1865-1932, 67. 31 Figure 2.9: Clement Street Looking East from 9 th Avenue, 1927. Source: SAN FRANCISCO HISTORY CENTER, SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC LIBRARY. Clement Street Merchants’ Association Along with Adolph Sutro’s early transit lines, Clement Street’s development as a commercial corridor is largely due the work of Clement Street Merchants’ Association (CSMA), an organization that has been supporting Clement Street’s businesses and small-scale character for over one century. 54 CSMA identifies itself as “an association of merchants, business owners and non-profits that maintain their business on or around Clement Street,” continuing the tradition of its early twentieth-century origins. 55 Starting soon after the 1906 earthquake, CSMA has offered (and continues to offer) annual events and festivals for local business owners and the public, which have shaped Clement Street’s cultural character over the last century. 54 The CSMA website notes that the organization was founded in 1922, however earlier newspaper articles reveal that the organization operated earlier. The April 22, 1910 San Francisco Chronicle article, “Plans to Light Clement Street,” states, “At the last meeting of the Clement Street Merchants’ Association” the organization worked with local businesses to get electric lights placed on Clement Street. 55 “Welcome to the Clement,” Clement Street Merchants Association, accessed January 11, 2018, http://www.clementstreetsf.com/mission. 32 One example of a CSMA-sponsored event was advertised in The Richmond Banner in 1934. It informs readers of an upcoming “banquet and dance hosted by the Clement Street Merchants’ Association,” touted as “the best social event of the year.” 56 Party-goers could purchase tickets at only “$1.50 per plate” to dance the night away at local establishment “Roberts-at-the Beach.” 57 Additional ads are scattered throughout The Richmond Banner promoting the neighborhood’s premier social event. (Figure 2.10) Figure 2.10: Advertisement. Clement Street Merchants’ Association Annual Dinner & Dance. Source: The Richmond Banner, January 5, 1934, accessed through the San Francisco Public Library. 56 “Clement Dines Sunday Night,” The Richmond Banner, January 5, 1934, accessed: San Francisco Public Library. 57 Ibid. 33 Michael Busk recalls the annual CSMA event several decades after it was hosted at Roberts-at-the-Beach, in the 1960s. Busk states, “There was a big dinner around 11 th Avenue [and Clement Street] every year. They would hand out awards to members. And there was a lot of dancing.” 58 Although the format has slightly changed throughout the years, CSMA’s annual social gatherings continue to this day. 59 Along with events for business owners and employees, CSMA has historically sponsored parades and gatherings for the community on Clement Street. One such example is where CSMA hosted a parade to celebrate “the completion of improvement work” which “drew a host of enthusiastic spectators.” 60 (Figure 2.11) 58 Michael Busk, interview with author, January 10, 2018. 59 Currently, CSMA meets monthly and has two evening social events per year. In 2017, CSMA’s social events were hosted at Clement Street businesses EATS and Wells Fargo; Cynthia Huie, email correspondence with author, January 19, 2018. 60 “Photo ID # AAK-096,” San Francisco Public Library, accessed January 25, 2018, http://sflib1.sfpl.org:82/record=b1038971. 34 Figure 2.11: Clement Street Parade, 1953. Cub Scout Pack 58, Drum and Bugle Corps. Source: SAN FRANCISCO HISTORY CENTER, SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC LIBRARY. The longest-running CSMA-sponsored event that continues to this day is the Halloween parade, which began in circa 1958. 61 Michael Busk recalls that CSMA was extremely active when he was growing up. “They had a Halloween parade from Arguello [Boulevard] to 6 th Ave every year. It was a big deal.” 62 (Figure 2.12) 61 The exact date of the parade’s origin is unknown, but it may have begun around 1958. Michael Busk confirms the date, saying, “I was in the Halloween Parade on Clement with my friend Ed Sayed (whose family owned a doughnut shop on Geary by the corner of Stanyan, where the copy shop is now) when we both were freshmen at St. Ignatius High School. The year would be 1958. I remember that night being on Clement at the intersection of Second Avenue. The parade started either at Second or Third and went only on Clement—to Fifth or Sixth, I think. Prizes were given in various categories of “Best”; neither Ed nor I won one, but that was not the reason that we were in the parade;” Michael Busk, author, February 26, 2018. 62 Michael Busk, interview with author, January 10, 2018. 35 Figure 2.12: Halloween Parade, 1958. Corner of Clement and 2 nd Streets. Source: Western Neighborhoods Project - wnp28.0254, http://www.outsidelands.org/Display//wnp28.0254.jpg. CSMA events shifted over time to incorporate new types of people within the community. Since the neighborhood developed its New Chinatown identity, CSMA’s traditions have also shifted to incorporate the Chinese-American experience. CSMA continues to be extremely active today and plays a vital role in conserving the Clement Street Corridor’s cultural heritage. Clement Street’s Cultural History In 2018, it is hard to imagine Clement Street or the Inner Richmond without its substantial Chinese community. And yet, Chinese settlement in the Richmond is a relatively recent occurrence, dating to the post-WWII era. From the 1960s through 1980s, the Richmond District underwent a noticeable Chinese population increase. (Figure 2.13) The newly formed Chinese community added intricate layers to the neighborhood’s middle-class, Irish-American foundations by transforming its looks and feel similar to a Chinese commercial corridor. Take a 36 walk along Clement Street today and there you will find numerous Chinese stores selling tea, houseware items, and groceries. Meat and poultry hang from butcher windows, crabs crawl in their tanks in seafood storefronts, and fresh dim sum is available on almost every block. The sidewalks are crowded. They give a congested feeling akin to Chinatown. This is not a coincidence. Figure 2.13: Clement Street Between 2nd and 3rd Avenues, 1992. The street has an abundance of Chinese businesses along the commercial corridor. The Inner Richmond and particularly Clement Street is considered New Chinatown. Source: SAN FRANCISCO HISTORY CENTER, SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC LIBRARY. Geographically, Chinatown and the Inner Richmond are not far away from one another by transit. Bus line connections, abundant post-war housing in the Inner Richmond, redlining restrictions that prohibited the Chinese from moving out of Chinatown into neighborhoods besides the Richmond, and overall Chinese population increase in San Francisco, aided two types of Chinese migrations: 1) the decision of San Francisco’s Chinatown community members to move to the Richmond District and, 2) the migration of Chinese to the United States and into Chinatowns, including the Inner Richmond. 37 The Inner Richmond —and more particularly Clement Street —is now considered the core commercial thoroughfare of New Chinatown, or San Francisco’s second Chinatown, given that the street has transformed over the last forty-five years into a predominantly Chinese commercial-residential corridor. Arguello Boulevard, 12 th Avenue, California Street, and Geary Boulevard are San Francisco’s New Chinatown boundaries. 63 New Chinatown is identified as such by scholars including Dr. Michel S. Laguerre— Professor and Director of the Berkeley Center for Globalization and Information Technology at the University of California at Berkeley—who notes in his article, “The Globalization of a Panethnopolis: Richmond District as the New Chinatown in San Francisco” (2005), that the term “is projected by Asian Americans as a non-ghettoized enclave since Chinese immigrants can live wherever they want in the city and since it is a mixed neighborhood of white and non-white residents,” and is also referred to “by Anglo Americans as a Chinese business district and middle class residential quarter; and it is seen by tourists simply as an exotic immigrant enclave outside its presumed natural niche.” 64 Of course not everyone in and outside of the community refers to it as New Chinatown. Some residents object to the name because the Inner Richmond maintains its demographic diversity and the blanket representation overshadows that. 65 To understand why this profound socio-ethnic change occurred as well as argue for Clement Street corridor’s cultural significance, this section will analyze Clement Street’s post- war era through the 1970s, when Chinese immigrants predominantly shaped the Clement Street corridor into New Chinatown. This section will speculate why Chinese residents and immigrants 63 Michel S. Laguerre, “The Globalization of a Panethnopolis: Richmond District as the New Chinatown in San Francisco,” GeoJournal 64, (2005), 43. 64 Ibid., 41. 65 Ibid., 42. 38 chose the Richmond District as their new home outside of China and San Francisco’s Chinatown, and how Clement Street played a vital role in their migration. For Chinese residents living in San Francisco’s Chinatown, trolley and bus routes were critical in bridging the gap between a fairly close (but not walkable) proximity between the Inner Richmond and Chinatown, making them a quick ride away. The 2 Clement bus (originally Sutro ’s electric streetcar line that linked to downtown San Francisco through a transfer), and the 1 California bus were the earliest transit routes that linked San Francisco’s western region with Chinatown. In 1896, the 2 Sutter/Clement streetcar operated with a route from Ocean Beach to Arguello Boulevard, and in 1905 its route linked up with the 1 Sutter/California streetcar that traversed through the rest of the city along Sutter Street, running adjacent to Chinatown, and ending near the Embarcadero. 66 The two lines joined not only the city ’s east with west but specifically the Richmond with Chinatown. Post-WWII, the 55 Sacramento bus ran from 6 th Avenue and Clement Street to Sacramento Street from 1942-1982, going straight through Chinatown, with an inbound terminus in downtown. 67 This geographic link tethered by public transit could not be clearer. Laguerre seconds the transportation connection as a major factor in fostering New Chinatown. Laguerre cites an interview with a New Chinatown local in 2003, who states, “[T]here are five bus lines in the Richmond area that will take you downtown and into Chinatown…the reason I moved out here was because my mother then was semi-retired, but she has a part-time job in Chinatown. 66 Both streetcar lines were discontinued in 1949. Their lines were replaced with buses and the routes were slightly changed; Arvin, “Where the Streetcars Used to Go,” accessed December 7, 2017, http://sfstreetcars.co/. 67 Sacramento Street was the center of Chinatown in San Francisco during its early development. It was originally “named Tangren Jie, meaning ‘the street of Chinese People;” Yong Chen, Chinese San Francisco, 1850-1943: A Trans-Pacific Community (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2000), 130. 39 And thus, transportation wise, this was an ideal location.” 68 Transit access, however, was only one reason why the Chinese migrated to the Inner Richmond. Racial prejudice played a large role in the timing of New Chinatown formation in the Richmond. The Chinese population had faced an entire century or more of extreme racism in San Francisco with Chinatown as their ethnic enclave. Factors such as redlining made it difficult if not impossible for Chinese to leave Chinatown until segregation restrictions were lifted. Besides transit access, there are two other major factors that explain why Chinese migrated to the Inner Richmond: 1) Home ownership: the ability for Chinese to more easily own property in the Richmond as opposed to other neighborhoods nearing the time when redlining restrictions were lifted, and 2) Housing stock: the increase in San Francisco’s Chinese population and the changing definition of a household propelled the need for greater housing outside of Chinatown; the Richmond District offered larger housing for growing families and had a more abundant housing stock compared to Chinatown. To understand these factors on a deeper level, the pre- and post-war racial context must be examined. Since the 1849 Gold Rush era, hasty demographic changes in California, competition over labor, and cultural differences, among other factors, contributed to sociological tensions amongst differing ethnic groups. The white population ’s unease over early Chinese immigration came through as overt racism, which lingered for over a century. The city’s designated “Chinatown” held highly racialized and derogatory undertones. In Nayan Shah’s PhD dissertation, “San Francisco’s ‘Chinatown’: Race and the Cultural Politics of Public Health, 1854-1952. Volume One (1995),” San Francisco’s early Chinatown is defined as “a self- contained and alien society and emphasized its difference and deviance from and its danger to 68 Laguerre, “The Globalization of a Panethnopolis,” 44. 40 white society and the American nation.” 69 Xenophobia kept the Chinese locked in Chinatown for a large part of the twentieth century until the civil rights movement and anti-segregation laws took effect. Despite it being dangerous for Chinese to move outside of Chinatown during the mid-to-late 1800s, San Francisco’s Chinatown offered a safe-haven for Chinese immigrants that moved there. As William Issel and and Robert W. Cherny write, “One immediate consequence was that Chinese from small towns throughout the west flocked to the relative safety of San Francisco’s Chinatown. Another consequence was that many returned to China.” 70 The ebb and flow of the Chinese population into San Francisco from the 1860s-2010s, which derived from white’s reaction to Chinese “otherness” is reflected in table, White and Chinese Population Census Data in San Francisco, 1860-2010. ( Table 2.1) At the state and federal levels, the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 prohibited Chinese immigration to the United States for ten years. It also forbid Chinese citizenship and suppressed Chinese population growth in San Francisco. 71 69 Nayan Bhupendra Shah, “San Francisco’s ‘Chinatown’: Race and the Cultural Politics of Public Health, 1854- 1952. Volume One,” PhD diss., University of Chicago, 1995, ProQuest (9530798). 70 Issel, San Francisco, 1865-1932, 73. 71 Chen, Chinese San Francisco, 46. 41 White and Chinese Population Census Data in San Francisco, 1860-2010 Year White (%) Chinese (%) 1860 78,293 (94.0) 3,130 (3.8) 1870 136,059 (91.0) 11,728 (7.8) 1880 210,496 (90.0) 21,213 (9.1) 1890 270,696 (90.5) 25,833 (8.6) 1900 325,378 (94.9) 13,954 (4.1) 1910 400,014 (95.9) 10,582 (2.5) 1920 490,022 (96.7) 7,744 (1.5) 1930 620,891 (95.0) 16,303 (2.6) 1940 602,701 (95.0) 17,782 (2.8) 1950 693,888 (89.5) 24,813 (3.2) 1960 604,403 (81.6) 36,445 (4.9) 1970 409,285 (57.2) 58,696 (8.2) 1980 402,131 (59.2) 82,244 (12.1) 1990 388,341 (53.6) 130,753 (18.1) 2000 385,728 (49.7) 151,965 (19.6) 2010 390,387 (48.5) 169,642 (21.07) Table 2.1: Source: 1860-1980 Census Data: San Francisco Genealogy, available at: http://www.sfgenealogy.com/sf/history/hgpop.htm; 1990-2010 Census Data: Bay Area Census, available at: http://www.bayareacensus.ca.gov/counties/SanFranciscoCounty70.htm; 2000-2010 Census Data: Ethnic/Racial Populations in San Francisco by Tract, 1950-2010, UCLA Center for Neighborhood Knowledge. Table created by author. After 1930, the Chinese population began to steadily increase each decade. However, racial discrimination lingered through most of the twentieth century. This discrimination is evident in unfair lending practices which led to overtly white neighborhoods throughout San Francisco. The initial sentiment of the nineteenth century Chinese pioneers as “a target of growing xenophobia…where they were considered ‘by some as only a little superior to the negro, and by others as somewhat inferior,’” continued throughout the twentieth century when redlining excluded Chinese from buying outside of Chinatown. 72 72 Ibid., 34. 42 The Richmond District, and other San Francisco neighborhoods built “for people rising in the middle class,” implemented racial discrimination of the Chinese even before redlining came into play. 73 Newspaper ads made it clear that Chinese, Japanese, African Americans, and other non-whites were not welcome into new housing developments. 74 This was either stated blatantly or through language such as in a San Francisco Chronicle ad for Fernando Nelson’s homes, which reads, “Forty homes…protected by restrictions.” 75 (Figure 2.14) These restrictions meant covenants prohibited Chinese from buying property. Figure 2.14: Newspaper Ad for Homes for Sale. Source: San Francisco Chronicle, January 1, 1913, accessed through ProQuest. By 1935, the increase in loan requests following the Great Depression spurred the Federal Home Loan Bank Board to ask the Home Owners Loan Corporation (HOLC) to make “Residential Security Maps” for 239 cities in the U.S., San Francisco included. (Figure 2.15) These maps, now referred to as “Redlining Maps,” racially profiled neighborhoods to appraise its appropriateness for federal loans. 76 They were color coded and raked by grade, which aided in the investment of exclusive, all-white neighborhoods. (Figure 2.16) As historian and Yale associate professor Daniel Martinez HoSang elaborates, “Building on patterns established by settlement, strengthened by covenants, and valorized by federal mortgage assistance initiatives, 73 Don McCormack, “Richmond District, Where the Pluses Blot Out the Minuses,” San Francisco Examiner, February 18, 1996. 74 February 12, 1916, page 9 of the San Francisco Chronicle has an ad for 315 Fernando Nelson homes for sale in the Sunset District. The ad reads “No Africans or Asiatics.” 75 “City Real Estate,” San Francisco Chronicle, January 1, 1913, ProQuest Historical Newspapers. 76 Redlining in San Francisco and throughout the nation was a common action taken in which certain low-income communities and ethnic neighborhoods were outlined in red on a map. Those neighborhoods redlined often included people of color and immigrants, who were denied a loan to purchase a home at that time. 43 California’s exploding working-and middle-class suburbs remained almost exclusively white,” which applied to the Richmond District up through the 1960s. 77 Figure 2.15: 1937 Residential Security Map of San Francisco. Left arrow points to the Inner Richmond, in which the majority is rated C2, “Third Grade.” Right arrow points to Chinatown, rated D5 “Fourth Grade.” Source: 1937 Residential Security Map of San Francisco Legend. Source: R. Marciano, D. Goldberg, C. Hou, “T-Races: a Testbed for the Redlining Archives of California’s Exclusionary Spaces,” accessed October 2, 2017, http://salt.umd.edu/T-RACES/. Figure 2.16: 1937 Residential Security Map of San Francisco Legend. Source: R. Marciano, D. Goldberg, C. Hou, “T-Races: a Testbed for the Redlining Archives of California’s Exclusionary Spaces,” accessed October 2, 2017, http://salt.umd.edu/T-RACES/. 77 Daniel Martinez HoSang, Racial Propositions: Ballot Initiatives and the Making of Postwar California (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2010), 56. 44 The Richmond District mostly defined as grades “B” and “C,” with a small section classified as “A,” meaning prime areas for new development. 78 The Inner Richmond is labeled yellow or “C—Third Grade,” in which many factors are considered, including “infiltration of low grade population has taken place,” or “inadequate transportation,” or “perhaps heavy tax burdens,” or “poor maintenance of homes, etc.” 79 As Erik Ocean Howell argues in his PhD dissertation, “In the Public Interest: Space, Ethnicity, and Authority in San Francisco’s Mission District, 1906-1973 (2009),” the 1937 Security Map “revealed less about racially biased lending than it did about what San Francisco’s largest downtown-based mortgage institutions and real estate firms had planned for the physical and economic future of the entire city.” 80 Either way, HOLC had a large influence on how San Francisco neighborhoods ethnically filled out. Yellow areas meant that mortgage lenders were conservative with handing out loans, as most loans went to the green and blue areas. Red areas or “D—Fourth Grade,” such as Chinatown identified on the map, were considered slums. These places included “undesirable population or infiltration of it,” to the degree that “some mortgage lenders may refuse to make loans in these neighborhoods.” 81 Thus homeownership for ethnic minority groups, in places like the Inner Richmond and Chinatown with grades C and D, hardly existed. Once redlining was lifted, the Chinese chose to move to the Inner Richmond (and eventually other western neighborhoods like the Sunset District following the Richmond District) because it was formerly undesirable: housing remained low-cost and competition was minimal. The creation of a New Chinatown resulted from the lifting of the “segregation laws, 78 Places identified as Grade “A” were the sought-after, planned sections of the city. They were primarily segregated white communities. 79 “Colorcodes, ” Testbed for the Redlining Archives, accessed November 10, 2017, http://salt.umd.edu/T- RACES/colormap.html. 80 Erik Ocean Howell, “In the Public Interest: Space, Ethnicity, and Authority in San Francisco’s Mission District, 1906-1973,” PhD diss., University of California, Berkeley, 2009, ProQuest (3498828). 81 “Colorcodes,” Testbed for the Redlining Archives, accessed November 10, 2017, http://salt.umd.edu/T- RACES/colormap.html. 45 which then allowed Chinese to move out of the Old Chinatown and buy property wherever they could afford to do so.” 82 The Inner Richmond also provided greater homeownership opportunities for San Francisco’s Chinese community, according to Laguerre, due to an aging population of elderly, mostly white homeowners wanting to sell just as Chinese residents were wanting to move in. 83 The Chinese seized this unique opportunity to meet new post-war household needs, such as larger homes for growing families. Enlarging their homes became a necessary means for “the growth of the new enclave community” in the Inner Richmond. 84 The 1965 Immigration Act also played a major role in attracting residents from China to the Inner Richmond. Per an article by the Northern California Coalition on Immigration Rights, the act “repealed all quotas in favor of a family-based reunification policy,” therefore removing any intact immigration restrictions and allowing Chinese to move to the United States. 85 “Since then, many Chinese immigrants have come to San Francisco, revitalizing not only Chinatown but creating new Chinese neighborhoods in the Richmond and Sunset Districts.” 86 In a 2017 UCLA study, the ethnic/racial populations in San Francisco were examined by tract, underlining the Richmond migration in relation to Chinese population growth in San Francisco. 87 The decades from 1960 – 1980 were pivotal in the development of a New Chinatown along Clement Street. In 1950, less than 5% of San Francisco ’s Chinese population lived in the Richmond as they were predominately concentrated in Chinatown. By 1960, during 82 Laguerre, “The Globalization of a Panethnopolis,” 44. 83 Ibid. 84 Ibid. 85 Northern California Coalition on Immigration Rights, “Chinese Immigration,” Found SF, accessed March 11, 2018, http://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=Chinese_Immigration. 86 Ibid. 87 While this study illuminated the Chinese migration pattern to the Sunset District, its data is applicable to the Richmond District. 46 the civil rights era when xenophobic lending was banned, the Richmond District became the largest district to receive an increase in its Chinese population: from to 5-14%. (Figure 2.17) Figure 2.17: 1960 Chinese Population in San Francisco. The left red arrow points to the Inner Richmond and Clement Street. The right red arrow points to Chinatown. Notice that the Richmond is the predominate neighborhood with a Chinese influx outside of Chinatown. The geographic proximity of the two neighborhoods is clear. Source: Paul Ong, Chahandara Pech and Alycia Cheng, “Ethnic/Racial Populations,” UCLA Center for Neighborhood Knowledge, June 6, 2017. In 1970, San Francisco’s Chinese population jumped again to 15-24% and by 1980 nearly 50% of the city’s Chinese population lived in the Richmond. 88 These percentage increases correlate with the amount of Chinese in San Francisco per decade. From 1960 to 1970 the Chinese population nearly doubled, and so did the amount of Chinese in the Richmond. With growing households, single-family homes in the Richmond appealed to new Chinese families. 88 Paul Ong, Chahandara Pech and Alycia Cheng, “Ethnic/Racial Populations in San Francisco by Tract: 1950- 2010,” UCLA Center for Neighborhood Knowledge, June 6, 2017. 47 The Inner Richmond and Clement Street Today The U.S. Census Bureau notes that in 2016 there were approximately 41,662 residents in the 94118 Inner Richmond area. 89 Of that population, the median age was 37.6 years, with approximately 6,500 people over the age of 65. The following single ethnicities were also identified: • 778 as African American • 22 as American Indian and Alaskan Native • 13,713 as Asian (with 8,200 as Chinese, 1,241 as Filipino, including Japanese, Vietnamese, Korean, Asian Indian, among others) • 104 as Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander • 24,161 as White • 2,074 were identified with two or more races According to a 2015 Existing Conditions Report by the City of San Francisco, renters primarily constitute the Inner Richmond at seventy-one percent. 90 The median listing price of a home in the Inner Richmond was $1,100,000 in 2015. 91 Clement Street between Arguello Boulevard and Funston Avenue is zoned as a Neighborhood Commercial District (NCD) and is primarily composed of two-story buildings with commercial on the ground floor. (The Clement Street NCD is discussed in more detail in Chapter 5: Significance, Challenges and Recommendations.) There are 355 dwelling units and 253 commercial establishments in this commercial corridor, with almost an even split between retail, food, and professional services, at approximately thirty-percent each. (Figure 2.18) The 89 “The U.S. Census Bureau, 2012-2016 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates,” United States Census Bureau American Fact Finder, accessed March 15, 2018, https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml. 90 San Francisco Planning Department, Supervisor District 1: Existing Conditions Report, 2015, accessed March 11, 2018, http://default.sfplanning.org/plans-and-programs/in-your-neighborhood/invest-in-neighborhoods/richmond- district/IIN_Richmond_ECR_Book.pdf. 91 Ibid. 48 2015 study found that there were thirteen vacant commercial spaces, which is five percent of the overall commercial retail. 92 Figure 2.18: Commercial Businesses in the Inner Clement NCD. Source: San Francisco Planning Department, Supervisor District 1: Existing Conditions Report, 2015, accessed March 11, 2018, http://default.sfplanning.org/plans-and-programs/in-your-neighborhood/invest-in- neighborhoods/richmond-district/IIN_Richmond_ECR_Book.pdf. Although Clement Street in the Inner Richmond has changed throughout the last century, it continues to accommodate growth, such as that of the Chinese community, while respecting its 92 Ibid. 49 heritage as a small-scale commercial corridor. Clement Street today remains the Inner Richmond’s “main street” with a diverse array of ethnic restaurants, businesses, shops, and services intertwined with mixed-use residential space. Transit, too, remains abundant, linking the Inner Richmond with the rest of San Francisco. The neighborhood is served today by the following transit bus lines: 1 California, 1AX California A Express, 1BX California B Express, 2 Clement, 5 Fulton, 5R Fulton Rapid, 7X Noriega Express, 21 Hayes, 28 19th Avenue, 28R 19th Avenue, Rapid 29 Sunset, 31 Balboa, 31AX Balboa A Express, 31BX Balboa B Express, 33 Ashbury/18th, 38 Geary, 38R Geary Rapid, 38BX Geary B Express, 43 Masonic, 44 O'Shaughnessy, and the 91 3rd Street/19th Avenue Owl. 93 Bus lines that maintain their historic routes include the 2 Clement, 38 Geary, 1 California, among others. Western Neighborhood’s Project (WNP) co-founder and historian, Woody LaBounty, summarizes the street’s history as a commercial corridor which has helped establish its unique identity today: Clement Street retains the status of a main street from when the Richmond District was more a village out of town than a city neighborhood. Geary Boulevard later became a large shopping zone, but Clement was the commercial strip of the neighborhood in the 1800s. Community halls, residences and flats intermixed with strictly mercantile buildings, bars, and restaurants are all mostly intact. Older small chain businesses such as Woolworths have transitioned smoothly into neighborhood-serving produce and butcher shops. While the demographics have changed—with more Chinese-serving businesses— the use of Clement Street by locals hasn’t shifted. 94 93 “Inner Richmond,” SFMTA, accessed March 12, 2018, https://www.sfmta.com/neighborhoods/inner-richmond. 94 Woody LaBounty, email correspondence with author, January 26, 2018. 50 CHAPTER 3: Clement Street: Existing Cultural Heritage Protections Introduction San Francisco is a city known for its strong historic preservation protections. 95 Iconic places like the Painted Ladies of Alamo Square or downtown’s Transamerica Building are globally recognizable as “San Francisco” because the City’s planning code has ensured their protection. Since 1967, Article 10: Preservation of Historical Architectural and Aesthetic Landmarks of the planning code has enabled city landmark designation. Additionally, Article 11: Historic Preservation of Buildings and Districts of Architectural, Historical, and Aesthetic Importance in the C-3 Districts was established in 1985 within the planning code to protect the downtown core from unapproved alterations of historically significant properties. 96 While Articles 10 and 11 have helped to ensure the recognition and protection of many historic sites, the City has focused landmarking cultural and architectural resources mostly within the downtown area. Figure 3.1 shows San Francisco’s western region mostly barren of historic landmarks and without historic district designations. (Figure 3.1) Within the Richmond District (whose 95 In 1967, the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board or Landmarks Board (today known as the Historic Preservation Commission) was established along with the planning code’s adoption of Article 10: Preservation of Historical and Architectural Landmarks. The Landmarks Board, the Planning Department, and the Planning Commission work together to protect the city’s cultural and architectural resources. Additionally, the Historic Preservation Commission reviews projects that are “subject to environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), or projects subject to review under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The Historic Preservation Commission also approves Certificates of Appropriateness for Landmarks and properties within Article 10 Historic Districts;” “Historic Preservation,” City and County of San Francisco, Planning Department, accessed January 2, 2018, http://sf-planning.org/historic-preservation. 96 In 1985, San Francisco’s Downtown Plan established Article 11: Historic Preservation in C-3 Districts. Article 11 is only applicable to downtown’s core, which designates properties as either Significant (I & II), Contributory (III & IV), or Not Evaluated (V). Article 11 has an entitlement and review process for altering those properties in a C-3 District, as well as a process for classifying those within the district. Downtown also has Conservation Districts in certain areas. Article 11 has ensured great historic preservation protections in the city’s downtown; “Landmarks Preservation,” City and County of San Francisco, Planning Department, accessed January 2, 2018, http://sf- planning.org/landmarks-preservation. 51 boundaries are defined in Chapter 2: Clement Street Corridor’s Rich History), there are only five city landmarks, four of which are located in the Inner Richmond neighborhood. 97 They include: 1. Landmark #83 – St. John’s Presbyterian Church at 25 Lake Street 2. Landmark #169 – Campfire Girls Building at 325 Arguello Boulevard 3. Landmark #196 – Alfred G. Hanson Residence at 126 27 th Avenue 4. Landmark #209 – San Francisco Memorial Columbarium/Oddfellows Columbarium at 1 Loraine Court 5. Landmark #247 – Richmond Branch Library at 351 – 359 9 th Avenue There are currently no landmark designations on Clement Street, in either the Inner or Outer Richmond. Figure 3.1: San Francisco Historic Landmarks Map. Richmond District’s approximate location is identified in red. Source: City and County of San Francisco, Planning Department, 2018, Accessed January 7, 2018, http://sf-planning.org/san-francisco-landmarks-map. 97 The number of landmarks in the Richmond District varies slightly based on differing district boundaries. According to the San Francisco Planning Department’s boundaries for the Inner Richmond, the district extends past the University of San Francisco. In such case, Landmark #209 is included, making it a total of five landmarks in the Richmond District; “Neighborhood Groups Map,” City and County of San Francisco, Planning Department, accessed January 7, 2018, http://sf-planning.org/NEIGHBORHOOD-GROUPS-MAP. 52 Although the City has paid relatively little attention to identifying and protecting its western region’s historical resources, some efforts have been made by local non-profits and advocacy groups. In thinking of Clement Street as a case study for better cultural heritage protections, this chapter will examine what has already been done by local groups to promote Richmond District history. It will also discuss the City’s recent Legacy Business Program and note existing Legacy Businesses along Clement Street’s commercial corridor. Richmond Specials—What Led to the Need to Survey From the 1950s through 1972, demolitions occurred throughout the Richmond District, swapping single-family homes for multi-unit apartment buildings, known as “Richmond Specials.” 98 (Figure 3.2) This building typology dramatically and permanently altered the neighborhood’s architectural nature. 98 Mary Brown and San Francisco City and County Planning Department, San Francisco Modern Architecture and Landscape Design 1935-1970: Historic Context Statement, accessed January 12, 2011 http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1054/files/sfmod.pdf. 53 Figure 3.2: Richmond Special. This 1963 Richmond Special was built in the Contractor Modern style and is a typical vernacular architectural design found throughout the Richmond District. Source: Photo by author, 2016. Architectural historian Christopher VerPlanck summarizes the Richmond Special phenomena here: By the 1960s, the Richmond District was one of the few neighborhoods in San Francisco that was still growing....largely as a result of immigration and the breakdown of racial barriers to homeownership by Chinese-Americans outside Chinatown. During this time the main groups were Chinese-Americans, Russians, Irish, Japanese, Christian Arabs, etc., etc. With property values rising, mainly Irish immigrant contractors began buying smaller cottages and replacing them with taller two or three-family dwellings. Built very cheaply, they were San Francisco's answer to the dingbat apartment building of Los Angeles, Oakland, and pretty much everywhere else in urban California. Of course, our lots are too narrow to build dingbats, which require a lot of at least 50 feet in width. Stylistically Richmond Specials seem to run the gamut from plain stucco boxes designed in the so-called "Contractor Modern" style in the early 1960s to the more "environmental" buildings clad in textured stucco and stained shingles (often with false mansard roofs) of the 1970s, and the more pseudo-palatial specials of the 1980s and 1990s... 99 99 Christopher VerPlanck, email correspondence to author, July 31, 2017. 54 Richmond Specials were not unique to the Richmond neighborhood; they sprouted up throughout the city primarily in the 1960s. However, the name points to the fact that a high concentration of these cheap, modern boxes centered in the Richmond District. 100 From 1961-1970, multi-family housing construction, such as apartment buildings, townhouses, duplexes, and towers, was on the rise. 101 Although this housing typology shift towards greater density affected the entire city, it started even earlier and with more ferocity in the western region of the city. Through this process, the Richmond became denser at the expense of many of its single-family homes that originally defined the community’s architectural character. Richmond Specials—classified amongst the same category as duplexes, fourplexes, apartment buildings, motor courts, and townhouses—were built in a utilitarian fashion to satisfy increasing density without any emphasis on design or style. 102 The San Francisco Modern Architecture and Landscape Design 1935-1970 Historic Context Statement states that the Richmond Special, also called “Contractor Modern” or “Vernacular Modern” is “not a style per se; rather it denotes the absence of style.” 103 Production of Richmond Specials certainly set off alarm bells to those watching neighborhood change. Surrounding neighborhood transformation and development increase caused eyes to focus specifically on Clement Street. Though not lined with single-family homes, people viewed it as a vulnerable corridor susceptive to change. In the 1972 article, “Where It’s At On Clement Street,” author Nyda Young expresses anxiety over Clement Street suffering from similar gentrification as to that of Union Street, or as Young calls it, “Creeping Union-Street-ism.” 104 100 Brown, San Francisco Modern Architecture, 205. 101 Ibid., 24. 102 Ibid., 41. 103 Ibid., 205. 104 Nyda Young, “Where It’s At On Clement,” San Francisco Sunday Examiner & Chronicle, July 23, 1972, accessed via San Francisco Public Library. 55 Defending this fear, Young cites some qualifiers of an already changing Clement Street, including a “brand spanking new Walgreens” where an old food market once sat on the corner of 9 th Avenue. 105 Similarly, the San Francisco Examiner, San Francisco Chronicle, California Magazine, San Francisco Business, and San Francisco Fault, among others, documented the existing built environment along Clement Street in the 1970s and ‘80s. Nearing the time Richmond Specials were built, articles written about Clement Street’s sense of place included the following headlines: “Clement Street: You Wanna Buy A Duck?” (1971); “A Smorgasbord of Shops on Clement” (1972); “Clement Street Scene” (1974); and “The Many Sides of Clement Street” (1982). (Figure 3.3) These titles alone provide a sense of the street’s unique character and why so many authors found it worthy to write about. 106 Nearly twenty years and numerous articles later, the Inner Richmond still lacked historic preservation designations and a survey of its architectural merits. Luckily, in the 1990s the Inner Richmond finally caught the eye of historians and the neighborhood’s first architectural survey was underway. 105 Ibid. 106 Articles boasting a love for Clement Street were not only written between the 1970s and 1980s. They continue to be written today. 56 Figure 3.3: A 1974 Clement Street Article. Clement Street’s unique character is discussed during a time when the city, and the Richmond District in particular, was changing. “Clement Street Scene” article by Umberto Tosi, 1974. Source: San Francisco Public Library. San Francisco Heritage Survey The Foundation for San Francisco’s Architectural Heritage (today known as SF Heritage) began an architectural survey of the Inner Richmond District in 1990. 107 Although several decades had passed since the Richmond Specials were built, the neighborhood still had a fair amount of rich history left. There was a need to document it before it disappeared entirely. According to SF Heritage historian, Bill Beutner, “The Inner Richmond was surveyed in order to assess the resources which might be threatened with demolition, considering the rapid rate of 107 The Foundation for San Francisco’s Architectural Heritage is now known as SF Heritage. For consistency, it will be referred to as SF Heritage throughout the rest of this document. 57 change then underway.” 108 In a 1993 SF Heritage Newsletter, the survey’s goals were listed as to “identify significant structures and protect them from the development pressures experienced by that district.” 109 Because this was SF Heritage’s first residential neighborhood survey, it also provided a foundation for refining their process for future residential surveys in San Francisco. 110 Beutner further explained why the Richmond District was specifically chosen as SF Heritage’s first neighborhood survey location: My understanding is that the rate of demolitions in the Inner Richmond was accelerating more dramatically than other residential neighborhoods. Our organization was consumed by the downtown survey after its founding, and it wasn’t until around 1987 that attention was being drawn to the neighborhoods. There had been a recent demolition of the Little Sisters of the Poor by architect Albert Pissis at 300 Lake Street which we had failed to save. I think that the high property values in 94118 put pressure on development in order to increase returns. The scale of development in the Inner Richmond was a harbinger of things to come in other residential neighborhoods. 111 The survey was divided into two phases. (Figure 3.4) Phase one’s east-west borders spanned from Arguello Boulevard to the east side of 6 th Avenue; phase two’s east-west borders continued from the west side of 6 th Avenue to the east side of Funston Avenue. The survey’s north-south borders for both phase one and two spanned between the Presidio and Golden Gate Park. 108 Bill Beutner, email correspondence to author, August 1, 2017. 109 “Richmond Survey Completed,” The Foundation for San Francisco’s Architectural Heritage Newsletter, Vol. XXI, No. 5, October/November 1993. 110 SF Heritage conducted downtown surveys prior to the Inner Richmond Survey. 111 Bill Beutner, email correspondence to author, February 1, 2018. 58 Figure 3.4: The Inner Richmond Survey Boundaries. Phase one boundaries extend from Arguello Boulevard to the east side of 6 th Avenue. Phase two boundaries extend from the west side of 6 th Avenue to the east side of Funston Avenue. Source: Map created by author using Google Maps. It took three years to assess and record the Inner Richmond District survey, however the survey abruptly ended just short of completing phase two due to limited funding. 112 While every building was surveyed in phase two through a drive-by or reconnaissance survey, only those buildings deemed architectural or of historic significance were evaluated and rated. No additional research was done on those buildings and therefore there are no designations or context statements for part two of the Inner Richmond survey. 113 112 The Inner Richmond Survey was funded through a grant from California’s SHPO. 113 Bill Beutner, interview with author, May 23, 2017. 59 The survey looked at 4,025 buildings in total, of which 2,832 buildings were surveyed in phase one and 1,193 buildings in phase two. 114 Table 3.1 provides a detailed comparison of both phases. (Table 3.1) Phase one was an intensive survey in which every building was surveyed, researched and context statements produced. Phase two was a reconnaissance survey in which a windshield survey was conducted, but no additional research was done due to lack of funding. Therefore, buildings surveyed in phase two were not evaluated or nominated for the California Register, while phase one buildings were sent to SHPO and landmarked through the California Register. The buildings most likely to be significant in phase two were noted for future evaluation and can now potentially be nominated with additional research. 115 Inner Richmond Survey Phase One Phase Two Survey Type Intensive Reconnaissance Number of Buildings Surveyed 2,832 1,193 East-West Boundaries Arguello Blvd to east of 6 th Ave West of 6 th Ave to Funston Ave (13 th Ave) North-South Boundaries Presidio to Golden Gate Park Presidio to Golden Gate Park Context Statements Produced Yes No Properties Listed on CA Register Yes No Table 3.1: SF Heritage’s 1993 Inner Richmond Survey. Table by author. The survey used its own rating system that was acknowledged and accepted by the City of San Francisco. A rating system was used which translated to an equivalent A through D rating. A and B ratings meant the property was landmark worthy; C ratings meant the building contributed to the neighborhood and offered contextual importance; D ratings were considered of no historic value and labeled as opportunity sites for the city. 114 “Inner Richmond Survey,” Loose note, SF Heritage collection, June 6, 2001. 115 Ibid. 60 The survey is prefaced by three historic context statements which analyze the years from 1890-1920, written by architectural historian Lauren Weiss Bricker in December 1990. These context statements examine the early foundations of the Richmond District and identify the following three historic contexts: 1) economic development, 2) residential development, and 3) institutional development of the Inner Richmond. The economic development context statement recognizes how recreation and transportation played a large role in bringing people westward, ultimately settling in the Richmond. Within the residential development context statement, associated property types were examined. The institutional development context statement identifies health care facilities, religious buildings, and fraternal orders/neighborhood clubs, along with property types. The context statements and survey were primary concerned with making a case for the Inner Richmond as a historically significant place based on its architecture. The context statements also acknowledge the Clement Street commercial corridor as a necessary means for neighborhood preservation. Bricker writes: The sustained commercial vitality of Clement Street has resulted in the maintenance of a number of historic buildings, as well as obtrusive alterations to existing buildings and new construction. Greater public awareness and appreciation of this historic ‘main street’ commercial strip would doubtless mitigate insensitive treatment of the existing significant structures in the future. The structures of the highest priority are the surviving turn-of-the-century mixed use buildings. The establishment of guidelines for new design and sympathetic alterations would also be helpful in the maintenance of the quality and character of the street. 116 The above statement is an early notion advocating for cultural heritage of Clement Street. But besides noting the street’s character, the context statements stop short of why Clement Street is culturally significant beyond just its architecture. The context statements focus on history 116 Lauren Weiss Bricker, The Historic Context Statements on the Neighborhood Development of San Francisco from 1890-1920, the Inner Richmond District, The Foundation for San Francisco’s Architectural Heritage, December 1990, assessed via City and County of San Francisco, Planning Department. 61 between 1890-1920, and therefore do not acknowledge the more recent past, such as the Chinese and other ethnic populations who largely settled in the Inner Richmond after 1920 but prior to when the survey was conducted. At the time the survey was conducted in 1990, the scope of the survey was determined in part because of the National Register fifty-year eligibility criteria. 117 Because the Chinese migration took place after WWII, any buildings culturally associated with the Chinese community on Clement Street would have been too recent for the survey to acknowledge. It has been and continues to be difficult to argue for the importance of properties that obtained significance within the past fifty years. 118 In 2018, there is an urgent need to update the survey to include cultural heritage—both tangible and intangible—as well a need to complete phase two of the Inner Richmond survey to Park Presidio Boulevard (and ideally the entire Richmond District to the Outer Richmond). Although the SF Heritage Survey was never completed, the fact that the Inner Richmond was the first neighborhood chosen for a survey means the neighborhood was undergoing enough development change to necessitate it. There has been, and always will be, a need to document and protect the Richmond’s cultural resources. Preservation is strongest at the local level, so it would be beneficial to have as many protections as possible—more so now, given the changing nature of the city’s neighborhood composition and displacement pressures. Concentrating nearly all the city’s 117 The fifty-year eligibility criteria refer to the National Park Services’ criteria for being listed in the National Register of Historic Places, which follows the guideline that a property must generally be at least fifty years or older to be considered historic. Anything younger than fifty years is typically excluded from the National Register. For the Inner Richmond survey, anything built after 1940 was considered ineligible in 1990 and was therefore excluded from analysis. However, the survey was less concerned about considering the fifty-year-rule than it was about capturing what was left of the Inner Richmond. And yet, the cultural heritage of Clement Street’s multiethnic community was not considered in the survey. 118 San Francisco’s local landmark program (Article 10) does not follow the fifty-year eligibility criteria; Desiree Smith, Historic Resources Survey Team, City and County of San Francisco, Planning Department, email correspondence to author, February 23, 2018. 62 landmarks in and around downtown inadvertently labels the rest of the city insignificant. While the city has not focused its preservation efforts on the Richmond District, additional non-profit groups have formed since the SF Heritage survey was conducted, working to ensure its history lives on. Western Neighborhoods Project and Other Neighborhood Groups The Western Neighborhoods Project (WNP) is a non-profit organization that formed in 1999, shortly after SF Heritage conducted the Inner Richmond Survey. 119 WNP focuses on uncovering the history of San Francisco’s western region—mainly that of the Richmond and Sunset Districts. Its mission is: • to research the history of the western neighborhoods of San Francisco in the interest of preservation and community education. • to promote and make accessible to the public, the rich and diverse stories of the western neighborhoods of San Francisco. • to solicit oral histories, photos, and historical items pertaining to the western neighborhoods of San Francisco for cataloging and preservation. • to build awareness of the cultural diversity of the western neighborhoods of San Francisco. 120 Besides having an active online presence, WNP does a variety of things to promote histories of the Richmond and Sunset Districts. The organization publishes a quarterly magazine, produces a weekly podcast, gives walking tours, hosts events, and maintains a website with numerous articles, videos, and photos. In 2015, WNP initiated OpenSFHistory, an online public program which hosts more than 100,000 historic photographs from the 1960s through early 2000s. 121 119 “What We Do,” Western Neighborhoods Project, accessed January 10, 2018, http://www.outsidelands.org/about.php. 120 Ibid. 121 “What We Do,” Western Neighborhoods Project, accessed January 10, 2018, http://www.outsidelands.org/about.php. And: “About OpenSF History,” Open SFHistory, accessed January 10, 2018, http://opensfhistory.org/about.php. 63 Since its founding, WNP has produced numerous histories about the Richmond District. The first few entries of WNP’s searchable database pertaining to the Richmond include: “Social and Architectural History of the Richmond District,” an article by Christopher VerPlanck; “[Builder] Fernando Nelson: Father of the Richmond District,” an article by John Freeman; and “The Richmond District of 1920,” a podcast by David Gallagher and Woody LaBounty of WNP. These are a small representation of the many unique stories and accounts of the Richmond District found on the WNP website. 122 The WNP organization and archives also has a new commercial space that is open to the public, located at 1617 Balboa Street. Non-profit groups, such as the WNP and SF Heritage, continually work to protect, maintain, and celebrate the district’s history and cultural heritage. While they are historical and architecturally-focused, there are other non-profits and organizations in the Richmond District that largely contribute to the sustainability of Clement Street as a vibrant commercial corridor by providing neighborhood services. The following table provides a short list of local organizations whose work reflects deep pride and care for the neighborhood. (Table 3.2) This table is by no means exhaustive and is meant to be built upon. 122 More information about the Richmond District or the Western Neighborhoods Project can be found on their website: http://outsidelands.org/index.php. 64 Organization Year Est. Service Mission/About Website Clement Street Merchants’ Association c.1910 Merchants’ Association “[A]n association of merchants, business owners and non-profits that maintain their business on or around Clement Street in San Francisco.” 123 http://www.cle mentstreetsf.co m/ Richmond District YMCA c.1922 Youth and Community Organization “We strengthen the foundations of community through youth development, healthy living and social responsibility.” 124 https://www.y mcasf.org/locat ions/richmond- district-ymca Planning Association for the Richmond (PAR) 1971 Membership- based non- profit organization “To make the Richmond District a better place to live” 125 http://www.sfp ar.org/ Richmond District Neighborhood Center (RDNC) 1980 Non-profit organization “[T]o nurture a diverse urban community by developing and providing high quality youth, adult and family programs that address critical community needs and foster respect for all people and our environment.” 126 http://rdnc.org/ Community Youth Center (CYC) 1991 Non-profit organization “CYC serves over 5,000 youth each year and is one of only a few agencies in San Francisco addressing the needs of a diverse population of low income, high need and at-risk Asian Pacific American, Latino and African American youth.” 127 https://www.cy csf.org/ Western Neighborhoods Project (WNP) 1999 Membership- based non- profit organization “[P]reserves and shares the history and culture of the neighborhoods in western San Francisco.” 128 http://www.out sidelands.org/ Table 3.2: List of Organizations That Work in the Richmond District. Table created by author. 123 “Welcome to the Clement Street Merchant’s Association,” Clement Street Merchants’ Association, accessed January 10, 2018, http://www.clementstreetsf.com/mission. 124 “Mission & Vision,” YMCA of SF, accessed February 4, 2018, https://www.ymcasf.org/about/mission-vision; The Richmond YMCA branch opened in 1922; “Win Tickets to the Richmond YMCA 90 Year Silent Auction Event, April 5,” Richmond District Blog, accessed February 4, 2018, http://richmondsfblog.com/2012/03/26/richmond-ymca-celebrates-90-years-with-a-silent-auction-event-april-5/. 125 “About PAR,” Planning Association for the Richmond, accessed February 1, 2018, http://www.sfpar.org/site/about-par.html. 126 “Mission,” Richmond District Neighborhood Center, accessed February 1, 2018, http://rdnc.org/homepage/mission/. 127 “Our Mission & History,” Community Youth Center, accessed February 4, 2018, https://www.cycsf.org/our- mission-history/; The Richmond branch of the CYC opened in 1991. 128 “What We Do,” Western Neighborhoods Project, accessed January 10, 2018, http://www.outsidelands.org/about.php. 65 Despite this list and the evident neighborhood support systems that are in place, the City of San Francisco has yet to create cultural heritage protections specifically for the Richmond District. Its citywide Legacy Business Program, however, has indirectly benefited the cultural preservation of Clement Street’s commercial corridor. Legacy Business Program There are many existing examples of cultural heritage along Clement Street—including social gathering spots, sites of ethnic significance, places of religious worship, etc. This section, however, will focus on the recently adopted Legacy Business Program (LBP) because it is the only City-led cultural heritage program currently in place on Clement Street’s commercial corridor. 129 San Francisco’s LBP was initially inspired and ultimately grew out of SF Heritage’s Legacy Bars & Restaurants initiative. Beginning in 2013, SF Heritage developed an original online map or guide highlighting the city’s longstanding bars and restaurants, and inviting people to interact with these places and their history. 130 One hundred establishments located throughout the city were included in the Legacy Bars & Restaurants initiative as a way to recognize threatened bars and restaurants. As a 2014 article on SF Heritage’s website states, Legacy Bars & Restaurants was developed to “honor and promote those establishments that reflect the history and culture of San Francisco.” 131 129 The only other cultural heritage/preservation effort conducted for the Richmond District is the San Francisco Modern Architecture and Landscape Design 1935-1970, Historic Context Statement. However, the context statement does not go into much detail about the Richmond District. There has yet to be a full historic context statement focused solely on the entire Richmond District; Desiree Smith, Historic Resources Survey Team, City and County of San Francisco, Planning Department, email correspondence to author, January 9, 2018. 130 “About the Legacy Business Program,” City and County of San Francisco, Office of Small Business, accessed July 29, 2017, http://sfosb.org/legacy-business. 131 “Toasting 100 ‘Legacy Bars & Restaurants,’” SF Heritage, accessed July 29, 2017, https://www.sfheritage.org/news/legacy-bars-restaurants-round-four/. 66 When the City’s Budget and Legislative Analyst’s Office report illuminated a substantial number of small business closures in 2014, the Legacy Business Registry initiative provided a solid framework to create the LBP. 132 The LBP was created in March 2015 when the Legacy Business Registry was established. 133 The Registry acknowledges longtime businesses within the community as “valuable cultural assets to the City,” as well as acts as an educational and promotional tool for legacy businesses. 134 Besides community and city recognition, other benefits of being a legacy business include business assistance grants of up to $500 per full-time employee and rent stabilization grants for a minimum ten year lease extension. 135 The age criterion for a business to receive legacy business status is that it be in operation at least thirty years in San Francisco (or twenty years if displacement pressure is particularly high). 136 In addition to being a longstanding San Francisco business, a Legacy Business Registry applicant must prove it contributes to the historical character of a neighborhood or community identity for it to be listed. The business must also be “committed to maintaining the physical features or traditions that define the business, including craft, culinary, or art forms.” 137 132 “About the Legacy Business Program,” City and County of San Francisco, Office of Small Business, accessed July 29, 2017, http://sfosb.org/legacy-business; “Supervisor David Campos proposed legislation and a ballot proposition that would become the Legacy Business Program.” The program was split into two phases – the first phase creating the San Francisco Legacy Business Registry and the second phase created the Legacy Business Historic Preservation Fund; “About the Legacy Business Program,” City and County of San Francisco, Office of Small Business, accessed July 29, 2017, http://sfosb.org/legacy-business. 133 Ordinance No. 29-15 was approved so the Small Business Commission could establish a Legacy Business Registry; “Legacy Business Registry,” City and County of San Francisco, Planning Department, accessed July 29, 2017, http://sf-planning.org/legacy-business-registry. 134 “Legacy Business Registry,” City and County of San Francisco, Planning Department, accessed July 29, 2017, http://sf-planning.org/legacy-business-registry. 135 “About the Legacy Business Program,” City and County of San Francisco, Office of Small Business, accessed July 29, 2017, http://sfosb.org/legacy-business. 136 Ibid. 137 “About the Legacy Business Registry,” City and County of San Francisco, Office of Small Business, accessed July 29, 2017, http://sfosb.org/legacy-business/apply. 67 Today there are currently four businesses on Clement Street listed on the Legacy Business Registry. 138 They are: 1. Toy Boat Dessert Café – 410 Clement Street 2. Green Apple Books – 506 Clement Street 3. Hamburger Haven – 800 Clement Street 4. The Plough and the Stars – 116 Clement Street Toy Boat Dessert Café has been on Clement Street since 1982. 139 (Figure 3.5) While the café has an extensive dessert menu, another reason it is beloved by the community is for its charming exterior and interior décor. You cannot miss the bright powder-blue building as well as the numerous toys that grace the windows and line the interior walls. Owner Jesse Fink, a Brooklyn native, moved to San Francisco in 1979 and opened the café with his wife. 140 Toy Boat was designated in the Legacy Business Registry on August 8, 2016. 141 “Physical features or traditions that define the business” include: • Storefront and façade that dates to the 1900s along Clement Street, including the windows, doors, and band of transom windows • Original 1982 projecting sign at the front façade • Interior shelving and toy displays • Decorative checkered tiling along interior windows • Checkered tiles along floor of interior 142 138 At the time of publication of this thesis (March 2018), there are four Legacy Businesses identified on Clement Street. Others may be in the process of obtaining Legacy status that are not listed. “Legacy Business Registry,” City and County of San Francisco, Office of Small Business, accessed July 29, 2017, http://sfosb.org/legacy- business/registry. 139 Guy Wathen, “The Regulars: Toy Boat Dessert Café Serves Ice Cream, Conversation,” San Francisco Chronicle, accessed February 25, 2018, https://www.sfchronicle.com/thetake/article/The-Regulars-Toy-Boat-Dessert-Caf- serves-ice-11271604.php. 140 Ibid. 141 City and County of San Francisco, Small Business Commission Resolution: Legacy Business Registry Resolution No.002-16-LBR, Toy Boat Dessert Café, August 8, 2016, accessed March 2, 2018, http://sfosb.org/sites/default/files/Legacy%20Business/SBC%20Hearings/Resolution%20002-16- LBR%20Toy%20Boat%20Dessert%20Cafe.pdf. 142 Ibid. 68 Figure 3.5: Toy Boat Dessert Café. Photo by author, 2018. Green Apple Books opened on Clement Street in 1967, starting out with only 750-square feet, and has grown to maintain over 8,000 square feet of retail space today. 143 (Figure 3.6) It remains a special place in the neighborhood for new and used books. Green Apple Books was designated in the Legacy Business Registry on October 3, 2016. 144 “Physical features or traditions that define the business” include: • Wooden bookcases, nooks and alcoves, shelf-talkers, mask collection, original gas light fixtures, and handmade signs in the interior of 506 Clement Street. • Vibrant selection of new and used books. 143 Hana Baba, “Green Apple Books Celebrates 50 Years in SF,” KALW, accessed February 25, 2018, http://kalw.org/post/green-apple-books-celebrates-50-years-sf#stream/0. 144 City and County of San Francisco, Office of Small Business, Small Business Commission Resolution: Legacy Business Registry Resolution No.022-16-LBR, Green Apple Books, October 3, 2016, accessed March 2, 2018, http://sfosb.org/sites/default/files/Legacy%20Business/SBC%20Hearings/Resolution%20022-16- LBR%20Green%20Apple%20Books.pdf. 69 • “Green Apple Books” neon sign (installed in 1983) located on primary façade of 506 Clement Street. 145 Figure 3.6: Green Apple Books. Photo by author, 2018. Hamburger Haven was designated on the Legacy Business Registry December 12, 2016. 146 (Figure 3.7) “Physical features or traditions that define the business” include: • Original 1968 interior layout of the restaurant, including its open kitchen, long counter, green booths, orange tile and wood paneling. • Affordable breakfast and burger options. 147 145 Ibid. 146 City and County of San Francisco, Office of Small Business, Small Business Commission Resolution: Legacy Business Registry Resolution No.056-16-LBR, Hamburger Haven, December 12, 2016, accessed March 2, 2018, http://sfosb.org/sites/default/files/Legacy%20Business/SBC%20Hearings/Resolution%20056-16- LBR%20Hamburger%20Haven.pdf. 147 City and County of San Francisco, Office of Small Business, Small Business Commission Resolution: Legacy Business Registry Resolution No.056-16-LBR, Hamburger Haven, December 12, 2016, accessed March 2, 2018, http://sfosb.org/sites/default/files/Legacy%20Business/SBC%20Hearings/Resolution%20056-16- LBR%20Hamburger%20Haven.pdf. 70 Figure 3.7: Hamburger Haven. Photo by author, 2018. As of February 28, 2018, The Plough and the Stars is the most recent business on Clement Street to be listed on the Legacy Business Registry. 148 (Figure 3.8) As an Irish pub, The Plough and the Stars has offered a place to meet, drink, and hear live music on Clement Street for over forty years. In 1975, Bob Heaney opened the pub. In 1981, current owner Sean Heaney, left his bar-tending job in Ireland to take over management of The Plough and the Stars. In 1982, the pub became a community gathering place for new Irish immigrants who moved to the 148 City and County of San Francisco, Office of Small Business, Press Release: BABYLON BURNING, THE MINDFUL BODY, THE PLOUGH AND STARS, SLIM’S AND THE LAB APPROVED BY SF SMALL BUSINESS COMMISSION FOR LEGACY BUSINESS REGISTRY, February 28, 2018, accessed March 17, 2018, http://oewd.org/sites/default/files/2.28.18%20City%20Approves%20New%20Small%20Businesses%20to%20the% 20Legacy%20Business%20Registry.pdf. 71 Richmond District. The City and County of San Francisco’s Office of Small Businesses’ Press Release states As the Richmond changed, so did the pub by showcasing musicians from other genres including folk, bluegrass and country. However, Sean maintained the long-running tradition of seisiúns, informal gatherings for musicians to play traditional music, Tuesday and Sunday evenings for over 35 years. The Plough and Stars remains a vibrant part of the San Francisco music scene and an integral part of the Richmond District neighborhood. 149 Figure 3.8: The Plough and the Stars. Photo by author, 2018. While these businesses are worthy of Legacy Business status, there are several other businesses on Clement Street that could benefit from this program. Chapter 4: Clement Street: Opportunities for Local Cultural Heritage Protections will analyze the ways in which San Francisco has protected other culturally significant neighborhoods. 149 Ibid. 72 CHAPTER 4: Clement Street: Opportunities of Local Cultural Heritage Protections Introduction Other cities are looking to the City of San Francisco as it currently leads local policy efforts in the cultural heritage field. Since the 2003 Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage, San Francisco has prioritized developing cultural heritage protections. Resolution No. 0698, passed in December 2012, authorizes the City to develop programs which incentivize, document, and designate social and cultural heritage. In 2014, the City’s Historic Preservation Commission created the Cultural Heritage Assets Committee to further develop protections for social or intangible cultural heritage. 150 The City shifted its focus to cultural heritage protections for several reasons. Current commissioner on the San Francisco Historic Preservation Commission, Diane Matsuda, says leading up to passing Resolution No. 0698, “We didn’t have the proper tools” to protect cultural heritage. 151 In 2008, the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board became the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC), allotting greater power for the governing body to push preservation policy into action. 152 As noted on the Planning Department’s website, shifting to an HPC “resulted in an increase of public awareness about the need to protect the City's architectural, historical and cultural heritage.” 153 As Shelley Caltagirone—Senior Planner and Cultural Heritage Specialist with the City and County of San Francisco’s Planning Department— 150 City and County of San Francisco, Planning Department, “Cultural Heritage,” accessed January 25, 2018, http://sf-planning.org/cultural-heritage-0. 151 Before becoming a commissioner, Matsuda previously ran a statewide grant program. As executive officer of the California Cultural and Historical Endowment, Matsuda helped preserve historic and cultural resources of California’s diverse communities. Today she is the only commissioner who is a woman and person of color. Her perspective allows the commission to give a voice to ethnic and minority communities that were previously unheard; Diane Matsuda, interview with author, March 7, 2018. 152 The HPC is a seven-member commission that reports recommendations to the Board of Supervisors, and therefore bypasses the Planning Commission. 153 “Historic Preservation,” City and County of San Francisco, Planning Department, accessed March 11, 2018, http://sf-planning.org/historic-preservation. 73 states, “the strongest driver was probably the Japantown community planning work. This planning process had made it clear to decision-makers that the aspects of culture and heritage that were not just buildings and structures deserved recognition and safeguarding as well.” 154 This chapter briefly summarizes five recently-published policy reports and/or strategies pertaining to cultural heritage protections in San Francisco: 1) Japantown Cultural Heritage and Economic Sustainability Strategy; 2) Sustaining San Francisco’s Living History; 3) Calle 24 Latino Cultural District; 4) SoMa Pilipinas Progress Report, and 5) LGBTQ Cultural Heritage Strategy. (Table 4.1) Relevant strategies that are applicable to cultural heritage protections on Clement Street will be discussed in the following chapter, Chapter 5: Significance, Challenges and Recommendations. 154 Shelley Caltagirone, email correspondence with author, March 2, 2018. 74 Japantown’s Cultural Heritage & Economic Sustainability Strategy (JCHESS) Sustaining San Francisco’s Living History Calle 24 Latino Cultural District Filipino Cultural Heritage District or SoMa Pilipinas LGBTQ Strategy Published Oct. 2013 Sept. 2014 Dec. 2014 Oct. 2016 N/A - Ongoing Funding MOHCD, OEWD, and other sources 155 SF Heritage OEWD MOHCD 156 San Francisco City and County, Planning Department 157 Scale District-wide City-wide District-wide District-wide City-wide Existing Final Report Published Published Published Progress report published; final report pending Context statement published; progress report published in Spring 2018; final strategy report & recommendations in progress Table 4.1: San Francisco Cultural Heritage Reports. This table shows a list of the most recent documents addressing cultural heritage policy and protections in the City of San Francisco. Table created by author. Japantown’s Cultural Heritage and Economic Sustainability Strategy 158 Purpose Japantown Cultural Heritage and Economic Sustainability Strategy (JCHESS) is the first report published by the City of San Francisco that aims to promote and protect neighborhood cultural heritage. Building off of prior Japantown economic and social heritage planning and preservation efforts, JCHESS was published in October 2013 as a collaborative effort between the Japantown community, the City of San Francisco’s Planning Department, and the Office of 155 “The Japantown Task Force has multiple funding sources, but the Mayor’s Office of [Housing and] Community Development and the Office of Economic [and Workforce] Development have both contributed. The JCHESS development was funded by the Planning Department through our Better Neighborhoods program.”; Shelley Caltagirone, author, February 20, 2018. 156 Most of the community’s work was voluntary or funded through the Mayor’s Office of Housing and Community Development (MOHCD), through multiple grants. The Planning Department funded their own work; Shelley Caltagirone, author, February 20, 2018. 157 Shelley Caltagirone, author, February 22, 2018. 158 All information in this section is derived from the city’s JCHESS report unless otherwise noted. 75 Economic and Workforce Development (OEWD). 159 JCHESS represents a significant milestone for cultural heritage protections: it recognizes intangible aspects of cultural heritage and establishes new ways of identification and protection at the city level. Vision and/or Goals While the City of San Francisco continues to grow, JCHESS envisions that “Japantown will thrive as a culturally rich, authentic, and economically vibrant neighborhood, which will serve as the cultural heart of the Japanese and Japanese American communities for generations to come.” To achieve this vision, JCHESS sets out a series of goals. One major goal is to identify Japantown’s unique tangible and intangible aspects of the community and determine how to protect them. Because there are no existing policies in place regarding intangible cultural heritage, JCHESS created a new means of cultural heritage identification and set a significant precedent for all other reports in San Francisco and elsewhere to follow. The following quote from JCHESS summarizes this context at the time of the report’s publication: …[T]here is not a similar toolkit developed for preserving and maintaining the intangible parts of a community’s cultural heritage, such as festivals or an art form. Moreover, in historic preservation practice, resources generally are required to be 50 years old or more to be considered for listing on historic resource registers, which creates a hurdle for culturally significant resources in Japantown, such as the Day of Remembrance (1979)…[T]he Department has not found any precedents for this kind of work in the United States. As such, the City…had to work collaboratively and creatively to develop a methodology for this work…Because this process will be precedent-setting for San Francisco, the team also maintained a goal that this work be replicable for use elsewhere in the City and in other similar communities nationally. Existing Conditions/Concerns 159 The 2001 California Senate Bill 307 allotted grants to cities including San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Jose to aid each city’s Japantown neighborhood preservation efforts. The second effort occurred in 2006 through the establishment of San Francisco’s Japantown Special Use District which required commercial use to be compatible with Japantown’s historic and cultural integrity and neighborhood character among other items. Lastly, from 2006 to 2009, the San Francisco Planning Department helped host planning workshops and studies in preparation for the Draft Japantown Better Neighborhood Plan of 2009; City and County of San Francisco, Planning Department, “Japantown Cultural Heritage and Economic Sustainability Strategy (JCHESS),” accessed May 22, 2018, http://sf- planning.org/japantown-cultural-heritage-and-economic-sustainability-strategy-jchess. 76 The following is a summary of existing conditions and concerns stated in JCHESS at the time of publication, therefore not all issues may still be applicable to the neighborhood today. Japantown is a diverse neighborhood and not everyone may have a stake in the community, therefore, cultural preservation in Japantown may be difficult to achieve. Japantown’s land use is a mix of commercial and residential, with over two-hundred institutional uses and seven-hundred businesses. There is little room for future development as many of the parcels have been built-out and zoned to keep heights appropriate. There is a concern with suitably utilizing the few remaining parcels that may be developed. Japantown also encompasses a wide array of architectural styles. One concern includes making sure that when old buildings are replaced, they maintain compatibility with existing Japanese-influenced architecture. Additionally, the community is concerned with deterioration of Japantown’s architectural resources that house cultural assets and lack of building maintenance. Given San Francisco’s current affordability crisis caused by an increase in housing prices due to the Great Recession of the late 2000s, there is concern over displacement of many of Japantown’s community services, institutions, businesses, and peoples; they may have trouble renting an affordable space. The overall attractiveness of the commercial shopping district, including street beautification, dissuading local crime, and enticing culturally-relevant businesses to open in Japantown, were concerns listed in JCHESS. Much of Japantown’s cultural identity is associated with cultural activities and events. There’s concern for finding space for cultural activities and events. While Japantown has neighborhood banners, signage, and lighting, that identifies its community character, the signage is not cohesive and there is no formal gateway entry to the neighborhood. Strategy 77 JCHESS developed the following strategies to address the areas of concern, as well as for identifying and protecting and cultural heritage in Japantown: 1. Goals & Objectives 2. Working Group 3. Social Heritage Inventory Form 4. Series of Maps 5. Database 6. Matrixes which address existing concerns, applying tools and meeting goals, and understanding the key leaders relating to each strategy These strategies are each essential to JCHESS’ success, however the Social Heritage Inventory Form is a particularly unique and groundbreaking tool for identifying intangible cultural heritage. 160 This tool enabled the Japantown community to determine for themselves which places were of cultural importance to the community. The inventory form included identification of intangible resources, such as organizations, institutions, businesses, cultural events, and traditional arts, crafts, and practices—all of which had never been utilized as a way to measure cultural heritage before this point. Outcome & Future Recommendations For the sustainable growth and protection of Japantown, JCHESS identifies a need for continuing the use of existing preservation tools combined with proposed strategies; there is no one proposed tool. While JCHESS identifies numerous proposed strategies for Japantown, the following is an edited list, which may be applicable to other neighborhoods: 1. Create a Community Development Corporation (CDC) a. CDC: Organizations who work to revitalize neighborhoods and take on specific projects & activate economic development. i. Benefits: It could help protect Japantown’s historic buildings through real estate ownership, and enable affordable spaces for community organizations. 160 The Social Heritage Inventory Form is modeled after the standard Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) Form for historic resource documentation used by the State Office of Historic Preservation (OHP). Having a standard and recognizable template makes it “more comprehendible to preservation specialists and therefore more replicable;” San Francisco Planning Department, JCHESS. 78 ii. Challenges: CDCs requires intensive community participation and fundraising strategies, and demands various skills in real estate and financing. 2. Create a Community Land Trust (CLT) a. CLT: A non-profit that acquires or aids the preservation of certain properties in a specific area for the community’s use and preservation. i. Benefits: It could help protect Japantown’s historic buildings through real estate ownership, and enable affordable spaces for community organizations. ii. Challenges: Along with required time, financial resources, and long-term commitment, a governing board must manage Japantown’s vision while remaining sensitive to its existing cultural heritage. 3. Implement Invest in Neighborhoods (IIN) a. IIN: An Office of Economic and Workforce Development (OEWD) program that promotes job creation and commercial neighborhood economic development by employing coordination across multiple city departments. i. Benefits: Assistance relating to financing, design, technical permitting, marketing, and organization. ii. Challenges: Having to work with a variety of City agencies as well as the fact that it’s a fairly new program. 4. Create a Community Benefit District (CBD) a. CBD: Public-private partnership which allows property owners within the district to pay for benefits beyond typical city services, such as maintenance, economic development, marketing, parking, streetscape improvements, etc. i. Benefits: Maintenance, signage, and general neighborhood beautification ii. Challenges: Creating a CBD is challenging and requires exhaustive property owner outreach. 5. Create a Neighborhood Commercial District (NCD) i. Benefits: It requires various zoning, such as ground floor commercial and a limitation on driveways, to ensure better pedestrian scale and usability within the community. ii. Challenges: Commercial district approval would be required by the Mayor, the Planning Commission, and Board of Supervisors. 6. Create Design Guidelines i. Benefits: Design guidelines could enhance neighborhood character, architectural styles and landscaping, leading to a cleaner and attractive shopping district. ii. Challenges: Design guidelines do not require outstanding architecture and with little development planned for Japantown, there are few opportunities for design guidelines to be implemented. Sustaining San Francisco’s Living History 161 Purpose 161 All information in this section is derived from SF Heritage’s report, Sustaining San Francisco’s Living History: Strategies for Conserving Cultural Heritage Assets History, unless otherwise noted. 79 In an interview with one of the report’s authors, SF Heritage Executive Director Mike Buhler explains the unique role San Francisco currently plays with conserving its cultural heritage. He states, “Intangible cultural heritage is not a passing fad; it has become a significant part of our citywide mission. It’s at the forefront of cultural heritage-related policy initiatives in San Francisco...There is continuing interest with the city distinguishing itself as a leader in this area—in pioneering programs and criteria.” 162 One such pioneering program was held by SF Heritage in June 2013: “Sustaining San Francisco’s Living History,”—a community summit event that initiated a dialogue about cultural heritage and its protections in San Francisco. In partnership with state and local agencies, not- for-profits, and numerous community groups, SF Heritage invited preservationists, urban planners, cultural workers, business owners, and community members and leaders from the San Francisco to convene. At the summit, cultural heritage assets were defined and identified by attendees. Building off the community summit’s conclusions, in September 2014 SF Heritage published a fifty-two-page advocacy report, Sustaining San Francisco’s Living History: Strategies for Conserving Cultural Heritage Assets, which combines the summit’s recommendations with domestic and international case studies of cultural heritage. The report focuses on non-architectural or intangible characteristics of cultural heritage. It also recognizes the current limitations of historic preservation tools and responds “by presenting a range of new strategies for communities to employ, in conjunction with existing preservation tools, to stabilize and protect significant uses.” Mike Buhler explains 162 Mike Buhler, interview with author, February 6, 2018. 80 The “Sustaining San Francisco’s Living History” report became Heritage’s manifesto and work plan to guide our advocacy in this area, as an extension of our traditional preservation mission. We really needed to have an academically rigorous statement of why it is important to advocate for intangible cultural heritage resources, such as legacy businesses and organizations. 163 Vision and/or Goals Sustaining San Francisco’s Living History proposes a “conservation-driven, incentive- based response to the loss of cultural heritage assets in San Francisco, both in the short and longterm.” SF Heritage’s goal was to first understand the challenges with conserving cultural heritage in San Francisco; next, to summarize all the ways the city has already been aiming to conserve its cultural heritage; and then develop a common language or method to establish cultural heritage policy throughout the city; lastly offer several examples of successful case studies and strategies that can be mirrored locally in communities, schools, organizations, and at the city. Existing Conditions/Concerns Sustaining San Francisco’s Living History recognizes the need to assess and protect San Francisco’s cultural heritage, and acknowledges existing tools are limited. The report states, “Historic designation is not always feasible or appropriate, nor does it protect against rent increases, evictions, challenges with leadership succession, and other factors that threaten longterm institutions,” implying that other methods are necessary for cultural heritage protection. Another concern centers around “San Francisco’s hyper-speculative economy” that has caused (and continues to cause) gentrification and displacement issues, and has taken a toll on local neighborhood character. The report’s conclusion states an overarching concern regarding the need for citywide coordination to achieve solutions. Strategy 163 Ibid. 81 “Strategies for Sustaining San Francisco’s Living History” is a full-page section of the report that outlines key tactics for protecting and preserving San Francisco’s cultural heritage. 164 These strategies are central to the report and are necessary for its successful policy- implementation. They include: 1. Develop a consistent methodology for identifying and documenting cultural heritage assets. 2. Support neighborhood cultural heritage conservation initiatives. 3. Support mentoring and leadership training programs that transmit cultural knowledge to the next generation. 4. Develop financial incentives and property acquisition programs for owners and stewards of cultural heritage assets. 5. Promote cultural heritage assets through public education and, when desirable, sustain models of heritage tourism. 6. Establish a citywide “Cultural Heritage Asset” designation program with targeted benefits. Outcome & Future Recommendations According to Mike Buhler, strategy number six was the most important goal. 165 The outcome achieved today, Buhler states, is instead of a Cultural Heritage Asset Program that was recommended in the report, we now have the San Francisco Legacy Business Registry. It does not encompass all aspects of intangible cultural heritage to be protected, such as neighborhood festivals, but it does capture the vast majority of heritage resources that are facing threats in San Francisco, including non-profits and businesses. 166 Strategy number four was also accomplished immediately after the Legacy Business Registry was established. 167 164 The strategies are listed on page six of the report. 165 Mike Buhler, interview with author, February 6, 2018. 166 Mike Buhler, interview with author, February 6, 2018; The Legacy Business Registry was approved in March 2015 through ordinance No. 29-15, which amended “the Administrative Code to direct the Small Business Commission to establish a Legacy Business Registry.”; City and County of San Francisco, Planning Department, “Legacy Business Registry,” accessed February 18, 2018, http://sf-planning.org/legacy-business-registry. 167 Measure J, approved in November 2015, established the Legacy Business Historic Preservation Fund. It also broadened the Legacy Business definition to include those businesses that have been operating for twenty years or more, face displacement risk, and meet the other Registry program requirements; City and County of San Francisco, Planning Department, “Legacy Business Registry,” accessed February 18, 2018, http://sf-planning.org/legacy- business-registry. 82 Ultimately, one of the greatest goals in publishing Sustaining San Francisco’s Living History, was that intangible cultural heritage would be recognized at a national level. 168 This goal has been achieved because the upcoming 2018 National Trust for Historic Preservation’s Past Forward conference, hosted in San Francisco, will have a focus on intangible cultural heritage for the first time. Calle 24 Latino Cultural District 169 Purpose Calle 24 Latino Cultural District was established in the wake of San Francisco’s early 2000 dot-com boom, amidst the city’s affordable housing crisis, and during an increase in residential displacement. Calle 24 Community Council—an entity composed of volunteers that manage the district—worked in collaboration with residents, merchants, local non-profits, SF Heritage, the San Francisco Latino Historical Society, and the Offices of Mayor Ed Lee and Supervisor David Campos to create a district. By May 2014, San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors approved the establishment of Calle 24 Latino Cultural District—the city’s first cultural district. Following district approval, Calle 24 Latino Cultural District: Report on the Community Planning Process (Calle 24 Report)—a final report that outlines the district’s governance plan and policies—was published in December 2014. The report defines a cultural district as “a region and community linked together by similar cultural or heritage resources, and offering a visitor experiences that showcase those resources.” Vision and/or Goals 168 Mike Buhler, interview with author, February 6, 2018. 169 All information in this section is derived from the report, Calle 24 Latino Cultural District: Report on the Community Planning Process, unless otherwise noted. 83 Calle 24’s community vision is to be an economically-sustainable neighborhood that welcomes diverse household incomes and businesses, which represent the Latino heritage and 24 th Street culture through a celebration of its intangible cultural heritage—foods, commerce, events, music, and art. The report lists six goals, some of which include fostering an activist community, encouraging community pride, and developing guidelines for neighborhood real estate and economic development that respects the Latino cultural community. Existing Conditions/Concerns The following is a summary of existing conditions and concerns stated in the Calle 24 Report at the time of publication, therefore not all issues may still be applicable to the neighborhood today. The Calle 24 Report identified several challenges the neighborhood faces. Lack of affordable housing—including displacement and gentrification—is a major, overarching concern that relates to other concerns identified by the Calle 24 community. Concern over rapid community transformation or the prevention “of another ‘Valencia’ (referring to the way Valencia [Street] lost much of its Latino culture in the 1990s and 2000s),” is nearly parallel with Calle 24’s concern over the noticeable division between long-term Latino residents and newer, White residents. Quality of life issues, such as gang violence or lack of police presence, were identified. Lastly, sustainability of the cultural district, including funding and resources, was noted. Strategy A six-month community planning process took place to inform district policy. Through this process, community strengths, challenges, and opportunities were identified, as well as the 84 district’s mission and vision statements, goals, and key strategies for implementation. The planning process included: • Ten in-depth interviews o Key stakeholders: “(including residents, merchants, artists, non-profit service and arts organizations, etc.)” • Four focus groups • One study session with experts in the field • Four community meetings • One Council retreat to finalize input and policies discussed in the report Outcome & Future Recommendations The report’s conclusion states the following aspirations for the Calle 24 Latino Cultural District: Over the next few years, the Council will incorporate as a charitable, nonprofit organization and begin to pursue and leverage Special Use District designation, followed by neighborhood organizing to launch a Cultural Benefits District campaign and assessment that could potentially offer the district a source of long-term financial support. The Council will work to implement community programs that focus on land use design and housing, economic vitality, cultural assets and arts, and quality of life issues. In 2015, the Calle 24 Community Council achieved non-profit status and continues to operate today while carrying out the district’s mission. 170 SoMa Pilipinas - Filipino Cultural Heritage District 171 Purpose In April 2016, SoMa (South of Market) Pilipinas cultural heritage district was established by Resolution No. 119-16. Because the community’s district designation was created first, without a policy document in place, the San Francisco Planning Department and SoMa Pilipinas Working Group collaborated on a report that updates the community planning process for district 170 Calle 24 Latino Cultural District, “Organizational Structure,” accessed February 16, 2018, https://www.calle24sf.org/en/about/structure/. 171 All information in this section is derived from the report, SoMa Pilipinas Progress Report: Filipino Cultural Heritage District Community Planning Process, unless otherwise noted. 85 protections. 172 Shelley Caltagirone notes that San Francisco’s Filipino community in SoMa “is very connected and politically engaged. They were good at community planning to begin with and really well organized.” 173 The community’s organization led them to publish a community planning update right after district designation. In October 2016, SoMa Pilipinas Progress Report: Filipino Cultural Heritage District Community Planning Process was publically released. The purpose of the SoMa Pilipinas cultural district is to help protect and further develop its Filipino and Filipino ‐American cultural community by recognizing past and present neighborhood contributions, and to alleviate displacement of its Filipino residents, organizations, and businesses. Vision and/or Goals A Working Group developed goal statements for the SoMa Pilipinas community. These goals reflect how the community’s shared vision will be accomplished. The first goal—Cultural Celebration—is to increase neighborhood visibility and honor it as cultural community. The second goal—Community Preservation—is to preserve SoMa Pilipinas’ community activism role that other Filipino communities across the nation look towards. The last goal—Economic Opportunity—is to provide greater economic opportunities in the Bay Area for the SoMa Pilipinas community to participate in. Existing Conditions/Concerns The SoMa Pilipinas Working Group created a list of community concerns to understand the current neighborhood conditions and what would need to be addressed to achieve long-term goals. Subject areas of the community concerns from 2016 included: 172 SoMa Pilipinas cultural heritage district operated in a similar fashion to Calle 24, in which both districts were created first before their policy documents was established. Japantown’s JCHESS occurred in an opposite manner, in which the community’s policy document (JCHESS) was published without formal district legislation in place. 173 Shelley Caltagirone, interview with author, February 2, 2018. 86 • Arts & Culture • Business & Economic Development 174 • Community Services & Education • Heritage & Historic Preservation • Housing & Land Use • Urban Design Strategy SoMa Pilipinas created a Working Group, which includes community members in various sectors who worked with the Planning Department to conduct community outreach and determine community concerns and solutions. Working group sectors included, “arts and culture, workers, business, schools, affordable housing, community advocacy and land use, and services.” The core Working Group also worked alongside other community citizens to engage and participate in the planning process through community meetings. Community meetings were centered around understanding and deciding what people valued as distinctive Filipino assets in SoMa, which assets the community wanted more of, what the community needed, and community members could contribute to the district’s growth. At the meetings, community people identified on a map significant places in the SoMa. These maps provided a baseline for identifying SoMa Pilipinas’ diverse cultural heritage aspects and started a conversation about the ways in which they may be enhanced throughout the cultural district. 175 Formal and informal interviews took place to better understand the community’s needs. Surveys were also conducted at community events. Outcome & Future Recommendations 174 SoMa Pilipinas has a stronger focus on business development than Calle 24 and JCHESS; Shelley Caltagirone, interview with author, February 2, 2018. 175 Four major meetings, with over forty participants each, were held across multiple sectors in the community, including a variety of age-ranges and people. Additional meetings were held specific to various themes: Business and Economic Development, Arts and Culture, Heritage and Historic Preservation, Community Services, and the Philippine Consulate. The Working Group engaged with local government at multiple offices to start the conversation about community interest and concerns, as well as ways to move forward addressing such concerns. 87 SoMa Pilipinas’ work remains ongoing. After completing the community outreach tasks discussed above, the Working Group is now in the second phase of planning, meeting with City departments and agencies to further problem-solve the issues identified through community outreach. To draft a final strategy and implementation plan, the following will need to be finalized (and is currently underway): goals and objectives, implementation measure, timelines, publish a strategy for the public to review, other remaining items. Progress has been made since the progress report’s publication. In August 2017, the SoMa Pilipinas community developed a Night Market to generate more interest in their project— an evening event that hosts local food and retail vendors. 176 The Night Market has been very successful and currently serves as an “incubator tool for businesses.” 177 SoMa Pilipinas Working Group is also currently assessing which main strategies will be implemented in their district, as well as actively working to landmark some sites within the district. 178 Additionally, they are building up their own, private fundraising so to not rely on the city to maintain their cultural heritage district. 179 LGBTQ Cultural Heritage Strategy 180 Purpose The City of San Francisco is currently developing the Citywide LGBTQ Cultural Heritage Strategy (LGBTQ Strategy) to preserve and promote LGBTQ cultural heritage in San 176 Night Market was established by UNDISCOVERED SF, a non-profit organization whose mission is to “jump- start economic activity and public awareness of SoMa Pilipinas.”; UNDSCVRD, “A Creative Night Market in the Heart of SoMa Pilipinas,” accessed February 20, 2018, http://www.undiscoveredsf.com/about/. 177 Shelley Caltagirone, interview with author, February 2, 2018. 178 Ibid. 179 Ibid. 180 All information in this section is derived from the Planning Department’s website unless otherwise noted: City and County of San Francisco, Planning Department, “Citywide LGBTQ Cultural Heritage Strategy,” accessed January 29, 2018, http://sf-planning.org/LGBTQStrategy. 88 Francisco. Specifically, it will provide a comprehensive implementation plan to safeguard LGBTQ cultural heritage through a series of identified projects, procedures, programs or techniques.” The strategy came about through various planning efforts and reports: Policies in both the Western SoMa Community Planning Effort and the Central SoMa Area Plan prioritize the development of an LGBTQ Cultural Heritage Strategy. Also, the October 2015 adoption of the Citywide Historic Context Statement for LGBTQ History in San Francisco further initiated the LGBTQ Strategy. In 2016, Resolution No. 446-16 passed, enacting the establishment of “an LGBTQ Nightlife and Culture Working Group tasked with developing and drafting a plan to implement a Citywide LGBTQ Cultural Heritage Strategy to protect, preserve, and expand LGBTQ nightlife and cultural heritage.” Strategy The LGBTQ Strategy completed a six-month online survey which will identify key points of the future strategy. 181 Working groups are also essential for the LGBTQ Strategy. As part of the working groups, community members, stakeholders, and organizations have identified key places of cultural heritage significance for San Francisco’s LGBTQ community. Topics of interests within the working groups include: Business and Economic Development; Arts and Culture; Heritage and Historic Preservation; and Community Service and Education. Outcome & Future Recommendations 181 Once the survey is complete, results will be utilized within the strategy; Shelley Caltagirone, interview with author, February 2, 2018. 89 The LGBTQ Strategy is scheduled for adoption “by the Board of Supervisors with recommendations by the Planning Commission, Historic Preservation Commission, and Entertainment Commission” by Summer 2018. 182 The final product will be two documents: 1) Strategy: A policy document adopted by the Board of Supervisors—similar in structure to a Community Plan, with a “Vision Statement” or “Goals,” and list of “Community Concerns.” 2) Implementation Plan: This will identify action items, which agencies to partner with, how to achieve the strategy’s goals, etc. 183 Adopting the LGBTQ Strategy will aid in the further development of cultural heritage protections in San Francisco and the nation. Report Similarities JCHESS is precedent-setting for the City of San Francisco and the field of heritage conservation in the United States. It is an outlier in this chapter because it is the first report published in San Francisco relating to cultural heritage protections. Shortly after JCHESS’ publication, SF Heritage developed a city-wide cultural heritage protections document, Sustaining San Francisco’s Living History, which became a nationally-recognized report. While JCHESS is neighborhood-specific, both it and Sustaining San Francisco’s Living History provide creative tools and recommendations that have since helped guide other cultural heritage districts. Following those reports, the Calle 24 and SoMa Pilipinas communities were each designated as cultural heritage districts in San Francisco. Both followed similar paths in which their district designations were established before their district implementation/policy plans. The LGBTQ Strategy sets another precedent for cultural heritage in San Francisco as the first City- 182 City and County of San Francisco, Planning Department, “Citywide LGBTQ Cultural Heritage Strategy,” accessed January 29, 2018, http://sf-planning.org/LGBTQStrategy; Shelley Caltagirone, interview with author, February 2, 2018. 183 The final result of the LGBTQ Strategy is different than San Francisco’s past cultural heritage documents. For Japantown, there was a strategy without an implementation plan, and for SoMa Pilipinas there is only a draft or outline of a strategy thus far; Shelley Caltagirone, interview with author, February 2, 2018. 90 wide cultural heritage strategy—and the first City-sponsored program in the country that attempts to preserve and sustain its LGBTQ heritage. 184 In each report, the protection of common intangible cultural heritage aspects was noted. These aspects primarily include art, food, commerce, and events. The common themes throughout each of these studies include the following: • Goals/Vision – Identify what the neighborhood wants to accomplish. • Working Group – Implement a working group to help execute the strategy. The working group is typically composed of professionals or leaders within the community who interface with the city’s multiple departments. • Existing Conditions/Concerns – Through a series of meetings and community outreach efforts, the neighborhood should be able to identify primary concerns or areas of concern that are grouped by several categories, such as businesses or cultural institutions, etc. • Strategy – Develop a strategy of how to accomplish the goals/vision that address existing conditions or concerns. • Future Recommendations – In recognizing that cultural heritage protections are a work-in-progress, the reports should discuss next steps or action items. These reports are relevant to the Clement Street commercial corridor because they highlight similar cultural communities, and illuminate ways each community developed their own vision and policies for cultural heritage protections. 184 Shayne Watson, correspondence with author, March 6, 2018. 91 CHAPTER 5: Significance, Challenges and Recommendations Significance: Why Clement Street/Inner Richmond History Matters The Inner Richmond contains layers upon layers of history. From its early origins as an Irish-American settlement, to Sutro’s transit development, and more recently to the growth of its Chinese community—each instance has shaped the neighborhood into what it is today. Its history can be uncovered by simply looking at the built environment, which matters because it connects people today with a sense of place. Cultural heritage provides neighborhood character, identity, and pride. As previously discussed, Clement Street has many aspects of cultural heritage. The cultural heritage of Clement Street is worthy of protections because of its unique and historic commercial corridor that has fostered a range of ethnic businesses and organizations. The following is a concise list (and by no means all-encompassing) of Clement Street’s cultural heritage that is worthy of protecting: 185 • Entertainment o Neck of the Woods, since 1973 • Events o Clement Street Halloween Parade: This parade has been held on Clement Street since at least 1958 and remains popular today. • Organizations o CSMA: Operating for over one hundred years, the CSMA has helped shape and maintain the Clement Street corridor of unique businesses. • Recreation o Tat Wong Kung Fu Academy, since 1983 • Restaurants/Bars o Eateries including those of Irish, German, Italian, Chinese, Vietnamese, Hispanic, Russian, Filipino, Japanese, among other ethnicities are significant to Clement Street. Its ethnic-commercial diversity is a character-defining-feature. o The Plough and the Stars, since 1975 (existing Legacy Business) o Giorgio’s Pizzeria, since 1972 185 This list could easily be expanded/edited as the community sees fit. 92 o Toy Boat Dessert Café, since 1982 (existing Legacy Business) o Schubert’s Bakery, since 1911; Clement Street since 1940s o Hamburger Haven, since 1968 (existing Legacy Business) o Dim-Sum eateries • Retail o Chinese Markets such as Richmond New May Wah Supermarket o Green Apple Books, since 1967 (existing Legacy Business) Understanding and celebrating historic traditions, such as the Clement Street Halloween Parade, strengthen the neighborhood’s community and connectedness with one another. Unfortunately, there are currently no formal protections for cultural heritage in the Inner Richmond or on Clement Street. However, existing community efforts strive to maintain the neighborhood’s local history as well as create new traditions. The Clement Street Merchants’ Association (CSMA), Western Neighborhoods Project (WNP), and the Richmond District Neighborhood Center (RDNC), among many other groups, help maintain Clement Street’s sense of place or main street identity. It is important to note CSMA’s recent community work that has ignited newly established cultural heritage traditions on Clement Street, because in time, those traditions may become relevant cultural heritage aspects worth protecting. Today, CSMA primarily focuses on supporting businesses along Clement Street from Arguello Boulevard to 10 th Avenue, but they also work with businesses who are not directly on Clement Street, such as those on Geary Boulevard and California Street. These neighboring businesses embody a similar nature to those on Clement Street. Current CSMA president Cynthia Huie states, “It’s more of a philosophical idea” to include adjacent businesses that are not directly on Clement, meaning that they, too, contribute to Clement’s main-street quality. 186 Clement Street has been the Inner Richmond’s commercial anchor and has served community 186 Cynthia Huie, interview with author, January 15, 2018. CSMA also includes a few businesses or organizations past Park Presidio in the Outer Richmond District. 93 needs from the start of its early history. Yet the idea of Clement as a central main street or community gathering space has been newly reestablished by CSMA’s own revitalization. Since 2010, the CSMA has undergone a renaissance that has largely benefited the community through a series of events and gatherings hosted by CSMA. Thanks to Cynthia Huie’s leadership, in collaboration with then District Supervisor Eric Mar, and the owner of the Toy Boat Dessert Café (and previous CSMA president) Jesse Fink—CSMA has become even more community-focused than it was in the past. 187 According to Michael Busk, what has really built community and “strengthened Clement Street over the last 5 years or so” is a combination of three main factors: “Huie’s presidency, the Farmer’s Market, and CSMA’s shifting focus to families.” 188 Huie’s advocacy helped make the Clement Street Farmer’s Market (CSFM) possible. Because it originally lacked community support, the CSFM began as part of a six-week trial period on Sunday, June 23, 2013. 189 Surprisingly, that day exceeded everyone’s turnout expectations with a showing of approximately 3,000 people. 190 The trial period has since transitioned into a permanent, weekly event run by the Agricultural Institute of Marin every Sunday. (Figure 5.1) 187 Eric Mar, “A Final Farewell,” Medium, accessed January 28, 2018, https://medium.com/@Eric.Mar/a-final- farewell-to-the-richmond-district-4a25b93f2bd7. 188 Michael Busk, interview with author, January 10, 2018; Being a Bay Area native of Chinese-American heritage; co-owner of Seedstore with her sister Jenn; Business Manager of her husband’s practice at Michael Y. Chan, DDS; and current president of CSMA, Huie’s life, skills, and governance are deeply enmeshed within the Clement Street neighborhood. Since her presidency, Huie has helped get the Clement Street Farmer’s Market (CSFM) into action, among numerous other successful ventures. 189 Sarah B., “City Approves Clement Street,” Richmond District Blog, accessed January 28, 2018, http://richmondsfblog.com/2013/06/13/city-approves-clement-street-farmers-market-first-one-on-sunday-june-23/. The Clement Street Farmer’s Market did not take flight immediately; it had delays before starting. 190 Michael Busk, interview with author, January 10, 2018. 94 Figure 5.1: The Clement Street Farmer’s Market. Photo by author, 2018. Beside the amount of people at opening day, the thing most notable to CSMA was who attended. “The biggest factor was that kids and families came out. This was big because without the farmer’s market, there are fewer kids on the street…[Before the market] people used to ask, ‘Where are all the kids in the neighborhood?’” elaborates Michael Busk. 191 CSMA’s focus on children and families has since opened the door for the establishment of new family-oriented traditions in the Clement Street Corridor. 191 Ibid. 95 Three main events hosted by CSMA—Autumn Moon Festival, the Halloween Parade, and ClemenTime—have shaped CSMA in recent years. 192 In turn, these events have also shaped the community and helped foster new cultural heritage traditions. The Richmond District Autumn Moon Festival held its first annual event on Clement Street, between 5 th and 8 th Avenues, on Saturday, September 23, 2017. Assemblymember Phil Ting and District 1 Supervisor Sandra Lee Fewer worked alongside Community Youth Center of San Francisco, CSMA, and Richmond District Neighborhood Center to bring the festival to Clement Street. 193 It was the first Autumn Moon Festival to occur in the Richmond District. The event’s Facebook page for the past 2017 festival summarizes what it means for the Richmond District: Autumn Moon Festival celebrations have been held throughout Asia for well over 1,000 years. This holiday is a time to reflect upon the bounty of the summer harvest, the fullness of the moon, and the myth of the immortal moon Goddess, Chang-O, who lives in the moon. The Moon Festival is often considered a “Chinese Thanksgiving” because of its celebration of gratitude and inclusion of abundant food – including the popular moon cake. The Autumn Moon Festival will be a fun, family-friendly event where attendees will have a taste of the cultural diversity of the Richmond District. 194 Huie wanted the Autumn Moon Festival to have a small business feel and for it to reflect the Chinese-American experience of Clement Street. “People want to have a connection to culture,” Huie states, in terms of connecting people to Clement Street and the food or markets it is known for as well as its own Chinese-American identity. 195 Unlike other Autumn Moon Festivals in the city, where the emphasis may be on shopping, the Richmond District event was more community-focused. Service providers came to talk with residents. “The emphasis was on non- 192 Cynthia Huie, interview with author, January 15, 2018. 193 Alex Bockneck, “New Autumn Moon Festival,” Richmond ReView/Sunset Beacon [blog], accessed January 28, 2018, https://sfrichmondreview.com/2017/10/01/new-autumn-moon-festival-rises-on-clement-street/. 194 Clement Street Merchants’ Association, “Richmond District Autumn Moon Festival,” Facebook, accessed January 28, 2018, https://www.facebook.com/events/378990392504347/. 195 Cynthia Huie, interview with author, January 15, 2018. 96 profits, services for the elderly, [etc.] who also recognize the Chinese and elderly Chinese population,” explains Busk. 196 The Richmond District’s Autumn Moon Festival on Clement Street is an example of a newly formed intangible cultural heritage tradition that will need to be protected as it ages. Along with new traditions that reflect the Chinese-American population of the Richmond, the Halloween parade is one CSMA tradition that is celebrated cross-culturally. Michael Busk emphasizes that “everybody understands Halloween,” which is perhaps why the parade is the longest-running CSMA event to date since circa 1958. 197 Today the parade incorporates a family-focus: kids have a sing along before the parade and those in costume receive a free ice cream cone from the Toy Boat Dessert Café. 198 Last year, in 2017, Supervisor Sandra Lee Fewer led the parade with approximately 220 participants. 199 Some of the reasons for its success include the Richmond District’s flat roads, which are good for walking and perfect for parades and kids. Today the event continues as CSMA’s longest running example of intangible cultural heritage. As Cynthia Huie puts it, the parade remains “a staple in the neighborhood.” 200 Lastly, ClemenTime Holiday Stroll is a newer tradition that has also benefited the community. ClemenTime is a holiday-themed event in early December in which the public is invited to walk along Clement and visit shops that offer special discounts and snacks and beverages. 201 (Figure 5.2) The event also includes “coupons, & raffles, art, music, & craft 196 Michael Busk, interview with author, January 10, 2018. 197 Ibid. 198 Ibid. 199 Ibid. 200 Cynthia Huie, interview with author, January 15, 2018. 201 The Bold Italic originally ran ClemenTime but since their dissolve, the CSMA sponsors it. Source: Cynthia Huie, interview with author, January 15, 2018. 97 activities,” as noted on their Facebook page and promotional flyer. 202 This event is a new cultural heritage tradition that links people to a sense of place—place being the Clement Street corridor. Figure 5.2: Advertisement and Map of ClemenTime, 2015. Illustration by Amy Bell. Source: Richmond District Blog, http://richmondsfblog.com/2015/ 12/04/get-in-the-holiday-spirit-at-the-clementine-holiday-stroll- december-8/. Challenges with Protecting Clement Street’s Cultural Heritage in Modern Day San Francisco 202 Clement Street Merchants’ Association, “ClemenTime Holiday Stroll,” Facebook, accessed January 28, 2018, https://www.facebook.com/events/1799280413702660/. 98 Per the City’s planning code, “Inner Clement Street has one of the greatest concentrations of restaurants of any commercial street in San Francisco, drawing customers from throughout the City and region…The pleasant pedestrian character of the district is derived directly from the intensely active retail frontage on Clement Street.” 203 In recognizing Clement Street’s unique commercial main-street composition, the city has zoned it as “Inner Clement Street Neighborhood Commercial District [NCD].” 204 (Figure 5.3) Clement Street’s NCD zoning limits height and uses to help preserve its small-scale character. However, this is the only control currently in place that helps protect the commercial district. There is a fair amount of work that needs to be done by the City in order to achieve stronger cultural heritage protections. Figure 5.3: Clement Street Zoning Map. Between Arguello Boulevard and Funston Avenue it is zoned as “Inner Clement Street Neighborhood Commercial District.” Source: City and County of San Francisco, Planning Department, “Zoning Map – Zoning Districts,” accessed January 28, 2018, http://sf-planning.org/zoning-map. Clement Street, with no landmarks and no formal cultural heritage protections, is at risk of losing its sense of history and cultural heritage. One of the major, over-arching challenges with ensuring cultural heritage protections on Clement Street is San Francisco’s economic and political nature. As the city continues to be unaffordable to those of low-and-middle incomes, it 203 “Section 716. Inner Clement Street Neighborhood Commercial District,” Article 7, San Francisco Planning Code, January 14, 2018, accessed February 24, 2018, http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/planning/article7neighborhoodcommercialdistricts?f=template s$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:sanfrancisco_ca$anc=JD_716.1. 204 Ibid. 99 remains difficult to ensure Clement Street’s cultural heritage will remain; many of the places associated with cultural heritage on Clement Street are businesses and restaurants, which are vulnerable to close as rents increase and regular customers can no longer afford to shop or live in the neighborhood. Gentrification and displacement could cause Clement Street to lose its sense of identity and cultural heritage. Over the past decade several boutique stores have opened on Clement Street, including Park Life and SEED Store. Derek Song, co-owner of Park Life, explains that when he was looking for a retail location eleven years ago, Clement Street was not his first choice. 205 “When we opened we thought this wasn’t going to last,” states Song. 206 At that time, it didn’t seem like Park Life would fit into the neighborhood’s character of Chinese bodegas amongst small, mostly affordable mom and pop stores. It turned out there was a need for a boutique gift shop on Clement Street then. Similarly, when SEED Store opened, some people associated the shop with gentrification. 207 Co-owner Cynthia Hui notes SEED is expensive and people assume it’s immediately going to gentrify the neighborhood, but the fact is that the neighborhood [and city] is already an expensive place to live, so it’s not entirely arbitrary that SEED came to Clement Street, because it filled a need instead of forced a change upon the neighborhood. 208 While places like SEED Store and Park Life moved to Clement Street before the street had similar retail shops, other retailers are following suit as Clement Street continues to slowly increase its number of specialty stores which are not specifically associated with the ethnic community’s needs. Currently located on 6 th Avenue near Clement Street, upscale gift boutique, 205 Derek Song, interview with author, January 9, 2018. 206 Ibid. 207 Cynthia Huie, interview with author, January 15, 2018. 208 Ibid. 100 Foggy Notion, is scheduled to move to Clement Street this April and expand its existing retail square footage by three times its size. Examples as such beg the question: Will an increase in upscale commercial retail eventually replace Clement Street’s tradition of ethnically diverse stores, bars, restaurants, as well as community-serving organizations and non-profits? The Plough and the Stars owner Sean Heaney’s daughter, Elena, notes that there are far more “American” shops on Clement Street now than when she was growing up. 209 However, a fair number of Irish Bars continue to thrive on Clement Street in 2018, including The Plough and the Stars (116 Clement St.), the Scarlet Lounge (408 Clement St.), and the Bitter End (441 Clement St.). According to Huie, what sets Clement Street apart from some of San Francisco’s neighborhoods struggling with gentrification or those gentrified, like the Mission and Hayes Valley, is that so many business owners care about the neighborhood and its preservation. 210 Shop owners along Clement Street are invested in their neighborhood and are pushing for positive change and community growth. 211 At the same time, however, Clement Street business owners are patrolling the neighborhood to ensure limited formula retail disrupts the commercial corridor’s small-business owner status quo. The Clement Street community prides itself on fostering many small-business entrepreneurs who run mom and pop stores, with limited commercial chains. Many of Clement Street’s commercial business owners do not tolerate formula retail encroaching upon Clement Street, even though the City’s planning code narrowly allows it through a Conditional Use 209 Elena Heaney, interview with author, March 16, 2018. 210 Cynthia Huie, interview with author, January 15, 2018; Cynthia Huie is a Chinese-American native Bay Area resident. 211 Cynthia Huie, interview with author, January 15, 2018. 101 Permit (CUP). 212 A recent example is when Cricket Wireless tried to open a shop on Clement Street and was quickly forced to leave its space. 213 “When Cricket came [to Clement Street], CSMA was the one to handle the CUP,” which made Huie wonder, “Is CSMA the organization that is going to fight for the neighborhood’s character?” 214 She was told if no one takes action the face of the neighborhood will change. And at the time, “no one else was going to put up that fight,” says Huie. 215 (Figure 5.4) 212 The city allows formula retail within the Inner Richmond’s Clement Street as long as a conditional use permit is issued, which is subject to approval by the Planning Commission. “Conditional Use (CU) is a type of land use that is not principally permitted in a particular Zoning District. Conditional Uses require a Planning Commission hearing in order to determine if the proposed use is necessary or desirable to the neighborhood, whether it may potentially have a negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood, and whether the use complies with the San Francisco General Plan;” Section 716. Inner Clement Street Neighborhood Commercial District,” Article 7, San Francisco Planning Code, January 14, 2018, accessed February 24, 2018, http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/planning/article7neighborhoodcommercialdistricts?f=template s$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:sanfrancisco_ca$anc=JD_716.1; City and County of San Francisco, Planning Department, “Permit FAQ & Glossary,” accessed February 25, 2018, http://sf-planning.org/permit-faq-glossary. 213 Clement Street business owners have been patrolling formula retailers who try to move onto Clement Street without a CUP, which many of the businesses often do not file. CSMA produced a three-page document in support of “curbing the efforts of formula retailers in the Inner Richmond from ignoring conditional use permitting;” Huie, Clement Street Merchants’ Association Flyer, undated, accessed January 11, 2018. 214 Cynthia Huie, interview with author, January 15, 2018. 215 Ibid. 102 Figure 5.4: Cricket Wireless. Cricket attempted to have a retail space on Clement Street, but because it did not have a conditional use permit it was forced to leave. Photo by author, January 2018. Besides ironing out the CUP issue, CSMA is one of many vital organizations fighting to maintain Clement Street’s cultural character. And despite expected growth and change in the neighborhood, Huie is optimistic about Clement Street. 216 In terms of her goals for the organization, she would like to “make [CSMA] as sustainable as possible and be around for another hundred years.” 217 With the neighborhood’s current momentum as a bustling cultural corridor, CSMA should have enough work to occupy them for the next century. Recommendations for Preservation and Incorporation of Significance 216 The Geary BRT Project is expected to make the Richmond District more transit accessible from downtown. The project could potential attract more people to the Richmond and/or influence other changes or neighborhood improvement projects; “Geary Corridor Bus Rapid Transit,” San Francisco County Transportation Authority, accessed February 20, 2018, http://www.sfcta.org/geary-corridor-bus-rapid-transit-home#fac. 217 Cynthia Huie, interview with author, January 15, 2018. 103 The Clement Street community has a chance to utilize existing tools examined in Chapter 4: Clement Street: Opportunities of Local Cultural Heritage Protections and Chapter 5: Significance, Challenges and Recommendations for the protection of the cultural heritage listed above. Calle 24 and SoMa Pilipinas cultural heritage districts prove that strong community organizing is necessary for cultural protections at the neighborhood level. However, they also illuminate that the community itself must come to an agreement that protections are needed and wanted for the community. The following tools should be implemented by the Clement Street community to ensure its cultural heritage is protected, if the community decides it wants protections: • Create a non-profit Community Council to help organize community-efforts for preservation and neighborhood longevity. • Review the Planning Department’s Existing Conditions Report published in 2015 and the 2016 Community Needs Assessment Survey of the Richmond District and update it for 2018. • Create a report outlining Clement Street’s community needs/concerns and viable goals for addressing such concerns. • Utilize the Social Inventory Form developed through JCHESS in order to help identify intangible cultural heritage on Clement Street. • Create neighborhood banners, signage, and/or lighting to identify Clement Street, which will foster community character and unify its sense of place. • Although Clement Street has a large Chinese population, the community should consider becoming a multi-ethnic cultural heritage district that celebrates its diversity and multi-layered history. • Work directly with the City to make sure Clement Street is recognized as a culturally relevant neighborhood. Reports & Strategies The following discussion identifies a combination of applicable strategies discussed in Chapter 4: Clement Street: Potential San Francisco Cultural Heritage Protections for the protection of Clement Street’s commercial corridor. SF Heritage’s Sustaining San Francisco’s Living History and the LGBTQ Cultural Heritage Strategy are not analyzed in this chapter as 104 they are broader, city-wide strategies. Ultimately, it is up to the Clement Street community to determine which strategies outlined below are most appropriate. JCHESS Recommendations for Clement Street: Several of JCHESS’ areas of concern may resonate with Clement Street’s community. Like Japantown, Clement Street is densely packed neighborhood-commercial corridor with a mix of residential, businesses, and community-serving organizations. A large parallel between the two neighborhoods is its intangible cultural heritage. Since the start of the CSMA, Clement Street’s identity has been closely associated with cultural activities and events. There could be future concerns for finding space for additional cultural activities and events or perhaps difficulty with navigating the City’s permit process to host parades or events and paying high permit fees. Also in terms of land use, there is also little room for future development as many of the parcels have been built-out and meet current zoning requirements. There may be concerns over displacement of many of Clement Street’s community services, institutions, and businesses due to San Francisco’s high real estate costs. Regarding overall attractiveness of the commercial shopping district, Clement Street, (like many parts of San Francisco) is suffering from car-break-ins and petty theft. 218 Also, there is currently no formal signage or gateway entry to the neighborhood. To help beautify the commercial corridor, the community could consider introducing neighborhood banners, signage, and lighting that identifies it as Clement Street. Wayfinding could help create a stronger sense of place. To mitigate potential concerns, the Clement Street commercial corridor should consider implementing one or several of the following strategies identified in JCHESS: 218 Sarah B., “Clement Street Car Break-Ins on the Rise, Even During Daylight Hours,” Richmond District Blog, accessed January 22, 2018, http://richmondsfblog.com/2017/12/20/clement-street-car-break-ins-on-the-rise-even- during-daylight-hours/. 105 • The Social Inventory Form developed through JCHESS could be used to help identify intangible cultural heritage on Clement Street. Other organizational methods such as JCHESS’ maps and matrix’s may be useful for Clement Street to understand their primary areas of concern. • Community Development Corporation (CDC) – While Clement Street has active economic development, there are several existing vacancies along the commercial corridor. A CDC may help activate these retail spaces and lead specific neighborhood projects. • Community Land Trust (CLT) – A CLT could aid in real estate ownership to increase historic building preservation and provide space for businesses and cultural activities. However, CLTs demand extensive time and financing, along with developing a governing board that encompasses the community’s vision. The Clement Street community would need to make a CLT their priority in order for it to have a positive impact. • Invest in Neighborhoods (IIN) –While IIN may be beneficial for activating Clement Street’s vacant retail spaces, the community already has a robust economic commercial corridor. Those working with IIN will have to navigate working with a variety of City agencies. • Community Benefits District (CBD) – A CBD could help Clement Street develop cohesive neighborhood identify through signage and neighborhood beautification. However, developing a CBD can be tough with extensive property owner outreach. • Design Guidelines – Creating design guidelines could improve neighborhood character and landscaping, etc. But with limited future development zoned for Clement Street, there are few opportunities for design guidelines to be implemented. However, it could aid Clement Street’s commercial corridor with a unifying design. Calle 24 Latino Cultural District, SoMa Pilipinas - Filipino Cultural Heritage District, and LGBTQ Cultural Heritage Strategy - Recommendations for Clement Street: To better ensure cultural heritage protections, the Clement Street community could consider becoming a cultural heritage district. If it were to do so, the community would need to pro-actively organize themselves and be highly involved in the planning process, similar to the Calle 24 and SoMa Pilipinas communities. Community “want” is critical to procuring these efforts. A Working Group would need to be created with key community stakeholders. Clement Street could have a leader representing agreed-upon subcategories (arts and culture, community advocacy, land use, etc.) within the Working Group. 106 Calle 24’s community planning process took place over six months and included: in- depth interviews of key community stakeholders, focus groups, a study-session, community meetings, and a council retreat. Through the planning process, key strategies, challenges, and opportunities should be identified for the community. Clement Street would need to carefully plan their community planning process and consider also taking at least six months to fully engage with the community and civic leaders. Having a thoughtful process would aid in better understanding the community’s concerns. 219 Additionally, Clement Street may benefit from creating a non-profit Community Council, such as Calle 24, to help carry out cultural district planning from the start, and maintain its mission once it becomes a district. The final outcome of the community planning process could include one or two policy documents. Although a citywide policy, the LGBTQ Cultural Heritage Strategy includes a useful organizational method. The strategy will result in two final documents: a strategy and an implementation plan. As to not rush the planning process, Clement Street could also organize their efforts into two similar milestones. Funding is another factor that will dictate the type of preparation for becoming a cultural heritage district (or, if not a district, then another form of cultural heritage protection). All three reports/strategies received city funds. It will be difficult to organize the Clement Street community without some funding from the city. The City of San Francisco would need to recognize Clement Street as a place of cultural heritage importance for it to receive district 219 From 2014 to 2016, the City and County of San Francisco’s Planning Department worked with the Richmond District in collaboration with former District 1 Supervisor Eric Mar in assessing the district’s existing conditions and community needs. The final product includes an Existing Conditions Report published in 2015 and a Community Needs Assessment Survey published in 2016 as a result of over 1,400 survey responses mainly from people who live in the Richmond District. Following the report and survey, ten goals were established by the Richmond District community as future neighborhood goals. If the Clement Street community hosts a community planning process tailored to cultural heritage protections, the Planning Department’s report, survey, and goals should be consulted and those relevant should be integrated. Source: “Richmond District Strategy,” City and County of San Francisco, Planning Department, accessed March 16, 2018, http://sf-planning.org/richmond-district-strategy#download. 107 designation. Ultimately, both of the existing cultural heritage districts—Calle 24 and SoMa Pilipinas—were highly motivated to achieve cultural heritage district designation through robust community organization. It is up to the community to decide if this is the appropriate method for its cultural heritage protection. Another option for the Clement Street community is to follow Japantown’s lead. Japantown is not designated a cultural heritage district, however the community still developed a strategy (JCHESS) for protecting its cultural heritage. Surveys, Designations, and Historic Context Statements First, the 1990 SF Heritage Survey that assessed Arguello Boulevard to 6 th Avenue should be completed through Funston Avenue (as its original intention). Being that it has been nearly thirty years since the survey was completed, newer resources would now be considered age-eligible for local listing, therefore the entire Inner Richmond should be reevaluated through an updated survey that also includes newer historic resources as well as cultural heritage resources. The City should also recognize Clement Street as a cultural heritage corridor and implement appropriate protections. To start, Article 10 and 11 protections of the City’s planning code need to be expanded to its western region, with additional designations in the Richmond District. Although San Francisco already has strict preservation protections, it is still unwise to leave a large district deficient of landmarks because it shifts the preservation focus away from places that could potentially be rich in cultural and historic resources. Clement Street’s unique collection of historic buildings and diverse cultural heritage deserve the same recognition and support as the city’s architectural icons. This isn’t a difficult prospect, especially in light of the City’s pioneering efforts in cultural heritage preservation. 108 Additionally, the City should consider Clement Street as a potential cultural heritage district and pursue district designation. The City should also initiate a historic context statement focused solely on the Richmond District that includes relevant history from 1920 to 1970, which the SF Heritage Context Statement did not include. 220 Newer history has unfolded since the SF Heritage Inner Richmond context statements were published nearly thirty years ago. An all- encompassing Richmond District context statement should include the recent Chinese heritage of the Inner Richmond. Legacy Business Program Out of a plethora of restaurants and businesses on the Inner Richmond’s Clement Street, there are currently only four businesses registered in the Legacy Business Registry as part of the Legacy Business Program (LBP). Many more businesses, however, are eligible for listing in the Registry and should be listed so to better protect Clement Street’s commercial character of independent businesses. 221 One potential business that should be considered for the LBP is Schubert’s Bakery. (Figure 5.5) In 1911, German immigrant Oswald R. Schubert originally opened Golden West Bakery (which later changed names to Schubert’s) on Fillmore Street. As the business grew it needed more space, prompting it to move to its current location on Clement Street in the 1940s where it remains today. 222 As stated on their website, by 1968, new owners Hilmar and Annie 220 These dates are selected because the SF Heritage context statement on the Inner Richmond ends at 1920, and a historic resource dated 1970 or older would now be considered historic given the fifty-year significance criteria. 221 Because there are many restaurants and businesses on Clement Street that represent numerous ethnicities, the LBP should also consider including a wide and diverse array of businesses that represent the community’s multiple ethnicities. 222 “About Schubert’s,” Schubert’s Bakery, accessed February 28, 2018, https://www.schuberts-bakery.com/about- schuberts. 109 Maier “ushered the bakery into the modern era. Although the neighborhood began to change, Schubert’s remained a constant landmark along Clement St.” 223 Figure 5.5: Schubert’s Bakery. Photo by author, 2018. Today, current owner Ralph Wenzel is proud to operate Schubert’s on Clement Street. “We love it here. It’s the center of the city for us,” Wenzel says about the commercial community. 224 As a business owner and member of the CSMA, Wenzel is aware of the LBP and would like to be listed on the registry. 225 For the amount of specialty stores and independently-owned and operated businesses on Clement Street, it is surprising that only four are part of the LBP. One issue may be that not all business owners are aware of the program or understand the benefits of it. The LBP could be 223 Ibid. 224 Ralph Wenzel, interview with author, February 28, 2018. 225 Ibid. 110 improved through better marketing to address local businesses on Clement Street are aware of the program. 226 Traditional Cultural Property A Traditional Cultural Property (TCP) is defined by the National Park Service as: [A] property that is eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) based on its associations with the cultural practices, traditions, beliefs, lifeways, arts, crafts, or social institutions of a living community. TCPs are rooted in a traditional community’s history and are important in maintaining the continuing cultural identity of the community. 227 While cultural practices and beliefs (intangible cultural heritage) give TCPs their significance, a “TCP must be a physical property or place–that is, a district, site, building, structure, or object.” 228 TCPs cannot be intangible cultural heritage on their own, without a primary physical property/location. TCPs follow the National Register of Historic Places’ criteria, which includes meeting one of the four criterion and retain integrity. “A TCP is simply a different way of grouping or looking at historic resources, emphasizing a place’s value and significance to a living community.” 229 TCPs are typically difficult to recognize and identify as such. The National Park Service recommends talking directly with members of the traditional community to identify TCPs. Community members will have the clearest perspective on which properties function as important vehicles for the community’s historic beliefs, customs, and practices. Benefits of TCP listing on the National Register include helping to “preserve those physical properties associated with often-intangible aspects of a local community’s cultural 226 The City of San Francisco is aware of the marketing gap. There is currently a branding project underway for the Legacy Business Program which will include a LBP logo and marketing plan; Shelley Caltagirone, interview with author, February 2, 2018. 227 “National Register of Historic Places – Traditional Cultural Properties (TCPs),” U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, American Indian Liaison Office, accessed February 28, 2018, https://www.nps.gov/history/tribes/Documents/TCP.pdf. 228 Ibid. 229 Ibid. 111 history… In addition, listing a TCP in the NRHP mandates a review process for any Federal, federally licensed, or federally assisted projects that might affect the property as well as requiring consultation with the affected traditional community.” 230 Traditionally, TCPs have been associated with Native American cultural heritage. However, the list below shows TCPs may be applicable to various user-groups and landscapes. Examples of TCP properties, as stated by the National Park Service’s Preservation Bulletin 38: Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties, includes: • a location associated with the traditional beliefs of a Native American group about its origins, its cultural history, or the nature of the world; • a rural community whose organization, buildings and structures, or patterns of land use reflect the cultural traditions valued by its long-term residents; • an urban neighborhood that is the traditional home of a particular cultural group, and that reflects its continuing beliefs and practices; • a location where Native American religious practitioners have historically gone, and are known or thought to go today, to perform ceremonial activities in accordance with traditional cultural rules of practice; and • a location where a community has traditionally carried out economic, artistic, or other cultural practices important in maintaining its historic identity. 231 From the example TCP list stated in Preservation Bulletin 38, the third bullet is the most pertinent to the Clement Street’s Chinese commercial corridor and could potentially be applied. The fifth bullet could also potentially be applied to Clement Street’s commercial corridor in that the community has maintained economic practices of independently-run business throughout the late nineteenth century through today. While TCPs identified in urban areas are less common, there are precedents, such as New York’s historic beer garden—Bohemian Hall and Park. Since 1911, Astoria’s Czech-American community in Queens has owned and operated Bohemian Hall, which serves as a “social, 230 Ibid. 231 U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, National Register Bullion: Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties, accessed March 10, 2018, https://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/pdfs/nrb38.pdf. 112 cultural, and educational hub for New York City’s Czech-American residents.” 232 The property lacks architectural merit to warrant traditional architectural preservation of the building. However, due to its cultural heritage associations tied to the physical property, Bohemian Hall and Park was nominated as a TCP in 2000. 233 The American Folklore Society summarizes some of the difficulties surrounding TCP parameters: Designation on the National Register as a TCP suggests a living site—a place that continues to play a role in fostering a sense of community and cultural heritage. Rather than being assigned a defined, historical period of significance, a TCP’s significance extends to the present. However, TCP criteria are rarely invoked because they are somewhat obscure within the National Register system. In fact, Bohemian Hall is one of the few non-Native American places in the United States that has been designated as a TCP. 234 The fact that TCPs are rarely utilized needs to change. As cities like San Francisco further the cultural heritage conversation, TCPs could become a more-widely used tool to protect places with social and cultural heritage. Therefore, cultural heritage practitioners should begin employing TCPs now within the appropriate context that can justify TCP designation. Just as significance is important for National Register eligibility and listing, it is also important for TCP justification. San Antonio Living Heritage Symposium In 2017, the City of San Antonio’s Office of Historic Preservation held its first international Living Heritage Symposium in San Antonio, from September 6-8. San Antonio proved an appropriate location given the City’s long-running historic preservation legacy. The Living Heritage Symposium website identifies the symposium’s purpose: 232 Molly Garfinkel, “Bohemian Hall and Park: A Traditional Cultural Property in New York City,” American Folklore Society, accessed February 28, 2018, http://www.afsnet.org/?page=FHPBohemianHallStudy. 233 Ibid. 234 Ibid. 113 In San Antonio, many socially relevant sites have become local landmarks. The city now seeks best practices for protecting cultural properties and the traditions and legacies associated with these sites…The goal is to produce viable solutions and deliver concrete action steps for the perpetuation of culturally significant properties, heritage businesses and intangible heritage. This may include new forms of designations, economic incentives, or other methods with a proven track record. 235 Panelists attended from around the world as well as those locally based. San Francisco was well-represented with three of the eight panelists: Executive Director of San Francisco Heritage, Mike Buhler; Historic Preservation Officer, Tim Frye; and heritage consultant, Donna Graves. The symposium catered towards the following attendees: Historic Preservationists, Heritage Management Professionals, Urban Planners, Architects, Cultural Properties Specialists, Cultural Resources Managers, Tribal Leaders, Grassroots Preservationists, Diversity Officers, Academics working in relevant fields, and municipal employees engaged in economic departments, urban planning, development services and sustainability. 236 Having San Francisco represent cultural heritage protection tools at the symposium was a major step forward in helping the City develop its leadership within the field as well as better strength its own protections. As the symposium continues, new innovations will help San Francisco communities better protect their cultural heritage. 235 “Why San Antonio?,” Living Heritage Symposium, accessed January 31, 2018, https://www.arcgis.com/apps/Cascade/index.html?appid=37e57c3308e04d3ebeef80ef4627fd3e. 236 Ibid. 114 CONCLUSION On January 23, 2018, a Community Needs Hearing, held by The Mayor’s Office of Housing and Community Development (MOHCD) and the Office of Economic and Workforce Development (OEWD), took place in the Richmond District. There, key issues were discussed about the Richmond District and city at large by its residents. Retaining existing buildings along Clement Street was noted as a current priority due to an increase in vacancies. Speculation as to why businesses are turning over in the Richmond included high operating costs and rising rents, among other issues. Additionally, the Legacy Business Program (LBP) was repeatedly mentioned as a tool to combat these problems. The community expressed a need for addressing the “cultural barrier in financial education for many immigrant-owned legacy businesses in diverse, ethnic communities, such as on Clement Street.” 237 With many long-standing businesses along Clement Street, the neighborhood has an opportunity to utilize the LBP to enhance the longevity of its unique community. The LBP is the first of many cultural heritage innovations led by San Francisco. Nationwide, the City is currently leading the forefront on cultural heritage protections and has plans to further strengthen them. With the City of San Francisco’s robust planning department composed of numerous planners and twenty preservation planners, it has greater support and emphasis on heritage conservation protections than most other cities. The City also deeply values its cultural heritage, so much so that it created a new position within the Planning Department in late 2017. Shelley Caltagirone, Cultural Heritage Specialist and Senior Planner with the City and 237 City and County of San Francisco, Mayor’s Office of Housing & Community Development Flyer, undated, accessed February 1, 2018. 115 County of San Francisco’s Planning Department, manages the planning department’s role with the legacy business program, its cultural districts, strategies, and communications. 238 There are now several future cultural heritage districts currently underway, with planning efforts being led by each community. They include: 1. Compton’s Transgender, Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual (TLGB) District in the Tenderloin 2. Leather and LGBTQ Cultural District in SoMa 3. Castro LGBTQ Cultural District 239 It is evident that San Francisco values its tangible and intangible heritage, but why is San Francisco, in particular, leading the nation’s cultural heritage protections conversation now? There are many factors. The combination of San Francisco’s social, political, economic, and regulatory framework, has led the City to create a robust public review process and as an outcome it has developed leadership within cultural heritage field. Diane Matsuda says, “San Francisco has always been a unique community that does not discriminate against anyone for being different,” which is perhaps why historic and cultural protections of ethnic minorities are now being pushed to the forefront of the city’s preservation discussion. 240 Furthermore, today’s inflated and speculative economic market has caused development pressures to skyrocket. That, in combination with the fact that San Francisco is a small, dense city, have led for people to realize that there is a need for more robust preservation tools, including new ways of protecting cultural heritage. The LBP is a step in the right direction. Because the city strongly values preservation, it has developed policies to protect its cultural and historic resources, making the cultural heritage discussion different in San Francisco than in any 238 Shelley Caltagirone, interview with author, February 2, 2018. 239 More districts may be forming at the time of this thesis’ publication. 240 Diane Matsuda, interview with author, March 7, 2018. 116 other city today. However, there is still much to be done to keep this conversation moving forward and for other cities to follow San Francisco’s lead. Because there are so many stories to tell in San Francisco, with a mix of diverse peoples, the City should expand their landmarks outside of downtown and into ethnic communities to represent its diversity. The City should develop a separate process from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), separating it from its current tangible preservation policies. 241 This new process should have “teeth,” meaning it should have strong protections. In SF Heritage’s report, Sustaining San Francisco’s Living History: Strategies for Conserving Cultural Heritage Assets, a similar strategy is recommended: “Establish a citywide ‘Cultural Heritage Asset’ designation program with targeted benefits.” 242 This new methodology should also develop associated heritage conservation policy to ensure its protection. Through the course of research for this thesis, several unanswered questions remain. How can intangible cultural heritage be documented and protected on a citywide level when intangible cultural heritage is challenging to quantify and identify? For the Clement Street community, what were all the ethnicities that composed its early neighborhood development and those before the Chinese migrated to the Richmond? Because this thesis focuses solely on the recent Chinese community and New Chinatown, more research needs to be done on the Inner Richmond’s Irish and Russian heritage, along with other established ethnic groups in the community. While Clement Street’s future as a lively commercial corridor that maintains its cultural heritage looks bright, it will take effort by neighborhood organizations and community leaders to instill its longevity. Cynthia Huie, current President of the Clement Street Merchants’ 241 CEQA currently only protects tangible cultural heritage, which allows intangible to fall through the cracks. 242 San Francisco Heritage, Sustaining San Francisco’s Living History. 117 Association (CSMA), would like to see “more conversations about preservation” for the neighborhood. 243 If residents and merchants feels similarly, Inner Richmond’s community leaders will need to come together to discuss next steps as well as work with the City to ensure their neighborhood is recognized as a place that is culturally significant. 243 Cynthia Huie, interview with author, January 15, 2018. 118 BIBLIOGRAPHY “About PAR.” Planning Association for the Richmond. Accessed February 1, 2018. http://www.sfpar.org/site/about-par.html. “About the Legacy Business Program.” City and County of San Francisco, Office of Small Business. Accessed July 29, 2017. http://sfosb.org/legacy-business. “About the Legacy Business Registry.” City and County of San Francisco, Office of Small Business. Accessed July 29, 2017. http://sfosb.org/legacy-business/apply. “About Schubert’s.” Schubert’s Bakery. Accessed February 28, 2018. https://www.schuberts- bakery.com/about-schuberts. Allen, Michael. “Is the National Register of Historic Places Helping or Hindering Legacy City Preservation?” Preservation Rightsizing Network. November 12, 2014. https://rightsizeplace.org/is-the-national-register-of-historic-places-helping-or-hindering-legacy- city-preservation/. Arvin, Chris. “Where the Streetcars Used to Go.” Accessed November 16, 2017. http://sfstreetcars.co/. Baba, Hana. “Green Apple Books Celebrates 50 Years in SF.” KALW. Accessed February 25, 2018. http://kalw.org/post/green-apple-books-celebrates-50-years-sf#stream/0. Beutner, Bill. Email correspondence to author. August 1, 2017. Beutner, Bill. Email correspondence to author. February 1, 2018. Beutner, Bill. Interview with author. May 23, 2017. Bockneck, Alex. “New Autumn Moon Festival Rises on Clement Street.” Richmond ReView/Sunset Beacon [blog]. Accessed January 28, 2018. https://sfrichmondreview.com/2017/10/01/new-autumn-moon-festival-rises-on-clement-street/. Breitmeyer, Melinda. “Neighborhoods: The Richmond District.” Pacific. (July 1980). Accessed via San Francisco Public Library. Bricker, Lauren Weiss. The Historic Context Statements on the Neighborhood Development of San Francisco from 1890-1920, the Inner Richmond District. The Foundation for San Francisco’s Architectural Heritage. December 1990. Assessed via City and County of San Francisco, Planning Department. Brown, Mary, and San Francisco City and County Planning Department. San Francisco Modern Architecture and Landscape Design 1935-1970: Historic Context Statement. Accessed January 12, 2011. http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1054/files/sfmod.pdf. 119 B., Sarah. “City Approves Clement Street Farmers’ Market; first one on Saturday, June 23.” Richmond District Blog. Accessed January 28, 2018. http://richmondsfblog.com/2013/06/13/city-approves-clement-street-farmers-market-first-one- on-sunday-june-23/. B., Sarah. “Clement Street Car Break-Ins on the Rise, Even During Daylight Hours.” Richmond District Blog. Accessed January 22, 2018. http://richmondsfblog.com/2017/12/20/clement-street- car-break-ins-on-the-rise-even-during-daylight-hours/. Buhler, Mike. Interview with author. February 6, 2018. Busk, Michael. Email correspondence to author. February 26, 2018. Busk, Michael. Interview with author. January 10, 2018. Calle 24 Latino Cultural District Community Council. Prepared by Garo Consulting. Calle 24 Latino Cultural District: Report on the Community Planning Process. December 2014. Accessed June 15, 2017. https://www.calle24sf.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/LCD-final-report.pdf. Calle 24 Latino Cultural District. “Organizational Structure.” Accessed February 16, 2018. https://www.calle24sf.org/en/about/structure/. Caltagirone, Shelley. Email correspondence to author. February 20, 2018. Caltagirone, Shelley. Email correspondence to author. February 22, 2018. Caltagirone, Shelley. Email correspondence to author. March 2, 2018. Caltagirone, Shelley. Interview with author. February 2, 2018. Chen, Yong. Chinese San Francisco, 1850-1943: A Trans-Pacific Community. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2000. City and County of San Francisco. Mayor’s Office of Housing & Community Development Flyer. Undated. Accessed February 1, 2018. City and County of San Francisco, Office of Small Business. Press Release: BABYLON BURNING, THE MINDFUL BODY, THE PLOUGH AND STARS, SLIM’S AND THE LAB APPROVED BY SF SMALL BUSINESS COMMISSION FOR LEGACY BUSINESS REGISTRY. February 28, 2018. Accessed March 17, 2018. http://oewd.org/sites/default/files/2.28.18%20City%20Approves%20New%20Small%20Busines ses%20to%20the%20Legacy%20Business%20Registry.pdf. City and County of San Francisco, Office of Small Business. Small Business Commission Resolution: Legacy Business Registry Resolution No.022-16-LBR. Green Apple Books. October 120 3, 2016. Accessed March 2, 2018. http://sfosb.org/sites/default/files/Legacy%20Business/SBC%20Hearings/Resolution%20022- 16-LBR%20Green%20Apple%20Books.pdf. City and County of San Francisco, Office of Small Business. Small Business Commission Resolution: Legacy Business Registry Resolution No.056-16-LBR. Hamburger Haven. December 12, 2016. Accessed March 2, 2018. http://sfosb.org/sites/default/files/Legacy%20Business/SBC%20Hearings/Resolution%20056- 16-LBR%20Hamburger%20Haven.pdf. City and County of San Francisco, Office of Small Business. Small Business Commission Resolution: Legacy Business Registry Resolution No.002-16-LBR. Toy Boat Dessert Café. August 8, 2016. Accessed March 2, 2018. http://sfosb.org/sites/default/files/Legacy%20Business/SBC%20Hearings/Resolution%20002- 16-LBR%20Toy%20Boat%20Dessert%20Cafe.pdf. City and County of San Francisco, Planning Department. “Citywide LGBTQ Cultural Heritage Strategy.” Accessed January 29, 2018, http://sf-planning.org/LGBTQStrategy. City and County of San Francisco, Planning Department. “Cultural Heritage.” Accessed January 25, 2018. http://sf-planning.org/cultural-heritage-0. City and County of San Francisco, Planning Department. “Japantown Cultural Heritage and Economic Sustainability Strategy (JCHESS).” Accessed May 22, 2018. http://sf- planning.org/japantown-cultural-heritage-and-economic-sustainability-strategy-JCHESS. City and County of San Francisco, Planning Department. “Legacy Business Registry.” Accessed February 18, 2018. http://sf-planning.org/legacy-business-registry. City and County of San Francisco, Planning Department. “Permit FAQ & Glossary.” Accessed February 25, 2018. http://sf-planning.org/permit-faq-glossary. “City Real Estate.” San Francisco Chronicle. January 1, 1913. ProQuest Historical Newspapers. “Clement Dines Sunday Night.” The Richmond Banner. January 5, 1934. Accessed via San Francisco Public Library History Center. Clement Street Merchants’ Association. “ClemenTime Holiday Stroll.” Facebook. Accessed January 28, 2018. https://www.facebook.com/events/1799280413702660/. Clement Street Merchants’ Association. “Richmond District Autumn Moon Festival.” Facebook. Accessed January 28, 2018. https://www.facebook.com/events/378990392504347/. Clement Street Merchants’ Association. “Small Business Saturday Kids Edition.” Facebook. Accessed January 28, 2018. https://www.facebook.com/events/124225264938506/. 121 “Cliff House History.” National Park Service. Accessed October 28, 2017. https://www.nps.gov/goga/learn/historyculture/cliff-house.htm. “Colorcodes. ” Testbed for the Redlining Archives. Accessed November 10, 2017. http://salt.umd.edu/T-RACES/colormap.html. Donna Graves and Page & Turnbull Inc. Japantown: Historic Context Statement. Revised May 2011. Garfinkel, Molly. “Bohemian Hall and Park: A Traditional Cultural Property in New York City.” American Folklore Society. Accessed February 28, 2018. http://www.afsnet.org/?page=FHPBohemianHallStudy. Gordon, Rachel. “Evolution of the Richmond: A Cultural Collage.” San Francisco Examiner. February 1, 1999. Guthrie, Julian. “Battle on the Home Front / Neighborhood Groups Take on Developers, City, Try to Halt Construction of ‘Monster Homes.’” SFGate. July 21, 2003. Accessed July 30, 2017. http://m.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Battle-on-the-home-front-Neighborhood-groups- 2564661.php. Heaney, Elena. Interview with author. March 16, 2018. “Historic Preservation.” City and County of San Francisco, Planning Department. Accessed January 2, 2018. http://sf-planning.org/historic-preservation. HoSang, Daniel Martinez. Racial Propositions: Ballot Initiatives and the Making of Postwar California. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2010. Howell, Erik Ocean. “In the Public Interest: Space, Ethnicity, and Authority in San Francisco’s Mission District, 1906-1973.” PhD diss., University of California, Berkeley, 2009. ProQuest (3498828). Huie, Cynthia. Clement Street Merchants’ Association Flyer. Undated. Accessed January 11, 2018. Huie, Cynthia. Email correspondence to author. January 19, 2018. Huie, Cynthia. Interview with author. January 15, 2018. “Inner Richmond,” SFMTA, accessed March 12, 2018, https://www.sfmta.com/neighborhoods/inner-richmond. “Inner Richmond Survey.” Loose note. SF Heritage collection. June 6, 2001. 122 Issel, William and Robert W. Cherny. San Francisco, 1865-1932, Politics, Power, and Urban Development. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986. LaBounty, Woody. Email correspondence to author. January 26, 2018. LaBounty, Woody. Email correspondence to author. March 15, 2018. LaBounty, Woody. “Naming the Richmond District,” Western Neighborhoods Project. Accessed May 25, 2017. http://www.outsidelands.org/gt-marsh.php. Laguerre, Michel S. “The Globalization of a Panethnopolis: Richmond District as the New Chinatown in San Francisco.” GeoJournal 64, (2005): 41-49. “Landmarks Preservation.” City and County of San Francisco, Planning Department. Accessed January 2, 2018. http://sf-planning.org/landmarks-preservation. “Legacy Business Registry,” City and County of San Francisco, Office of Small Business. accessed July 29, 2017. http://sfosb.org/legacy-business/registry. “Legacy Business Registry.” City and County of San Francisco, Planning Department. Accessed July 29, 2017. http://sf-planning.org/legacy-business-registry. “Listed California Historical Resources.” Office of Historic Preservation. Accessed January 5, 2018. http://www.ohp.parks.ca.gov/ListedResources/. “Maravilla Handball Court and El Centro Grocery.” Los Angeles Conservancy. Accessed January 5, 2018. https://www.laconservancy.org/locations/maravilla-handball-court-and-el- centro-grocery. Mar, Eric. “A Final Farewell to the Richmond District.” Medium. Accessed January 28, 2018. https://medium.com/@Eric.Mar/a-final-farewell-to-the-richmond-district-4a25b93f2bd7. The Richmond Banner. October 6, 1894. Accessed via San Francisco Public Library History Center. Matsuda, Diane. Interview with author. March 7, 2018. McCormack, Don. “Richmond District, Where the Pluses Blot Out the Minuses.” San Francisco Examiner. February 18, 1996. Meeks, Stephanie with Kevin C. Murphy. The Past and Future City: How Historic Preservation is Reviving America’s Communities. Washington D.C.: Island Press, 2016. https://books.google.com/books?id=SCajDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA3&lpg=PA3&dq=los+angeles+ha ndball+court+historic+preservation&source=bl&ots=PIfKCGoYbQ&sig=6zGkgmCE8wnbOLc. 123 Meskell, Lynn. “UNESCO’s World Heritage Convention at 40 Challenging the Economic and Political Order of International Heritage Conservation.” Current Anthropology 54, no. 4 (2013) 483-494. doi: 10.1086/671136. Michael, Vince. “Diversity in Preservation: Rethinking Standards and Practices.” Forum Journal 28, no. 3 (2014): 5-12. https://forum.savingplaces.org/HigherLogic/System/DownloadDocumentFile.ashx?DocumentFil eKey=f04a6056-5e84-a1d3-94d2-812344eaa98a. “Mission.” Richmond District Neighborhood Center. Accessed February 1, 2018. http://rdnc.org/homepage/mission/. “Mission & Vision.” YMCA of SF. Accessed February 4, 2018. https://www.ymcasf.org/about/mission-vision. “National Register Bulletin: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation.” U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. Accessed January 7, 2018. https://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb15/nrb15_2.htm. “National Register of Historic Places – Traditional Cultural Properties (TCPs).” U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, American Indian Liaison Office. Accessed February 28, 2018. https://www.nps.gov/history/tribes/Documents/TCP.pdf. “Neighborhood Groups Map,” City and County of San Francisco Planning Department, accessed January 11, 2018. http://sf-planning.org/NEIGHBORHOOD-GROUPS-MAP. Nelson, Christopher H. “The Inner Richmond.” The Foundation for San Francisco’s Architectural Heritage. Heritage Newsletter: Inner Richmond Supplement XV, no. 2 (July 1987): I-VIII. Nolte, Carl. “For the real San Francisco, take the 38 to 6 th and Geary.” San Francisco Chronicle. February 1, 2009. Northern California Coalition on Immigration Rights. “Chinese Immigration.” Found SF. Accessed March 11, 2018. http://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=Chinese_Immigration. “Our Mission & History.” Community Youth Center. Accessed February 4, 2018. https://www.cycsf.org/our-mission-history/. Page, Max. Why Preservation Matters. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2016. Paul Ong, Chahandara Pech and Alycia Cheng. “Ethnic/Racial Populations in San Francisco by Tract: 1950-2010.” UCLA Center for Neighborhood Knowledge. June 6, 2017. “Photo ID # AAK-096.” San Francisco Public Library. Accessed January 25, 2018. http://sflib1.sfpl.org:82/record=b1038971. 124 “Progress of the Richmond District.” San Francisco Chronicle. January 31, 1896. ProQuest Historical Newspapers. Renaud, Renee. “Why Is It Called Richmond?” Richmond Review via FoundSF. June 1990. Accessed September 20, 2017. http://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=Why_is_it_called_%22Richmond%22%3F. “Richmond District Strategy.” City and County of San Francisco, Planning Department. Accessed March 16, 2018. http://sf-planning.org/richmond-district-strategy#download. “Richmond Survey Completed.” The Foundation for San Francisco’s Architectural Heritage Newsletter. Vol. XXI, No. 5. October/November 1993. San Francisco County Transportation Authority. “Geary Corridor Bus Rapid Transit.” Accessed February 20, 2018. http://www.sfcta.org/geary-corridor-bus-rapid-transit-home#fac. San Francisco Heritage. Sustaining San Francisco’s Living History: Strategies for Conserving Cultural Heritage Assets. September 2014. Accessed May 18, 2017. http://sf- planning.org/ftp/files/Commission/cpcpackets/Cultural-Heritage-Assets.pdf. San Francisco Heritage. Sustaining San Francisco’s Living History: Strategies for Conserving Cultural Heritage Assets, Executive Summary. September 2014. Accessed May 18, 2017. https://sfheritage.org/Cultural-Heritage-Assets-Executive-Summary.pdf. San Francisco Planning Department. Japantown Cultural Heritage and Economic Sustainability Strategy (JCHESS). 2013. Accessed May 23, 2017, http://www.sf-planning.org/ftp/files/plans- and-programs/in-your-neighborhood/japantown/JCHESS_FinalDraft_07-10-13.pdf. San Francisco Planning Department. Supervisor District 1: Existing Conditions Report. 2015. accessed March 11, 2018. http://default.sfplanning.org/plans-and-programs/in-your- neighborhood/invest-in-neighborhoods/richmond-district/IIN_Richmond_ECR_Book.pdf. “Section 716. Inner Clement Street Neighborhood Commercial District.” Article 7. San Francisco Planning Code. January 14, 2018. Accessed February 24, 2018. http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/planning/article7neighborhoodcommercial districts?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:sanfrancisco_ca$anc=JD_716.1. SF Planning Department and SoMa Pilipinas Working Group. SoMa Pilipinas Progress Report: Filipino Cultural Heritage District Community Planning Process. October 2016. Accessed January 2, 2018. http://commissions.sfplanning.org/cpcpackets/2016-008314CWP.pdf Shah, Nayan Bhupendra. “San Francisco’s ‘Chinatown’: Race and the Cultural Politics of Public Health, 1854-1952. Volume One.” PhD diss., University of Chicago, 1995. ProQuest (9530798). Smith, Desiree. Historic Resources Survey Team. City and County of San Francisco, Planning Department. Email correspondence to author. February 23, 2018. 125 Smith, Desiree. Historic Resources Survey Team. City and County of San Francisco, Planning Department. Email correspondence to author. January 9, 2018. Song, Derek. Interview with author. January 9, 2018. Stephen, Beverly. “A Smorgasbord of Shops on Clement Street.” San Francisco Chronicle. December 19, 1972. “The U.S. Census Bureau, 2012-2016 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.” United States Census Bureau American Fact Finder. Accessed March 15, 2018. https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml. “Toasting 100 ‘Legacy Bars & Restaurants.’” SF Heritage. Accessed July 29, 2017. https://www.sfheritage.org/news/legacy-bars-restaurants-round-four/. Tosi, Umberto. “Clement Street Scene.” The California Magazine. February 1974. UNDSCVRD. “A Creative Night Market in the Heart of SoMa Pilipinas.” Accessed February 20, 2018. http://www.undiscoveredsf.com/about/. UNESCO. “Accredited NGOs Located in this Country.” Accessed January 13, 2018. https://ich.unesco.org/en-state/united-states-of-america-US?info=accredited-ngos. UNESCO. Basic Texts of the 2003 Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage. 2014 Edition. Paris: UNESCO, 2014. Accessed January 2, 2018. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002305/230504e.pdf. UNESCO. What Is Intangible Cultural Heritage? 2011. Accessed January 2, 2018. https://ich.unesco.org/en/what-is-intangible-heritage-00003. UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Basic Texts of the 1972 World Heritage Convention. 2005 Edition. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 2005. Accessed January 2, 2018. http://whc.unesco.org/uploads/activities/documents/activity-562-4.pdf. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. National Register Bulletin: Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties. Accessed March 10, 2018. https://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/pdfs/nrb38.pdf. VerPlanck, Christopher. Email correspondence to author. July 31, 2017. VerPlanck, Christopher. “Social and Architectural History of the Richmond District.” SF Apartment Magazine. December 2000. http://www.sfaa.org/magazine/archives/2000/dec/1200.verplank.html (site discontinued). Accessed via San Francisco Public Library. 126 “Vestiges of Point Lobos Avenue.” National Park Service. Accessed October 28, 2017. https://www.nps.gov/goga/learn/historyculture/vestiges-point-lobos-ave.htm. Wathen, Guy. “The Regulars: Toy Boat Dessert Café Serves Ice Cream, Conversation.” San Francisco Chronicle. Accessed February 25, 2018. https://www.sfchronicle.com/thetake/article/The-Regulars-Toy-Boat-Dessert-Caf-serves-ice- 11271604.php. Watson, Shayne. Correspondence to author. March 6, 2018. “Welcome to the Clement Street Merchant’s Association.” Clement Street Merchants’ Association. Accessed January 10, 2018. http://www.clementstreetsf.com/mission. Wenzel, Ralph. Interview with author. February 28, 2018. “What We Do.” Western Neighborhoods Project. Accessed January 10, 2018. http://www.outsidelands.org/about.php. “Why San Antonio?.” Living Heritage Symposium. Accessed January 31, 2018. https://www.arcgis.com/apps/Cascade/index.html?appid=37e57c3308e04d3ebeef80ef4627fd3e. “Win Tickets to the Richmond YMCA 90 Year Silent Auction Event, April 5.” Richmond District Blog. Accessed February 4, 2018. http://richmondsfblog.com/2012/03/26/richmond- ymca-celebrates-90-years-with-a-silent-auction-event-april-5/. Young, Nyda. “Where It’s At On Clement.” San Francisco Sunday Examiner & Chronicle, July 23, 1972. Accessed via San Francisco Public Library. 127 APPENDICIES FINAL DRAFT / JULY 10, 2013 CULTURAL HERITAGE ECONOMIC SUSTAINABILITY STRATEGY and JAPANTOWN JCHESS JAPANTOWN ORGANIZING COMMITTEE Appendix A Board of Supervisors David Chiu, President London Breed, District 5 Supervisor John Avalos David Campos Malia Cohen Mark Farrell Jane Kim Eric Mar Katy Tang Scott Wiener Norman Yee Planning Commission Rodney Fong, President Cindy Wu, Vice-President Michael Antonini Gwyneth Borden Rich Hillis Kathrin Moore Hisashi Sugaya Historic Preservation Commission Karl Hasz, President Andrew Wolfram, Vice-President Aaron Jon Hyland Ellen Johnck Richard Johns Diane Matsuda Jonathan Pearlman Mayor Edwin M. Lee ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS With the following consultants to the Planning Department Donna Graves Japantown Task Force Page & Turnbull San Francisco Heritage Seifel, Inc. Planning Department (SF Planning) John Rahaim, Planning Director Jose Campos, Director of Citywide Planning Joshua Switzky, Manager, Community Planning Steve Wertheim, Project Manager Tim Frye, Preservation Coordinator Shelley Caltagirone, Historic Preservation Manager Sarah Jones, Acting Environmental Review Officer Monica Pereira, Environmental Review Gary Chen, Graphic Design and Layout Mike Webster, GIS Mapping Paul Lord, Former Project Manager Rosie Dudley, Former Project Manager Office of Economic and Workforce Development Todd Rufo, Director Amy Cohen, Director of Neighborhood Business Development Jordan Klein, Senior Project Manager, Invest in Neighborhoods Diana Ponce de Leon, Project Manager, Invest in Neighborhoods Japantown Organizing Committee Ko Asukura Bernie Choden Seiko Fujimoto Hiroshi Fukuda Bob Hamaguchi Richard Hashimoto Rose Hillson Seiji Horibuchi Gregory Johnson Stephen Jordan Karen Kai Ken Kaji Ryan Kimura Ben Kobashigawa Bette Landis T ak Matsuba Richard Matsuno Sandy Mori Glynis Nakahara Steve Nakajo Diane Onizuka Paul Osaki Jon Osaki Kathy Reyes Robert Rusky Robert Sakai Clint T aura Ros Tonai Arnold Townsend Paul Wermer FINAL DRAFT / JULY 10, 2013 JCHESS Cover photos courtesy of buemookuh and David Yu. Back cover photo courtesy of Todd Lappin. © 2013 San Francisco Planning Department 1650 Mission Street, Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94103-3114 www.sfplanning.org CONTENTS Chapters 1. INTRODUCTION 01 2. HISTORIC OVERVIEW OF JAPANTOWN 07 3. CULTURAL HERITAGE OVERVIEW & METHODOLOGY 17 4. EXISTING CONDITIONS 29 5. RECOMMENDATIONS 49 Figures Figure 1.1 Overview of Japantown’s Cultural Heritage Resources 02 Figure 3.1 Japantown’s Cultural Resources: Buildings & Structures 20 Figure 3.2 Japantown’s Cultural Resources: Organizations & Institutions 22 Figure 3.3 Japantown’s Cultural Resources: Businesses 24 Figure 3.4 Japantown’s Cultural Resources: Cultural Activities & Events 26 Figure 4.1 Japantown Land Uses 32 Figure 4.2 Japantown Zoning Districts 33 Figure 4.3 Japantown Height Limits 34 Matrix A: Applying Tools to Address Concerns 72 Matrix B: Applying Tools to Fulfill Goals and Objectives 74 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY VISION, GOALS, AND OBJECTIVES The Japantown Cultural Heritage and Economic Sustainability Strategy (JCHESS) is the first document in San Francisco to focus specifically on how to preserve and promote a neighborhood’s cultural heritage. The Japantown Cultural Heritage and Economic Sustainability Strategy’s (JCHESS) vision is that Japantown will thrive as a culturally rich, authentic, and economically vibrant neighbor- hood, which will serve as the cultural heart of the Japanese and Japanese American com- munities for generations to come. Specifically, the JCHESS seeks to provide a strategy to: ● Secure Japantown’s future as the historical and cultural heart of the Japanese and Japanese American Community ● Secure Japantown’s future as a thriving commercial and retail district ● Secure Japantown’s future as a home to residents and community-based institutions ● Secure Japantown’s future as a physically attractive and vibrant environment AREAS OF CONCERN The JCHESS includes an assessment of the existing conditions in Japantown, and identifies particular “areas of concern” with regard to cultural heritage and economic sustainability, as follows: AREAS OF CONCERN RELATED TO JAPANTOWN’S PEOPLE: ● It is difficult to maintain Japantown’s critical mass as a community hub ● Not all age groups have an equal stake in the community ● Lack of collaboration for cultural preservation AREAS OF CONCERN RELATED TO JAPANTOWN’S LAND: ● Utilization of developable parcels AREAS OF CONCERN RELATED TO JAPANTOWN’S BUILDINGS: ● Compatibility of architectural style ● Lack of pedestrian scale ● Preservation of historic buildings and structures AREAS OF CONCERN RELATED TO JAPANTOWN’S ORGANIZATIONS AND INSTITUTIONS: ● Capacity challenges for community-serving organizations and institutions ● Lack of permanent space for existing organizations AREAS OF CONCERN RELATED TO JAPANTOWN’S BUSINESSES: ● Business viability ● Business ownership transitions ● Finding and attracting culturally relevant businesses ● Attractiveness of the shopping district ● Potential business displacement ● The future of the Japan Center ● The future of the Japan Center Parking Garage AREAS OF CONCERN RELATED TO JAPANTOWN’S CULTURAL ACTIVITIES AND EVENTS: ● Limited space for community activities ● Acquiring permits for festivals AREAS OF CONCERN RELATED TO JAPANTOWN’S PUBLIC REALM: ● Peace Plaza design ● Buchanan Mall design ● Streetscape maintenance ● Landscaping ● Lighting ● Street furnishings ● Wayfinding signage RECOMMENDATIONS To address these areas of concern, the JCHESS includes a series of recommendations that are considered by the City and community as hav- ing the best potential to fulfill the vision of the JCHESS. Given the range of concerns, there is no single tool that could fulfill this vision. It is more likely that a series of recommendations will need to be implemented in a complementary and coordinated manner to ensure maximum benefit to Japantown, including a combination of existing tools and new strategies. The recommendations of the JCHESS are listed below. To see a matrix showing which recommenda- tions are good candidates to address each of the areas of concern, see the end of Chapter 5. EXISTING STRATEGIES ● Utilize tools for preservation of historic buildings and structures ● Leverage the Japantown Special Use District to cultivate and attract new businesses appropriate to Japantown ● Utilize the City’s Design Guidelines ● Implement streetscape and pedestrian improve- ments per the Better Streets Plan ● Implement proposed transportation improvements ● Market the neighborhood through SFTravel PROPOSED STRATEGIES ● Create a Japantown Community Development Corporation ● Create a Japantown Community Land Trust ● Implement Invest in Neighborhoods ● Negotiate community benefits agreements with major new developments ● Create a Japantown Community Benefits District ● Implement a Japantown Mello-Roos Community Facilities District ● Utilize funds from the San Francisco Grants for the Arts ● Utilize Japan Center Garages’ Capital Improvement Funds ● Create a Japantown Neighborhood Commercial District ● Create Japantown Design Guidelines ● Implement improvements to Peace Plaza ● Implement improvements to Buchanan Mall ● Develop a strategic plan for the Japan Center Malls The Japantown Cultural Heritage and Economic Sustainability Strategy’s (JCHESS) vision is that Japantown will thrive as a culturally rich, authentic, and economically vibrant neighborhood, which will serve as the cultural heart of the Japanese and Japanese American communities for generations to come. INTRODUCTION A. ABOUT JAPANTOWN Japantown has been the cultural heart of the Japanese American community in San Francisco and much of the Bay Area for over a century, serving a role that is unique to the city, region and country. The area known as Japantown today is considerably smaller than the neighborhood’s previous boundaries, and future preservation cannot be taken for granted. 1 As one of three Japantowns remaining in the country, the area’s cultural and historical resources are widely appreciated and play a significant role in the history of San Francisco and the region at large. Situated in the middle of the city, between downtown and the City’s western neighborhoods on the major transit corridor of Geary Boulevard, Japantown attracts people from all over the Bay Area to participate in community events, watch cultural performances, conduct business, shop and receive services. Japanese and Japanese Americans throughout the Bay Area depend on San Francisco’s Japantown as the focal point for commu- nity gatherings. Much of what makes Japantown a culturally-rich and recognizable place are the Japanese American busi- nesses and community-based organizations that are 1 Japantown as we know it today is located north of Ellis Street, with the Fillmore District to the west, Western Addition to the south, and Cathedral Hill to the east. However, prior to World War II, the Japantown neighborhood stretched east to west from Gough Street to Presidio Avenue and north to south from California Street to McAllister Street. The reduced size of the neighborhood is due to the effects of both Internment during World War II and Urban Renewal (as discussed in Chapter 2). CHAPTER clustered around Post, Buchanan and Sutter Streets, as well as found throughout the neighborhood (see Figure 1.1). A unique mix of businesses offers Japanese, Japanese American, Korean and other culturally specific services, wares and food products that can be found in only a few other places in the United States, while cultural and community institutions continue to draw people from around the Bay Area on a daily basis. The organizations serve a spectrum of ages from young to old, and range in their offerings from nutri- tional services, childcare and teen programs, Japanese cultural arts performances and instruction (e.g. flower arranging, calligraphy, tea ceremonies, dance, taiko drumming), Japanese language and martial arts schools and community-based long-term care services. Japantown’s cultural richness extends beyond the Japanese American community to include Jews, African Americans, Filipinos, Koreans, and other ethnic groups. The various heritages of these commu- nities were instrumental and intertwined in the history, development, and current population of Japantown. Implementation of the recommendations of this docu- ment will necessarily seek to reflect this diversity. Chapter 1. Introdu C t Ion 1 PINE ST POST ST BUSH ST SUTTER ST GEARY BLVD GOUGH ST LAGUNA ST CALIFORNIA ST STEINER ST ELLIS ST FILLMORE ST WEBSTER ST OCTAVIA ST BUCHANAN ST AUSTIN ST WILMOT ST FERN ST CLEARY CT INCA LN OFARRELL ST ORBEN PL HOLLIS ST ZAMPA LN AVERY ST COTTAGE ROW WESTERN SHORE LN QUICKSTEP LN HEMLOCK ST ELLIS ST OFARRELL ST Organizations and Institutions Cultural Activities and Events Businesses Buildings and Structures 1,000 Feet Japantown Cultural Heritage WEBSTER Figure 1.1 OVERVIEW OF JAPANTOWN’S CULTURAL HERITAGE RESOURCES B. VISION, GOALS, AND OBJECTIVES San Francisco is expected to grow substantially in the next few decades, as new residents and businesses are drawn to our beauty, economy, culture, and environ- ment. While this growth can support the ongoing vibrancy of the city, it is also likely to lead to increased competition for our limited space. This competition can threaten businesses and organizations that are vital to the wellbeing of our communities. The Japantown Cultural Heritage and Economic Sustainability Strategy’s (JCHESS) vision is that Japantown will thrive as a culturally rich, authentic, and economically vibrant neighborhood which will serve as the cultural heart of the Japanese and Japanese American communities for generations to come. Such a comprehensive vision contains many facets that are articulated in the following Goals and Objectives. GOAL 1 Secure Japantown’s future as the historical and cultural heart of Japanese and Japanese American Community. OBJECTIVES A. Promote Japantown’s value and history. B. Promote a sense of Japan, in addition to the Japanese American culture. C. Enhance historic and cultural landmarks. D. Safeguard community-based institutions. E. Promote events that attract youth and families (to live, visit, and shop). F. Serve as the hub for the Japanese commu- nity in the region. GOAL 2 Secure Japantown’s future as a thriving commercial and retail district. OBJECTIVES A. Preserve Japantown’s livelihood, including existing local and historic businesses. B. Encourage business development for new companies that reflect Japantown. C. Provide retail/restaurants that cater to youth, families, neighbors, and tourists. D. Provide consistent sidewalk and public space maintenance. E. Generate demand outside of the immediate area. Chapter 1. Introdu C t Ion 3 GOAL 3 Secure Japantown’s future as a home to residents and community-based institutions. OBJECTIVES A. Provide more mixed-income housing (espe- cially for families and seniors). B. Provide economic support for community- based, non-profit organizations. C. Improve public space and parks. D. Maintain a livable neighborhood that reflects San Francisco’s diversity. GOAL 4 Secure Japantown’s future as a physically attractive and vibrant environment. OBJECTIVES A. Enhance Japanese character. B. Increase sense of safety. C. Improve appearance and cleanliness. D. Re-establish pedestrian connections, social interaction and commerce between the neigh- borhoods on both sides of Geary Boulevard. E. Provide quality recreational opportunities. F. Provide spaces that cater to youth and families. G. Strive to utilize sustainable technology and materials. ...GOALS AND OBJECTIVES JapantoWn CuLturaL herItaGe & eConoMIC SuStaInaBILItY StrateGY 4 C. CONTENT OF THE JCHESS The JCHESS contains five chapters, in addition to the Executive Summary and this Introduction. They are as follows: Chapter 2 provides a historic overview of Japantown and includes the roles of the Japanese community as well as other groups that have influenced the neighborhood; Chapter 3 delves into the concept of cultural heritage, its role in our society, and the methods that can be used to identify and understand Japantown’s social heritage resources (i.e., buildings and structures, organizations and institutions, businesses, and cultural activities and events); Chapter 4 is an overview of the existing conditions in Japantown and highlights those “areas of concern” identified by the community and the City; and Chapter 5 offers a series of recommendations for how to address the identified areas of concern, and thereby fulfill the vision, goals, and objectives of this strategy. D. ABOUT THIS STRATEGY The JCHESS is the first document in San Francisco to focus specifically on how to preserve and promote a neighborhood’s cultural heritage. It reflects many years of collaboration between the Japantown community and the City, particularly the Planning Department and the Office of Economic and Workforce Development. The JCHESS would not be possible without the work of the Japantown Organizing Committee and its various subcommittees, who have spent the last 3½ years shepherding this process and promoting its innovative approach, as well as the myriad community members who contributed their knowledge and time. Much of the foundation of this document is based on the Planning Department’s Draft Japantown Better Neighborhoods Plan (2009), which lends its goals and objectives to the JCHESS. The historic overview of this document is based on Japantown’s Historic Context Statement (2009, revised 2011), written by Donna Graves and Page & Turnbull. The methodol- ogy for reviewing and analyzing Japantown’s social heritage resources is based on the work of Planning Department staff, community members, Page & Turnbull, and San Francisco Heritage. Finally, many of the recommendations are based on Seifel, Inc.’s Economic Tools for Preserving Social Heritage in Japantown (2013), the first document to compile and assess economic tools that can support a neighbor- hood’s social heritage. All of these documents are available on the project’s webpage: http://japantown. sfplanning.org. Chapter 1. Introdu C t Ion 5 Over more than a century, generations of Nikkei (people of Japanese ancestry) have grown and changed along with the Japantown neighborhood of San Francisco. JapantoWn CuLturaL herItaGe & eConoMIC SuStaInaBILItY StrateGY 6 HISTORIC OVERVIEW OF JAPANTOWN Over more than a century, generations of Nikkei (people of Japanese ancestry) have grown and changed along with the Japantown neighborhood of San Francisco. Historic and cultural ties have deepened and strengthened even as the community has faced challenges to its social and physical fabric. This chap- ter briefly describes the history of this neighborhood, and of the Issei, Nisei, Sansei, and Yonsei (the first, second, third and fourth generations of Japanese in America). 1 A. PRE-1906 EARLY HISTORY OF JAPANTOWN AND JAPANESE IMMIGRATION Japantown is part of a larger area of San Francisco known as the Western Addition, which was developed primarily during the latter part of the 19th century. During this time, the Western Addition evolved into a largely upper-middle-class and upper-class neighborhood. The families that occupied the Western 1 The content of this chapter is derived from the revised Japantown Historic Context Statement (May 2011) by Donna Graves and Page & Turnbull (http://www.sf-planning.org/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=1696). CHAPTER Addition’s mostly two- and three-story houses typically had roots in European countries such as Germany, Austria, Ireland, England, Scotland, and France. A large proportion of these residents were Jewish, and today the area still includes a number of active synagogues and Jewish institutions, as well as former synagogues that have been re-purposed for other uses. Significant numbers of Japanese people did not begin to settle in the area that became known as Japantown until after the 1906 earthquake. However, Japanese had already begun to arrive in California in 1869 – though the number of Japanese in the United was extremely low until Japan liberalized emigration restrictions in the mid-1880s. Early Japanese immi- grants to San Francisco had settled in Chinatown, as areas of town already inhabited by Chinese immigrants (who began arriving in the California during the Gold Rush) were often the only neighborhoods that permit- ted the first waves of Japanese immigrant men to find residences and set up small businesses. By 1900, there existed a second cluster of Japanese people and commercial establishments South of Market, along Jessie and Stevenson streets, between Fifth and Seventh Streets. Chapter 2. hIStorIC overv I e W of Japanto W n 7 B. 1906 - 1920S RESETTLEMENT AND RECOVERY The demographics of the Western Addition had begun to shift by the turn of the 20th century, but it was the consequences of the 1906 earthquake and fires that transformed the neighborhood into what more recent chroniclers have called San Francisco’s “Little United Nations.” Many of the neighborhood’s stately pre-disaster buildings, which had previously functioned as single-family dwellings, were divided into flats and rooms and let to boarders to satisfy the acute housing shortage. As the neighborhood became more densely occupied, it also grew more racially and ethnically diverse and more working class in character. The Jewish population grew, and Mexican Americans, African Americans, Filipinos and other ethnic groups also gravitated to the Western Addition-Fillmore area. In addition, this period saw the majority of the Japanese community moving to the present Japantown area in the Western Addition, spurred by the destruc- tion in the 1906 earthquake and fires that affected both Japanese enclaves in the Chinatown and South of Market neighborhoods. Japanese seeking new homes found that exclusionary housing practices, com- monplace in San Francisco at the time, did not extend into parts of the Western Addition. The Japanese community reestablished homes, businesses, and insti- tutions, forming the culturally distinctive neighborhood of Nihonjin Machi, or “Japanese person town,” as it was called by Nikkei. Despite these inroads, Federal naturalization law barred the immigrant Japanese generation (Issei) from eligibility for citizenship until 1952, which denied the burgeoning community a political voice at a critical time in the community’s development and left the community unduly vulner- able to exploitation and oppression. Additionally, California’s Alien Land Law, enacted in 1913 denied the Issei the ability to buy, own or control most types of real property, thereby undermining the community’s ability to secure control over their community property and denying them one of the pillars of economic stability. The Alien Land Law was not overturned until 1952, making the community more vulnerable to the effects of Internment (discussed below). The heart of Nihonjin Machi was the area bounded by Geary, Webster, Bush, and Laguna Streets, although Nikkei presence extended over a 30-block area, as far as Presidio, California, McAllister and Gough Streets. Many Japanese stores, personal services, and profes- sionals were found concentrated in storefronts along Post and Buchanan Streets, the primary commercial corridors of Nihonjin Machi, as well on Fillmore Street. Other Nikkei businesses, services, schools, churches, and hotels operated in the houses of the neighborhood. C. 1920S - 1942 NIHONJIN MACHI OF SAN FRANCISCO By the 1920s and 1930s, the growing influence and resource base of several established Japanese institu- tions allowed them to construct dedicated structures such as Japanese schools, churches, and social and cultural halls which became the new cornerstones of the neighborhood in Nihonjin Machi. Nikkei institu- tions also converted 19th century buildings such as synagogues and mansions. While the Western Addition area was home to cultural groups other than Japanese (as discussed above), the character of Nihonjin Machi was decidedly Nikkei. The neighborhood reached its zenith, in total numbers and in geographic extent of Nikkei population, businesses, and community and social resources, by about 1940. The cultural commu- nity of Nihonjin Machi thrived despite legal restrictions such as the Alien Land Act of 1913, which disallowed Japanese and other “aliens ineligible for citizenship” from owning property, and the Immigration Act of 1924, which curtailed immigration from Japan. JapantoWn CuLturaL herItaGe & eConoMIC SuStaInaBILItY StrateGY 8 D. 1942 - 1945 WORLD WAR II AND INTERNMENT The World War II Internment had and continues to have a major impact on the identity and character of the Japantown community. Several months after the United States entered World War II following the attack on Pearl Harbor, President Roosevelt issued Executive Order 9066, which authorized the forced removal of the entire West Coast Japanese and Japanese American population from their homes and communities, and their incarceration for the duration in hastily constructed internment camps located in des- olate areas of the Western and interior states. Seeing no viable alternatives, the Nikkei of San Francisco Nihonmachi, together with other Japantown communi- ties from Arizona to Washington, largely complied with the internment orders, making arrangements as best they could for their homes, businesses and possessions (many losing virtually all they had). Ultimately, over 110,000 people of Japanese ancestry were incarcer- ated in the camps from 1942 to 1946, with some held to as late as 1948. Scholars and historians have almost universally condemned the Internment as a civil liber- ties disaster and one of the most shameful acts in U.S. history. In 1976, President Ford formally declared the Internment a “national mistake,” and through the Civil Liberties Act of 1988, Congress formally apologized to the Japanese American community, declaring the Internment to have been the result of “race prejudice, war hysteria and a failure of political leadership.” E. 1945 - 1960S NIKKEI RETURN TO JAPANTOWN When the three-year internment ended at the end of the war, many Japanese returned to the neighbor- hoods that they had been forced to leave. However, many others relocated to other Japantowns on the West Coast, to other neighborhoods and communities throughout the U.S., or to Japan. While the Nikkei population in San Francisco reached the same level as before the war, it was more dispersed, and consisted of many newcomers. These factors contributed to the challenges that the community faced in regaining social cohesion. Even the name of the neighborhood as known to Nikkei changed to reflect the more dispersed character of the postwar community, from Nihonjin Machi to Nihonmachi, or “Japantown.” Nonetheless, the neighborhood continued to function as the cultural and commercial heart for Nikkei in San Francisco. Overall, the postwar population of the Western Addition increased and became even more ethnically and culturally mixed. The wartime expansion of the African American community, the postwar return of Nikkei to the neighborhood, and an influx of other groups such as Filipinos and Koreans, resulted in an even more diverse cultural atmosphere than had existed previously in the Western Addition. F. 1950S - 1980S REDEVELOPMENT AND URBAN RENEWAL By the 1950s, local agencies had identified San Francisco’s Western Addition as the site of one of the first federally funded urban renewal projects in the nation. In the late 1950s and early 1960s, vast swaths of Western Addition neighborhoods (including parts of the Japantown-Fillmore area) were cleared by the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency for eventual new development. This era of “Redevelopment” resulted in displacement of thousands of established residents and scores of businesses, razing of hundreds of structures and relocating buildings, and disruption of social fabric. The criticism leveled by the Western Addition community at these outcomes led directly to Redevelopment Agency policy shifts related to Chapter 2. hIStorIC overv I e W of Japanto W n 9 displacement of people, rehabilitation and relocation of older buildings, and involvement of the local com- munity in project planning. The redevelopment of the Western Addition was especially painful for those Japanese individuals and families who also suffered greatly with the internment during World War II. Occurring under the auspices of the Redevelopment Agency, but with increasing influence from the Nikkei community, the “urban renewal” of Japantown displayed a cultural focus that was unusual for redevelopment projects. From the 1960s to the 1980s, much of the heart of Japantown was reconstructed with Japanese culturally-thematic designs and uses. The earlier stages of urban renewal in Japantown generally resulted in large-scale complexes, including apart- ments and a commercial mall. Later phases tended to result in smaller projects that were integrated into the neighborhood and that addressed specific community needs. These included a pedestrian commercial plaza with public art, Nikkei churches, organizational headquarters, libraries, and a community and cultural center. The redevelopment of Japantown’s physical landscape during the mid- to late-20th century occurred during a time when the social and political landscapes for Nikkei also changed in important ways. Decades-old restrictions on “alien” immigration and property ownership were lifted in the 1950s, and exclusionary housing practices and anti-miscegenation laws were struck down in the 1960s. Movements and campaigns to obtain official redress from the U.S. government for wartime internment were momentous in the 1970s and 1980s. Although significant changes in Nikkei social fabric that occurred over time led to closures of schools, churches, and organizations in Japantown, many other established institutions remained vital. In addition, new organizations and groups formed to fill the service voids and to meet the changing, diversify- ing needs of the multi-generational Nikkei cultural community. G. 1990S - PRESENT MODERN JAPANTOWN World War II internment, post-war redevelopment, and the assimilation of Japanese Americans into the broader social fabric has meant that Japantown is no longer the site of a highly concentrated residential population of Nikkei. By 1990, more than 90 percent of Japanese Americans in San Francisco lived outside of Japantown. In addition, more than half of the Nikkei population of California is of mixed ethnic heritage, further complicating the issue of cultural identity. As the neighborhood’s demographics shifted to a more diverse and pan-Asian population, and Nisei retirements led to the closure of long-time businesses ranging from manga shops to markets, bookstores to bowling alleys, community energies have focused on the question of what is essential to Nihonmachi. At the same time, San Francisco’s Japantown con- tinues to hold immeasurable symbolic and cultural meaning. Nihonmachi is the foundation for a regional community through the cultural, educational and spiritual ties it creates for Japanese and Japanese Americans. In addition to ethnically specific goods and services, Nikkei throughout the Bay Area visit Japantown for cultural and educational events. The streets of Nihonmachi are the site for annual events such as Bon Odori, Cherry Blossom festival and the Japantown Street Fair, which bring the regional com- munity together. By the 1990s, Japanese Americans in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Jose recognized that they shared a common challenge – envisioning the future for the last three remaining historic Japantowns in the United States. In San Francisco, community-based efforts to support Japantown’s cultural heritage and economic sustainability formally began in 1997. This process led to the completion of a conceptual com- munity plan in 2000, the creation of an implementing JapantoWn CuLturaL herItaGe & eConoMIC SuStaInaBILItY StrateGY 10 body (Japantown Task Force), and was integral in the passage of Senate Bill 307 in September 2001, which acknowledged the significance of the state’s three Japantowns through a California Japantown Preservation Pilot Project. From 2007-2009, the neighborhood worked with the Planning Department to create the draft Japantown Better Neighborhoods Plan (BNP). Though never adopted, the draft BNP and the preceding processes were all forbearers of this document. Chapter 2. hIStorIC overv I e W of Japanto W n 11 Japantown has been the cultural heart of the Japanese American community in San Francisco and much of the Bay Area for over a century. Japantown should serve as the cultural heart of the Japanese and Japanese American communities for generations to come. JapantoWn CuLturaL herItaGe & eConoMIC SuStaInaBILItY StrateGY 12 1 2 3 4 PHOTOS ON THIS PAGE 1. In the late 1800s, this neighborhood had a substantial Jewish population, who built institutions such as Temple Ohabai Shalom (1895). Image courtesy of the San Francisco Public Library. 2. The earliest Japanese immigrants lived in neighborhoods such as South Park. Image courtesy of the Japanese American Historical Archive. 3. By the mid 1910s, the Western Addition had an established Japanese American community, as exemplified by these volunteers to the US Army. Image courtesy of JAHA/JCCCNC. 4. Japantown has always been a diverse neighborhood, as shown by the students at the Rafael Weill School (now Rosa Parks Elementary) in 1933. Image courtesy of Hatsuro Aizawa. Chapter 2. hIStorIC overv I e W of Japanto W n 13 PHOTOS ON THIS PAGE 1. During the period between the wars, Japantown’s organizations and institutions flourished, such as the Japanese Americans Citizens League (1929). Image courtesy of the Japanese American National Library. 2. During World War II, Japanese Americans were forced to register before being sent to internment camps. Image courtesy of the Bancroft Library. 3. After World War II, Japantown returned to being the cultural heart of the Japanese American community, including this women’s bowling team from 1953. Image from Generations. 4. Japanese Americans were not allowed to become citizens of the United States until 1952, when Naturalization ceremonies such as this were held. PHOTOS ON NEXT PAGE 5. The creation of Geary Boulevard (1960) required the demolition of the surrounding blocks. Image courtesy of the San Francisco Public Library. 6. Citizens Against Nihonmachi Evictions (shown circa 1974) formed in response to the actions of the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency. Image courtesy of the Japanese American National Library. 7. The attractions of modern Japantown draws in visitors from all over the world. Image courtesy of Todd Lappin. 1 3 4 2 JapantoWn CuLturaL herItaGe & eConoMIC SuStaInaBILItY StrateGY 14 5 7 6 Chapter 2. hIStorIC overv I e W of Japanto W n 15 Just as Japantown’s cultural heritage is rich and diverse, it is also fragile. JapantoWn CuLturaL herItaGe & eConoMIC SuStaInaBILItY StrateGY 16 CULTURAL HERITAGE OVERVIEW & METHODOLOGY A. CULTURAL HERITAGE OVERVIEW This section is intended to (1) articulate the value and purpose of preserving the various elements of cultural heritage in Japantown and across the City, and (2) describe how the Planning Department has begun to identify cultural heritage resources in the Japantown community. Cultural heritage may be defined as those elements, both tangible and intangible, that help define the beliefs, customs and practices of a particular com- munity. Tangible elements may include a community’s land, buildings, public spaces or artwork, while intangible elements may include organizations and institutions, businesses, cultural activities and events, and even people. These elements are rooted in the community’s history and/or are important in maintain- ing its identity. As discussed in the previous chapter, Japantown’s his- tory as an ethnically diverse neighborhood goes back to the 19th Century. The neighborhood has been an enclave for many ethnic and social groups over time, including African-American, Filipino-American, and Jewish-American communities. However, for much of CHAPTER the last century the neighborhood has predominantly been the center of the city’s Japanese-American com- munity. As noted in the Historic Overview Chapter, the Japanese-American community largely moved to the area after the 1906 earthquake and fires which displaced them from the downtown area. Over time the neighborhood has established all the hallmarks of cultural heritage described above, including: landmark buildings, scores of organizations and institutions, hun- dreds of businesses serving the needs of the local com- munity as well as the region’s Japanese Americans, cultural activities including traditional practices such as taiko drumming and bonsai, as well as annual festivals and events that draw tens of thousands of people, such as the Cherry Blossom Festival and the J-POP festival. Just as Japantown’s cultural heritage is rich and diverse, it is also fragile. The disruption of the Japanese American community, particularly its residential base, dispersed the clientele for culturally- related businesses and exacerbated the obstacles to the community’s capacity to pass on the skills and values of its traditional arts, crafts and cultural practices, and unique historical legacy. These conditions escalated Chapter 3: Cu Ltura L her I ta G e overv I e W & M e th odo L oGY 17 the need for community-serving organizations to address these needs. The increasing value of property in San Francisco can create rents that specialized businesses such as those that contribute to the unique character of Japantown cannot afford. This increased value can also create pressure to demolish older buildings for the opportunity to build something more modern and potentially larger. Tight public budgets and limited philanthropy can threaten the sustainability of community-serving organizations and the ability to maintain and enhance the public spaces in which the community gathers. These risks to Japantown’s cultural heritage and others are discussed in Chapter 4 – Existing Conditions. Despite these obstacles and challenges, the Japantown community has shown a tenacious desire and capacity to thrive and take charge of its own destiny. From a community-wide standpoint, this includes overcoming two devastating displacements. On a more localized level, this includes confronting critical threats to its cultural heritage, as exemplified by the successful effort to prevent the threatened sale and demolition of the former Japanese YWCA building at 1830 Sutter Street, and to restore that building to community ownership and use. Recognizing the tenuous state of Japantown’s neigh- borhood identity in this quickly changing development environment, and the capacity for the community to preserve itself even under substantial duress, the City and community have come together to determine how to maintain the neighborhood’s cultural significance and to reduce its economic fragility. This goal pre- sented the working group with a novel task – to find out what are the tangible and intangible elements of Japantown that make it the instantly recognizable and unique place that it is today and then to find out how to protect those elements. While the City has a sub- stantial toolkit for preserving and maintaining the older and tangible parts of the community’s culture, such as landmark ordinances to protect architecturally signifi- cant buildings, there is not a similar toolkit developed for preserving and maintaining the intangible parts of a community’s cultural heritage, such as festivals or an art form. Moreover, in historic preservation practice, resources generally are required to be 50 years old or more to be considered for listing on historic resource registers, which creates a hurdle for culturally significant resources in Japantown, such as the Day of Remembrance March or May’s Coffee Shop, both of which began in the 1970. Increasing the novelty of the task, the Department has not found any precedents for this kind of work in the United States. As such, the City, community, and our consultants had to work col- laboratively and creatively to develop a methodology for this work, discussed below. Because this process will be precedent-setting for San Francisco, the team also maintained a goal that this work be replicable for use elsewhere in the City and in other similar com- munities nationally. B. METHODOLOGY FOR IDENTIFYING AND PRIORITIZING CULTURAL HERITAGE RESOURCES IDENTIFYING CULTURAL HERITAGE RESOURCES To help identify and analyze Japantown’s cultural heri- tage resources, the Japantown Organizing Committee 1 created a Cultural Heritage Subcommittee. Through its work, this Subcommittee identified 279 potential cul- tural heritage resources by name and address and then began to categorize them according to type, such as sports/games, celebrations/festivals, folklore, literature, business, or institution. This inventory was then pro- vided to the City’s consultant, Page & Turnbull, who was able to supplement the list with additional research with a thorough review of available documentation. A final review of the results by the community resulted in the identification of additional resources, bringing the total to 322. These resources are shown in Figures 3.1 – 3.4. 1 The Japantown Organizing Committee is a community group dedicated to the creation of a plan for Japantown. It is the successor to the Japantown Steering Committee, which had a similar role during the creation of the Japantown Better Neighborhoods Plan. JapantoWn CuLturaL herItaGe & eConoMIC SuStaInaBILItY StrateGY 18 Page & Turnbull, with support from the community and Planning Department, also created criteria by which the community could describe and weigh the significance of each resource and identified the time period in which the resource became important in the community. The database categorizes the resources into “traditions and history,” “cultural property, build- ings, structures, archives,” “businesses,” and “institu- tions.” For each resource, the database includes such information as the resource’s name and address, its nature (business, festival, etc.), sources of information, and period and type of significance. Not surprisingly, the majority of the cultural resources identified so far are associated with the Japanese- American community in Japantown. However, the database is intended to be a flexible and broad tool that can and has been used to identify Japantown cultural resources that have other historical, ethnic, or social affiliations. Also, while there are some relatively new and important cultural elements on the list, the intent was to focus on long-standing elements that have been around for at least a generation and have arguably left a larger impact on the neighborhood. The updated inventory with Page & Turnbull’s added information is available on the project website at http:// japantown.sfplanning.org. This is a document that can and should grow as more people learn about the inventory effort and contribute their knowledge of the neighborhood. It is important to note that this is meant to be a “liv- ing” database that can continue to be updated as new information becomes available and as changes occur in the neighborhood. The special nature of cultural heri- tage resources, and particularly intangible resource, requires an immense scouring of the collective memory of the community since these are often elements that are not readily seen or apparent by a researcher from outside the community. At a later time, the City or community may expand this process to include resources important to other community groups that have been historically significant in Japantown, such as African Americans and Jewish Americans. PRIORITIZING RESOURCES While the database attempts to be a complete list of resources, the community recognizes certain resources are a priority for preservation and support. As such, this database also attempts to identify those resources that might be considered to be “priority” cultural resources, based on their being documented as having a significant and longstanding association with the Japantown community. To help document priority cultural resources, the City and Page & Turnbull have developed a Social Heritage Inventory Form. This Inventory Form is modeled after the standard documentation template used by the State Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) for historic buildings, thereby making it more comprehendible to preservation specialists and therefore more replicable. To make it more applicable to analyzing cultural resources, the Inventory Form distinguishes between tangible resources (sites, structures, buildings and objects) and intangible resources (organizations/ institutions/ businesses, cultural events, and traditional arts/crafts/practices). To make it more specific to Japantown, the Inventory Form identifies “periods of significance” based on the Japantown Historic Context Statement. 2 This information is captured to act as a snapshot of the resource at the time of the inventory. To ensure that the Inventory Forms would be a useful tool and to put their methodology for describing cul- tural resources to the test, Page & Turnbull completed Inventory Forms for 24 of Japantown’s cultural resources. The completed forms now serve as a record of these cultural resources for posterity, with the recognition that these can be amended and updated as new information becomes available. The completed Inventory Forms are available on the project website at http://japantown.sfplanning.org. 2 This document is available via the Planning Department’s webpage, http:// www.sfplanning.org Chapter 3: Cu Ltura L her I ta G e overv I e W & M e th odo L oGY 19 5 6 9 8 3 4 7 1 2 15 55 12 29 30 17 42 49 47 26 10 11 13 14 36 53 23 44 19 66 34 28 27 31 51 63 64 43 38 58 56 22 20 21 32 52 45 16 62 70 57 61 59 67 33 60 41 18 48 40 39 50 54 37 69 24 25 68 46 35 65 74 73 76 75 72 71 PINE ST POST ST BUSH ST SUTTER ST GEARY BLVD GOUGH ST LAGUNA ST CALIFORNIA ST STEINER ST ELLIS ST FILLMORE ST WEBSTER ST OCTAVIA ST BUCHANAN ST AUSTIN ST WILMOT ST FERN ST CLEARY CT INCA LN OFARRELL ST ORBEN PL HOLLIS ST ZAMPA LN AVERY ST COTTAGE ROW WESTERN SHORE LN QUICKSTEP LN HEMLOCK ST ELLIS ST OFARRELL ST Article 10 Landmarks and Districts Eligible for Listing on the National Register of Historic Places Community Identified Buildings and Structures of Importance 1,000 Feet Japantown Cultural Heritage Figure 3.1 Buildings and Structures (See attached index for names and locations.) WEBSTER Figure 3.1 JAPANTOWN’S CULTURAL RESOURCES: BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES No. Name Address 1 ITALIANATE HOUSE 1807 OCTAVIA ST. 2 CATHOLIC JAPANESE HOME 2158 PINE ST. 3 APARTMENT BUILDING 2000 - 2016 FILLMORE ST. 4 MIXED-USE BUILDING 1919 FILLMORE ST. 5 PACIFIC TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH BUILDING 1930 STEINER ST. 6 MIXED-USE BUILDING 2178 - 2182 BUSH ST. 7 ITALIANATE MIXED-USE BUILDING 1908 - 1914 FILLMORE ST. 8 FLAT FRONT ITALIANATE HOUSE 2020 BUSH ST. 9 STICK STYLE HOUSE 2014 BUSH ST. 9 ITALIANATE HOUSE 2018 BUSH ST. 10 ITALIANATE HOUSE 1855 LAGUNA ST. 11 ITALIANATE HOUSE 1849 - 1851 LAGUNA ST. 12 TERSCHUREN HOUSE 1825 - 1829 LAGUNA ST. 13 ITALIANATE HOUSE 1803 LAGUNA ST. 14 ITALIANATE HOUSE 1801 LAGUNA ST. 15 ALTERED RESIDENCE 1938 BUSH ST. 16 APARTMENT BUILDING 2025 PINE ST. 17 QUEEN ANN HOUSE 1948 - 1950 BUSH ST. 18 MORNING STAR SCHOOL 1715 OCTAVIA ST. 19 FLAT FRONT ITALIANATE MIXED-USE BUILDING 1701 OCTAVIA ST. 20 ITALIANATE HOUSE 1947 - 1951 PINE ST. 21 SISTER’S HOME ASSOCIATED WITH MORNING STAR SCHOOL AND ST. FRANCIS XAVIER CHURCH 1911 PINE ST. 21 ITALIANATE HOUSE 1907 - 1909 PINE ST. 22 ITALIANATE HOUSE 1800 LAGUNA ST. 23 GOTHIC REVIVAL APARTMENTS 1700 OCTAVIA ST. 24 BUDDHIST CHURCHES OF AMERICA 1710 OCTAVIA ST. 25 BUDDHIST CHURCH OF SAN FRANCISCO 1881 PINE ST. 26 ITALIANATE HOUSE 1855 - 1857 PINE ST. 27 ALTERED ITALIANATE HOUSE 1829 PINE ST. 28 AUSTIN ALLEY (VARIOUS RESIDENCES) AUSTIN ALLEY 29 SUTTER APARTMENTS 1480 SUTTER ST 30 QUEEN ANNE HOTEL 1590 SUTTER ST. 31 MARY ANN PLEASANT EUCALYPTUS TREES SOUTHWEST CORNER OF BUSH AND OCTAVIA 32 EDWARDIAN APARTMENT BUILDING 1646 SUTTER ST. 33 KOKORO ASSISTED LIVING CENTER - FORMER SOTO ZEN TEMPLE 1881 BUSH ST. 34 DR. TOGASAKI HOUSE 1848 BUCHANAN ST. 35 ITALIANATE HOUSE 1860 BUCHANAN ST. 36 ITALIANATE HOUSE 1868 BUCHANAN ST. 37 CHRIST UNITED PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH 1700 SUTTER ST. 38 NAMIKI APARTMENTS 1776 SUTTER ST 39 JAPANESE COMMUNITY AND CULTURAL CENTER OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA 1840 SUTTER ST. 40 KINMON GAKUEN 2031 BUSH ST. 41 NIHONMACHI LITTLE FRIENDS - JAPANESE YWCA BUILDING 1830 SUTTER ST. No. Name Address 42 MIXED-USE BUILDING 1843 - 1849 FILLMORE ST. 43 UTILITY BUILDING 2255 BUSH ST. 44 GOLDEN GATE APARTMENTS 1870 POST ST. 45 APARTMENT BUILDING 1725 - 1735 SUTTER ST. 46 BUCHANAN MALL (NIHONMACHI PEDESTRIAN MALL - OSAKA WAY) INCLUDES BUCHANAN MALL GATE AND RUTH OSAWA ORIGAMI FOUNTAINS AND RIVER OF COBBLESTONES BUCHANAN ST. B/N POST & SUTTER 47 KOREA HOUSE 1640 POST ST. 48 MASAYASU ASHIZAWA HOUSE 1644 - 1648 POST ST. 49 MISAWA DRUG STORE 1602 POST ST. 50 JAPANESE AMERICAN CITIZENS LEAGUE (JACL) HEADQUARTERS BUILDING 1765 SUTTER ST. 51 NICHI BEI KAI: TEA CEREMONY, ODORI, INCENCE, SUMI-E, OMOTOSENKE, 1759 SUTTER ST. 52 EDWARDIAN APARTMENT BUILDING 1745-1751 SUTTER ST. 53 INTERNATIONAL STYLE COMMERCIAL BUILDING 1596 POST ST. 54 HINODE TOWERS/NIHONMACHI TERRACE 1615 SUTTER ST. 55 WILFORD WOODRUFF HOUSE 1533 SUTTER ST. 56 JAPANESE YMCA 1409 SUTTER ST 57 JAPAN CENTER WEST 1630 GEARY BLVD. 58 MIYAKO HOTEL 1625 POST ST. 59 PEACE PLAZA POST ST. @ BUCHANAN 59 THREE JAPANTOWNS MONUMENT PEACE PLAZA 60 PEACE PAGODA PEACE PLAZA 61 JAPAN CENTER EAST 1610 GEARY BLVD. 62 SUNDANCE KABUKI CINEMAS 1881 POST ST. 63 JAPANTOWN FAN SCULPTURE BELOW BRIDGE ON WEBSTER 64 KINOKUNIYA BUILDING 1581 WEBSTER ST. 65 WESTERN ADDITION LIBRARY - JAPANESE COLLECTION 1550 SCOTT ST. 66 FILLMORE AUDITORIUM 1539 FILLMORE ST. 67 ST. FRANCIS SQUARE COOPERATIVE APARTMENTS SO. OF GEARY, B/N LAGUNA & WEBSTER 68 BUCHANAN YMCA 1530 BUCHANAN ST. 69 CHINESE CONSULATE (FORMER JAPANESE SALVATION ARMY BLDG) B68 1450 LAGUNA ST. 70 ROSA PARKS SCHOOL (FORMERLY RAPHAEL WEILL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL) 1501 O’FARRELL ST. 71 BUSH STREET COTTAGE ROW COTTAGE ROW 72 TOBIN HOUSE 1969 CALIFORNIA ST. 73 MADAME C J WALKER HOUSE 2066 PINE ST. 74 STANYAN HOUSE 2006 BUSH ST. 75 ST. FRANCIS XAVIER CATHOLIC CHURCH 1801 OCTAVIA ST. 76 NICHIREN BUDDHIST CHURCH 2016 PINE ST. Not Shown on Map SAKURA 150 CHERRY TREES VARIOUS THROUGHOUT JTOWN Table 3.1 JAPANTOWN’S CULTURAL RESOURCES: BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES Refer to the map on the previous page for location. 21 9 4 6 5 8 22 13 15 28 21 10 16 25 27 24 17 14 26 19 20 12 18 23 30 11 29 PINE ST POST ST BUSH ST SUTTER ST GEARY BLVD GOUGH ST LAGUNA ST CALIFORNIA ST STEINER ST ELLIS ST FILLMORE ST WEBSTER ST OCTAVIA ST BUCHANAN ST AUSTIN ST WILMOT ST FERN ST CLEARY CT INCA LN OFARRELL ST ORBEN PL HOLLIS ST ZAMPA LN AVERY ST COTTAGE ROW WESTERN SHORE LN QUICKSTEP LN HEMLOCK ST ELLIS ST OFARRELL ST 1,000 Feet Japantown Cultural Heritage Figure 3.2 Organizations and Institutions (See attached index for names and locations.) WEBSTER Figure 3.2 JAPANTOWN’S CULTURAL RESOURCES: ORGANIZATIONS & INSTITUTIONS No. Name Address 4 ST. FRANCIS XAVIER CHURCH / ST. BENEDICT’S 1801 OCTAVIA ST. 5 JAPANESE COMMUNITY YOUTH COUNCIL 2012 PINE ST. 6 NICHIREN BUDDHIST CHURCH 2016 PINE ST. 8 BUDDHIST CHURCHES OF AMERICA 1710 OCTAVIA ST. 9 BOY SCOUT TROOP 29 1881 PINE ST. 9 GIRL SCOUTS - SF BUDDHIST CHURCH 1881 PINE ST. 9 SOKO GAKUIN LANGUAGE SCHOOL 440 AUSTIN ST. 10 GREEN EYE HOSPITAL 1801 BUSH ST. 11 KOKORO ASSISTED LIVING CENTER - FORMER SOTO ZEN TEMPLE 1881 BUSH ST. 12 BOY SCOUT TROOP 58 1909 BUSH ST. 12 KONKO-KYO CHURCH 1909 BUSH ST. 13 BOY SCOUT TROOP 12 1700 SUTTER ST. 13 CUPC SUMMER CAMP 1700 SUTTER ST. 13 NIHONMACHI LITTLE FRIENDS AFTERSCHOOL PROGRAM 1700 SUTTER ST. 14 NICHI BEI WEEKLY (FOUNDATION) 1832 BUCHANAN ST. 14 NIHONMACHI PARKING CORP. 1832 BUCHANAN ST. 14 NICHIBEI WEEKLY (FOUNDATION) 1832 BUCHANAN ST. 15 NIKKEI AND RETIREMENT C/O JCCCNC 1840 SUTTER ST. 16 NOBIRU-KAI (JAPANESE NEWCOMER SERVICES) 1840 SUTTER ST. 16 BAMBI CHILDREN’S GROUP 1840 SUTTER ST. 16 KIMOCHI LUNCH PROGRAM 1840 SUTTER ST. 16 NIHONMACHIROOTS 1840 SUTTER ST. 16 TOMODACHI YOUTH SUMMER CAMP 1840 SUTTER ST. 16 GOLDEN GATE OPTIMISTS CLUB 1840 SUTTER ST. 17 KINMON GAKUEN 2031 BUSH ST. 17 NIHONMACHI LITTLE FRIENDS BILINGUAL & MULTICULTURAL CHILDCARE 2031 BUSH ST. 17 JTOWN ARTS 2031 BUSH ST. 18 KIMOCHI, INC. 1715 BUCHANAN ST. 19 SOKOJI SOTO-ZEN TEMPLE, SOTO ZEN MISSION 1691 LAGUNA ST. 20 NATIONAL JAPANESE AMERICAN HISTORICAL SOCIETY 1684 POST ST. 21 JAPANESE BENEVOLENT SOCIETY OF CALIFORNIA (JIKEIKAI) 1765 SUTTER ST., 2ND FLOOR 21 NAKAYOSHI YOUNG PROFESSIONALS 1765 SUTTER ST. 21 JAPANESE AMERICAN CITIZENS LEAGUE (JACL) 1765 SUTTER ST. 21 JAPANTOWN TASKFORCE 1765 SUTTER ST. Table 3.2 JAPANTOWN’S CULTURAL RESOURCES: ORGANIZATIONS & INSTITUTIONS No. Name Address 22 NICHI BEI KAI (JAPANESE AMERICAN CLUB) 1759 SUTTER ST. 22 HIBAKUSHAYOUKAI 1759 SUTTER ST. 22 SHOGI GROUP OF SAN FRANCISCO 1759 SUTTER ST. 22 JAPAN CLUB 1759 SUTTER ST. 22 ZEN NIPPON SHUDO 1759 SUTTER ST. 22 JAPANESE AMERICAN TEA SOCIETY 1759 SUTTER ST. 22 URESENKE - SAN FRANCISCO BRANCH 1759 SUTTER ST. 22 OMOTE SENKE DOMONIKAI 1759 SUTTER ST. 23 JAPANESE AMERICAN NATIONAL LIBRARY 1615 SUTTER ST. 23 JAPANESE AMERICAN RELIGIOUS FEDERATION (SHUKYOKA KONWAKAI) 1615 SUTTER ST. 24 KIMOCHI HOME 1531 SUTTER ST. 25 SEQUOIAS - NIKKEI GROUP 1400 GEARY BLVD. 26 JAPAN CENTER GARAGE CORP. 1610 GEARY BLVD. 27 KIMOCHI LOUNGE 1581 WEBSTER ST. KINOKUNIYA (BRIDGE) 28 IKABANA SOCIETY 1581 WEBSTER ST. 29 HAMILTON SENIOR CENTER (WED. JAPANESE SENIOR LUNCH) 1900 GEARY BLVD. 30 ROSA PARKS SCHOOL (FORMERLY RAPHAEL WEILL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL) 1501 O’FARRELL ST. 30 JAPANESE BILINGUAL BICULTURAL PROGRAM (JBBP) AT ROSA PARKS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 1501 O’FARRELL ST. Not Shown on Map FRIENDS OF HIBAKUSHA JAPANESE AMERICAN DEMOCRATIC CLUB KENJIN KAI (VARIOUS GROUPS) VARIOUS NIKKEI LIONS URASENKE FOUNDATION - SAN FRANCISCO BRANCH 2143 POWELL ST. JAPANTOWN FOUNDATION 306 POST ST., 8TH FLOOR SEIKO-KAI CHRIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH 2140 PIERCE ST. CHIBI CHAN PRESCHOOL 2507 PINE ST. PINE METHODIST CHURCH 426 33RD AVE. BONSAI SOCIETY SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY FAIR BUILDING, 9TH AVENUE AND LINCOLN WAY KAGAMI KAI 1919 18TH AVE. SF-OSAKA SISTER CITY ASSOCIATION C/O M. SACK, 425 MARKET ST. Refer to the map on the previous page for location. Chapter 3: Cu Ltura L her I ta G e overv I e W & M e th odo L oGY 23 2 3 6 5 8 4 7 1 9 14 23 15 27 10 11 20 25 29 18 16 28 17 13 24 19 26 21 22 12 PINE ST POST ST BUSH ST SUTTER ST GEARY BLVD GOUGH ST LAGUNA ST CALIFORNIA ST STEINER ST ELLIS ST FILLMORE ST WEBSTER ST OCTAVIA ST BUCHANAN ST AUSTIN ST WILMOT ST FERN ST CLEARY CT INCA LN OFARRELL ST ORBEN PL HOLLIS ST ZAMPA LN AVERY ST COTTAGE ROW WESTERN SHORE LN QUICKSTEP LN HEMLOCK ST ELLIS ST OFARRELL ST 1,000 Feet (See attached index for names and locations.) WEBSTER Japantown Cultural Heritage Figure 3.3 Businesses Figure 3.3 JAPANTOWN’S CULTURAL RESOURCES: BUSINESSES No. Name Address 1 KISS SEAFOOD RESTAURANT 1700 LAGUNA ST. 2 YASUKOCHI’S SWEET STOP 1790 SUTTER ST. 3 KYOTO CLEANERS 1832 BUCHANAN ST. 3 T. OKAMOTO & CO. 1832 BUCHANAN ST. 3 WONG & TOTSUBO OPTOMETRIST 1826 BUCHANAN ST. 4 HOTEL TOMO (BEST WESTERN) 1800 SUTTER ST. 4 SUPER MIRA 1790 SUTTER ST. 4 CAFE MUMS 1800 SUTTER ST. 4 SHINBORI / FONG DDS 1788 SUTTER ST. 5 SHARAKU 1726 POST ST. 5 TORAYA RESTAURANT 1734 POST ST. 6 BABY, THE STARS SHINE BRIGHT NEW PEOPLE 6 SOU SOU NEW PEOPLE 6 SUPER FROG GALLERY NEW PEOPLE 6 VIZ CINEMA NEW PEOPLE 7 PAPER TREE 1743 BUCHANAN ST. (BUCHANAN MALL) 7 MORIGUCHI ACCOUNTING 1741 BUCHANAN ST. (BUCHANAN MALL) 8 PACIFIC LEISURE MANAGEMENT 1739 BUCHAN ST. (BUCHANAN MALL) 8 SUSHI AKA TOMBO 1737 BUCHANAN ST. (BUCHANAN MALL) 9 ALOHA WAREHOUSE 1731 BUCHANAN ST. (BUCHANAN MALL) 10 DOOBU 1723 BUCHANAN ST. 11 KAPPA SUSHI 1700 POST ST. 11 MIYAKO RESTAURANT 1707 BUCHANAN ST. (BUCHANAN MALL) 11 SANPPO SUSHI 1702 POST ST. 11 PLAYGROUND 1705 BUCHANAN ST. 11 SSISO 1705 BUCHANAN ST. 12 BENKYO-DO MANJU SHOP 1747 BUCHANAN ST. (BUCHANAN MALL) 13 ONG & KIMURA ACCOUNTING 1750 BUCHANAN ST. (BUCHANAN MALL) 13 SANKO 1758 BUCHANAN ST. (BUCHANAN MALL) 14 YAQINIK 1640 POST ST. 15 ARTY HAIR SALON 1680 POST ST. 16 SOKO HARDWARE 1698 POST ST. 16 CALIFORNIA BANK & TRUST 1696 POST ST. 16 SOKO INTERIORS 1672 POST ST. 17 IROHA 1728 BUCHANAN ST. (BUCHANAN MALL) 17 SHABUSEN 1726 BUCHANAN ST. (BUCHANAN MALL) 18 PEOPLE VIDEO 1740 BUCHANAN ST. (BUCHANAN MALL) 18 TAMPOPO 1740 BUCHANAN ST. (BUCHANAN MALL) 19 WARAKU 1638 POST ST. 20 YUJI MITANI LAW OFFICE 1610 POST ST. 21 JAPANTOWN MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION 1759 SUTTER ST. 22 FUJIYA SHISEIDO 1662 POST ST. 23 JAPAN CENTER WEST 1630 GEARY BLVD. 23 MAY’S COFFEESHOP JAPAN CENTER (WEST MALL) 23 AMIKO BOUTIQUE JAPAN CENTER (WEST MALL) 23 ANDERSON BAKERY JAPAN CENTER (WEST MALL) 23 ASAKICHI ANTIQUES JAPAN CENTER (WEST MALL) 23 AUTO FREAK, TALK FREAK JAPAN CENTER (WEST MALL) 23 BELLY GOOD CAFE & CREPES JAPAN CENTER (WEST MALL) 23 BENIHANA JAPAN CENTER (WEST MALL) 23 CAKO JAPAN CENTER (WEST MALL) 23 ISOBUNE JAPAN CENTER (WEST MALL) 23 ISSUI KAI JAPAN CENTER WEST BUILDING 23 JAPAN VIDEO & MEDIA JAPAN CENTER (WEST MALL) 23 JAPAN VIDEO & MEDIA JAPAN CENTER (WEST MALL) 23 JPNTOYS JAPAN CENTER (WEST MALL) 23 KATACHI JAPAN CENTER (WEST MALL) 23 KATSURA GARDEN KINOKUNIYA BUILDING 23 KOHSHI MASTER OF SCENTS JAPAN CENTER (WEST MALL) Table 3.3 JAPANTOWN’S CULTURAL RESOURCES: BUSINESSES No. Name Address 23 KUSHI TSURU JAPAN CENTER (WEST MALL) 23 MIFUNE JAPAN CENTER (WEST MALL) 23 MISEKI JEWELRY JAPAN CENTER (WEST MALL) 23 MORITAYA JAPAN CENTER (WEST MALL) 23 MOYO’S FROZEN YOGURT JAPAN CENTER (WEST MALL) 23 MURATA’S CAFE HANA JAPAN CENTER (WEST MALL) 23 NIPPON-YA JAPAN CENTER (WEST MALL) 23 NJIYA SUPER MARKET JAPAN CENTER (WEST MALL) 23 OSAKAYA JAPAN CENTER (WEST MALL) 23 SAKURA SAKURA JAPAN CENTER (WEST MALL) 23 SANRIO JAPAN CENTER (WEST MALL) 23 TAIYODO RECORD SHOP JAPAN CENTER (WEST MALL) 23 THE OMODAKA JAPAN CENTER (WEST MALL) 23 YUKI BOUTIQUE JAPAN CENTER (WEST MALL) 23 FACESHOP JAPAN CENTER (WEST MALL) 23 SHIBUYA SF JAPAN CENTER (WEST MALL) 24 HOTEL KABUKI 1625 POST ST. 24 O IZAKAYA LOUNGE 1625 POST ST. 25 JAPAN CENTER EAST 1610 GEARY BLVD. 25 AKABANAA JAPAN CENTER (EAST MALL) 25 BOUTIQUE HARAJUKU JAPAN CENTER (EAST MALL) 25 DAISO JAPAN JAPAN CENTER (EAST MALL) 25 ICHIBAN KAN JAPAN CENTER (EAST MALL) 25 INO SUSHI JAPAN CENTER (EAST MALL) 25 KUI SHIN BO JAPAN CENTER (EAST MALL) 25 MIFUNE DON JAPAN CENTER (EAST MALL) 25 TAKARA JAPAN CENTER (EAST MALL) 25 UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA JAPAN CENTER (EAST MALL) 26 SUNDANCE KABUKI CINEMAS 1881 POST ST. 27 PA’INA RESTAURANT 1865 POST ST. 28 ASAKICHI (CAST IRON) KINOKUNIYA (BRIDGE) 28 ASAKICHI INCENSE KINOKUNIYA (BRIDGE) 28 INTERNATIONAL ART GALLERY KINOKUNIYA (BRIDGE) 28 ON THE BRIDGE KINOKUNIYA (BRIDGE) 28 SAN FRANCISCO TAIKO DOJO SHOWROOM KINOKUNIYA (BRIDGE) 28 SHIGE KIMONO KINOKUNIYA (BRIDGE) 29 KINOKUNIYA BOOK STORE BUSINESSES 1581 WEBSTER (KINOKUNIYA BUILDING) 29 MIFUNE BISTRO KINOKUNIYA BUILDING 29 FESTA KARAOKE LOUNGE KINOKUNIYA BUILDING 29 FUKU SUSHI KINOKUNIYA BUILDING 29 IZUMIYA KINOKUNIYA BUILDING 29 JAPANTOWN COLLECTABLES KINOKUNIYA BUILDING 29 JC BEAUTY SALON KINOKUNIYA BUILDING 29 J-TOWN VIDEO KINOKUNIYA BUILDING 29 JUBAN YAKINIKU KINOKUNIYA BUILDING 29 KABUKI SPRINGS AND SPA KINOKUNIYA BUILDING 29 KISSAKO TEA KINOKUNIYA BUILDING 29 MAI DO KINOKUNIYA BUILDING 29 MAKI KINOKUNIYA BUILDING 29 MASHIKO FOLK CRAFT KINOKUNIYA BUILDING 29 NEGISHI JEWELRY KINOKUNIYA BUILDING 29 PIKA PIKA KINOKUNIYA BUILDING 29 SAPPORO YA KINOKUNIYA BUILDING 29 SOPHIES CREPES KINOKUNIYA BUILDING 29 SUPER MATH KINOKUNIYA BUILDING 29 SUZU NOODLE SHOP KINOKUNIYA BUILDING 29 TOWNHOUSE LIVING KINOKUNIYA BUILDING Refer to the map on the previous page for location. Chapter 3: Cu Ltura L her I ta G e overv I e W & M e th odo L oGY 25 2 4 5 6 8 9 7 3 11 14 25 19 10 13 15 23 18 26 21 22 16 12 20 17 24 PINE ST POST ST BUSH ST SUTTER ST GEARY BLVD GOUGH ST LAGUNA ST CALIFORNIA ST STEINER ST ELLIS ST FILLMORE ST WEBSTER ST OCTAVIA ST BUCHANAN ST AUSTIN ST WILMOT ST FERN ST CLEARY CT INCA LN OFARRELL ST ORBEN PL HOLLIS ST ZAMPA LN AVERY ST COTTAGE ROW WESTERN SHORE LN QUICKSTEP LN HEMLOCK ST ELLIS ST OFARRELL ST 1,000 Feet Japantown Cultural Heritage Figure 3.4 Cultural Activities and Events (See attached index for names and locations.) WEBSTER Figure 3.4 JAPANTOWN’S CULTURAL RESOURCES: CULTURAL ACTIVITIES & EVENTS No. Name Address 2 OBON FESTIVAL (BUDDHIST CHURCH OF SAN FRANCISCO) AND BON ODORI SAN FRANCISCO BUDDHIST CHURCH (1881 PINE) 2 KENDO BUDDHIST CHURCH / JCCCNC 2 SAN FRANCISCO ARDENETTES (BASKETBALL) SF BUDDHIST CHURCH 2 SAN FRANCISCO DRAKES (BASKETBALL) SF BUDDHIST CHURCH 2 SAN FRANCISCO TAISHO (BASKETBALL) SF BUDDHIST CHURCH 2 SAN FRANCSICO FALCONS (BASEBALL) SF BUDDHIST CHURCH 2 YOUTH ATHLETIC ORGANIZATIONS 1881 PINE ST. 2 FUJIMOTO MINYO DANCE GROUP 1881 PINE ST. 2 LIONS CLUB CRAB & SPAGHETTI FEED SF BUDDHIST CHURCH 3 AIKIDO KONKO CHURCH 4 JACL CRAB & SPAGHETTI FEED 1700 SUTTER ST. 5 OSHOGATSU 1840 SUTTER ST. 5 JAPANESE AMERICAN HISTORICAL ARCHIVES 1840 SUTTER ST. 5 JAPANESE AMERICAN WRITERS PROJECT 1840 SUTTER ST. 5 MICHIYA HANAYAGI JAPANESE CLASSICAL DANCE 1840 SUTTER ST. 5 INTERNATIONAL KARATE LEAGUE 1840 SUTTER ST. 5 JCCCNC SPORTS PROGRAMS 1840 SUTTER ST. 5 JCYC VOLLEYBALL 1840 SUTTER ST. 5 SAN FRANCISCO ASSOCIATES (BASKETBALL) 1840 SUTTER ST 5 CHORALE MAY 1840 SUTTER ST 5 GEN TAIKO /GENRYU ARTS 1840 SUTTER ST. 5 JCCCNC ART AND CULTURE PROGRAMMING 1840 SUTTER ST. 5 KIMOCHI SENIORS ARTS & CRAFTS CLASSES AT JCCCNC 1840 SUTTER ST. 5 KIRAKIRABOSHI CHILDREN’S CHOIR 1840 SUTTER ST. 5 NIKKEI AND RETIREMENT LECTURE PROGRAMS 1840 SUTTER ST. 5 SOKO ARTS 1840 SUTTER ST. 5 JETAANC - KABUKI FILM SCREENINGS 1840 SUTTER ST 6 JAPANTOWN ARTS AND MEDIA 1830 SUTTER ST 6 XPERIENCE! 1830 SUTTER ST. 6 FIFTH STREAM MUSIC/ASIAN AMERICAN ORCHESTRA 1830 SUTTER ST. 7 ILOILO CIRCLE 1809 SUTTER ST. 8 BAY AREA RAPID FOLDERS 1743 BUCHANAN ST. 9 FUJI SHIATSU 1721 BUCHANAN ST., SECOND FLOOR 10 SHICHI GO SAN 1691 LAGUNA ST. 10 SHORINJI KEMPO 1691 LAGUNA ST. 11 NATIONAL JAPANESE AMERICAN HISTORICAL SOCIETY PEACE GALLERY 1684 POST ST. 12 BAY JIU JITSU 1628 POST ST. 13 SF JACL HEALTH FAIR 1765 SUTTER ST. 14 BUNKA HALL OF FAME 1759 SUTTER ST. 14 NICHI BEI KAI: TEA CEREMONY, ODORI, INCENCE, SUMI-E, OMOTOSENKE 1759 SUTTER ST. 14 NISHIKAWA (JAPANESE CLASSIC DANCE) 1759 SUTTER ST. Table 3.4 JAPANTOWN’S CULTURAL RESOURCES: CULTURAL ACTIVITIES & EVENTS No. Name Address 15 NISEI FISHING CLUB 1531 SUTTER ST. 16 IKENOBO IKEBANA SOCIETY OF AMERICA KINOKUNIYA BUILDING 17 ANIME ON DISPLAY HOTEL KABUKI 18 AKI MATSURI/ JAPANTOWN MERCHANTS’ OBON JAPANTOWN PEACE PLAZA 18 KODOMO NO HI (CHILDREN’S DAY FESTIVAL) PEACE PLAZA 18 NIHONMACHI STREET FAIR POST ST., BTWN LAGUNA/FILLMORE 18 CHERRY BLOSSOM FESTIVAL PRESS PREVIEW DAY AND ASIAN AMERICAN FILM FESTIVAL FORUM JAPANTOWN PEACE PLAZA 18 TOFU FESTIVAL (NICHI BEI WEEKLY) PEACE PLAZA 18 YEAR END FESTIVAL JAPANTOWN PEACE PLAZA 19 SAIN SAINE JAPAN CENTER (EAST MALL) 19 SUISEKI CLUB JAPAN CENTER (EAST MALL) 20 TANABATA JAPAN CENTER 21 DAY OF REMEMBRANCE BAY AREA KABUKI THEATER 21 KABUKI SPRINGS AND SPA 1750 GEARY BLVD. 21 KAYO KARAOKE CONCERT (KAYO PARADE) KABUKI THEATER 21 SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL ASIAN AMERICAN FILM FESTIVAL KABUKI THEATER/ C/O CENTER FOR ASIAN AMERICAN MEDIA 145 9TH ST. 22 SAN FRANCISCO TAIKO DOJO KUNIKUNIYA BRIDGE/212 RYAN WAY SOUTH SAN FRANSICSO (CLASSES) 23 KINOKUNIYA BOOK STORE BUSINESSES 1581 WEBSTER (KINOKUNIYA BUILDING) 23 JAPANTOWN ACUPUNCTURE & ORIENTAL MEDICINE KINOKUNIYA BUILDING 24 WESTERN ADDITION LIBRARY - JAPANESE COLLECTION 1550 SCOTT ST. 25 FILLMORE AUDITORIUM 1539 FILLMORE ST. 26 SILVER BELLS (KIMOCHI) ST. MARY’S CATHEDRAL Not Shown on Map CHERRY BLOSSOM PARADE FROM CIVIC CENTER TO POST AND FILLMORE CHERRY BLOSSOM FESTIVAL POST FROM FILLORE TO LAGUNA, WEBSTER FROM GEARY TO SUTTER, BUCHANAN MALL, AND VARIOUS BUILDINGS SANSEI LIVE (KIMOCHI) VARIOUS LOCATIONS SAN FRANCISCO JAPANTOWN HISTORY WALK VARIOUS THROUGHOUT JTOWN J-POP SUMMIT FESTIVAL POST STREET FROM WEBSTER TO LAGUNA JUDO ETH NOH TEC JAPANESE SWORD SOCIETY JTOWN JAZZ ENSEMBLE ASIAN IMPROVARTS 44 MONTGOMERY ST FIRST VOICE 41 PARSONS ST. KAGAMI KAI 1919 18TH AVE. ASIAN AND PACIFIC ISLANDER CULTURAL CENTER 934 BRANNAN ST. ASIAN AMERICAN THEATRE COMPANY 690 5TH ST. Refer to the map on the previous page for location. Chapter 3: Cu Ltura L her I ta G e overv I e W & M e th odo L oGY 27 It is necessary to intimately understand the neighborhood’s existing conditions and particularly those areas of concern that need to be addressed to fulfill the vision of the JCHESS. JapantoWn CuLturaL herItaGe & eConoMIC SuStaInaBILItY StrateGY 28 EXISTING CONDITIONS CHAPTER As stated in Chapter 1,the Japantown Cultural Heritage and Economic Sustainability Strategy’s (JCHESS) vision is that Japantown will thrive as a culturally rich, authentic, and economically vibrant neighborhood which will serve as the cultural heart of the Japanese and Japanese American communities for generations to come. To fulfill the vision of this Strategy, it is necessary to intimately understand the neighborhood’s existing conditions and particularly those areas of concern that need to be addressed to fulfill the vision. This includes the following elements: A. People who live, work, play, and create community in Japantown B. Land that is used for residential, commercial, and institutional uses C. Buildings that create a neighborhood’s urban design and transmit an essence of cultural identity and history D. Organizations and institutions that support social cohesion and that promote cultural identity E. Businesses that contribute to day-to-day cultural life-ways such as cuisine, apparel, and recreation F. Culture of Japanese, Japanese American, and other traditions, including customs, events, language, literature, and arts, that are important to the com- munity’s identity G. Public realm consisting of the spaces in a commu- nity that are common to everyone, such as the streets, sidewalks, parks, and plazas 1 Each of these elements is explored below, in detail, including any areas of concern that could be addressed by this Cultural Heritage and Economic Sustainability Strategy. 1 Another important aspect of the community is its connectivity for people and their vehicles, both within the neighborhood and between Japantown and the rest of the city and region. Improving connectivity typically requires significant infrastructure projects that are beyond the scope and objective of the JCHESS. It is recommended that the City and community continue exploring issues around connectivity, and leverage proposed improvements to enhance the safety and convenience of connections, such as Geary Bus Rapid Transit and the Transit Effectiveness Project. Chapter 4: e xIS t I n G Con d I t Ion S 29 A. PEOPLE As discussed in Chapter 2 – Historic Overview, Japantown has been the primary hub for the city and the region’s Japanese American community for over a century, which always maintained a diverse mix of residents and businesses. As shown in Table 4.1, the current residents of Japantown have a diverse ethnic- ity, age, income, and education. The population of residents of Japanese ancestry is relatively low (5%), meaning that many Japanese Americans and others who see Japantown as their cultural center reside outside of the neighborhood. Nonetheless, its institutions and businesses make Japantown a regional as well as local community center. AREA OF CONCERN A.1. It is Difficult to Sustain Japantown’s Critical Mass as a Community Hub. The displacements caused by internment and redevelopment (as discussed in Chapter 2) means that the great majority of the region’s Japanese Americans do not live in Japantown. Additionally, there is limited in-migration of Japanese to the United States, compared to other ethnic groups. There is concern that this makes it more difficult to sus- tain the critical mass necessary to support the businesses and institutions that make Japantown the hub of the city and region’s Japanese and Japanese American community. AREA OF CONCERN A.2. Not All Age Groups Have an Equal Stake in the Community. Currently, Japantown has substantial resources for children from pre-K through elementary school, and for seniors, as well as businesses and activities that serve older adults. There is concern that young adults and youth outside of formal programs and organizations lack facilities where they can participate fully given their lim- ited economic resources, and that they need to be inte- grated into the community’s decision-making processes. AREA OF CONCERN A.3. Lack of Collaboration for Cultural Preservation. Preserving and supporting Japantown’s cultural and social resources requires collaboration and compromise within the com- munity, within City government, and between the com- munity and City. There is concern within the community that the importance of collaboration necessary to realize the JCHESS’s goals may not be sufficiently appreciated. Table 4.1 RESIDENTS OF JAPANTOWN: A STATISTICAL SNAPSHOT * Total Residents 11,228 Age UNDER 18 7% 18-39 42% 40-64 25% OVER 65 27% Race / Ethnicity: ASIAN 33% CHINESE 5% FILIPINO 7% HMONG 4% INDIAN 4% JAPANESE 5% KOREAN 2% OTHER ASIAN 5% BLACK OR AFRICAN AMERICAN 8% LATINO 8% WHITE 47% NONE OF THE ABOVE 4% Median Household Income $53,900 NORTH OF SUTTER STREET $62,800 SUTTER STREET TO GEARY BOULEVARD $53,900 SOUTH OF GEARY BOULEVARD $35,600 Education LESS THAN A HIGH SCHOOL DIPLOMA 10% HIGH SCHOOL DIPLOMA 11% SOME COLLEGE/ASSOCIATES DEGREE 19% BACHELOR’S DEGREE 31% MASTERS, PROFESSIONAL, OR DOCTORATE DEGREE 29% * Data on total residents, age, and race/ethnicity from the 2010 Decennial Census. Data on income and education are estimates from the 2011 American Community Survey. JapantoWn CuLturaL herItaGe & eConoMIC SuStaInaBILItY StrateGY 30 B. LAND LAND USES Japantown is comprised of a mix of land uses, includ- ing purely residential blocks, blocks combining a mixture of residential, institutional and commercial uses, and blocks entirely made up of commercial uses (see Figure 4.1 for a map of land uses in Japantown. 2 Residential Uses Japantown contains about 7,150 housing units. Residential uses predominate in the area north of Bush, consisting mostly of fine-grained, single- and two-family homes, typically not wider than 25 feet, and less than 40 feet in height. Residential uses south of Bush Street include a number of apartment buildings that contain anywhere from four to fifty residential units, although a few large-scale, apartment buildings containing upward of one hundred residential units also exist. Institutional Uses Japantown contains over 200 institutional uses, including community centers, schools, civic organiza- tions, business associations, and religious institutions. These uses are largely interspersed throughout the community. For more information about institutional uses, see Section 4.D, below. Commercial Uses Japantown contains over 700 businesses utilizing over 2 million square feet of space. 3 Many of these are home businesses and other small offices. More visible are the customer-oriented businesses that are south of Bush Street, along Geary, Post, Fillmore, and Buchanan Streets. These are typically retail in nature, including many restaurants. Many of the commercial uses are located on the ground floor of buildings with residential units above. The relatively few large-scale, commercial buildings were constructed during the urban renewal era between Post Street and Geary 2 The JCHESS does not propose a definitive area as “Japantown”. However, for purposes of data analysis, the area considered Japantown is the same as utilized in the Japantown Better Neighborhoods Plan. This area is bounded by California Street on the north, Gough Street on the east, Steiner on the west, and a combination of O’Farrell, Ellis, and Cleary on the south. Boulevard to form the Japan Trade Center (now referred to as Japan Center). The three buildings that make up Japan Center are two tall stories in height, yet the buildings have large footprints (taking up three city blocks), and contain numerous commercial units and interior public spaces. Small-scale, single-use commer- cial buildings are not that common, although they can be found interspersed with mixed-use buildings along the neighborhood’s commercial corridors, like Fillmore and Post streets. For more information about commercial uses, see Section 4.E, below. Open Space/Recreational Uses Other areas of interest include the pedestrian-only part of Buchanan Street between Post and Sutter Streets, and Peace Plaza, a Recreation and Parks Department open space located between Post and Geary between two of the Japan Center mall buildings. For more information about open space and recre- ational uses, see Section 4.G, below. ZONING AND HEIGHTS In terms of zoning, Japantown includes ten existing zoning districts, most of which are Residential, Mixed Residential or Neighborhood Commercial zones (see Figure 4.2 for a map of the zoning in Japantown). Bush Street is a noticeable east-west division between residential zones to the north and mixed residential and commercial zones to the south. Bush Street is also a dividing line for height limits, with the height limit being 40 feet to the north. To the south, the predomi- nant height limits are 40 and 50 feet, although there are several blocks with notably higher height limits, up to 240 feet (see Figure 4.3 for a map of permitted heights in Japantown). The range of height limits south of Post Street is a legacy of the Redevelopment era, when some consolidated lots were targeted for larger buildings, while others were targeted for low-to mid- rise buildings. 3 Information derived from Dun and Bradstreet, 2012 Chapter 4: e xIS t I n G Con d I t Ion S 31 PINE ST POST ST BUSH ST SUTTER ST GEARY BLVD GOUGH ST LAGUNA ST CALIFORNIA ST STEINER ST ELLIS ST FILLMORE ST WEBSTER ST OCTAVIA ST BUCHANAN ST AUSTIN ST WILMOT ST FERN ST CLEARY CT INCA LN OFARRELL ST ORBEN PL HOLLIS ST ZAMPA LN AVERY ST COTTAGE ROW WESTERN SHORE LN QUICKSTEP LN HEMLOCK ST ELLIS ST OFARRELL ST Office Mixed Use (No Residential) Mixed Use (Residential) Residential Cultural, Institutional, Educational Open Space Production, Distribution, Repair Retail, Entertainment Hotel, Visitor Services Medical Vacant No Data 1,000 Feet Japantown Figure 4.1 Land Uses WEBSTER Figure 4.1 JAPANTOWN LAND USES Japantown SUD P P RM-3 NC-3 RM-4 P RM-4 NC-3 RM-4 RM-4 NCD RM-3 RH-2 RH-2 RH-2 RM-4 RM-4 NC-3 RM-3 RH-2 RH-3 RM-3 RM-2 RH-2 NC-3 RM-3 RM-3 RM-3 NC-3 NC-3 RM-3 NC-2 NC-2 RM-3 RH-2 RH-3 NCD RH-2 RH-2 RM-3 NC-3 NCD NC-3 RM-4 RM-3 RM-1 RH-2 RH-2 NC-2 RM-3 RH-2 NC-3 RM-3 NC-3 RM-2 RM-3 RM-3 NC-3 RM-3 RM-4 NC-2 RH-3 RH-2 NC-3 NC-3 NCD RM-3 NC-3 RM-4 RM-3 NCD RM-1 RH-3 RH-3 RH-2 RM-3 RM-2 RM-4 RM-4 RM-4 NC-3 NC-2 RM-1 RH-3 RH-2 RM-2 NC-2 NCD NCD RM-3 RH-3 NC-3 NC-3 RM-1 NC-2 RM-2 NC-3 RM-3 PINE ST POST ST BUSH ST SUTTER ST GEARY BLVD GOUGH ST LAGUNA ST CALIFORNIA ST STEINER ST ELLIS ST FILLMORE ST WEBSTER ST OCTAVIA ST BUCHANAN ST AUSTIN ST WILMOT ST FERN ST CLEARY CT INCA LN OFARRELL ST ORBEN PL HOLLIS ST ZAMPA LN AVERY ST COTTAGE ROW WESTERN SHORE LN QUICKSTEP LN HEMLOCK ST ELLIS ST OFARRELL ST P NC-3 NC-2 Fillmore NCD RH-2 RH-3 RM-1 RM-2 RM-3 RM-4 1,000 Feet Japantown Cultural Heritage Figure 4.2 Zoning Districts WEBSTER Figure 4.2 JAPANTOWN ZONING DISTRICTS 50-X OS 50-X 50-X 80-B 240-E 130-B 240-E 50-X 40-X 40-X 40-X 40-X 50-X 40-X 50-X 40-X 40-X 40-X 50-X 50-X 80-A 40-X 40-X 40-X 160-F 40-X 50-X OS 40-X 160-B 50-X 240-E 130-E 130-B 160-F 80-B 130-B 40-X 40-X 50-X 50-X 40-X 40-X 40-X 40-X 40-X 40-X 40-X 40-X 80-B 50-X 80-A 130-E 80-A 130-E 50-X 80-A 65-A 80-A 130-E 80-A 65-A 80-A 160-F 80-B 65-A 130-E 50-X 50-X 240-G 130-E 130-E 130-E 130-E 40-X 40-X 40-X 40-X 40-X 40-X 40-X 40-X 80-A PINE ST POST ST BUSH ST SUTTER ST GEARY BLVD GOUGH ST LAGUNA ST CALIFORNIA ST STEINER ST ELLIS ST FILLMORE ST WEBSTER ST OCTAVIA ST BUCHANAN ST AUSTIN ST WILMOT ST FERN ST CLEARY CT INCA LN OFARRELL ST ORBEN PL HOLLIS ST ZAMPA LN AVERY ST COTTAGE ROW WESTERN SHORE LN QUICKSTEP LN HEMLOCK ST ELLIS ST OFARRELL ST 1,000 Feet Japantown Cultural Heritage Figure 4.3 Height Limits WEBSTER Figure 4.3 JAPANTOWN HEIGHT LIMITS The Draft Better Neighborhoods Plan (2009) proposed increases to allowed heights at the Japan Center Malls, including three potential towers of 200 – 250 feet, as well as another tower further east nearer to Gough Street, and proposed increased height limits along Geary Boulevard. Both at that time and over the ensu- ing course of community review, the preponderance of vocal community views opposed these proposals on the ground that, in their perspective, the proposals were inconsistent with preserving Japantown’s cultural legacy and remaining small scale neighborhood char- acter. This opposition was a significant reason that the Better Neighborhoods Plan process evolved into the JCHESS, which does not directly address changes to development or height limits, other than minor changes in the proposed Japantown Neighborhood Commercial District. The one zoning district unique to Japantown is the Japantown Special Use District (SUD). 4 This SUD, established in 2006, covers the area between Fillmore Street, Bush Street, Laguna Street and Geary Boulevard. The SUD is unique in the city in that its specific aim is to the protect cultural character of a specific community – in this instance, the Japanese American community. It does so by requiring conditional use authorizations from the Planning Commission for: ● Any change of use in excess of 4,000 square feet. ● Any merger of one or more existing uses in excess of 2,500 square feet. ● The establishment of any formula retail use (which is defined as any retail establishment with eleven or more locations within the United States). To receive this conditional use authorization, the Planning Commission has to determine that the land use is compatible with the cultural and historic integ- rity, neighborhood character, development pattern, and design aesthetic of the neighborhood. 4 San Francisco Planning Code, Section 249.31., “Japantown Special Use District,” July 2006. DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL Compared to San Francisco neighborhoods such as the South of Market, Mission Bay, and Hunters Point, there is not a broadly distributed potential for major new development in Japantown. This is because many of the buildings in the area are built at or near their development capacity. North of Bush Street, the area is largely comprised of residential buildings on small parcels with a height limit of 40 feet, meaning that no new large development is likely to occur in this area. South of Bush Street, parcels are larger, height limits are greater, and there is less existing residential use – all factors which contribute to the potential for new development. An analysis of development capacity in Japantown reveals that 21% of the parcels in the area (136 of 634) could reasonably be considered to have potential for new development based on existing zoning. 5 On these parcels, there is potential for approximately 2,700 new housing units and 470,000 new square feet of commercial space. Although only 15 development parcels are located south of Geary Boulevard, these parcels (such as the Safeway and affiliated parking lot) contain about half of the neighborhood’s development potential, due to their size and relatively higher height limits. The rest of the potential is dispersed on parcels north of Geary that tend to be smaller in size and/or have lower height limits. AREA OF CONCERN B.1. Utilization of Developable Parcels. There are a number of parcels in the neighborhood that are not devel- oped to their full capacity, relative to what they are allowed under current zoning. There is community interest in ensuring that those parcels are able to be developed to their potential under current zoning. 5 In this instance, “high potential” means that a parcel is currently developed to less than 30% of its potential, that it contains less than three residential units, it is not a historic building, and that it contains no significant cultural resources. It should be noted that this analysis is based on the City’s data, which is likely to contain substantial errors. As such, the available information can be useful in the aggregate, but should not be used to predict the redevel- opment of any particular parcel. Chapter 4: e xIS t I n G Con d I t Ion S 35 C. BUILDINGS Japantown has a diverse built environment—everything from its street widths, block sizes, architectural styles and building heights vary noticeably within the 30 blocks that comprise Japantown. The following section describes the specific characteristics of the buildings that shape Japantown’s urban design, including the architectural styles, how they interact, and their historic nature. ARCHITECTURAL STYLE Japantown exhibits a wide range of architectural styles, reflecting the city’s historical shifts in architectural trends. For example, San Francisco’s trademark Victorians contrast with urban renewal’s block-long, modernist structures (i.e. Japan Center, Namiki Apartments), and Japanese-inspired structures. Single-family dwellings within Japantown take on many architectural forms and styles, though most date back to the late 19th and early 20th centuries and most adhere to Victorian-era architectural styles. The most typical form of single-family residence in the Japantown neighborhood is the Italianate or Stick style row house; flats are more prevalent than duplexes within the neighborhood. Apartment buildings typically date to the 1920s and onward, with the large-scale apartment blocks and towers dating to the mid-20th century and later and reflect a variety of architectural styles. Many of the small and mid-scale apartment buildings exhibit the Edwardian-era and Revival styles of the late 1910s and 1920s. Those with later construction dates exhibit the International and Modernist styles. The large apartment buildings that date to the 1960s and 1970s, are typically designed in the Modernist (and in some cases Brutalist) style. There are a number of garden apartment complexes grouped together in a series of smaller buildings unified by a landscaped site. These complexes are relatively modern adaptations of the multiple-family dwelling type and typically feature Modernist architecture. Mixed-use buildings, combining both commercial and residential uses, commonly are of the Victorian era, especially the Italianate style. However, those con- structed during redevelopment, especially those along Post Street, were designed in a Japanese-influenced Modernist style. Many first-story storefronts on mixed- use buildings have been noticeably altered by many commercial tenants over the years. The construction dates and architectural styles of small-scale commercial buildings vary. The most com- mon styles are those from the 1910s to 1950s, such as the 20th Century Commercial style, Mediterranean Revival style, and Art Deco and Art Moderne styles. Conversely, the commercial buildings within redevel- oped areas were constructed in the 1960s and 1970s and most often exhibit a Japanese-inspired Modernist style. The neighborhood is sprinkled with many institutional buildings. Some buildings date to the early 20th century, while others date to the late 20th century and are the products of redevelopment-related activism that secured new buildings for existing organizations. The neighborhood’s institutional buildings represent a variety of architectural styles, but commonly have some Japanese stylistic influence. The buildings that house school activities date to the early 20th century and represent a variety of architectural styles, such as Japanese-influenced and Mediterranean Revival styles. There are a large number of churches located in the Japantown neighborhood. These buildings date from the early 20th century to the 1970s and represent a variety of architectural styles, many of which have high style elements. AREA OF CONCERN C.1. Compatibility of Architectural Style. Many of the buildings in Japantown reflect Japanese culture and traditions. However, many of these buildings (includ- ing many along Post Street) are reaching the end of their functional lifespan. There is concern that replace- ment buildings will not be culturally sensitive and will not be compatible with existing neighborhood character. JapantoWn CuLturaL herItaGe & eConoMIC SuStaInaBILItY StrateGY 36 BUILDING INTERACTION A neighborhood is affected by how well the buildings relate to each other and to the human scale. The way buildings relate to each other is described as the “street wall.” Typically, San Francisco’s neighbor- hoods with the strongest street walls are those with buildings constructed prior to the 1950s and 60s because they tended to be constructed on smaller par- cels and because they were built to the property line with entrances typically spaced less than 20 feet apart. In Japantown, as elsewhere, this manner of construc- tion provides a pedestrian-scaled environment, through a consistent street wall, transparent storefronts, and regularly spaced entrance markers (e.g., awnings, signs, recessed entries). There are also interesting building facades. The best examples of this are along Fillmore Street, between Post and California Streets; the north side of Post Street between Webster and Laguna Streets; and Sutter Street between Fillmore and Laguna Streets. On the blocks constructed during and after the rede- velopment era, parcels were consolidated, allowing for larger developments. Here the architectural style shifted away from the pedestrian scale and focused on vehicular access and circulation. The blocks between Geary Boulevard and Post Street are the most obvious examples of this, where buildings are designed for car entrances rather than pedestrians, and the street wall fails to define the street or provide interest to pedestrians. The large buildings on these blocks are comprised of blank walls, with few or no openings, and lack interest at the ground-floor that might otherwise be provided by active ground floor uses or facades with human-scaled detailing. These buildings are often described as “fortress-like” by the community. AREA OF CONCERN C.2. Lack of Pedestrian Scale. As described above, many buildings in Japantown are not designed with the pedestrian experience in mind, and this method of development discourages walking and livability. HISTORIC BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES Buildings and structures can be deemed historic because of what happened there or because of their architectural merit. 6 Japantown contains a number of such buildings and structures with varying degrees of historic significance, as shown in Figure 3.1 – Buildings and Structures. This includes four individual buildings and one collection of buildings that have been designated by the City of San Francisco as Historic Landmarks. This also includes nine buildings identified by the 2009 Japantown Historic Resources Survey as eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. In addition to these buildings, the community has identified 55 buildings and structures as being historically significant to the community. AREA OF CONCERN C.3. Preservation of Historic Buildings and Structures. Without proper maintenance and upkeep, Japantown’s historic buildings and structures will dete- riorate until they are no longer functional and/or lose their historic character. 6 For example, eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places includes whether a building is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history, associated with lives of persons significant in our past; or have distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, work of a master, high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction. Chapter 4: e xIS t I n G Con d I t Ion S 37 PHOTOS ON THIS PAGE 1. Japantown has a diverse residential population, including many Japanese seniors. 2. Victorian duplexes, such as these, are a typical housing style in the northern part of Japantown. 3. The century-old family business, Benkyodo, is the only place to buy handmade mochi (Japanese rice cakes). 4. The Konko Church of San Francisco is one of many religious institutions in Japantown. 5. Buchanan Mall is one of Japantown’s most important open spaces. 1 2 5 3 4 JapantoWn CuLturaL herItaGe & eConoMIC SuStaInaBILItY StrateGY 38 PHOTOS ON THIS PAGE 1. Japantown includes several parcels with development potential under the existing zoning, including the Safeway and affiliated parking lot 2. This view from Sutter Street exemplifies the various kinds of architectural styles and scales found in Japantown. 3. The north side of Post Street is a good example of a consistent street wall that creates a pedestrian-friendly environment. 4. Since 1926, the Japanese language school Kinmon Gakuen has been operating at 2031 Bush Street. 5. Built in 1895, the former Temple Ohabai Shalom (1881 Bush) has been re-purposed as part of the Kokoro Senior Housing complex. 6. Japantown’s organizations serve to connect members of the community (and 22B). 1 2 3 5 6 6 4 Chapter 4: e xIS t I n G Con d I t Ion S 39 D. ORGANIZATIONS AND INSTITUTIONS Japantown has a rich network of community- serving organizations and institutions (See Figure 3.2: Organizations and Institutions). These organizations and institutions provide a range of services and benefits to the local community, as well as to Japanese Americans from around the region. These services are offered by way of many community activities, educa- tional and youth programs, teaching and performing of traditional arts and crafts, and senior programs, among others. Some of Japantown’s organizations pre-date the neighborhood, while others are relatively new. Many of Japantown’s existing community-based organiza- tions were founded in the 1960s or 1970s by Sansei (third-generation Japanese Americans), including the Japanese Community Youth Council, Nihonmachi Little Friends, the Japanese Community and Cultural Center of Northern California, Nobiru-kai, the Japanese American National Library, the Japantown Arts and Media Workshop, Asian Pacific Islander Legal Outreach, the Japanese American Historical Society, and Kimochi, Inc. Other organizations were founded by the Issei or Nisei (first- or second-genera- tion), and have transitioned to Sansei leadership. AREA OF CONCERN D.1. Capacity Challenges for Community-Serving Organizations and Institutions. While many of these organizations continue to provide invaluable services and programming, the non-profit community is con- cerned that some organizations are facing financial dif- ficulties, shrinking memberships, and/or overlapping missions. There is also concern that the community is saturated with non-profits, which makes it difficult to find funding and support for both existing and poten- tial new organizations. AREA OF CONCERN D.2. Lack of Space for Organizations. The community includes a number of organizations that are strug- gling to maintain a physical presence in the neighbor- hood because they do not have permanent facilities and/or access to affordable spaces. JapantoWn CuLturaL herItaGe & eConoMIC SuStaInaBILItY StrateGY 40 E. BUSINESSES Japantown has nearly 250 customer-oriented business- es. 7 These businesses are relatively small, averaging less than six employees and under 3,000 square feet. These businesses are clustered around the Japan Center, Peace Plaza, and the Buchanan Mall, as well as elsewhere along Post Street and Fillmore Street (See Figure 3.3: Businesses). These businesses rely on their geographical concentration to maintain Japantown’s unique cultural draw. While some visitors may come for annual events such as the Cherry Blossom Festival and stay to dine and shop for gifts and clothing, others come regularly to buy groceries, attend classes or meetings, or utilize community services. The mix of retail and cultural institutions (discussed above) also serves local residents well, providing goods, support services, and a sense of community for an ethnically- and income-diverse population. In Japantown, many retail operations cater to Japanese American and Japanese clientele. There has been a substantial effort to ensure that new businesses are culturally relevant. In addition to the Japantown SUD (discussed earlier), the Japan Center’s owners have signed a covenant with the City of San Francisco which requires that, to the extent commercially feasible, the malls’ tenants “offer goods and services that reflect that culture, heritage, tradition or arts of Japan or of Japanese Americans. . . .” 8 City tax data indicate a general increase in sales in Japantown over the past two decades, though there can be substantial fluctuations from year-to-year. Another way to gauge the business viability of the neighborhood is measuring visitor parking at the Japantown Garage. Over the past decade, visitor parking has been quite consistent (averaging between 500-550,000 vehicles per year), despite the economic upheavals of that time. This may convey that Japantown is less susceptible to larger economic conditions than other business districts inside the City and beyond. 7 Information derived from Dun and Bradstreet, 2012. This discussion does not include home businesses, small offices, and small manufacturing busi- nesses that also exist in Japantown, but would not be directly affected by the JCHESS. 8 “Post Closing Agreement – Kintetsu Mall,” April 2006. Japan Center and Garage The Japan Center Malls (Kintetsu, Miyako, and Kinokuniya) occupy the blocks between Fillmore Street, Laguna Street, Geary Boulevard, and Post Streets. They were completed in 1968 as an exhibi- tion space for Japanese companies such as Toy- ota, Mitsubishi, Hitachi, and Kikkoman. However, as time progressed these large corporate tenants were replaced by more domestically and locally oriented businesses, but those that still had Japanese and Japanese American connections. Today, these malls play a central role in Japan- town’s economic and community life. The malls provide space for many Japanese American and pan-Asian businesses, including a grocery store, several restaurants and cafes, and many jewelry, apparel, arts and gift stores. Many of these busi- nesses are small and locally owned. In addition, the malls serve as a community center, providing space for community festivals and daily informal gather- ings. The Japan Center garage also plays an important role in the community by providing parking for shoppers patronizing businesses throughout the district, and for visitors participating in community meetings and events, including those who come to Japantown from around the region. It is the primary off-street parking facility in the Japantown neigh- borhood, with 924 parking spaces. The majority of these spaces (747) are located in the main garage, which is bounded by Geary to the south, Post to the north, Webster to the west, and Laguna to the east. An additional 177 parking spaces are located in the Annex Garage, which is bounded by Geary, Post, Webster, and Fillmore. The Annex Garage primar- ily serves the Sundance Kabuki Cinema, whereas the main garage serves the hotel, restaurants, and shops in Japan Center. The garage also provides parking for carshare vehicles. The garage is owned by the City of San Francisco and operated by the Japan Center Garage Corporation. Chapter 4: e xIS t I n G Con d I t Ion S 41 AREA OF CONCERN E.1. Business Viability. The viability of Japantown’s businesses is an ongoing con- cern. Particularly, there is the desire to see Japantown’s culturally-oriented businesses thrive despite the dispersion of the Japanese American popu- lation that began decades ago and continues today. Key issues include maintaining a sufficient customer base and ensuring long-term affordability of commer- cial rents. Maintaining a sufficient customer base requires that the neighborhood do a better job of tap- ping into the billions of dollars spent annually by tour- ists in San Francisco. AREA OF CONCERN E.2. Business Ownership Transitions. Some long-established, family-owned businesses may require assistance with ownership transitions as aging business owners retire. AREA OF CONCERN E.3. Finding and Attracting Culturally Relevant Businesses. While the community preference is for new busi- nesses to be culturally relevant, it is not always easy to locate such businesses. Additionally, some culturally relevant businesses have chosen to locate elsewhere in San Francisco, rather than Japantown. New businesses attracted to Japantown have the potential to displace existing, culturally relevant businesses. AREA OF CONCERN E.4. Attractiveness of Shopping District. Residents and business owners have identified a need for improved main- tenance of the sidewalks, landscaping, and building facades. Additionally, the community has expressed serious concern about security in the area, and particu- larly robberies. These issues have the ability to dis- suade shoppers and visitors from coming to Japantown. AREA OF CONCERN E.5. Potential Business Displacement. Owners of commercial properties have the incentive to seek the highest rents. During strong economic times, these rents may exceed what is affordable to existing busi- nesses, including those that have been identified as being cultural resources. AREA OF CONCERN E.6: The Future of the Japan Center. The Japan Center Malls (see sidebar) are the economic heart of Japantown. However, they lack modern amenities and were not designed for retail use, making them less competitive than other shopping districts in the city. Updating these facilities would require a significant renovation or reconstruction project. Such a project would likely dis- rupt activities in the Malls. Such disruption, even if temporary, could potentially force many small busi- nesses to close for good, which in turn could precipi- tate larger changes in the neighborhood. Rents and parking prices are likely to increase if the malls are rebuilt to justify the investment, and some small busi- nesses and community events may need to relocate temporarily or permanently. On the other hand, the malls and the parking garage are aging, and an improved Japan Center could potentially draw new and more frequent shoppers, visitors, and residents to the community. As mentioned above, the inward-facing physical design of the malls themselves is frequently identified by all as one of the most significant shortcomings of the neighborhood and a possible obstacle to long-term viability and attractive- ness of the shopping district as a whole. In addition, while individual stores may be struggling, data on sales tax revenues indicate that most of the stores in the malls have performed well in recent years, and may therefore be able to survive the disruption or displace- ment caused by construction. AREA OF CONCERN E.7. The Future of the Japan Center Parking Garage. The Japan Center Garage is aging, and likely needs upgrades. Additionally, because of its physical integra- tion with the mall buildings, in the event that the Japan Center is substantially rehabilitated and/or rebuilt, the garage may need to be rebuilt as well. There is com- munity concern that, should the Japantown Center Garage be removed, even for a temporary period, there will be insufficient parking for this regional-serv- ing neighborhood that will undermine the viability of businesses both within and near the Japan Center. JapantoWn CuLturaL herItaGe & eConoMIC SuStaInaBILItY StrateGY 42 F. CULTURAL ACTIVITIES AND EVENTS YEAR-ROUND ACTIVITIES Japantown’s culture includes customs, traditions, events, language, literature, and arts that are important to the community’s identity (see Figure 3.4 – Cultural Activities and Events). Much of this culture was imported from Japan, ranging from ancient traditions to modern trends. Other aspects are unique to the Japanese American experience, and even more specifi- cally, to San Francisco’s Japantown. AREA OF CONCERN F.1. Limited Space for Community Activities. The Japanese Community and Cultural Center of Northern California (JCCCNC), the Japanese Community Youth Council (JCYC) and other facilities throughout Japantown pro- vide space for many artistic, cultural, youth, and com- munity activities. However, some community members and organizations without dedicated facilities have identified a need for additional, affordable space. In particular, the community identified the following types of space needs as priorities: ● New performing arts space (or improved access to existing space) for rehearsals and performances ● Space for art, cultural and historic displays ● Space for intergenerational gatherings and activities, to replace the function that the Japantown Bowl served prior to its demolition ● Space for youth activities, including unstructured gathering and “hanging-out” space, open recreation facilities such as audio/video mixing and screening rooms, computer facilities, a garden, a youth- friendly kitchen, and/or pool tables; and exhibit space for youth artwork. ● Space that is affordable and that does not have overly complicated reservation processes. FESTIVALS The Japanese community is renowned for its array of annual festivals, including the Obon (celebration of ancestors) Festival, Nihonmachi (Japantown) Street Fair, Aki Matsuri (Fall Festival), JPOP Festival, and the Cherry Blossom Festival (Sakura Matsuri). The Cherry Blossom Festival, the largest of these events, has been held in Spring in Japantown since 1967. The two-weekend long festival features traditional customs and culture that are part of the rich heritage of Japanese Americans, and includes thousands of performers and organizers. AREA OF CONCERN F.2. Acquiring Permits for Festivals. Concern has been expressed that it is dif- ficult to navigate the City’s permitting pro- cess, and that permit fees have become excessive for public festivals, particularly for Peace Plaza. Chapter 4: e xIS t I n G Con d I t Ion S 43 G. PUBLIC REALM The term “public realm” is used to refer to the spaces in a community which are common to everyone – the streets, sidewalks, parks, plazas and other open spaces. Japantown’s public realm has some notable features, such as community-oriented plazas and regional thoroughfares, which distinguishes it from other San Francisco neighborhoods. Japantown’s pub- lic realm is notably influenced by mid-century urban renewal-related ideas, which placed more emphasis on automobile access and less on streets as places for pedestrians. PUBLIC PLAZAS Japantown’s public plazas, Peace Plaza and Buchanan Mall, are the geographic and cultural heart of the neighborhood. These plazas serve as gathering spaces, are the location of festivals, and are access points to many of the neighborhood’s businesses. Peace Plaza Peace Plaza is situated in the heart of the neighbor- hood. Peace Plaza is a 0.7 acre space managed by the City’s Recreation and Parks Department. The Plaza was originally constructed as part of the Japan Trade Center in the early 1970s, and redesigned in 1999/2000 due to water leakage problems. The Plaza has a Japanese aesthetic, including the Peace Pagoda, Japantown’s most recognizable public icon, a hard- scape plaza with a small stage, geometric arrangement of tree planters, wood benches, boulders, and a reflec- tive pool. In addition to drawing tourists daily, the plaza is home to all of the community’s large events (as discussed above in Section F. Culture Activities and Events). AREA OF CONCERN G.1. Peace Plaza Design. There is substantial community concern that, since its redesign, the Plaza is too uninviting and in need of more landscaping and seating options. Some of the features, such as the fountain and Peace Flame, are not currently functioning as intended. The Plaza could also benefit from activation through such means as a better connection to the malls and to Geary Boulevard. Buchanan Mall Buchanan Mall, recently renamed Osaka Way, is a pedestrian-only portion of Buchanan Street that runs for a full block between Post and Sutter streets. The area, directly north of the Peace Plaza, is also con- sidered the heart of Japantown. The mall is lined by retail uses on both sides. The mall was designed in the 1960s, and was intended to reflect a modern version of the Japanese village aesthetic, with intimate scale of buildings and varied facades. As a public right-of-way, the maintenance of the infrastructure along Buchanan Mall is managed by the City’s Department of Public Works. In addition, the Nihonmachi Parking Corporation uses proceeds from the adjacent parking lots to pay for street cleaning and surface maintenance of Buchanan Mall. AREA OF CONCERN G.2. Buchanan Mall Design. Buchanan Mall’s uneven paving materials are diffi- cult to walk on, and considered unsafe by seniors. There is also need for more activation of the plaza by protecting sunlight exposure, repairing the plumbing serving the two fountains designed by renowned artist Ruth Asawa, pursuing economic strate- gies to increase business to the shops and restaurants that line the plaza, and increasing outdoor seating. STREETSCAPE The term “streetscape” entails all those things that influence a pedestrian’s experience, including land- scaping, lighting, sidewalk, furnishings, and upkeep. AREA OF CONCERN G.3. Streetscape Maintenance. In Japantown, a widely-voiced concern from the community is the maintenance quality of the existing streetscape, in addition to the desire for improvements. Merchants are concerned that if visitors view the neighborhood as an unpleasant place to walk, shop, or gather, they will not return. Compared to other areas of the city, Japantown’s sidewalk pavement is in relatively good condition, 9 however there are 9 Sidewalk repair is typically the responsibility of the fronting property owner, except on streets maintained by DPW. JapantoWn CuLturaL herItaGe & eConoMIC SuStaInaBILItY StrateGY 44 areas where tree roots have created unwalkable/unsafe conditions, especially for seniors. In terms of upkeep, there is a perception that trash pick-up and street sweeping is inconsistent. Additionally, there are regu- lar concerns about graffiti. AREA OF CONCERN G.4. Landscaping. In terms of landscap- ing, the neighborhood has inconsistent tree planting. Tree canopies are too dense along Sutter Street making visibility at night difficult. Post Street and the neighborhood’s north-south streets could benefit from regularly-spaced, culturally rele- vant, and environmentally appropriate tree planting. In addition to trees, planters are sparse and in need of regular maintenance by individual business owners along the commercial and mixed-use streets. AREA OF CONCERN G.5. Lighting. Special Japanese-themed light posts were erected along all streets bordering the Japan Trade Center and in Buchanan Mall. They add to the neighborhood’s spe- cial character. In the neighborhood outside of these limited areas, street and sidewalk lighting is inconsistent. AREA OF CONCERN G.6. Street Furnishings. Japantown’s sidewalks have minimal furnishings (e.g., benches, newspaper stands and trash receptacles). Given the high numbers of tourists and seniors in the area, more seating and amenities could make a significant difference in their time spent in the neighborhood. SIGNAGE AND WAYFINDING Wayfinding signage is often a visitor’s first introduction to a community and place. A neighborhood’s signage and wayfinding network should provide orientation, directional information and identification of significant places and activities. Japantown has distinct Japanese- influenced signage and lighting along key corridors and open spaces. Neighborhood banners and lighting design, in addition to business signs and building design, in the heart of Japantown along Post Street, make the special character of Japantown more evident. Some recent additions, such as the Japantown History Walk interpretive signs, and the “sensu” (Japanese folding fan) sculpture which marks one of the neighborhood’s southern gateways on Webster Street at Geary Boulevard, are useful prototypes to foster Japantown’s wayfinding and history. AREA OF CONCERN G.7. Wayfinding Signage. The current signage and directional orientation for Japantown is scattered and does not ade- quately promote the neighborhood as a unified, cultur- ally-rich neighborhood. The signage lacks cohesive identity. The neighborhood also lacks prominent gate- ways and design elements that signify the neighbor- hood to passersby traveling along major throughways such as Geary Boulevard and Bush/Pine Streets or the MUNI stops at Fillmore and Geary. Chapter 4: e xIS t I n G Con d I t Ion S 45 PHOTOS ON THIS PAGE 1. Japantown offers many unique businesses, such as the Paper Tree, which sells Japanese papers and has an origami gallery. 2. The Japan Center under construction in the 1960s. 3. The attractiveness of the neighborhood could be enhanced through measures such as fixing graffitied and broken lanterns on the bridge over Geary Boulevard. 4. Activity inside the Japan Center spills out of the shops into the common area. 5. Cultural events bring tradition, fun, and lots of people to Japantown. Pictured here are the Cherry Blossom Festival, J-Pop Summit Festival, Nihonmachi Street Fair, and the Soy and Tofu Festival. Image courtesy of Glynis Nakahara. 1 4 5 2 3 JapantoWn CuLturaL herItaGe & eConoMIC SuStaInaBILItY StrateGY 46 PHOTOS ON THIS PAGE 1. The lack of landscaping and seating options makes Peace Plaza uninviting. 2. Buchanan Malls’ Ruth Asawa-designed fountains have not worked in several years. 3. Street furnishings, like the benches on Buchanan Mall, provide a comfortable seating environment for the community. 4. Cultural events bring tradition, fun, and lots of people to Japantown. Pictured here are the J-Pop Summit Festival and the Soy and Tofu Festival.Images courtesy of David Yu, Soy and Tofu Festival. 5. Special lighting on Buchanan Mall serves a functional and cultural purpose 6. The Sensu Fan serves as a gateway on Webster between Geary and Post. Japantown could benefit from more such gateways. Image courtesy of NDD Creative. 1 2 3 4 4 5 6 Chapter 4: e xIS t I n G Con d I t Ion S 47 It is necessary to intimately understand the neighborhood’s existing conditions and particularly those areas of concern that need to be addressed to fulfill the vision of the JCHESS. JapantoWn CuLturaL herItaGe & eConoMIC SuStaInaBILItY StrateGY 48 RECOMMENDATIONS CHAPTER Fulfilling the vision, goals, and objectives of the Japantown Cultural Heritage and Economic Sustainability Strategy requires addressing the “areas of concern” identified in the Existing Conditions chapter. Given the range of concerns, there is no single tool that could address them all. It is more likely that a series of strategies will need to be implemented. These will need to be complementary and coordinated to ensure maximum benefit to Japantown. This chapter recommends those strategies that are con- sidered by the City and community as having the best potential to fulfill the vision of the JCHESS. Strategies that would not likely be efficacious were not included in this chapter. Additionally, it was beyond the scope of this document to include strategies that might benefit the Japantown community in general, but did not have a specific cultural heritage and/or economic sustainability benefit. To help provide clarity and thoroughness, each recom- mendation includes: ● A description of the strategy ● An examination of its benefits, particularly how it addresses identified areas of concern and how it fulfills the goals and objectives of the JCHESS ● Any challenges to the implementation of the recommendation ● Key leaders who will be responsible for its implementation ● Potential next steps for those key leaders To clarify the potential benefit of each of the recom- mendations, two matrices have been created and are included at the end of this chapter. Matrix A conveys how these recommendations address the identified areas of concern. Matrix B conveys how these recom- mendations address the goals and objectives of the JCHESS. Chapter 5: r e C oMMendat Ion S 49 A. EXISTING STRATEGIES There are a number of strategies currently in place to support and promote Japantown’s cultural heritage and economic sustainability. The following is a list of some of those strategies which are implemented by the City, and which should be continued for the foreseeable future. 1. Utilize Tools for Preservation of Historic Buildings and Structures DESCRIPTION The City utilizes a number of tools to encourage and help property owners preserve, maintain and rehabilitate historic buildings and structures. Several of the tools are designed to provide financial relief to the owners of historic properties either through the flexible application of building codes or by applying tax credits. These tools are as follows: ● Designate Buildings in Article 10 of the San Francisco Planning Code. Article 10 of the Planning Code contains lists of individual buildings and districts considered historically and architecturally significant, either individually or as contributors to historic districts. Buildings listed in Article 10 receive specialized review and protection by the City. As a benefit, the buildings’ owners are eligible for some special economic incentives to help keep their buildings economically viable. ● Encourage the use of the Mills Act for designated historic resources. The Mills Act is the one of the best preservation incentives available to private property owners to help rehabilitate, restore and maintain their historic buildings. Enacted by the State of California in 1976 and adopted by San Francisco in 1996, the Mills Act allows the City to enter into contracts with owners of privately-owned historical property to ensure its rehabilitation, restoration, preservation and long-term maintenance. In return, the property owner enjoys a reduction in property taxes for a given period. Mills Act contracts have the net effect of freezing the base value of the property, thereby keeping property taxes low. ● Encourage the use of the California Historic Building Code (CHBC). The renovation of historic buildings is often difficult when older buildings must meet the standards of modern building codes (including Uniform Building Code, City Building Code, Fire Code, Plumbing Code) whose regulations are designed for contemporary construction technolo- gies. Application of the CHBC can provide creative solutions to achieve the health, safety and welfare requirements for these historic buildings. The measures permitted by the CHBC are more sensitive to the historic conditions of a building than standard building codes. The CHBC allows flexibility in meet- ing building code requirements for rehabilitated structures. Generally, building owners can enjoy substantial cost savings when rehabilitating an his- toric structure by using the CHBC. The Department of Building Inspection applies the CHBC, including determining which buildings are eligible. ● Encourage the use of the Federal Rehabilitation Tax Incentives. The Federal Historic Preservation Tax Incentives program is one of the nation’s most successful and cost-effective community revitalization programs. There are two levels of tax incentives: 20% and 10%. The 20% Rehabilitation Tax Credit applies to any project that the Secretary of the Interior designates a certified rehabilitation of a certified historic structure. The 20% credit is available for properties rehabilitated for com- mercial, industrial, agricultural, or rental residential purposes, but it is not available for properties used exclusively as the owner’s private residence. The 10% Rehabilitation Tax Credit is available for the rehabilitation of non-historic buildings placed in service before 1936. The building must be rehabili- tated for non-residential use. ● Encourage façade easements for designated historic resources. One of the oldest strategies for historic preservation is a historic preservation façade ease- ment. An easement ensures the preservation of a property’s significant architectural and essential fea- tures while allowing the owner to continue to occupy and use the property subject to the provisions of JapantoWn CuLturaL herItaGe & eConoMIC SuStaInaBILItY StrateGY 50 the easement. A preservation easement is created by deed and is typically donated or sold to a public or private preservation organization. Either the City or a qualified preservation group, such as San Francisco Architectural Heritage can hold title to the easement, which allows the property owner a one-time tax deduction and the holder has the right to review any changes to features covered by the easement. BENEFITS Each of the tools described above could be used to rehabilitate and preserve important buildings and structures. Doing so also helps maintain space for the businesses and organizations that are housed in these buildings. CHALLENGES Most preservation tools require that buildings meet rig- orous criteria, as described below. This is a challenge in Japantown because many of the cherished buildings and buildings occupied by social heritage resources may not rise to the level of significance necessary for local, state or national designation. The criteria for each tool are as follows: ● Designation to Article 10 of the Planning Code is limited to properties of substantial historic and/ or architectural significance, as evaluated by the Historic Preservation Commission and approved by the Board of Supervisors. ● Eligibility for the Mills Act requires that buildings must be listed in Article 10 of the Planning Code or listed in the National Register of Historic Places or the California Register of Historical Resources. Eligibility is further limited to a property tax assess- ment value of $3 million or less for residential, and $5 million or less for commercial, industrial or mixed use buildings, unless the property exhibits exceptional qualities. ● Application of the 20% Rehabilitation Tax Credit requires that buildings that are National Historic Landmarks, listed in the National Register, and/or that contribute to National Register Historic Districts and certain local historic districts that have been certified by the National Park Service. To qualify, properties must be income producing and must be rehabilitated according to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. ● Application of the 10% Rehabilitation Tax Credit requires that buildings were in use before 1936. There are criteria requiring that a substantial percentage of existing walls must stay in place. Additionally, the building must be rehabilitated for non-residential use. There is no formal review process for rehabilitations of non-historic buildings. ● Façade easement programs are limited to buildings that are National Historic Landmarks, listed in the National Register, and that contribute to National Register Historic Districts and certain local historic districts that have been certified by the National Park Service. These programs restrict the future development of the front building wall in perpetuity. The easement agreement also requires periodic inspections of the property to ensure that the con- tract continues to be honored. ● Application of the California Historic Building Code requires developers, architects, and contractors to understand an additional set of rules with which they may not otherwise be familiar. KEY LEADERS Community stakeholders, property owners, the Planning Department NEXT STEPS Each tool has its own next steps, as follows: ● For local designation in Article 10 of the San Francisco Planning Code, the City could designate new Landmarks in Article 10 of the San Francisco Planning Code based upon further review of the existing historic resource surveys and community outreach efforts. The recommended list of these new Landmarks must be vetted by the Historic Preservation Commission, as recommended by Chapter 5: r e C oMMendat Ion S 51 Planning Department with community input and outreach. ● For potential Mills Act properties, the community would identify properties based on eligibility requirements described above and work with the Planning Department to apply for Mills Act contracts for individual qualifying properties, including an appropriate maintenance plan. ● For the California Historic Building Code, the Planning Department should advise local property owners, business owners, contractors, and architects to request use of this Code when proposing improve- ments for qualifying properties. ● For the 20% or 10% Federal Tax Credit Programs, the community would identify eligible properties and engage a historic preservation professional to aid in planning an appropriate rehabilitation project and preparing the application for review by the National Park Service. ● For façade easement programs, property owners of eligible buildings should be notified by the Planning Department and put in contact with preservation organizations that implement such programs, such as San Francisco Heritage. 2. Leverage the Japantown Special Use District to Cultivate and Attract New Businesses Appropriate to Japantown DESCRIPTION As discussed in the Existing Conditions Chapter, the intent of the Japantown Special Use District (SUD) is to help protect cultural character by requiring Planning Commission approval for many retail uses in the neighborhood. BENEFIT This SUD has and will continue to help ensure that the community has a voice in ensuring that businesses that locate in Japantown reflect the neighborhood’s culture and history and that Japantown will continue to serve as a hub for Japanese Americans throughout the region, enhancing the viability of the individual businesses. CHALLENGES The Japantown SUD requires finding a continuous stream of culturally-appropriate businesses that are economically viable. Given the lack of explicit or coordinated effort to attract, develop and cultivate interest from such businesses, finding appropriate businesses is a challenge. Further, given the dispersion and relatively small size of the Japanese American community, both locally and regionally, finding such businesses and ensuring their economic viability may be challenging over time. KEY LEADERS Planning Department, The Office of Economic and Workforce Development (OEWD), Property own- ers, business owners, community stakeholders, the Planning Commission NEXT STEPS OEWD could recruit and cultivate culturally-appropri- ate businesses from throughout the region, country, and from Japan. The community could develop a set of guidelines for property owners and realtors to help them locate appropriate tenants and to help secure local support. JapantoWn CuLturaL herItaGe & eConoMIC SuStaInaBILItY StrateGY 52 3. Utilize the City’s Design Guidelines DESCRIPTION The City maintains multiple design guidelines, including the Residential Design Guidelines, the Draft Ground Floor Residential Design Guidelines, and the General Plan’s Urban Design Element. The goal of these guidelines is to improve the city’s aesthetic qual- ity and to ensure all development supports an active, diverse and vibrant public realm. A fundamental prin- ciple guiding San Francisco’s urban design is the prior- ity the City places on buildings to meet human needs, primarily defined from the pedestrian perspective. The guidelines are intended to result in a more coherent architectural landscape, improve upon the current neighborhood image, and encourage new development to be more consistent with San Francisco’s essential qualities. They achieve these goals through clear guid- ance for site design, massing and articulation, façade treatment, ground floor design, parking and access, and private open space. BENEFITS Along with the Japantown Design Guidelines (dis- cussed below in Section B.10), consistency with the City’s various design guidelines can enhance the qual- ity of architectural styles and landscaping in Japantown – including in portions of Japantown that do not exhibit traditional Japanese and Japanese American architecture. This will help create a more attractive shopping district, improve appearance and cleanliness of the neighborhood and its public space, and enhance the surrounding cultural and historic landmarks. CHALLENGES Design guidelines unto themselves do not guarantee quality architecture. Also, given the small quantity of new developments expected in Japantown, there are limited opportunities to implement these guidelines. KEY LEADERS Planning Department, community stakeholders, prop- erty developers NEXT STEPS Individual project proposals should conform to all relevant design guidelines. Adherence to the City’s design guidelines will be an important criterion used to guide City and community review and approval of individual projects within the neighborhood. 4. Implement Streetscape and Pedestrian Improvements per the Better Streets Plan DESCRIPTION The City adopted the Better Streets Plan (BSP) in December, 2010. The BSP provides a blueprint for the future of San Francisco’s streets, which make up 25% of the city’s land area. The purpose of the BSP is to ensure that streets are able to fulfill their multiple purposes, including movement of vehicles, but also for recreational opportunities, ecological benefits, and as community space. Fulfilling all of these purposes can result in increased neighborhood attractiveness and therefore enhanced economic activity. To help fulfill its purpose, the BSP provides guidance on how streets should be designed such as for the residential and commercial streets that comprise Japantown. The BSP guides the design of the streets, curb alignments, crosswalks, and parking lanes. The BSP also offers guidance for the use of the sidewalks and makes allowances for street trees and plantings, lighting, paving, site furnishings, and wayfinding signage. As part of the adoption of the BSP, the City completed an environmental review that enables streetscape and pedestrian improvements in confor- mance with the BSP to be implemented. Implementation of the Better Streets Plan is handled by the Department of Public Works, in coordination with other City agencies involved in streetscapes and the pedestrian realm, such as the Planning Department, Public Utilities Commission, and Municipal Transportation Agency. To help involve Chapter 5: r e C oMMendat Ion S 53 IMAGES ON THIS PAGE 1. Several historic properties in San Francisco already have Mills Act Contracts, such as 1080 Haight Street. Image courtesy of FoundSF / Chris Carlsson. 2. The Japantown Special Use District covers the area between Bush Street, Laguna Street, Geary Boulevard, and Fillmore Street. 3. The City’s existing design guidelines ensure that new infill development, such as the New People building at 1746 Post Street, is compatible with the existing character of the neighborhood. 4. The Playland Japan arcade in the Japan Center is an example of the types of uses supported by the Japantown Special Use District. 5. Implementing the Better Streets Plan can support improvements such as the planting of new cherry trees along Buchanan Mall, undertaken in the Spring of 2013 6. The Geary BRT project would include buses with dedicated lanes, a practice utilized in many cities, such as Curiatiba, Brazil. such as shown here in image of Bus Rapid. Image courtesy of gogeary.org. 7. SFpark’s pilot program in Japantown includes meters which you can pay by phone, credit card, or coins. 1 4 5 6 7 2 3 JapantoWn CuLturaL herItaGe & eConoMIC SuStaInaBILItY StrateGY 54 community members, the Better Streets website (www. sfbetterstreets.org) provides details on how residents and merchants can get involved, and the requirements for property developers. This guidance includes information on funding mechanisms and other techni- cal considerations that can help get improvements implemented. BENEFITS Implementing streetscape and pedestrian improve- ments per the Better Streets Plan can help enhance Japantown’s pedestrian realm. Projects that could be implemented under the Better Streets Plan include: ● Safer pedestrian connections throughout the neigh- borhood, including crosswalks and corner bulbouts. One area of focus should be from Peace Plaza to Buchanan Mall across Post Street. ● Improved lighting to brighten dark areas that feel unsafe throughout the neighborhood, especially along commercial corridors and Sutter Street ● Increased outdoor dining where appropriate and space permits ● Interpretive and wayfinding signage that is charac- teristic of Japantown throughout the neighborhood. This signage should be internally consistent, and serve both to orient people in the neighborhood and celebrate Japantown’s culture ● Accentuation of Post Street as the neighborhood’s main street, through special planting, lighting, pav- ing, street furnishings, public art and directional and interpretive signage to celebrate its function ● Improvements to Geary Boulevard as appropriate for a “commercial throughway” street, as detailed in the Better Streets Plan ● Improvements to alleyways, including Hemlock, Wilmot, Orben, and Avery, to help them serve the dual purpose of additional open space and an alternative means of circulation for residents CHALLENGES Streetscape and pedestrian improvements can require substantial funding to design and implement. KEY LEADERS Department of Public Works, Planning Department, other relevant City agencies (depending on the proj- ect), community stakeholders NEXT STEPS The community and City should evaluate all the streets in the area against BSP standards. Then the com- munity and City should seek to fund and implement improvements in order to achieve the BSP standards at a minimum, and preferably exceed those standards. 5. Implement Proposed Transportation Improvements DESCRIPTION The City is currently exploring a number of transporta- tion improvements that would affect Japantown. These include: ● The Geary Corridor Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is a project led by the San Francisco County Transportation Authority (SFCTA) to provide faster and more comfortable transit service along Geary Boulevard, from the Outer Richmond to Downtown. The improvements could include safer and more attractive pedestrian crossings of Geary Boulevard in Japantown. The proposed changes are currently undergoing environmental review. ● The Transit Effectiveness Project (TEP) is a program led by the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) to provide faster and more reliable MUNI service. The program includes restructuring many MUNI routes and Chapter 5: r e C oMMendat Ion S 55 implementing on-street improvements to improve transit. The proposed changes are currently under- going environmental review. ● SFpark is an ongoing SFMTA program that seeks to improve parking management through demand- responsive variable pricing and more flexible time limits and payment options on parking meters to ensure that there is available parking at any given time, thereby reducing time spent searching for a spot and reducing the incidence of parking tickets. The program is currently being piloted in a few neighborhoods, including Japantown. BENEFITS Implementing proposed transportation improve- ments in Japantown can help bring more customers to Japantown’s businesses and better connect the neighborhoods organizations and institutions to their constituents, many of whom are dispersed across the city and the region. It can also help make better con- nections within the neighborhood, particularly across Geary Boulevard. CHALLENGES Implementing transportation projects typically requires many years of design, analysis, outreach, and environ- mental review, as well as significant funding to build. In addition, the transportation improvements proposed in Japantown are part of much larger projects or pro- grams based on citywide objectives. As a pilot project, SFpark needs to be evaluated and, as necessary, adjusted to ensure it is meeting its goals. KEY LEADERS SFCTA, SFMTA, Japan Center Garage Corporation (JCGC), community stakeholders. NEXT STEPS SFCTA, SFMTA, JCGC, and community stakeholders need to continue to engage on the specifics of the proposed transportation improvements as they relate to Japantown. 6. Market the Neighborhood through SFTravel DESCRIPTION San Francisco Travel Association (SFTravel) is a non- profit whose mission is to “enhance the local economy by marketing San Francisco and the Bay Area as the premier destination for conventions, meetings, events and leisure travel.” It functions as the City’s conven- tion and visitors bureau, aggressively marketing and selling San Francisco to attract visitors. About half of SFTravel’s funding is public money generated from the City’s assessment on gross hotel room revenue. Most of the rest comes from the private sector in the form of membership dues, advertising, e-commerce and program revenues. 1 SFTravel provides visitors with the information they need for an enjoyable and productive visit, including where to stay, eat, and shop, how to get around, and what to do (e.g, arts, culture, and nightlife). In addition to citywide information, the city is broken into 15 neighborhoods, one of which is Japantown/Fillmore. The Japantown Merchants Association currently has a reciprocal partnership with San Francisco Travel in which both are members of each other’s organization. San Francisco Travel membership provides admission to events, market briefings, outlook forums and partner business exchanges, listings online and in publications, and access to the convention calendar. BENEFITS SFTravel’s marketing materials, website, and partner- ships can be used to emphasize Japantown’s social heritage and other visitor attractions. This can help increase business and turnout at cultural perfor- mances, events, and festivals, and thereby support the affiliated organizations and institutions. This process can help Japantown better capture some of the billions of dollars spent annually by tourists in San Francisco. 1 Information in this paragraph accessed from http://www.sanfrancisco.travel/ about/about.html on January 15, 2013. JapantoWn CuLturaL herItaGe & eConoMIC SuStaInaBILItY StrateGY 56 CHALLENGES Currently, Japantown is not enough of a tourist destina- tion to merit substantial marketing efforts by SFTravel. KEY LEADERS San Francisco Travel, Japantown Merchants Association, community stakeholders NEXT STEPS Japantown community stakeholders and SFTravel could develop more focused and additional market- ing and partnership opportunities. This could be part of a larger cultural tourism program in the city. Efforts identified elsewhere in this Strategy could make Japantown a more viable tourist destination, which reciprocally could create more marketing from SFTravel. Chapter 5: r e C oMMendat Ion S 57 B. PROPOSED STRATEGIES The following tools have been identified as ways to address one or more of the areas of concern identified in the previous chapter. These include tools that would be implemented by City agencies, such as the Office of Economic and Workforce Development and the Planning Department. They also include tools that would need to be implemented by the community itself, via new or existing non-profit organizations or other means. 1. Create a Japantown Community Development Corporation DESCRIPTION Community development corporations (CDCs) are nonprofit, community-based organizations dedicated to revitalizing neighborhoods and/or undertaking specific community development projects. CDCs usually service a defined geography such as a neighborhood. Typical CDC activities include economic development, real estate development and ownership, technical support, education, social services, and organizing and advocacy activities. Examples of such CDCs exist in Little Tokyo in Los Angeles and Chinatown in San Francisco. CDCs can also function on a smaller scale serving as facilitator and advocate for economic devel- opment and other activities in the neighborhoods they serve. An example of such a CDC is the Tenderloin Economic Development Project. BENEFITS A Japantown CDC could play many roles in the com- munity. Among the benefits are: ● Ownership of real estate could help ensure that historic buildings are preserved, can help provide inexpensive space for organizations, institutions, businesses, and cultural activities ● Development of real estate can provide additional space for residents and businesses, particularly for lower-income, youth and young adult, and senior communities that need additional support ● Economic development activities, such as marketing, could provide value for particular buildings and businesses, and promote the neighborhood within San Francisco ● Technical support and social services could be pro- vided to help organizations deal with capacity chal- lenges, businesses deal with ownership transitions, property owners, realtors, and tenants understand the controls and policies of the Japantown NCD, and organizations that hold cultural events navigate the City permitting process ● Advocacy activities can provide a point of contact for the City in helping develop ongoing strategies in Japantown, to lobby the City on behalf of the neighborhood, and help focus community cultural preservation efforts, including a long-term strategy for the Japan Center and its garage, and enhancing and redesigning public spaces CHALLENGES A CDC requires active community participation and extensive fundraising efforts to help generate cash flow to support its work and accomplish the goals of the organization. CDCs require a diverse knowledge base ranging from finance, insurance, real estate, com- munity development, economic development and small business development, to architecture and planning and zoning laws. The implications of creating another community-based nonprofit organization in Japantown, which already has a dense nonprofit infrastructure, would need to be considered. KEY LEADERS Community stakeholders JapantoWn CuLturaL herItaGe & eConoMIC SuStaInaBILItY StrateGY 58 NEXT STEPS Creating a CDC requires active community participa- tion and fundraising efforts. The community would need to determine whether a CDC is something that is desired. Determining this could include a review of existing CDCs to determine an appropriate model and scale for Japantown and an outreach campaign to gauge interest in a CDC. Subsequent steps could involve identifying funding sources and developing a CDC formation plan. 2. Create a Japantown Community Land Trust DESCRIPTION A Community Land Trust (CLT) is a non-profit organization whose primary purpose is to acquire or facilitate the preservation of targeted properties within a specific area for community preservation and use. This acquisition would remove these properties from the speculative market and place long-term control of their use and disposition into the hands of the local community. CLTs generally lease the land they own to others who live on or operate businesses on the CLT land, although some CLTs own buildings and other improvements and lease out space to individual users. Most of the hundreds of CLTs that have been formed in the U.S. focus on affordable housing, including the San Francisco Community Land Trust. However, some CLT missions encompass more than housing and include owning, leasing and selling commercial proper- ties, owning community gardens, and controlling land for potential future development. Typically, non-profit organizations have formed CLTs, however, more recently some local governments have taken the lead in adopting CLTs. BENEFITS A Japantown CLT, through ownership of real estate, could help ensure that historic buildings are preserved and can help provide inexpensive space for organiza- tions, institutions, businesses, and cultural activities. CHALLENGES It would take time, energy and commitment to build organizational capacity to meet ongoing administra- tive, programmatic and stewardship responsibilities of a CLT. Essential to the success of the CLT, and the achievement of its primary purposes, is the formation of a governing board whose vision broadly encompasses Japantown as a whole community with sensitivity both to its cultural heritage and historical legacy. A CLT would require a substantial infusion of financial resources in addition to securing potential land. Some concern may exist over the implications of creating another community-based nonprofit organiza- tion in Japantown, which already has a dense nonprofit infrastructure. KEY LEADERS Community stakeholders NEXT STEPS In 2011, a study commissioned by the Ford Foundation concluded that it was feasible to create a CLT in Japantown focusing on commercial properties. 2 An additional study, Seifel Inc.’s 2011 Economic Analysis of the Japan Center by a Community Land Trust, identified ways to enhance the economic viability of the Japan Center. The community has received a second round of funding for an analysis of how a CLT could be structured, with the analysis to occur during 2013. During that time, the community would need to ensure that a CLT is something they want to create. If so, they would need to begin fundraising efforts for the CLT. Also, the community would need to determine if the CLT will be a standalone non-profit, or if it should be folded into a larger Community Development Corporation (described above). 2 Burlington Associates in Community Development, “Assessing the Feasibility of a Community Land Trust in Japantown”, 2011. Study was commissioned by the Japantown Task Force and paid for by George McCarthy and the Ford Foundation. Chapter 5: r e C oMMendat Ion S 59 3. Implement Invest in Neighborhoods DESCRIPTION Invest in Neighborhoods (IIN) is a new program of OEWD. The purpose of IIN is to foster job creation and economic development in neighborhood com- mercial districts through the strategic and coordinated deployment of existing City programs from across multiple departments. These programs offer an array of tools focused on neighborhood revitalization and business assistance that could assist with the preserva- tion of social heritage in Japantown. OEWD has identi- fied Japantown as one of its priority neighborhoods, and will participate in the first wave of implementation of the program in early 2013. BENEFITS Invest in Neighborhoods can provide a range of benefits, including: ● Design and development assistance services that could be targeted to specific businesses and build- ings (e.g., compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act) and/or be provided to the neighbor- hood in general (e.g., graffiti abatement) ● Loans/grants/financial assistance services that could be targeted to businesses, organizations, and institutions ● Marketing services, business recruitment, and programming and activation services that could all be targeted to specific business, properties, and for cultural activities and events, and that could be used to market the neighborhood to other San Franciscans. ● Technical assistance that can help businesses, organizations, and cultural events navigate the City’s permit system ● Organizational support services that could be targeted to specific organizations, including those that are involved with traditional arts, crafts, and practices ● Having a single point of contact within City govern- ment that can help support all cultural preservation and enhancement efforts CHALLENGES IIN involves coordination amongst numerous City agencies that may otherwise not have much interac- tion, and thus will require careful navigation of these institutions. Additionally, IIN is a new program, which invariably will encounter a learning curve as OEWD begins implementation. KEY LEADERS OEWD, community stakeholders. NEXT STEPS OEWD is completing an assessment of Japantown’s needs and existing business conditions. Upon comple- tion of that assessment, OEWD, in conjunction with the community and various agencies, will begin implementing the baseline services package. OEWD will also be crafting a tailored set of interventions intended to directly address the particular concerns of Japantown. 4. Negotiate Benefits Agreements with Major New Developments Major new developments can cause impacts to existing neighborhoods, such as increased demand for ser- vices, traffic, and change in neighborhood character. To help ameliorate those impacts, benefits agreements may be negotiated with developers of large projects. Such agreements can include Community Benefits Agreements and Development Agreements. Community Benefits Agreements (CBAs) are project- specific contracts between developers and communities designed to ensure that the local community shares in the benefits of major developments. Examples of negotiated community benefits include living wage requirements for employees, local hiring agreements, JapantoWn CuLturaL herItaGe & eConoMIC SuStaInaBILItY StrateGY 60 job training and/or placement programs, affordable housing or retail space, community space, green building practices, child care facilities, and traffic mitigation. To date, most CBAs have been voluntary agreements among private entities (typically, develop- ers and community groups) that provide benefits for the community in exchange for community support. Development Agreements are project-specific contracts between developers and the City in which the devel- oper agrees to provide additional public benefits above and beyond existing requirements. Such agreements typically incorporate substantial input from the com- munity. To date, Development Agreements have been created for such major new developments as Park Merced and Trinity Plaza. BENEFITS Benefits Agreements can provide financial resources directly to organizations and institutions and for cultural events and activities. They can also provide for facilities for such uses. Additionally, they can provide benefits to the public realm, such as new or improved open space, sidewalks, and landscaping. CHALLENGES Benefits Agreements generally only make sense for large developments, of which there are very limited opportunities in Japantown. There is no guarantee that the broader needs identified in Japantown would be met by the benefits individually negotiated in a Benefit Agreement between developers, community stakeholders, and/or the City. Such a practice could also decrease certainty in the development process. It could also increase the cost to the end users and/ or deter developers from undertaking projects if costs are too high. The negotiations for creating Community Benefits Agreements are often challenging, and would benefit from the support of a neutral party. KEY LEADERS Community stakeholders, developers of individual proj- ects, Office of Economic and Workforce Development NEXT STEPS Prior to the next major development in Japantown, a community- and/or City-led transparent process should assess the community deficiencies and prioritize community needs that could potentially be provided through a Benefits Agreement, and to develop a process for how to communicate these priorities and how to negotiate agreements. The community should actively monitor proposed new development within Japantown and be ready to follow the negotiating process previously identified. CBA’s should be facili- tated by a neutral party to minimize potential conflicts between existing groups. A group which currently has grant-making capacity, such as the Japantown Foundation, should be considered to disperse any financial resources committed through a CBA. 5. Create a Japantown Community Benefit District DESCRIPTION Community Benefit Districts (CBDs) are public-private partnerships that enable property owners within set boundaries to pay for enhanced services that confer a benefit to the real property owner over and above what a local government normally provides through its general fund. CBDs are established by a specialized assessment district that requires property owners to contribute towards a fund for such services as main- tenance, marketing, economic development, parking, special events, and streetscape improvements. Cities throughout California typically adopt “baseline services agreements” that require the city not to withdraw services once the special benefits district has been formed – thereby ensuring that the CBD is providing enhanced services, not replacing basic services. There are currently 12 CBDs in San Francisco, including Castro/Upper Market, Civic Center, Noe Valley, and Union Square. Chapter 5: r e C oMMendat Ion S 61 IMAGES ON THIS PAGE 1. SFTravel’s website includes some information on Japantown and the Fillmore. Image courtesy of SFTravel. 2. Both Community Development Corporations and Community Land Trusts can own property in a way that serves the community, such as this senior housing project at 701 Golden Gate, owned by the Chinatown CDC. Image courtesy of Chinatown CDC. 3. A portion of revenues from the Japan Center Garage goes towards marketing for Japantown. 4. San Francisco currently has 10 Community Benefits Districts, as shown in this map. 5. San Francisco Grants for the Arts funds organizations such as the Center for Asian American Media, which has hosted film screenings in Peace Plaza. Image courtesy of Jennifer Yin. 1 2 3 4 5 JapantoWn CuLturaL herItaGe & eConoMIC SuStaInaBILItY StrateGY 62 BENEFITS Funds generated through a CBD could be used to provide a number of benefits in Japantown, such as maintenance and public safety, streetscape improve- ments like signage, trees, and interpretive displays, economic development such as business retention, and beautification. These benefits could be targeted to heritage businesses and to support important local events and performances. CHALLENGES Creating a CBD is a substantial challenge. Logistically, it requires extensive outreach to property owners and businesses that would be assessed and community stakeholders in order to develop a management plan with defined boundaries, services, assessment rates, terms, and a governing body. Typically, a two-phase special election must take place beginning with a petition vote, followed by legislation approved by the Board of Supervisors, a mailed ballot election and additional legislation and public hearings at the Board of Supervisors. In addition to logistics, a CBD must be something that is supported by those property owners who will pay the assessment. Business owners in Japantown previously considered adoption of a CBD and prepared a preliminary plan. They did not, however, proceed with adoption due to a lack of broad enough support by property and business owners. Key property owners continue to express a lack of support for this strategy. KEY LEADERS Property owners and businesses, community stakeholders, Office of Economic and Workforce Development NEXT STEPS Creating a CBD requires active and motivated par- ticipation from and extensive outreach to community members, property owners and business owners. A first step would be to contact OEWD to revisit the feasibility of creating a CBD for Japantown. Second, a steering committee could be formed among interested parties, including property owners and businesses. The committee would re-evaluate the district boundaries and analyze the current level of support for district formation. If enough support exists, the steering com- mittee would enter into the formation stage, including expansion of the committee to all interested parties, endorsing a focused district plan that would benefit district property owners and businesses, and submis- sion of the plan to the City for review and certification. 6. Implement a Japantown Mello-Roos Community Facilities District DESCRIPTION The California Legislature enacted the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act in 1982, which allows local governments to form Community Facilities Districts (CFDs) to finance public improvements. CFDs can be funded on a “pay-as-you-go” basis. However, facilities are more frequently paid for using long-term tax-exempt bonds to fund public improvements, which are repaid through the levy of special taxes collected on the property tax bill of property owners within the boundary of the CFD. A CFD is created by a sponsor- ing local government entity and requires approval by two-thirds of voters living within the proposed bound- aries, or a vote of current landowners if there are fewer than 12 registered voters within these boundaries. The landowner vote is weighted based on the amount of land each owns, and two-thirds support is required for approval. After approval, a lien is placed against each property in the CFD, and property owners pay an annual special tax. The taxes continue at least until the infrastructure is paid for and/or bonds are repaid. At such a point, the taxes will either be discontinued or lowered and used to maintain improvements. BENEFITS A CFD in Japantown could be used to fund and maintain capital investments such as street and sidewalk improvements, parks, public plazas (such as improvements to Peace Plaza and Buchanan Mall), Chapter 5: r e C oMMendat Ion S 63 and community facilities. It can also be used to fund ongoing needs such as police protection and operation of museums and important neighborhood cultural facilities. CHALLENGES Logistically, establishing a CFD requires holding a special election of registered voters and/or land owners (depending on the size of the CFD and the number of registered voters therein). CFDs require property own- ers to agree to tax themselves to finance these improve- ments. In already built-out areas such as Japantown, it might be difficult to get two-thirds of property owners to agree to such a tax. KEY LEADERS Community stakeholders, Office of Economic and Workforce Development NEXT STEPS The community would conduct a needs assessment to determine what improvements and services a CFD could potentially fund. The community would then conduct community outreach to assess interest in a CFD. 7. Utilize Funds from San Francisco Grants for the Arts DESCRIPTION The City of San Francisco levies a Transient Occupancy Tax on every hotel room in San Francisco. Five percent of this revenue is directed to the San Francisco Grants for the Arts/San Francisco Hotel Tax Fund (GFTA). The City established GFTA in 1961 as an independent agency under the City’s Office of the City Administrator to administer the program. GFTA has a goal of providing general operating funding for performing, visual, literary, and media arts organiza- tions ranging from at least 15 percent of expense budgets for small organizations to approximately 2.5 percent of expense budgets of the largest groups. GFTA also provides funding for annual celebrations and parades. Since its inception, GFTA has distributed more than $320 million to hundreds of nonprofit cul- tural organizations in San Francisco, including $11.2 million in Fiscal Year 2011/12 . BENEFITS GFTA funding can be used to help fund Japantown’s publicly performing cultural activities, as well as annual celebrations and parades. For example, in Fiscal Year 2012/13, GFTA allocated $30,000 to Japantown’s Northern California Cherry Blossom Festival. CHALLENGES For GFTA grants, an applicant’s mission must be clearly focused on developing, producing and/or pre- senting art activities in San Francisco. Applicants must have 501(c)(3) nonprofit status. Funds cannot be used for start-up money for a program not yet established, non-reoccurring projects or events, or activities not available to the general public. KEY LEADERS GFTA, community nonprofits and other community stakeholders NEXT STEPS The community could identify non-profits that qualify for the GFTA. The deadline for applications is mid-February for funding the following fiscal year. Interested non-profits should contact GFTA for guid- ance in the application process. JapantoWn CuLturaL herItaGe & eConoMIC SuStaInaBILItY StrateGY 64 8. Utilize Japan Center Garages’ Capital Improvement Funds DESCRIPTION The Japan Center Garages consist of the Main Garage located at 1610 Geary Boulevard, under the Japan Center East and West malls, and the Fillmore Street Annex Garage located underneath the Sundance Kabuki Cinemas. The City of San Francisco owns the garages under the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA). On July 2, 2002 the City leased the garages to the Japan Center Garage Corporation (JCGC) for an initial term of 15 years, with the option to renew the lease for an addi- tional 15 years. In 2013 a new lease was approved with an initial term of five years with two five-year options. The JCGC is a non-profit public ben- efit corporation that augments marketing efforts in Japantown. Additionally, JCGC serves as a steward of the garage providing oversight to the best interest of the City and the community. A professional garage management company operates the garages on a day- to-day basis. In previous years JCGC had collected a portion of the garage’s revenue in a Capital Improvement Fund for seismic improvements and maintenance of the garage. SFMTA recently utilized the Capital Improvement Fund balance in order to help pay for a structural examination of all of the City’s garages. The ongoing structural examination of the Japan Center’s garages will convey the scope of repairs that may be necessary. As part of JCGC’s new agreement with the City, JCGC surrendered its Capital Improvement Account balance to the City through 2017, as part of the MTA Capital Improvement Series A & B Bond Measures. Once reinstated, the Capital Improvement Account will receive monthly transfers of $37,500 with a cap of $1,350,000. BENEFITS This Capital Improvement Fund could be used to improve the seismic safety of the Japan Center Garages or to help rebuild these garages as necessary. The continued use of the garages is seen by the community as vital for serving local businesses and enabling Japantown to stay as the hub for the Japanese commu- nity in the region. Any significant improvement to the garage may affect Peace Plaza, which is sited directly above the garage. As such, changes to the garage could incorporate positive changes to Peace Plaza. CHALLENGES New funds will not begin accruing in the Capital Improvement Fund until 2017. Depending on the results of the structural survey, significant and time- consuming reconstruction of the garages may be necessary, which would affect the Japan Center and Japantown as well. Such a scenario would require sub- stantial coordination between City agencies, the JCGC, the Japan Center’s owners, and the community. KEY LEADERS SFMTA, JCGC, Japan Center property owners, com- munity stakeholders NEXT STEPS If the structural examination of the garages reveals sig- nificant concerns, then the community and City could coordinate on a strategy for rehabilitating or rebuilding the garages and managing the impact of such a project on both the Japan Center and the broader neighbor- hood. If the examination does not reveal significant concerns that would necessitate such a project, then the JCGC and SFMTA could consider assessing the viability of revising the lease agreement. For example, a portion of garage revenues could be used for social heritage events and marketing activities, particularly as they relate to Japan Center, or other neighborhood improvements (such as pedestrian, open space and streetscape improvements). Chapter 5: r e C oMMendat Ion S 65 9. Create a Japantown Neighborhood Commercial District DESCRIPTION Japantown’s core commercial areas are Geary Boulevard and Post Street between Fillmore Street and Laguna Street, and Buchanan Street from Post Street to just north of Sutter Street. Currently, the part of this commercial area south of Post Street is zoned NC-3 (Moderate-Scale Neighborhood Commercial District), while the part north of Post Street is zoned NC-2 (Small-Scale Neighborhood Commercial District). In addition to Japantown, the NC-2 and NC-3 Districts are utilized in disparate neighborhoods across San Francisco, including along Geary Boulevard in the Richmond, along Mission Street south of Cesar Chavez, along 3 rd Street in Bayview, and other pockets of neighborhood commercial uses throughout the city. By comparison, the city also has 27 “named” NC Districts that are specific to particular commercial streets or corridors (e.g., the Upper Fillmore Street NC District, which spans along Fillmore from Bush Street to Jackson Street). These specific NC Districts enable more fine-tuned controls over commercial uses, physical building characteristics, and other important considerations. Creating a “named” NC District in Japantown could reflect the particular characteristics of the neighbor- hood and community goals. Important considerations discussed to date are to enable restaurants and non-profits on the second floor of buildings, provide an additional five feet of height in buildings with active ground floors, require ground floor commercial uses on portions of Buchanan Street and Post Street while simultaneously limiting driveways that could break the flow of pedestrians, increase the allowed density of residential development (though there are no proposed changes in height limits), and set a maximum amount of parking, as opposed to the current minimum park- ing requirement. BENEFITS Creating a Japantown NC District can help shape this core area in a number of subtle and beneficial ways. The requirement for ground floor commercial, the limits of driveways, and the allowance for additional heights on ground floors all serve to enhance the pedestrian scale of the community and enhance the attractiveness of this shopping district. The slight increase in residential development potential could help the development of parcels in the NC District with development potential. The neighborhood can show its willingness to support restaurants and non-profits, while limiting uses it finds less compatible with this fine-grained and family-oriented neighborhood, such as automobile-oriented uses and adult entertainment. Combined with the Japantown Special Use District (discussed above), the Japantown community would have powerful tools for shaping their neighborhood business district. CHALLENGES Implementing the Japantown NC District will require legislation to be approved by the Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors, and Mayor. KEY LEADERS Planning Department, community stakeholders, District Supervisor NEXT STEPS The Planning Department shall ensure that the legisla- tion meets the objectives of the key leaders, and then the legislation can be introduced by the Department, by the Supervisor, or through other means. JapantoWn CuLturaL herItaGe & eConoMIC SuStaInaBILItY StrateGY 66 10. Create Japantown Design Guidelines DESCRIPTION As described in the existing conditions section, Japantown displays an eclectic mix of building styles, open spaces, landscaping, and public art that contrib- ute to a unique neighborhood character. Japanese- inspired design is an element that adds to Japantown’s built environment. A draft set of Japantown Design Guidelines were developed by the City and community in order to encourage culturally relevant architecture in new building/site designs and in renovations and additions to older buildings/sites. The draft Japantown Design Guidelines are intended to promote, maintain, and accentuate the authentically expressive qualities of Japanese-inspired designs that contribute to the uniqueness of Japantown. The draft Japantown Design Guidelines are intended to complement the City’s existing design guidelines (described above). Nothing in the draft Japantown Design Guidelines should be interpreted as limiting new development to specific architectural styles, periods of construction, or cultural expressions. These additional Japantown Design Guidelines are intended to embellish building and site development in the neighborhood by integrating Japanese-inspired design aesthetics into suitable building features. The Guidelines specifically speak to building form, mass- ing, ornamentation, materials, and landscaping. It includes sections on “Form and Structure”, “Roofs”, “Materials and Ornamentation”, and “Landscaping, Open Space, and Public Art”. The draft Japantown Design Guidelines are intended to apply to properties within the blocks bounded by Sutter Street, Geary Boulevard, Fillmore Street and Laguna Street, as well as to major development projects located anywhere within the neighborhood based upon recommendations of Planning staff and community input. BENEFITS A set of Japantown Design Guidelines can enhance Japanese character and the quality of architectural styles and landscaping in Japantown, thereby creating a more attractive shopping district, improving appear- ance and cleanliness of the neighborhood and its public space, and enhancing the surrounding cultural and historic landmarks. CHALLENGES Design guidelines unto themselves do not guarantee high-quality architecture. Also, given the small quantity of new developments expected in Japantown, there are limited opportunities to implement such guidelines to improve the physical fabric of the neighborhood. KEY LEADERS Planning Department, community stakeholders, prop- erty developers NEXT STEPS The Planning Department should complete develop- ment of these Japantown Design Guidelines in conjunction with the community and submit them to the Planning Commission for adoption. 11. Implement Improvements to Peace Plaza DESCRIPTION As discussed in Chapter 4 - Existing Conditions, Peace Plaza is the public space located at the geographic and cultural heart of Japantown. However, the community perceives that it is not well designed or activated. To address this concern, the Planning Department and Recreation and Parks Department should work with Chapter 5: r e C oMMendat Ion S 67 the community on a strategy to improve Peace Plaza. Potential concepts include: ● Renovating the plaza decks to include a durable waterproofing membrane ● Planting more trees, grass areas, and plants that are culturally relevant to the community ● Installing a visitor’s information and wayfinding kiosk ● Providing outdoor dining/seating opportunities and scheduling programmed activities and events ● Developing areas for different age groups such as a children’s play area ● Redesigning the connection between Peace Plaza and Geary Boulevard to include a prominent, terraced stairway that allows visual connections to Geary Boulevard and serves as the grand gateway into the neighborhood and aligning it with the proposed crosswalk across Geary Boulevard BENEFITS Being at the heart of the community, improvements to Peace Plaza can significantly enhance Japantown, including: ● Increasing the attractiveness of the shopping district, thereby increasing business viability and helping keep Japantown the hub of the Japanese community in the region ● Creating better public space and recreational oppor- tunities for all aspects of the community, thereby increasing livability ● Drawing more people to the Japanese-inspired Peace Plaza (featuring Peace Pagoda) and thereby conveying a sense of the essence of Japan ● Increasing connectivity across Geary Boulevard ● Improving the neighborhood’s landscaping, lighting, street furnishings, and wayfinding CHALLENGES Planning any redesign of Peace Plaza would require a substantial effort on the part of multiple City agencies and the community. Implementing these changes would require substantial funding. No source of fund- ing has been identified to date. Any strategy would be affected by the potential need to rebuild the Japan Center garages, and/or the need to seismically retrofit Peace Pagoda. KEY LEADERS Recreation and Parks Department, Planning Department, Japan Center property owners, Japan Center Garage Corporation, community stakeholders NEXT STEPS The Planning Department should coordinate with the Recreation and Parks Department to develop a scope for planning improvements to Peace Plaza. 12. Implement Improvements to Buchanan Mall DESCRIPTION Like Peace Plaza, Buchanan Mall is a publicly-owned plaza located at the geographic and cultural heart of Japantown. It is lined with shops which help to activate the space. Funding for its maintenance is provided by the Nihonmachi Parking Corporation, based on revenue generated from the two adjacent outdoor parking lots. However, the community perceives that Buchanan Mall is difficult to walk on, and that it could be further activated. To address this concern, the Planning Department and the Department of Public Works should work with the community on a strategy to improve Buchanan Mall. Potential concepts include: ● Repaving the side walkways, planting more trees, landscaping with culturally relevant plants, and enhancing the existing historic public art (historic fountains, cobblestone river and Torii gate) with new, complementary public art JapantoWn CuLturaL herItaGe & eConoMIC SuStaInaBILItY StrateGY 68 ● Encouraging businesses to provide outdoor seating and displays along the storefronts ● Utilizing new energy- and water-efficient technolo- gies to light the plaza and maintain the fountains In addition, adding required setbacks along Buchanan Mall (as via a Japantown Neighborhoods Commercial District, discussed above) could ensure that future development preserves sunlight along the Mall. BENEFITS Improvements to Buchanan Mall could: ● Increase the attractiveness of the shopping district, thereby increasing business viability and helping keep Japantown the hub of the Japanese community in the region ● Help restaurants attract more customers with outdoor seating ● Create better public space, thereby increasing livability ● Draw more people to an area intended to reflect a modern version of the Japanese village aesthetic, thereby created a sense of Japan ● Improve the functionality of the fountain and street design ● Improve the neighborhood’s landscaping, lighting, street furnishings, and wayfinding CHALLENGES Planning any redesign of Buchanan Mall would require a substantial effort on the part of multiple City agencies, property owners, and the community. Implementing these changes would require substantial funding. No source of funding has been identified to date. KEY LEADERS Department of Public Works, Planning Department, community stakeholders NEXT STEPS The Planning Department should coordinate with the Department of Public Works to develop a scope for planning improvements to Buchanan Mall and then seek funding for design and improvements. 13. Develop a Strategic Plan for the Japan Center Malls DESCRIPTION As described in Chapter 4 - Existing Conditions, the Japan Center malls lack modern amenities, do not have a strong street presence, and were not designed for retail use. All of these factors make the malls less competitive than other shopping districts in the city. Yet, their viability is a key to fulfilling the vision of this Strategy, as the Japan Center malls and the businesses therein continue to serve as the heart of Japantown. Therefore, it is imperative that the property’s owners, the City, and the community begin developing a strategy specific to the future of the Japan Center. Part of this strategy will consider the best ways to increase visibility and access from the outside, and better utilization of the malls’ interiors. Another consideration will be how to support an appropriate tenant mix, including a strategy regarding both local and international chain stores, and how to incorporate space for community organizations that provide activi- ties for groups such as children, youth, seniors, and families. The major consideration will be whether it is practical and feasible to make these improvements with the existing facilities or whether new construction would be necessary. This decision will be informed by the results of the City’s structural study of the Japan Center’s garages, which are sited directly below the malls. Additional considerations will include phasing, how to support and a re-integrate displaced businesses, and how to better share maintenance and marketing costs that support the malls. Chapter 5: r e C oMMendat Ion S 69 IMAGES ON THIS PAGE 1. The proposed Japantown NCD would include all of the parcels that are already zoned as “Neighborhood Commercial” within Japantown. 2. The YWCA designed by Julia Morgan in 1932 is a good example of the integration of Japanese materials and ornamentation that could be part of Japantown-specific design guidelines. 1 4 5 6 2 3 3. Hotel Kabuki’s courtyard is a good example of the culturally appropriate landscaping that would be required by the Japantown-specific Design Guidelines. 4. Changes to Peace Plaza could activate the space every day, rather than just during festivals and special events. 5. Outdoor seating, such as shown here, could enliven Buchanan Mall. 6. This rendering shows how opening out the Japan Center Malls onto Peace Plaza could benefit both spaces. (image courtesy of Van Meter Williams Pollack, LLP) JapantoWn CuLturaL herItaGe & eConoMIC SuStaInaBILItY StrateGY 70 BENEFITS Given the Japan Center’s preeminence in the neighbor- hood, developing an implementing a strategy specific to the malls could have many benefits on Japantown, including: ● Improving the competitiveness of the malls could increase business viability, help attract more cultur- ally relevant businesses, cement the Center’s role as the hub for the Japanese community in the region, and attract more visitors from other communities, including more tourists from around the world ● Internal and external design enhancements could improve the attractiveness and appearance of the shopping district ● Additional access points could improve the pedes- trian scale ● A re-design could create more space for community activities, youth, and families ● Opening the malls’ storefronts onto the plaza could better activate that space ● Improvements to the Japan Center could coincide with desired improvements to the adjacent Peace Plaza CHALLENGES Although the Japan Center has an important public and community function, it is privately owned property. As such, all decisions on the space will be ultimately up to the property owners. Having multiple ownership entities over various parts of the integrated mall complex is a challenge to getting agreement on proposed changes. It is also possible that any substan- tial changes to improve the existing buildings in their current form could come at a prohibitive cost. The viability of the Japan Center will also be affected by the results of the structural analysis of the garages, which sit directly underneath. It is possible that the garages would need to be completely rebuilt, which would likely necessitate demolition of some or all of the malls. KEY LEADERS The Japan Center’s property owners, OEWD, Planning, community stakeholders NEXT STEPS The City should contact the Japan Center’s owners and facilitate this discussion. As a starting point, the City could utilize the report Seifel, Inc.’s 2011 report Economic Analysis of the Japan Center by a Community Land Trust, which identified ways to enhance the economic viability of the Japan Center. Chapter 5: r e C oMMendat Ion S 71 Existing Strategies Proposed Strategies 1. UTILIZE TOOLS FOR PRESERVATION OF HISTORIC BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES 2 . LEVERAGE THE JAPANTOWN SPECIAL USE DISTRICT TO CULTIVATE AND ATTRACT NEW BUSINESSES APPROPRIATE TO JAPANTOWN 3 . UTILIZE THE CITY’S DESIGN GUIDELINES 4. IMPLEMENT STREETSCAPE AND PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS PER THE BETTER STREETS PLAN 5. IMPLEMENT PROPOSED TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS 6. MARKET THE NEIGHBORHOOD THROUGH SFTRAVEL 1. CREATE A JAPANTOWN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 2. CREATE A JAPANTOWN COMMUNITY LAND TRUST 3. IMPLEMENT INVEST IN NEIGHBORHOODS 4. NEGOTIATE BENEFITS AGREEMENTS WITH MAJOR NEW DEVELOPMENTS 5. CREATE A JAPANTOWN COMMUNITY BENEFITS DISTRICT 6. IMPLEMENT A JAPANTOWN MELLO-ROOS COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT 7. UTILIZE FUNDS FROM THE SAN FRANCISCO GRANTS FOR THE ARTS 8. UTILIZE JAPAN CENTER GARAGES’ CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUNDS 9. CREATE A JAPANTOWN NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DISTRICT 10. CREATE JAPANTOWN DESIGN GUIDELINES 11. IMPLEMENT IMPROVEMENTS TO PEACE PLAZA 12. IMPLEMENT IMPROVEMENTS TO BUCHANAN MALL 13. DEVELOP A STRATEGIC PLAN FOR THE JAPAN CENTER MALLS A.1 IT IS DIFFICULT TO MAINTAIN JAPANTOWN’S CRITICAL MASS AS A COMMUNITY HUB A.1 A.2 NOT ALL AGE GROUPS HAVE EQUAL STAKE IN THE COMMUNITY A.2 A.3 LACK OF COLLABORATION FOR CULTURAL PRESERVATION A.3 B.1 UTILIZATION OF DEVELOPABLE PARCELS B.1 C.1 COMPATIBILITY OF ARCHITECTURAL STYLE C.1 C.2 LACK OF PEDESTRIAN SCALE C.2 C.3 PRESERVATION OF HISTORIC BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES C.3 D.1 CAPACITY CHALLENGES FOR COMMUNITY-SERVING ORGANIZATIONS AND INSTITUTIONS D.1 D.2 LACK OF PERMANENT SPACE FOR EXISTING ORGANIZATIONS D.2 E.1 BUSINESS VIABILITY E.1 E.2 BUSINESS OWNERSHIP TRANSITIONS E.2 E.3 FINDING AND ATTRACTING CULTURALLY RELEVANT BUSINESSES E.3 E.4 ATTRACTIVENESS OF THE SHOPPING DISTRICT E.4 E.5 POTENTIAL BUSINESS DISPLACEMENT E.5 E.6 THE FUTURE OF THE JAPAN CENTER E.6 E.7 THE FUTURE OF THE JAPAN CENTER PARKING GARAGE E.7 F.1 LIMITED SPACE FOR COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES F.1 F.2 ACQUIRING PERMITS FOR FESTIVALS F.2 G.1 PEACE PLAZA DESIGN G.1 G.2 BUCHANAN MALL DESIGN G.2 G.3 STREETSCAPE MAINTENANCE G.3 G.4 LANDSCAPING G.4 G.5 LIGHTING G.5 G.6 STREET FURNISHINGS G.6 G.7 WAYFINDING SIGNAGE G.7 MATRIX A: APPLYING TOOLS TO ADDRESS CONCERNS The following matrix is intended to show how areas of concern (rows) could be addressed by the various tools (columns). The areas of concern are detailed in Chapter 4 - Existing Conditions. The tools are detailed in Chapter 5 - Recommendations. JapantoWn CuLturaL herItaGe & eConoMIC SuStaInaBILItY StrateGY 72 Existing Strategies Proposed Strategies 1. UTILIZE TOOLS FOR PRESERVATION OF HISTORIC BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES 2 . LEVERAGE THE JAPANTOWN SPECIAL USE DISTRICT TO CULTIVATE AND ATTRACT NEW BUSINESSES APPROPRIATE TO JAPANTOWN 3 . UTILIZE THE CITY’S DESIGN GUIDELINES 4. IMPLEMENT STREETSCAPE AND PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS PER THE BETTER STREETS PLAN 5. IMPLEMENT PROPOSED TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS 6. MARKET THE NEIGHBORHOOD THROUGH SFTRAVEL 1. CREATE A JAPANTOWN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 2. CREATE A JAPANTOWN COMMUNITY LAND TRUST 3. IMPLEMENT INVEST IN NEIGHBORHOODS 4. NEGOTIATE BENEFITS AGREEMENTS WITH MAJOR NEW DEVELOPMENTS 5. CREATE A JAPANTOWN COMMUNITY BENEFITS DISTRICT 6. IMPLEMENT A JAPANTOWN MELLO-ROOS COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT 7. UTILIZE FUNDS FROM THE SAN FRANCISCO GRANTS FOR THE ARTS 8. UTILIZE JAPAN CENTER GARAGES’ CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUNDS 9. CREATE A JAPANTOWN NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DISTRICT 10. CREATE JAPANTOWN DESIGN GUIDELINES 11. IMPLEMENT IMPROVEMENTS TO PEACE PLAZA 12. IMPLEMENT IMPROVEMENTS TO BUCHANAN MALL 13. DEVELOP A STRATEGIC PLAN FOR THE JAPAN CENTER MALLS A.1 IT IS DIFFICULT TO MAINTAIN JAPANTOWN’S CRITICAL MASS AS A COMMUNITY HUB A.1 A.2 NOT ALL AGE GROUPS HAVE EQUAL STAKE IN THE COMMUNITY A.2 A.3 LACK OF COLLABORATION FOR CULTURAL PRESERVATION A.3 B.1 UTILIZATION OF DEVELOPABLE PARCELS B.1 C.1 COMPATIBILITY OF ARCHITECTURAL STYLE C.1 C.2 LACK OF PEDESTRIAN SCALE C.2 C.3 PRESERVATION OF HISTORIC BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES C.3 D.1 CAPACITY CHALLENGES FOR COMMUNITY-SERVING ORGANIZATIONS AND INSTITUTIONS D.1 D.2 LACK OF PERMANENT SPACE FOR EXISTING ORGANIZATIONS D.2 E.1 BUSINESS VIABILITY E.1 E.2 BUSINESS OWNERSHIP TRANSITIONS E.2 E.3 FINDING AND ATTRACTING CULTURALLY RELEVANT BUSINESSES E.3 E.4 ATTRACTIVENESS OF THE SHOPPING DISTRICT E.4 E.5 POTENTIAL BUSINESS DISPLACEMENT E.5 E.6 THE FUTURE OF THE JAPAN CENTER E.6 E.7 THE FUTURE OF THE JAPAN CENTER PARKING GARAGE E.7 F.1 LIMITED SPACE FOR COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES F.1 F.2 ACQUIRING PERMITS FOR FESTIVALS F.2 G.1 PEACE PLAZA DESIGN G.1 G.2 BUCHANAN MALL DESIGN G.2 G.3 STREETSCAPE MAINTENANCE G.3 G.4 LANDSCAPING G.4 G.5 LIGHTING G.5 G.6 STREET FURNISHINGS G.6 G.7 WAYFINDING SIGNAGE G.7 Matr Ix a: app LY I n G tooLS to addreSS Con Cern S 73 Existing Strategies Proposed Strategies 1. UTILIZE TOOLS FOR PRESERVATION OF HISTORIC BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES 2. LEVERAGE THE JAPANTOWN SPECIAL USE DISTRICT TO CULTIVATE AND ATTRACT NEW BUSINESSES APPROPRIATE TO JAPANTOWN 3. UTILIZE THE CITY’S DESIGN GUIDELINES 4. IMPLEMENT STREETSCAPE AND PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS PER THE BETTER STREETS PLAN 5. IMPLEMENT PROPOSED TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS 6. MARKET THE NEIGHBORHOOD THROUGH SFTRAVEL 1. CREATE A JAPANTOWN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 2. CREATE A JAPANTOWN COMMUNITY LAND TRUST 3. IMPLEMENT INVEST IN NEIGHBORHOODS 4. NEGOTIATE BENEFITS AGREEMENTS WITH MAJOR NEW DEVELOPMENTS 5. CREATE A JAPANTOWN COMMUNITY BENEFITS DISTRICT 6. IMPLEMENT A JAPANTOWN MELLO-ROOS COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT 7. UTILIZE FUNDS FROM THE SAN FRANCISCO GRANTS FOR THE ARTS 8. UTILIZE JAPAN CENTER GARAGES’ CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUNDS 9. CREATE A JAPANTOWN NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DISTRICT 10. CREATE JAPANTOWN DESIGN GUIDELINES 11. IMPLEMENT IMPROVEMENTS TO PEACE PLAZA 12. IMPLEMENT IMPROVEMENTS TO BUCHANAN MALL 13. DEVELOP A STRATEGIC PLAN FOR THE JAPAN CENTER MALLS Goal 1: Secure Japantown’s future as the historical and cultural heart of Japanese and Japanese American Community Goal 1: Secure Japantown’s future as the historical and cultural heart of Japanese and Japanese American Community A PROMOTE JAPANTOWN’S VALUE AND HISTORY. A B PROMOTE A SENSE OF JAPAN, IN ADDITION TO THE JAPANESE AMERICAN CULTURE. B C ENHANCE HISTORIC AND CULTURAL LANDMARKS. C D SAFEGUARD COMMUNITY-BASED INSTITUTIONS. D E PROMOTE EVENTS THAT ATTRACT YOUTH AND FAMILIES (TO LIVE, VISIT, AND SHOP). E F SERVE AS THE HUB FOR THE JAPANESE COMMUNITY IN THE REGION. F Goal 2: Secure Japantown’s future as a thriving commercial and retail district Goal 2: Secure Japantown’s future as a thriving commercial and retail district A PRESERVE JAPANTOWN’S LIVELIHOOD, INCLUDING EXISTING LOCAL AND HISTORIC BUSINESSES. A B ENCOURAGE BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT FOR NEW COMPANIES THAT REFLECT JAPANTOWN. B C PROVIDE RETAIL/RESTAURANTS THAT CATER TO YOUTH, FAMILIES, NEIGHBORS & TOURISTS. C D PROVIDE CONSISTENT SIDEWALK AND PUBLIC SPACE MAINTENANCE. D E GENERATE DEMAND OUTSIDE OF THE IMMEDIATE AREA. E Goal 3: Secure Japantown’s future as a home to residents and community-based institutions Goal 3: Secure Japantown’s future as a home to residents and community-based institutions A PROVIDE MORE MIXED-INCOME HOUSING (ESPECIALLY FOR FAMILIES AND SENIORS). A B PROVIDE ECONOMIC SUPPORT FOR COMMUNITY-BASED, NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS. B C IMPROVE PUBLIC SPACE AND PARKS. C D MAINTAIN A LIVABLE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT REFLECTS SAN FRANCISCO’S DIVERSITY. D Goal 4: Secure Japantown’s future as a physically attractive and vibrant environment Goal 4: Secure Japantown’s future as a physically attractive and vibrant environment A ENHANCE JAPANESE CHARACTER. A B INCREASE SENSE OF SAFETY. B C IMPROVE APPEARANCE AND CLEANLINESS. C D RE-ESTABLISH PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS, SOCIAL INTERACTION AND COMMERCE BETWEEN THE NEIGHBORHOODS ON EITHER SIDE OF GEARY BOULEVARD. D E PROVIDE QUALITY RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES. E F PROVIDE SPACES THAT CATER TO YOUTH AND FAMILIES. F G STRIVE TO UTILIZE SUSTAINABLE TECHNOLOGY AND MATERIALS. G MATRIX B: APPLYING TOOLS TO FULFILL GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The following matrix is intended to show how the plans Goals and Objectives (rows) could be addressed by the various tools (columns). The Goals and Objectives detailed in Chapter 1 – Introduction. The tools are detailed in Chapter 5 – Recommendations. JapantoWn CuLturaL herItaGe & eConoMIC SuStaInaBILItY StrateGY 74 Existing Strategies Proposed Strategies 1. UTILIZE TOOLS FOR PRESERVATION OF HISTORIC BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES 2. LEVERAGE THE JAPANTOWN SPECIAL USE DISTRICT TO CULTIVATE AND ATTRACT NEW BUSINESSES APPROPRIATE TO JAPANTOWN 3. UTILIZE THE CITY’S DESIGN GUIDELINES 4. IMPLEMENT STREETSCAPE AND PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS PER THE BETTER STREETS PLAN 5. IMPLEMENT PROPOSED TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS 6. MARKET THE NEIGHBORHOOD THROUGH SFTRAVEL 1. CREATE A JAPANTOWN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 2. CREATE A JAPANTOWN COMMUNITY LAND TRUST 3. IMPLEMENT INVEST IN NEIGHBORHOODS 4. NEGOTIATE BENEFITS AGREEMENTS WITH MAJOR NEW DEVELOPMENTS 5. CREATE A JAPANTOWN COMMUNITY BENEFITS DISTRICT 6. IMPLEMENT A JAPANTOWN MELLO-ROOS COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT 7. UTILIZE FUNDS FROM THE SAN FRANCISCO GRANTS FOR THE ARTS 8. UTILIZE JAPAN CENTER GARAGES’ CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUNDS 9. CREATE A JAPANTOWN NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DISTRICT 10. CREATE JAPANTOWN DESIGN GUIDELINES 11. IMPLEMENT IMPROVEMENTS TO PEACE PLAZA 12. IMPLEMENT IMPROVEMENTS TO BUCHANAN MALL 13. DEVELOP A STRATEGIC PLAN FOR THE JAPAN CENTER MALLS Goal 1: Secure Japantown’s future as the historical and cultural heart of Japanese and Japanese American Community Goal 1: Secure Japantown’s future as the historical and cultural heart of Japanese and Japanese American Community A PROMOTE JAPANTOWN’S VALUE AND HISTORY. A B PROMOTE A SENSE OF JAPAN, IN ADDITION TO THE JAPANESE AMERICAN CULTURE. B C ENHANCE HISTORIC AND CULTURAL LANDMARKS. C D SAFEGUARD COMMUNITY-BASED INSTITUTIONS. D E PROMOTE EVENTS THAT ATTRACT YOUTH AND FAMILIES (TO LIVE, VISIT, AND SHOP). E F SERVE AS THE HUB FOR THE JAPANESE COMMUNITY IN THE REGION. F Goal 2: Secure Japantown’s future as a thriving commercial and retail district Goal 2: Secure Japantown’s future as a thriving commercial and retail district A PRESERVE JAPANTOWN’S LIVELIHOOD, INCLUDING EXISTING LOCAL AND HISTORIC BUSINESSES. A B ENCOURAGE BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT FOR NEW COMPANIES THAT REFLECT JAPANTOWN. B C PROVIDE RETAIL/RESTAURANTS THAT CATER TO YOUTH, FAMILIES, NEIGHBORS & TOURISTS. C D PROVIDE CONSISTENT SIDEWALK AND PUBLIC SPACE MAINTENANCE. D E GENERATE DEMAND OUTSIDE OF THE IMMEDIATE AREA. E Goal 3: Secure Japantown’s future as a home to residents and community-based institutions Goal 3: Secure Japantown’s future as a home to residents and community-based institutions A PROVIDE MORE MIXED-INCOME HOUSING (ESPECIALLY FOR FAMILIES AND SENIORS). A B PROVIDE ECONOMIC SUPPORT FOR COMMUNITY-BASED, NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS. B C IMPROVE PUBLIC SPACE AND PARKS. C D MAINTAIN A LIVABLE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT REFLECTS SAN FRANCISCO’S DIVERSITY. D Goal 4: Secure Japantown’s future as a physically attractive and vibrant environment Goal 4: Secure Japantown’s future as a physically attractive and vibrant environment A ENHANCE JAPANESE CHARACTER. A B INCREASE SENSE OF SAFETY. B C IMPROVE APPEARANCE AND CLEANLINESS. C D RE-ESTABLISH PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS, SOCIAL INTERACTION AND COMMERCE BETWEEN THE NEIGHBORHOODS ON EITHER SIDE OF GEARY BOULEVARD. D E PROVIDE QUALITY RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES. E F PROVIDE SPACES THAT CATER TO YOUTH AND FAMILIES. F G STRIVE TO UTILIZE SUSTAINABLE TECHNOLOGY AND MATERIALS. G Matr Ix B: app LY I n G tooLS to f u L fILL GoaLS an d oBJ e C t Ive S 75 HTTP://JAPANTOWN.SFPLANNING.ORG SUSTAINING SAN FRANCISCO’S LIVING HISTORY Strategies for Conserving Cultural Heritage Assets San Francisco Heritage September 2014 Appendix B Table of Contents 3 Introduction 6 Summary of Strategies 7 Precedents for a Holistic Approach to Cultural Heritage Conservation 10 Existing Cultural Heritage Conservation Initiatives in San Francisco 14 Community Summit: Sustaining San Francisco’s Living History 16 Recommended Strategies and Case Studies 36 Conclusion and Next Steps 37 Notes 43 Appendices A Report by San Francisco Heritage Mike Buhler, Executive Director Desiree Smith, Preservation Project Manager Laura Dominguez, Communications and Programs Manager The San Francisco Heritage Board of Directors reviewed and adopted this report on August 14, 2014. SAN FRANCISCO HERITAGE Since 1971, a nonprofit member- supported organization with a mission to preserve and enhance San Francisco’s unique architectural and cultural identity. BOARD OF DIRECTORS David P. Wessel, President Alicia Esterkamp Allbin Bruce Bonacker James Buckley Kathleen Burgi-Sandell David Cannon Courtney Damkroger Jeff Gherardini Nancy B. Gille Nancy Goldenberg Scott Haskins Carolyn Kiernat Frederic Knapp Benjamin F. Ladomirak Arnie Lerner Chandler W. McCoy Patrick M. McNerney Willett Moss Mark Paez Mark P. Sarkisian Neil Sekhri Zander Sivyer Tara Sullivan Douglas Tom ON THE COVER Clockwise from top left: Japantown (San Francisco Heritage); Ross Alley (Chinatown Alleyway Tours); “The Great Cloud of Witnesses,” by Roland Gordon (Dani Vernon); Esta Noche (Twitta2005); Fisherman’s Wharf (Nathan Dolesji); Parol Lantern Festival (Steve Rhodes). Center: “Culture Contains the Seed of Resistance that Blossoms into Liberation,” by Miranda Bergman and O’Brien Thiele (Jeremy Blakeslee) Acknowledgements T hank you to t he following for t heir contributions to this report: A lvin B aum, Leias a B eckham, Shelley C al t ag irone, C our tney Damkroger, Timothy Frye, Donna Graves, Jonathan Lammers, Lou Luc ac cini, A lan Mar tinez, Diane Mat suda, V inc ent Michael, B ernadet te Sy, and Anthony Veerkamp © 2014 SAN FRANCISCO HERITAGE 2007 Franklin Street San Francisco, CA 94109 415.441.3000 sfheritage.org CONSERVING CULTURAL HERITAGE ASSETS 3 Disparity and Displacement In his 2014 State of the City Address, San Francisco May- or Ed Lee highlighted the urgent need for action to address the negative side effects of the city’s booming economy: Our neighborhoods are revitalized and new construction is all around us, but some still look to the future, anxious- ly, and wonder whether there’s room for them in a chang- ing San Francisco... This rising cost of living, the financial squeeze on our city’s working families and middle class Culture is not only economically beneficial to cities; in a deeper sense, it’s what cities are for. A city without poets, painters and photographers is sterile... It doesn’t contain the mirrors of its own inner workings, in the form of creativity, criticism or cultural memory. It’s undergone a lobotomy. - Rebecca Solnit, in a conversation with Nato Thompson, October 21, 2013 F or generations, San Francisco has been home to a thriv- ing collection of local businesses, nonprofits, and tradi- tions that reflect the city’s history, culture, and people. These places have the power to bring people together, provide a sense of continuity with the past, and lend the city a rich and layered identity. Annual rituals such as the Cherry Blossom Festival in Japantown and Carnaval in the Mission District showcase living traditions in public spaces. Long-operating businesses foster civic engagement and pride as neighborhood gathering spots. Arts and community centers offer opportunities for youth and adults to study cultural traditions and innovate in multi-genera- tional environments. Many of the city’s cultural signifiers, from public art to historic buildings, embody the social and artistic movements that have occurred in San Francisco. Amid unprecedented economic pressures, mainstays of San Francisco’s cultural landscape – our cultural heritage assets 1 – are increasingly imperiled by skyrocketing rents and property values, encroaching new development, and incompatible adja- cent uses. Others are at risk because of ongoing challenges that have nothing to do with the current boom cycle, such as leadership succession and diminishing numbers of traditional arts and craft practitioners. Our Goals With this report, San Francisco Heritage advocates a conser- vation-driven, incentive-based response to the loss of cultural heritage assets in San Francisco, both in the short and long- term. We aim to: 1. Define the pr oblem and identify challenges to conser v- ing local cultural heritage assets; 2. Summarize existing efforts to conserve San Francisco’s cultural heritage assets; 3. Create a common language that will advance citywide public policy and neighborhood-level cultural heritage conservation initiatives; and 4. Provide useful examples of strategies and case studies that can be em plo y ed by communities, non pr ofits, aca- demic institutions, foundations, and City agencies. ROXIE THEATER “As the oldest-running movie art house in the country, the Roxie serves as a vital bridge between older generations of Mission residents, its arts community, and young tech workers and families moving into the neighborhood,” notes board member Jane Reed. Like many historic theaters, it faces perennial fundraising challenges that imperil its continued operation. 4 SAN FRANCISCO HERITAGE — these are the fundamental challenges of our time, not just for our city, but for great cities around the world. A 2014 study conducted by the Brookings Institute confirms that San Francisco has one of the highest rates of income in- equality in the country, with the gap between the wealthiest and poorest segments of the population growing faster here than in any other U.S. city. 2 In 2013, San Francisco rents climbed 10.6 percent, the steepest increase in the country at more than three times the national average. 3 The average sale price for a condominium in the city now tops $1,000 per square foot. 4 San Francisco’s highly-publicized housing crisis is a major threat to cultural heritage assets, as the city’s residents are the primary owners, employees, sponsors, and patrons of cultural activities. But residential displacement is only one facet of a broader problem. This report focuses on another side effect of San Francisco’s hyper-speculative economy that has been largely absent from the public discourse and policy proposals: the alarming loss of heritage businesses, nonprofits, and other arts and cultural institutions. The Limits of Landmarking Despite their effectiveness in conserving architectural re- sources, traditional historic preservation protections are often ill-suited to address the challenges facing cultural heritage as- sets. While cultural touchstones such as City Lights Bookstore, Castro Camera and Harvey Milk Residence, Sam Jordan’s Bar, Twin Peaks Tavern, and Marcus Books have been declared San Francisco City Landmarks, historic designation is not always feasible or appropriate, nor does it protect against rent in- creases, evictions, challenges with leadership succession, and other factors that threaten longtime institutions. This re- port responds to the limits of historic designation by presenting a range of new strategies for communities to employ, in con- junction with existing preservation tools, to stabilize and protect significant uses. Discussions about how to best conserve the city’s non-archi- tectural heritage have taken place among neighborhood and community groups, San Francisco Heritage, the San Francisco Planning Department (Planning Department), and the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) over the last several years. As part of neighborhood planning in Japantown, the Planning Department developed a groundbreaking methodology to com- prehensively document cultural fabric that takes into account “both tangible and intangible [elements] that help define the KORBORIN (FLICKR) ABOVE / TORBAKHOPPER (FLICKR) BELOW Above: Green Apple Books (506 Clement Street) has been a neighborhood anchor since 1967. Below: San Francisco’s annual Carnaval celebration enlivens the Mission District each May. CONSERVING CULTURAL HERITAGE ASSETS 5 beliefs, customs, and practices of a particular community.” 5 Tangible elements may include a community’s land, buildings, public spaces, or artwork, while intangible elements may in- clude organizations and institutions, businesses, cultural activi- ties and events, and even people. Although being able to define cultural heritage assets is an important first step, decisive action will be required to meaning- fully address the “fundamental challenge” of how to maintain the cultural vitality that makes San Francisco one of the world’s great cities. The ideas offered here are intended to prompt a broader un- derstanding of the city’s multi-layered identity; our purpose is not to promote one culture over another, but instead to foster an inclusive narrative of our city’s history. Because cultural heri- tage assets widely vary, the range of strategies offered will not be applicable to every situation. Existing historic preservation methods, such as historic designation, can complement new strategies, if desired by community members. Fundamentally, it is critical that individual communities serve as the primary agents for developing programs that recognize and support their own cultural heritage assets. About San Francisco Heritage San Francisco Heritage, or “Heritage,” was founded in 1971 with a mission to preserve and enhance San Francisco’s unique architectural and cultural identity. The organization emerged during a time when urban renewal policies resulted in the dis- placement and destruction of entire neighborhoods. The razing of historic buildings with little or no public process compelled a group of activists to form the “Foundation for San Francisco’s Architectural Heritage,” now “San Francisco Heritage.” Over the past 40 years, Heritage has dedicated itself to advocacy and education, working collaboratively with communities to docu- ment, protect, and interpret the city’s architectural and cultural resources. As San Francisco’s leading historic preservation membership organization, Heritage remains committed to tackling the most pressing preservation challenges of our time. This report is in- tended to stimulate discussion and offer solutions for address- ing the increasing loss – if not demolition – of the city’s cultural heritage assets. Its publication represents Heritage’s long-term commitment to advocate for public policies, incentives, and educational programs to support their long-term sustainability and vitality. L-R: SEBASTIAN (FLICKR) AND SAN FRANCISCO HERITAGE ABOVE / SAN FRANCISCO HERITAGE BELOW The “Save the Gold Dust Lounge” campaign unsuccessfully nominated the popular piano lounge for historic designation in an attempt to forestall eviction. The bar relocated to Fisherman’s Wharf in 2013; its former Union Square location is now a chain clothing store (top right and below). 6 SAN FRANCISCO HERITAGE Strategies for Sustaining San Francisco’s Living History 1. Develop a consistent methodology for identifying and documenting cultural heritage assets A. Encourage the development of historic con- text statements that include cultural and social themes B. Inventory cultural heritage assets through culturally -specific pr ocesses C. Include policies in the proposed Preserva- tion Element of the City’s General Plan that advance conservation of cultural heritage assets 2. Support neighborhood cultural heritage conservation initiatives A. Issue a Mayoral Directive prioritizing con- servation of cultural heritage assets B. Ensure that neighborhood conservation initiatives underway in Japantown, West- ern SoMa, and the Mission District are implemented C. Pr o vide financial, design, and t echnical services to community groups wishing to promote neighborhood identity based on cultural heritage D. Advance cultural heritage conservation thr ough Community Benefit A greements 3. Support mentoring and leadership training programs that transmit cultural knowledge to the next generation A. Utilize partnerships to foster apprentice- ship, training, and leadership succession programs to ensure the longevity of cultural heritage assets B. Fund youth educational programs that expose future generations to cultural heri- tage assets 4. Develop financial incentives and property acquisition programs for owners and stewards of cultural heritage assets A . Expand City and/or non pr ofit pr oper ty ac- q uisition pr ograms f or o wner s of identified cultural heritage assets B. Institut e tax benefits f or cultural heritage assets and the owners of buildings in which they operate 5. Promote cultural heritage assets through public education and, when desirable, sustainable models of heritage tourism A. Encourage the development of heritage and cultural trails B. Establish a voluntary citywide heritage tourism program that focuses on neighbor- hood cultural heritage assets 6. Establish a citywide “Cultural Heritage Asset” designation program with targeted benefits GERARD KOSKOVICH Often referred to as the “queer Smithsonian,” the GLBT Historical Society Archives and Research Center houses one of the world’s largest collections of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender historical materials. In June 2014, the Society announced that it would be vacating its Downtown location due to a 30 percent rent increase. CONSERVING CULTURAL HERITAGE ASSETS 7 vocated a “values-centered” model of preservation, including youth heritage education, a reevaluation of the requirements for physical integrity, and greater diversity on review boards and commissions. 8 Far from a purely academic exercise, some of the world’s great cities – Barcelona, Buenos Aires, London, Paris – have embraced these principles through legislation and government funding to sustain their tangible and intangible cultural heri- tage. As illustrated in the case studies in this report, these cities provide instructive models as San Francisco grapples with how to sustain cultural heritage assets and secure the properties that house them. T raditionally focused on architecture and monuments, the field of historic preservation in the United States has in recent years begun to respond to calls from organized commu- nities to develop new tools for identifying and protecting intangi- ble social and cultural resources. While efforts to conserve both tangible and intangible heritage are relatively new in this coun- try, a number of charters have been adopted internationally to provide comprehensive protection and management strategies. In 1999, the Australia chapter of the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) adopted The Burra Charter, outlining essential procedures for conserving historic places and associated culture. In 2000, Principles for the Conserva- tion of Heritage Sites in China was drafted by China ICOMOS in consultation with the Getty Conservation Institute. Known as the “China Principles,” the charter adapted international best practices for a local context, accounting not only for the man- agement of heritage sites and other resources, but also eco- nomic development, tourism, nationalism, and globalization. In 2003, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) adopted the Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage, includ- ing the following definition of “intangible cultural heritage”: The practices, representations, expressions, knowl- edge, skill – as well as the instruments, objects, arti- facts and cultural spaces associated therewith – that communities, groups, and, in some cases, individuals recognize as part of their cultural heritage. This in- tangible heritage, transmitted from generation to gen- eration, is constantly recreated by communities and groups in response to their environment, their interac- tion with nature and their history, and provides them with a sense of identity and continuity, thus promoting respect for cultural diversity and human creativity. 6 In the U.S., the National Park Service has developed guide- lines and evaluative criteria for recognition of “traditional cultural properties” (TCPs). Most frequently applied to Native American sites, TCPs are associated with cultural practices or beliefs that are rooted in a community’s history, are still prac- ticed and valued in the present day, and are important in main- taining the continuing cultural identity of the community. 7 TCPs in urban areas include Honolulu’s Chinatown, New York’s Bo- hemian Hall and Park, and South Bronx’s Casita Rincón Criollo. Likewise, the California Office of Historic Preservation has ad- Precedents for a Holistic Approach to Cultural Heritage Conservation DULUOZ CATS (FLICKR) Located in New York City’s Astoria neighborhood, the 1911 Bohemian Hall and Park is one of the few non-Native American places to be designated a “traditional cultural property.” For over a century, it has been the social and cultural hub for the region’s Czech-American community. 8 SAN FRANCISCO HERITAGE Existing Historic Preservation Tools and Cultural Heritage Assets While a range of tools exists to protect the historic built envi- ronment, there is increasing recognition that traditional preser- vation methods have not evolved adequately to meet emerging goals within the broader movement. In the Spring 2014 issue of Forum Journal, a publication of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, Professor Raymond Rast examined inequities that have long frustrated community advocates. Despite wide- spread support for cultural diversity as a “fundamental goal” of the field, he writes, “the fundamental methods of the preserva- tion movement continue to spring from – and tend to contribute to – the designation and protection of properties (mostly old buildings) associated with prominent, white, male architects and their wealthy clients, just as they did for most of the 20th century.” 9 The most controversial preservation standard is the “integ- rity” requirement, which measures a property’s ability “to con- vey its significance” based on physical condition. The integrity standard can be misleading when applied to places of social or cultural significance, where the original physical fabric may no longer be intact. Experience shows that non-architectural cul- tural resources are especially susceptible to alteration, neglect, and demolition. Rather than treating the loss of the physical fabric as a justification for intervention, the integrity standard can lead to the opposite result by disqualifying properties from eligibility for landmark protection. The impact of these short- comings is acute: fewer than 8 percent of the 87,000 property listings in the National Register of Historic Places are associ- ated with the histories of communities of color, women, and LGBTQ communities. 10 Despite the limitations, traditional historic preservation methods - especially historic context statements and historic designation - are frequently an essential component of more comprehensive cultural heritage conservation strategies. Historic Context Statement: A “historic context statement” is a tool frequently used in preservation practice to document historic resources within a specific geographic area, time pe- riod, and theme. Their purpose is to provide a framework for identifying and evaluating potential historic resources within a defined scope and make recommendations for their preserva- tion. In San Francisco, historic context statements have increas- SAN FRANCISCO HERITAGE ARCHIVE The International Hotel (848 Kearny Street) was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1977. One of the last surviving buildings in the city’s Manilatown and home to generations of Filipino Americans, it was demolished in 1981 despite fierce community opposition. The new I-Hotel was completed in 2005. ALVIS E. HENDLEY Located at 362 Capp Street, the Girls’ Club (now Mission Neighborhood Centers) first opened in 1911 and was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1979. The founder, Rachel Wolfsohn, envisioned the club as a gathering place for disadvantaged young women to engage in cultural and educational activities. CONSERVING CULTURAL HERITAGE ASSETS 9 JEREMY BLAKESLEE Although Marcus Books/Jimbo’s Bop City was declared a City Landmark in January 2014, the designation could not prevent the eviction of the business and its owners. ingly focused on cultural and social themes (the HPC passed a resolution in December 2012 recommending that all future City-sponsored historic context statements account for social and cultural heritage themes). 11 Recent context statements for Japantown and Western SoMa reflect this trend, with similar initiatives underway to document the contributions of African American, Latino, and LBGTQ communities in San Francisco. Related projects have been undertaken statewide and na- tionally. In 1988, the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) published Five Views: An Ethnic Historic Site Survey for California, including a narrative history and preliminary survey of historic sites associated with the state’s five largest ethnic minority groups (African Americans, American Indians, Chinese Americans, Japanese Americans, and Mexican Americans). In 2013, OHP initiated a statewide study on Latinos in 20th-centu- ry California. Picking up where Five Views left off, the statewide historic context statement will delve further into California’s Latino history and offer recommendations for the designation of specific historic sites. The NPS released American Latinos and the Making of the United States: A Theme Study in 2013, presenting the most recent scholarship on Latino history and serving as a tool for those seeking to identify and evaluate La- tino-related places for historical significance. National theme studies are currently underway for Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, women, and LGBTQ communities. Historic Designation: While not possible or desirable for all cultural heritage assets, historic designation can be a power- ful tool for bringing attention to a particular historic site and, in some cases, providing legal protection against demolition or insensitive alterations. Historic sites can be designated un- der local, state, or federal programs, each with their own set of nominating procedures, requirements, and benefits. Locally, a handful of buildings have been designated City Landmarks based on their association with important persons or cultural movements, including Marcus Books/Jimbo’s Bop City. Located in the Fillmore, the historic home of Marcus Books and Jimbo’s Bop City was declared San Francisco Landmark #266 on Janu- ary 29, 2014. Official recognition came at a difficult time in the building’s history: The property was sold in foreclosure in 2013 and, despite community efforts to repurchase the building, Marcus Books and its owners, who lived on the second floor, were evicted in May 2014. ANOMALOUS A (FLICKR) In 2014, the proposed City Landmark designation of the Design Center at 2 Henry Adams, which would have allowed its owners to convert the building to office use and displace longtime Production, Distribution, and Repair (PDR) tenants, sparked an intense debate about the role of historic preservation incentives in spurring gentrification. 10 SAN FRANCISCO HERITAGE N eighborhoods, nonprofits, and City agencies are already employing innovative new tools and strategies for docu- menting, recognizing, and sustaining San Francisco’s tangible and intangible cultural heritage assets. This section summariz- es six different initiatives currently underway, many with active support from the Planning Department, Mayor’s Office, HPC, and Heritage. Some of these efforts are nascent, while others represent a culmination of years of work. “Calle 24 SF” Latino Cultural District In the Mission District, community leaders have long sought to establish a cultural district and economic development pro- gram for the lower 24th Street corridor, roughly bounded by Mis- sion, Potrero, 22nd, and Cesar Chavez Streets. This effort be- gan in the late 1990s under the leadership of then-Supervisor Jim Gonzalez in response to gentrification. His successor, Su- pervisor Susan Leal, and the 24th Street Revitalization Commit- tee explored the creation of a “Cultural Historic District,” but the idea went dormant without tools for implementation. Interest in establishing a cultural district for lower 24th Street reemerged in 2013 with the neighbors’ and merchants’ association – known as “Calle 24 SF” -- taking the lead. In 2014, the Board Existing Cultural Heritage Conservation Initiatives in San Francisco of Supervisors unanimously passed a resolution introduced by Supervisor David Campos to officially name lower 24th Street the “Calle 24 SF Latino Cultural District.” The ordinance was signed into law by Mayor Lee on May 28, 2014. 12 With input from Heritage and the San Francisco Latino His- torical Society, the final resolution describes significant Latino- based organizations, family-owned businesses, murals, festi- vals, cultural movements, landmarks, parks, and public plazas that contribute to the district’s strong Latino and Chicano iden- tity. Calle 24 SF has also received a grant from the City’s Invest in Neighborhoods program, administered by the Mayor’s Office of Economic and Workforce Development (OEWD), to undertake a community planning process for the cultural district. A complementary effort to document San Francisco’s Latino heritage commenced in 2013. The San Francisco Latino Histori- cal Society and Heritage are collaborating on a series of proj- ects that will inform the district, including a youth-developed, bilingual walking tour, Calle 24: Cuentos del Barrio (published in 2013), and a citywide historic context statement, Nuestra Historia: Documenting the Chicano, Latino, and Indígena Contribution to the Development of San Francisco. 13 “SoMa Pilipinas” Social Heritage District (Proposed) In the Western South of Market (SoMa) area, the Filipino So- IVONNE IRIONDO Supervisor David Campos (second from right) and Joaquin Torres, Deputy Director of the Mayor’s Office of Economic and Workforce Development (right), join Mission youth in celebrating the new Calle 24 SF Latino Cultural District on May 23, 2014. JUANA ALICIA Balmy Alley mural, “No One Should Obey an Unjust Law,” by artist Juana Alicia, whose work reflects her commitment to social justice and human rights (© 1996 by Juana Alicia. World Rights Reserved). CONSERVING CULTURAL HERITAGE ASSETS 11 cial Heritage District Committee and the Western SoMa Citizens Planning Task Force have proposed a “Social Heritage District” to preserve and perpetuate the neighborhood’s deeply-rooted Filipino community. The task force engaged neighborhood resi- dents and stakeholders to map important schools, churches, housing, businesses, parks, murals, streets, and festivals. Al- though many of the sites would not qualify for City Landmark status, they nonetheless provide space for cultural activities that express the continuing Filipino presence in SoMa. From 2008-2011, the community collaborated with the Plan- ning Department on a proposal for a Filipino Social Heritage Special Use District (called “SoMa Pilipinas”) that would utilize urban design elements, zoning tools, and economic incentives to protect certain uses (but not necessarily existing buildings). While the proposal has not yet been finalized for adoption by the City, community leaders remain committed to the creation of a Filipino heritage district in SoMa. 14 Additionally, the Filipino-American Development Foundation produced an educational “Ethnotour” and bilingual (English/ Tagalog) printed booklet of important Filipino historic and cul- tural sites. The self-guided walking tour booklet was utilized by Heritage during the 2013 Discover SF! Summer Camp in Heri- tage Conservation, a pilot program in which 25 middle school students from the Galing Bata After-School Program at Bessie Carmichael School were led on a series of field trips to historic sites to learn about Filipino and Filipino American history in San Francisco. 15 Japantown Cultural Heritage and Economic Sustainability Strategy On September 24, 2013, the Board of Supervisors unani- mously adopted the Japantown Cultural Heritage and Econom- ic Sustainability Strategy (JCHESS), paving the way for Japan- town to implement a range of tools to preserve and enhance the neighborhood’s tangible and intangible cultural heritage. Prepared by the Planning Department, Japantown Organizing Committee, and OEWD, the JCHESS is the first City-adopted policy document to officially endorse a comprehensive ap- proach to neighborhood cultural heritage conservation. The JCHESS includes a needs assessment and vision for Ja- pantown informed by over 25 stakeholder groups through suc- cessive community planning initiatives dating back to 1999. The report describes more than a dozen economic-based strat- egies aimed at securing Japantown’s future as the historical and cultural heart of the Japanese and Japanese American STEVE RHODES (FLICKR) ABOVE / CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO AND JAPANTOWN ORGANIZING COMMITTEE BELOW Above: Produced by the Filipino American Development Foundation, the San Francisco Parol Lantern Festival and Parade takes place in Yerba Buena Gardens each December. Below: The JCHESS represents more than a decade’s worth of community-led efforts to preserve tangible and intangible resources in Japantown. 12 SAN FRANCISCO HERITAGE ence the history of some of San Francisco’s most legendary eating and drinking establishments. Under Heritage’s selection criteria, “certified” businesses must have achieved longevity of 40 years or more, possess distinctive architecture or interior de- sign, and/or contribute to a sense of history in the surrounding neighborhood. A Legacy Bars & Restaurants logo and decal program heightens the visibility of Legacy establishments, with a free printed pocket guide to the first 100 businesses to be certified released in June 2014. Legacy Bars & Restaurants represents an important mile- stone in Heritage’s efforts to create meaningful new tools be- yond formal historic designation that recognize places that community, including the creation of a Japantown Neighbor- hood Commercial District and a Japantown Community Land Trust (see p. 26). The JCHESS also promotes the utilization of City Landmark designation to protect the most important his- toric sites. 16 During the process of developing the JCHESS, the Planning Department and its preservation consultant, Page & Turnbull, created a “Social Heritage Inventory Form” to document the full range of cultural heritage assets associated with Japanese and Japanese American history in Japantown, including the Day of Remembrance March, the Japanese Benevolent Society, and May’s Coffee Shop, to name a few (see p. 17). Legacy Bars & Restaurants Threats to popular San Francisco businesses like the Gold Dust Lounge, the Eagle Tavern, Tonga Room, Tosca Café, and Sam Wo Restaurant have called into question the role of City go v ernment ― and hist oric preser v ation la ws — in conser ving beloved community anchors that may not be eligible for historic designation. While a City Landmark nomination for the Gold Dust Lounge was unsuccessful, the debates surrounding the potential designation of this and other businesses underscored the need for a different approach to conserving the city’s cul- tural heritage assets. One response is the Legacy Bars & Restaurants initiative launched by Heritage in 2013. Inspired by the Bares Notables program in Buenos Aires (see p. 35), the Legacy project fea- tures an interactive online guide that enables users to experi- Existing Cultural Heritage Conservation Initiatives in San Francisco CHEN DESIGN ASSOCIATES (ABOVE AND BELOW) From Guardian Cities: “The Legacy Bars and Restaurants programme is part of a worldwide movement, from Barcelona to Buenos Aires, to identify and protect places of social significance.” 17 CONSERVING CULTURAL HERITAGE ASSETS 13 embody tangible and intangible cultural values. The project’s continuing popularity and strong media interest underscores the relevance of heritage businesses in the modern era, creat- ing multiple platforms for interpreting this rich history for audi- ences on and offline. Bars and restaurants represent only one facet of the city’s intangible cultural heritage, however, and sig- nificant work remains to recognize and sustain the full range of cultural heritage assets. LGBTQ Social Heritage Special Use District (Proposed) The Western SoMa Citizens Planning Task Force is propos- ing an LGBTQ Social Heritage Special Use District (SUD), which would establish a Social Heritage Citizens Advisory Committee to guide the Planning Department on the preservation of cul- tural heritage assets, support LGBTQ businesses, and leverage Community Benefit Agreements (see p. 22). The proposed district would “use the urban landscape to cel- ebrate public history, using public features as a way to educate and accept diversity, leaving an important legacy at the heart of the neighborhood.” 18 Among other interpretive strategies, the plan includes a “Heritage Path” tracing significant places and events within the district from the latter half of the 20th century through today, such as fairs, festivals, social services and con- tinued business operations. The SUD includes an Administra- tive “Certificate of Heritage Compliance” process that would allow a new development to qualify for a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) exemption for “replacement in-kind” of a traditional retail busi- ness in order to keep the business local or, if replacement in- kind is not possible, dedicating a portion of the project to com- munity arts projects and public events. 19 A draft report describing the proposed district, individual “so- cial heritage resources,” urban design guidelines, economic in- centives, and zoning programs was presented to the Planning Commission in 2011, but no further actions have been taken. HPC Proposal for a Citywide Cultural Heritage Resource Designation Program In an attempt to address concerns over the sustainability and longevity of cultural heritage assets in San Francisco, Historic Preservation Commission members Alan Martinez and Diane Matsuda presented a “Proposal for Formal Social Heritage Re- source Designations” to the HPC in December 2012. The pro- posal recommends the establishment of a citywide designation program for both districts and individual cultural heritage as- SAN FRANCISCO HERITAGE In continuous operation since 1973, The EndUp (401 6th Street) is one of San Francisco’s oldest and hippest gay dance clubs. It is both a “social heritage resource” in the proposed LGBTQ Social Heritage District and one of 100 Legacy Bars & Restaurants to be certified by San Francisco Heritage. sets, paired with targeted economic incentives. The commis- sioners argued that the inherent benefits of cultural traditions in civic life, such as tourism, economic stability, and a sense of community, make them worthy of preservation through formal action undertaken by the City. The proposal highlights the need for new economic benefits to incentivize the participation of important businesses and in- stitutions whose existence may be threatened. For example, if a building houses a designated cultural heritage asset, the prop- erty could be exempted from reassessment for tax purposes af- ter a sale or building improvement so long as the asset remains in the building. This would be similar to the Mills Act property tax abatement program that currently exists for the owners of des- ignated historic buildings. 20 The report also proposes reducing permit and other fees for designated events, such as festivals and parades. (For discussion of similar historic designation pro- grams in Barcelona, Buenos Aires, and London, see pp. 32-35). 14 SAN FRANCISCO HERITAGE » Religious and community rituals (e.g. Día de la Virgin the Guadalupe procession at Our Lady of Guadalupe Church in North Beach) » Social support services » Spaces for social interaction (e.g. open space, alleyways, BART plazas) » Traditional arts (e.g. martial arts, foodways) » Urban features (e.g. public art, streetscapes) » Youth programs (e.g. youth-led walking tours) Attendees were also asked to identify challenges faced by their communities in efforts to conserve cultural heritage as- sets. Nearly every community represented at the Summit found itself in the midst of a cultural crisis purportedly due to the emergence of San Francisco’s hyper-speculative economy. Cul- tural institutions, events, buildings, and cultural corridors are particularly vulnerable to eviction and/or displacement due to skyrocketing rents. Additional threats identified include: I n June 2013, San Francisco Heritage partnered with state and local agencies, nonprofits, and community groups to convene a summit aimed at initiating an inclusive dialogue on the documentation, interpretation, conservation, and promo- tion of the city’s cultural heritage assets through new policy and partnerships. Entitled “Sustaining San Francisco’s Living His- tory,” the summit brought together planners, preservation pro- fessionals, cultural workers, business owners, and community leaders from throughout the city for an exploration of existing cultural heritage conservation initiatives, as well as the inher- ent challenges and opportunities facing San Francisco commu- nities when undertaking this work. The goals of the community summit were: A. To promote the wellbeing and longevity of all communi- ties within San Francisco B. To ensure respect for the cultural heritage of under- served communities, groups, and individuals in City planning and preservation practices C. To provide for citywide communication, coordination, and mutual support among organized community groups regarding the conservation of cultural heritage assets D. To better understand the role and opportunities of economic strategies in revitalizing and preserving his- toric commercial corridors A complete agenda and list of presenters and expert panel- ists is included in Appendix A. Framing the Issues Summit presenters cited a variety of examples, in their own words, of how cultural heritage is manifested in their commu- nities, establishing a broad context for the ensuing discussion on needs and potential solutions. Examples of cultural heritage assets, as defined by participants, include: » Active resident leadership base » Community, civic and cultural organizations » Cultural events (e.g. Carnaval, Cherry Blossom Festival, Parol Lantern Festival) » Historic places (e.g. buildings, parks, sites) » Housing (e.g. residential top units, senior and affordable housing) » Language (e.g. bilingual education programs) » Locally-owned businesses » Mixed-use commercial corridors (e.g. residential units, f armer s’ mar k e ts, restaurants, re tail, and non pr ofits) Community Summit: Sustaining San Francisco’s Living History ANGELENE HOFFERT CONSERVING CULTURAL HERITAGE ASSETS 15 » Aging building stock » Destruction and defacement of murals in the Mission District » Diminishing number of traditional business, art, and craft practitioners » Lack of consensus on a vision of what the community wants to preserve and/or how to guide preservation » Lack of quality language programs » Lack of space in Chinatown for people to interact organi- cally » Leadership transitions within heritage businesses and non pr ofit organizations » Loss of neighborhood identity amid rapid change » Missed economic opportunities due to lack of cultural heritage tourism programs » Out-migration of ethnic populations from historic ethnic hubs to other parts of the city and region (particularly relevant to Japantown, Filipino SoMa, and historically Af- rican American neighborhoods) 21 Summit participants offered a number of specific recom- mendations to address these concerns and promote the long- term sustainability of San Francisco’s cultural heritage assets, including: » Develop recognition programs for heritage businesses » Educate new residents about neighborhood history » Explore Central Business District and/or Community Land Trust models to promote acquisition of properties that house cultural heritage assets » Explore new business models to support cultural heri- tage assets » Offer direct technical assistance to heritage businesses for leadership succession planning » Of f er financial incentiv es to heritage businesses and property owners that rent to heritage businesses » Reinforce neighborhood identity by using marketing tools to promote cultural heritage tourism (although some questioned whether tourism might actually spur gentrification) 22 A recurring theme raised during the Summit was the impor- tance of neighborhood authenticity. Participants felt strongly that community identity needs to be built and maintained in- ternally, an elusive task in many instances. In order to sustain neighborhood identities that have developed organically over time, participants expressed a critical need to preserve the sig- nifiers of neighborhood identity, such as art and culture, family histories, buildings, and community events. While recognizing that change is inevitable, Summit participants believed that it is possible for neighborhoods to evolve while also maintaining the authenticity that lends the neighborhood its identity. NATHAN DOLEJSI Exploring new business models: The Crab Boat Owners Association has represented family-owned boats berthed at Fisherman’s Wharf since 1907. In response to escalating costs and competition from out-of-state boats, CBOA has partnered with the nonprofit Ecotrust and the San Francisco Community Fishing Association to develop a sustainable fish market at Pier 47 that will help maintain the city’s fishing heritage. SAN FRANCISCO HERITAGE As a precursor to the June 2013 Community Summit, Heritage hosted a special walking tour, “Tenderloin Living: 1908 - Today.” Tour guides Felicia “Flames” Elizondo, Donna Graves, Katherine Petrin, and Shayne Watson led participants on an exploration of the Tenderloin’s layered history, including themes associated with LGBTQ and Southeast Asian communities. 16 SAN FRANCISCO HERITAGE A. Encourage the development of historic context statements that include cultural and social themes Historic context statements are an ideal starting point for any cultural heritage conservation effort because they provide a mechanism for collecting and organizing information, while lay- ing the groundwork for further studies and action. They compile background information needed to identify cultural heritage as- sets and establish their significance by tying them to broader historical, cultural, or social patterns. If carried out in a commu- nity-centered way, the process of developing a historic context statement can be a catalyst for engaging the public and devis- ing appropriate conservation strategies. In 2012, the HPC ad- opted a resolution recommending that all future City-sponsored historic context statements account for social and cultural heri- tage themes. 23 This recommendation should be formalized as B ased on proven models, the following section proposes a series of effective strategies for stabilizing and revitaliz- ing San Francisco’s cultural heritage assets for communities, nonprofits, small businesses, festivals, foundations, and gov- ernment agencies. 1. Develop a consistent methodology for identifying and documenting cultural heritage assets A fundamental first step in neighborhood conservation plan- ning is for community members to determine which elements of their heritage they wish to protect for the future. While the City can provide a framework for identification of cultural heritage assets, organized communities must ultimately steer such ini- tiatives. Although resources, goals, and strategies will vary from community to community, there are common methods for docu- menting cultural heritage assets with citywide applicability. Recommended Strategies Case Study: Launching a Community- Based Historic Context Statement on Latinos in San Francisco In 2014, San Francisco Heritage and the San Francisco Latino Historical Society launched, Nuestra Historia: Documenting the Chicano, Latino, and Indígena Contributions to the Development of San Francisco. Nuestra Historia is a community-based project to document and preserve the city’s rich Latino heritage, including the completion of a his- toric context statement with recommendations for how to best preserve architectural, cultural, and historical resources associated with the Latino community. In addition to informing future plan- ning decisions, the project will document Latino businesses and commerce, public art, community gathering places, cultural events, and important community groups. As a community-based project, Nuestra Historia is overseen by a Latino Community Advisory Board that promotes community participation through public meetings, community archive days, oral history interviews, and focus groups. Although the project is nascent, this model has already proven effective in galvanizing public participation. Its ho - listic approach to architectural, historical, and cul- tural conservation will ensure that the information gathered can be used to develop strategies for con- serving both architectural and non-architectural cultural heritage assets. SAN FRANCISCO HERITAGE ARCHIVE An anchor in North Beach’s early Latino community, Our Lady of Guadalupe Church was designated San Francisco Landmark #204 in 1993 after parishioners rallied to halt its proposed sale by the Archdiocese. Efforts to sell the property were revived in 2011 despite community outcry. CONSERVING CULTURAL HERITAGE ASSETS 17 ditional uses over protection of the buildings that house them, while others may insist on demolition controls to preserve the physical fabric of a neighborhood. Because these factors vary from community to community, it is imperative that communi- ties seeking to protect their heritage use a methodology for doc- umenting important resources that reflects their own goals and motivations. A universal documentation tool such as the Plan- ning Department’s “Social Heritage Inventory Form” allows for consistent utilization by City agencies, professionals, and com- Case Study: Inventorying Japantown’s Cultural Heritage Assets In conjunction with the JCHESS, the Japantown Organizing Committee, Planning Department, and preservation firm Page & Turnbull developed a new methodology for identifying, documenting, and evaluating cultural heritage assets in Japantown. The community identified a total of 322 cultural heritage resources that were divided into four cat- egories: “traditions and history,” “cultural prop- erty, building structures, archives,” “businesses,” and “institutions.” A database was compiled with names, addresses, sources of information, and the type of resource. A smaller number of priority re- sources were then documented in detail using a “Social Heritage Inventory Form.” The Social Heritage Inventory Form is based on existing methodology used by preservation pro- fessionals to document historic resources, known as the “Primary Record” or “Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) Form.” Although broader in scope, the Social Heritage Inventory Form shares many similarities with the DPR Form, including a section for categorizing the resource by type, period of significance, and historic context. It is a model that can be used to develop a standardized methodology for documenting cultural heritage as- sets, while also allowing for flexibility to reflect the priorities and sensitivities of a particular commu- nity. Completed forms are provided in Appendix B. In order for inventory forms to be useful, how- ever, a historic context statement identifying im- portant historical themes, periods of significance, and contextual information must be completed in advance. It is also important to note that cultural heritage assets identified in the Japantown inven- tory are not presumed to be historical resources under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 24 City policy in the proposed Preservation Element of the General Plan (see p. 18). B. Inventory cultural heritage assets through culturally- specific processes Conservation goals, desired outcomes, and cultural context all need to be taken into account when devising a process and strategy for sustaining a neighborhood’s cultural character. For example, some communities may prioritize continuation of tra- SAN FRANCISCO HERITAGE Public workshops in the Mission District (June 2014, above) and Japantown (August 2011, below) yielded important information about places with historical and cultural significance in those communities, giving local stakeholders an opportunity to shape the final reports. “Nuestra Historia” project partners will host six community meetings before publishing the final historic context statement. 18 SAN FRANCISCO HERITAGE Case Study: Eastside Heritage Consortium In 2010, a group of community advocates in un- incorporated East Los Angeles formed the Eastside Heritage Consortium with the goal of identifying significant historic places in the area. Representa- tives from the Los Angeles Conservancy, Maravilla Historical Society, and other local organizations col- laborated on a simple survey to engage residents in a conversation about places important to local identity. One of the primary goals of the survey was to counteract common negative perceptions of unincor- porated East Los Angeles, using history to empower locals and, in particular, youth. Because of the com- munity’s complicated and sensitive history, outsid- ers often assume that the area is dangerous or that it lacks significant historic places and cultural insti- tutions. The absence of a County preservation ordi- nance has left important historic sites vulnerable to development or demolition by neglect, and commu- nity members often find themselves at a disadvan - tage in the planning process. The Consortium distributed surveys at local schools, libraries, businesses, senior centers, and on social media over a period of four months. Nearly 200 people contributed to the project, and survey responses were evaluated according to the following criteria: J`k \j dljk i \ m \ Xc j`^e`ÓZ Xek j fZ`Xc fi Zlckli Xc themes in East Los Angeles or be representative of an important architectural style. J`k \j dljk Y\ d\ek`fe\[ Y p dfi \ k_Xe k n f members of the community, unless compelling evidence of their significance is provided. J`k \j j_flc[ Y\ i \gi \j \ek Xk` m \ f] X dlck`\k_e`Z interpretation of local history, should be refer- enced in the scholarly literature of the area, and should be at least 25 years of age. The criteria were broadly defined in order to cap- ture a diverse range of responses. While the survey emphasized history over present time, it also en- couraged participants to list sites that might one day have historic or cultural significance. Based on the responses, the Consortium compiled an initial list of nineteen places to serve as a basis for conducting ad- ditional research and developing tours, interpretive projects, curriculum, and landmark nominations. The survey form is provided in Appendix C. Recommended Strategies munities while providing flexibility to address culturally-specific considerations. This section presents community-based mod- els for documenting cultural heritage assets, including the “So- cial Heritage Inventory Form” devised for Japantown, that have the potential for broad applicability (see pp. 16-18). C. Include policies in the proposed Preservation Element of the City’s General Plan that advance conservation of cultural heritage assets San Francisco’s General Plan is a comprehensive planning document that guides City decision-making on land use issues for public and private property. It presently includes eleven el- ements ranging from transportation to community facilities to arts, with each element featuring a statement of needs, overall objectives, and a series of policies necessary to achieve objec- tives. The General Plan often spurs the creation of new legis- lation and changes to existing City policies and the Planning Code. Moreover, it identifies priorities for the Planning Depart- ment and informs the Department’s work program. LOS ANGELES CONSERVANCY Built brick-by-brick by East LA residents in the 1920s, the Maravilla Handball Court and adjacent El Centro Grocery Store were identified in the Eastside Heritage Consortium’s survey and listed in the California Register of Historical Resources in 2012. CONSERVING CULTURAL HERITAGE ASSETS 19 departments that have permitting authority, which in turn are tasked with streamlining code compliance checks. A similar task force could be formed to examine various types of cultural heritage assets (i.e. festivals, events, public art, educational or art programs), determine which City depart- ments interface with them, and devise methods for improving service to stakeholders. “Prioritizing” cultural heritage assets may translate into: City resources for implementation of existing neighborhood conservation initiatives in Japantown, Western SoMa, and the Mission; streamlining permitting processes for festivals; waiving or reducing permit fees for events; giving spe- cial consideration for City funding to arts and cultural programs; developing a protocol for the protection and maintenance of murals; and/or requiring discretionary review (triggering protec- tion under CEQA) for proposals that would result in the loss of a recognized cultural heritage asset. In 2014, the Planning Department revived a long-dormant initiative to add a Preservation Element to the General Plan. The new element provides an opportunity for the City to adopt a standard definition of “cultural heritage assets” and prescribe implementation measures for their protection. For example, one policy might be to increase the number of heritage busi- nesses and nonprofits that own the building in which they oper- ate and, when that option is not feasible, promote acquisition by a community land trust. Similarly, a policy should be added to develop targeted financial, zoning, and process-driven incen- tives to encourage cultural heritage conservation, drawing on the case studies in this report. 2. Support neighborhood cultural heritage conservation initiatives San Francisco is known as a city of neighborhoods, diverse in composition and character. Japantown, the Mission, and West- ern SoMa – where cultural heritage conservation efforts are un- derway – originated as ethnic or social enclaves that ultimately shaped their unique identities. Historically, such enclaves formed out of necessity as restrictive covenants and outright segregation prevented people of color from living in certain ar- eas. Even after restrictive covenants were banned, new arrivals to the city chose to live in close proximity to friends and family, where they could purchase or sell culturally-specific products and access goods and services in their native language. Due to patterns of migration and out-migration, rent increases, and evictions, many ethnic and social communities in San Francisco are facing displacement (in some cases, for the second, third, or fourth time). The city’s diverse collection of neighborhoods, from North Beach to Bayview to the Castro, is an essential part of its identity and allure. The inherent benefits of maintaining San Francisco’s cultural diversity -- in civic life, tourism, and economic stability – warrant prioritization and conservation through a sustained commitment by the City. A. Issue a Mayoral Directive prioritizing conservation of cultural heritage assets In 2013, Mayor Lee issued a directive to accelerate the production and preservation of affordable housing. 25 A multi- departmental working group was formed to make recommen- dations for City policies and administrative actions that would support the development of new affordable housing. The work- ing group is responsible for creating an advisory board to City SLICK VIC (FLICKR) Founded in 1967, the Northern California Cherry Blossom Festival takes place in Japantown each spring and is the second largest festival of its kind in the United States. 20 SAN FRANCISCO HERITAGE As illustrated by the case studies below, other potential proj- ects that could be assisted through Invest in Neighborhoods and other City grant programs, as well as Community Benefit Agreements, Community Benefit Districts, Community Develop- ment Corporations, nonprofits, and private foundations include: » Business and non pr ofit assistance pr ograms (i.e. busi- ness succession, legal assistance, land acquisition, etc.) » Mentoring programs (i.e. apprenticeship programs, lead- ership succession programs, peer-to-peer mentoring for heritage businesses or non pr ofits, e tc.) » Public history programs (i.e. walking tours, lectures, in- terpretive installations, commemorative plaques, etc.) » Events such as Heritage’s June 2013 Community Sum- mit, “Sustaining San Francisco’s Living History,” to pro- vide opportunities for exchanging information between neighborhoods B. Ensure that neighborhood conservation initiatives underway in Japantown, Western SoMa, and the Mission District are implemented Recognizing that the demographics of any neighborhood will change over time, residents in Japantown, SoMa, and the Mis- sion have been working with the City for many years on sepa- rate plans to preserve community character, recognize the his- tory of various ethnic and social groups, and promote continued sustainability of cultural institutions, festivals, events, and busi- nesses. The Planning Department and/or OEWD provided critical funding and staff resources to support these community initia- tives, although some of the plans have yet to be adopted (i.e. SoMa Pilipinas, LGBTQ Social Heritage Special Use District) and none have been fully implemented. City leaders should priori- tize finalization of these programs and apply lessons learned from their implementation to future citywide policy initiatives (e.g. Cultural Heritage Asset designation program, discussed pp. 32-33). C. Provide financial, design, and technical services to community groups wishing to promote neighborhood identity based on cultural heritage assets The City administers a variety of grant programs that could be leveraged to benefit cultural heritage assets, including OEWD’s “Invest in Neighborhoods” and “SF Shines Façade Improve- ment” programs, the General Service Administration’s Commu- nity Challenge Grant Program, and public art funding through the San Francisco Arts Commission. The Invest in Neighborhoods program offers the greatest potential for comprehensive assistance to neighborhood cul- tural heritage conservation initiatives. The program aims to “strengthen and revitalize commercial districts throughout the city by marshaling and deploying resources from across mul- tiple departments and nonprofit partners.” 26 Such resources in- clude neighborhood improvement grants, streetscape improve- ments, Biz Fit SF, a Small Business Revolving Loan Fund, SF Shines, Jobs Squad, and a citywide vacancy-tracking system. SF Shines, for example, assists façade improvement projects through grants, design services, and project management services. Invest in Neighborhoods recently awarded a grant to Calle 24 SF to lead a community planning process to develop a program to support the continued vitality of the newly-formed “Calle 24 SF” Latino Cultural District. Recommended Strategies FUZZY TRAVELER (FLICKR) Located along the Third Street commercial corridor in the Bayview, soul food restaurant Auntie April’s received a grant from the “SF Shines Façade Improvement” program to renovate its exterior. CONSERVING CULTURAL HERITAGE ASSETS 21 Case Study: Spanish Speaking Unity Council (Fruitvale, Oakland) The Fruitvale District is the most densely populated and culturally diverse neighborhood in Oakland. It also boasts a rich array of cultural heritage assets, including the Cinco de Mayo and Día de los Muertos festivals, traditional Posadas Navideñas, St. Eliza- beth Church, Cesar Chavez Park, Spanish Speaking Citizens Foundation, the nonprofit Spanish Speaking Unity Council, and scores of local businesses. A tar- geted promotional program for the neighborhood be- gan in 1996 with its induction into the National Trust for Historic Preservation’s Main Street program. The “Main Street approach” addresses five main compo- nents: safety and cleanliness, economic development, design, promotion, and community organizing. Although Fruitvale’s Main Street program officially ended in 2001, property owners voted to create a Busi- ness Improvement District (BID) to continue revital- ization efforts, and today the Unity Council manages the Fruitvale BID and administers a comprehensive commercial revitalization program supporting more than 350 businesses. Over the past two decades, the district has seen nearly 200 façade improvement projects, installation of public art, streetscape improvements, daily side- walk cleanings, tree and flower plantings, and regular graffiti removal, as well as new business assistance programs for local merchants. The Unity Council also sponsors the annual Día de los Muertos parade and festival and operates a homeownership center, Latino Men & Boys program, a public market, youth services, and workforce development programs. Their Fruitvale Public Market is a small business incubator that pro- vides low-cost rental space to eleven small businesses and professional business assistance to micro-entre- preneurs. Case Study: Little Tokyo Service Center (Los Angeles) Established in 1979, the Little Tokyo Service Center (LTSC) is an excellent model for a holistic approach to heritage conservation and neighbor- hood services that addresses the social, economic, cultural, and historic needs of a community. As one of only three recognized Japantowns in the United States, Little Tokyo is a National Historic Landmark District and the heart of Los Angeles’ Japanese community. LTSC formed as a Community Development Cor- poration and eventually grew to operate affordable housing, literacy, and small business assistance programs, counseling, and historic preservation projects. LTSC is also an advocate for the con- tinuation of intangible cultural traditions, values, customs, and festivals. A website promoting his- toric sites, businesses, and cultural attractions (littletokyola.org) is the primary vehicle for LTSC’s neighborhood marketing efforts. BAMALIBRARYLADY (FLICKR) Funded with a $250,000 grant through the federal Preserve America program, the “Asian Pacific Islander Neighborhood Cultural Heritage and Hospitality Education and Training” program supported the development of a critical assessment of cultural and historical assets, hospitality training, and instructional materials to guide Los Angeles’ Little Tokyo (pictured), Thai Town, and Chinatown communities on how to become self-sustaining heritage centers. 22 SAN FRANCISCO HERITAGE Recommended Strategies SAN FRANCISCO HERITAGE In 2013, Zendesk contributed 1,400 hours to Tenderloin nonprofits through its Community Benefit Agreement, including Glide Memorial Church. Founded in 1929, Glide provides numerous social services to local residents. In 2011, the City enacted the Central Market/Tenderloin Payroll Expense Tax Exclusion for companies that remain in or move to the neighborhood, known colloquially as the “Twitter Tax Break.” 28 Companies with a payroll of $1 million or more can take advantage of a payroll tax break for new employees for up to six years of the eight-year life of the program. 29 In exchange, companies must devote a portion of the tax savings to support- ing the local community through a CBA. The most common issues addressed in the Mid-Market agreements include affordable housing, homelessness, food justice, public health, neighborhood infrastructure, access to technology, support for the arts, and legal assistance. In 2012, the Central Market Citizen’s Advisory Committee developed a “Framework for Community Benefit Agreements” to serve as a guideline for companies looking to fulfill their CBA obligation. 30 The document outlines a series of measures intended to pre- vent displacement of existing residents, small businesses, non- profits, and services in the Mid-Market area. Specific provisions for advancing cultural heritage conserva- tion could be incorporated into new CBAs both within and out- side Mid-Market. Potential benefits and mitigation measures related to cultural heritage assets might include: funding for youth programs (e.g., language classes, field trips to historic sites, and leadership training in heritage conservation); appren- ticeship programs at heritage businesses; marketing initiatives (e.g., printed collateral, tours, and websites); capital improve- ments (e.g., façade, accessibility, or seismic safety upgrades); financial contributions to community land trusts; mural resto- ration funds; down-payment assistance programs for heritage businesses and nonprofits; and City Landmark nominations. 3. Support mentoring and leadership training programs that transmit cultural knowledge to the next generation Language and traditional arts and craft skills are often es- sential to maintaining the viability of heritage businesses and cultural organizations. In addition to physical displacement, certain forms of traditional skills are at risk of disappearing, particularly among younger generations. Examples of dwindling and highly specialized cultural arts in San Francisco include Fili- pino kulintang and Filipino food, carnival costume-making, and Sekisui rock garden, bonsai, and traditional flower arranging. Active intervention is required through education, training, and mentoring programs. With critical support from private founda- D. Help sustain cultural heritage assets through Community Benefit Agreements Community Benefit Agreements (CBAs) are legal contracts negotiated between developers or companies moving into an area and community coalitions representing neighborhood as- sociations, nonprofits, labor unions, faith-based organizations, and others who stand to be impacted. 27 In exchange for mean- ingful benefits, amenities, mitigations, and/or volunteer servic- es, community groups offer public support for specific projects. In San Francisco, CBAs have been reached between tech companies and community coalitions in the Mid-Market area. CONSERVING CULTURAL HERITAGE ASSETS 23 tions, academic institutions and nonprofits can help transmit business, language, and traditional practices to the next gen- eration of cultural practitioners. A. Utilize partnerships to foster apprenticeship, training, and leadership succession programs to ensure the lon- gevity of cultural heritage assets Cultural heritage assets that represent an organization (e.g. business, nonprofit, festival, etc.) or a specialized skill (i.e. tra- ditional art, craft, skill, or language) will inevitably experience the need to transfer knowledge and “know-how” to future gen- erations. In the case of family-owned heritage businesses, for example, the transition from one generation to the next can be so complicated that it sometimes threatens the business’s existence. Members of the younger generation may be unpre- pared or have no desire to own or manage the family business. Other family-related occurrences – death, disability, divorce, or substance abuse – can further impede succession plans. The case studies presented in this section offer useful models for apprenticeship, training, and leadership succession programs related to cultural heritage assets. Case Study: Gellert Family Business Resource Center (San Francisco) Located within the School of Management at the University of San Francisco, the Gellert Family Busi- ness Resource Center has developed a successful three-pronged approach to supporting Bay Area fam- ily businesses and mentoring for the next generation of business leaders. Each year, the Center showcas- es two family-owned businesses, providing intensive technical assistance while promoting them throughout the Bay Area. These businesses are recognized at an awards ceremony each spring. Recent inductees into the program include Marcus Books, Casa Sanchez, and Cathy’s Chinese California Cuisine. In addition, the Center works to keep family businesses informed of networking, continuing educa- tion, and scholarship opportunities. The Center also advises current students seeking coursework related to family businesses, helping foster the next genera- tion of leaders. SAN FRANCISCO HERITAGE Founded by Roberto and Isabel Sanchez in 1924, Casa Sanchez was the first mechanized tortilla factory in northern California. Now in its fourth generation, Casa Sanchez received a Gellert Family Business Award in 2012 for its business achievements and record of community service. PAUL DUNN (CENTRAL CITY EXTRA) From the New America Media Special Report, “Old and Poor in Tech City”: At JT Restaurant in Mint Mall, Tess Diaz-Guzman, or “Mama Tess,” serves elderly residents, construction workers, and Filipino and Latino families homestyle chicken and pork adobo, while also serving a vital role as a community space. 24 SAN FRANCISCO HERITAGE Case Study: Alliance for California Traditional Arts The Alliance for California Traditional Arts (ACTA) is a statewide nonprofit organization with a mission to promote and support ways for cultural traditions to thrive through advocacy, resources, and connections for folk and traditional artists. In 1998, ACTA launched its Apprenticeship Program, which supports the sustainability and longevity of the state’s traditional arts and cultures by con- tracting with master artists to provide qualified apprentices with intensive one-on-one training and mentoring. ACTA defines a “master artist” as “someone who is recognized as an exemplary practitioner of a traditional art form by his or her community and peers.” Small grants of $3,000 are awarded to California-based master artists that can be used for fees, supplies, and travel. ACTA works closely with each apprenticeship team to develop and re- fine work plans and assess their progress. Each team must produce a public offering, such as a performance, exhibit, or demonstration, to convey the acquisition and development of the traditional skills. Nearly 500 master artists and apprentices have participated in the program since 1998, rep- resenting a wide range of crafts and art forms, including Afro-Latin percussion, Chicano mural painting, Trinidadian Carnival costumes schools and universities, neighborhood associations, and City agencies: The Chinatown Community Development Center (Chinatown CDC) introduced its “Alleyway Tours” program in 2001 under the umbrella of the “Adopt-An-Alleyway” initiative. Youth par- ticipants conduct archival research and oral history interviews and develop a tour route, script, and training manual. Scores of students have participated in the program, which aims to il- luminate new perspectives on Chinatown’s history and culture that are not part of the conventional tourist experience. The “Al- leyway Tour” program demonstrates the potential links between heritage tourism and community empowerment, particularly among youth. In 2013, San Francisco Heritage partnered with the San Fran- cisco Latino Historical Society to produce Calle 24: Cuentos del Barrio, a youth program to document and bring visibility to Recommended Strategies SAN FRANCISCO HERITAGE A three-time participant in ACTA’s Apprenticeship Program, Danongan Kalanduyan (right) is a master of the kulintang, an instrument and musical style rooted in the Muslim traditions of the southern Philippines. and foodways, Filipino kulintang, and Chumash textile arts. ACTA receives support from a variety of private and public sources, including the Wal- ter and Elise Haas Fund, San Francisco Founda- tion, Columbia Foundation, and the California Arts Council, among others. B. Fund youth educational programs that expose future generations to cultural heritage assets Youth engagement is an essential part of maintaining cul- tural memory and transmitting traditional knowledge and skills from generation to generation. Youth-Led Walking Tours Youth-led walking tour programs are especially effective at documenting and promoting neighborhood history while culti- vating leadership skills and community pride among younger generations, particularly high school and college-age students. Several communities in San Francisco have already developed successful youth-led tour programs that share neighborhood history and culture with a broader audience. The following mod- els could be emulated through partnerships among nonprofits, CONSERVING CULTURAL HERITAGE ASSETS 25 the Latino heritage of 24th Street in the Mission. Participants received training in urban history and oral history methodology and conducted interviews with community leaders. The infor- mation gathered inspired content for a bilingual (English/Span- ish) self-guided walking tour booklet, which was presented in a series of youth-led tours during a “Sunday Streets” event. Language-Based Learning From people speaking their native language on the street or in their homes, to bilingual business and street signage, lan- guage is a key community identifier. Although nearly half of all San Francisco residents do not speak English at home, lan- guage is a diminishing cultural heritage asset in many ethnic communities. Despite the diversity of languages spoken in San Francisco, there are few quality bilingual programs to impart this knowledge to younger generations. CHINATOWN ALLEYWAY TOURS ABOVE / SAN FRANCISCO HERITAGE AND SAN FRANCISCO LATINO HISTORICAL SOCIET Y BELOW Above: Ju Yun plays the erhu in front of his barber shop at 32 Ross Alley for students in the Alleyway Tours program. Below: “Calle 24” Self-Guided Walking Tour Booklet. Case Study: Heritage Schools - Kinmon Gakuen/Golden Gate Institute Founded in 1911, the Kinmon Gakuen/Golden Gate Institute in San Francisco’s Japantown is an excel- lent example of a community language school that also sustains broader cultural traditions, including karate, calligraphy, flower arranging, and tea cer- emonies. In its century-long history, it has served as a neighborhood center for Japanese Americans wanting to participate in cultural and political activities. It is also the first Japanese language school to receive the “Heritage School” designa- tion from the California Department of Education, which allows for streamlined regulations and re- duced licensing fees. Among other requirements, qualified heritage schools must: offer education or academic tutoring, or both, in a foreign language; include curriculum on the culture, traditions, or history of a country other than the U.S.; and offer culturally enriching activities such as art, danc- ing, games, or singing, based on the culture or cus- toms of a country other than the U.S. 31 The building that houses the Kinmon Gakuen In- stitute (2031 Bush Street) is identified as an impor- tant cultural resource in the Japantown Historic Context Statement and was added to the Planning Department’s Work Program as a priority candi- date for City Landmark designation. 26 SAN FRANCISCO HERITAGE quisition among cultural heritage assets. Community Land Trusts A community land trust (CLT) is membership-based nonprofit organization whose primary purpose is to acquire or facilitate the preservation of targeted properties within a specific area for community preservation and use. CLTs acquire property and then sell or lease buildings located on that property to individu- als, businesses, or nonprofits, helping to ensure permanent af- fordability. The JCHESS, for example, recommends a Japantown CLT as a key potential strategy to “remove…properties from the speculative market and place long-term control of their use and disposition into the hands of the local community.” 33 The non- SAN FRANCISCO HERITAGE Located in the Mid-Market neighborhood, the Luggage Store Gallery was among the first properties to be purchased by the Community Arts Stabilization Trust as a long-term affordable arts space (see p. 27). Recommended Strategies 4. Develop financial incentives and property acquisition programs for owners and stewards of cultural heritage assets A common thread throughout Heritage’s June 2013 Commu- nity Summit was the question of how to preserve cultural heri- tage in a speculative economy (versus a “normal” economy). In San Francisco’s current economic climate, many successful, longstanding heritage establishments are struggling to survive despite continued value in their services. Heritage businesses and nonprofits, particularly those that do not own their build- ing, are especially vulnerable to displacement and warrant City intervention to secure long-term leases and ownership. Indeed, Mayor Lee has called for increased vigilance by the City and artistic community “to use the city’s economic success [to] control land costs” and secure space for arts and cultural organizations by leveraging City resources such as the Office of Community Infrastructure and Investment (Successor Agency to the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency). “If we don’t do that, if I don’t get more of these land costs under control,” he cautioned, “then we’re subject to the natural forces that are going on.” 32 This section highlights local and international prop- erty acquisition programs aimed at securing space for cultural uses. Another challenge is aging building stock with expensive capi- tal improvement, seismic safety, and ADA accessibility require- ments. Heritage businesses and nonprofits often lack access to capital to pay for code upgrades. A small amount of reinvest- ment could go a long way in helping businesses meet code re- quirements and address routine maintenance issues. Summit panelists proposed a number of ideas for tax breaks and other financial tools to help stabilize neighborhoods, described be- low. A. Expand City and/or nonprofit property acquisition pro- grams for owners of identified cultural heritage assets Heritage businesses and nonprofits at risk of displacement could benefit most from technical and legal services to help them purchase the building in which they operate. If direct pur- chase is not possible, a citywide acquisition program similar to the Community Arts Stabilization Trust (CAST), established in 2013 to help secure arts space in San Francisco’s Mid-Market neighborhood, could play a critical role in preventing displace- ment of longtime establishments. This section discusses sev- eral case studies of existing models for promoting property ac- CONSERVING CULTURAL HERITAGE ASSETS 27 Case Study: Community Arts Stabilization Trust (San Francisco) As the Mid-Market area of San Francisco con- tinues to attract new tech companies like Twitter, Yelp, Zendesk, and Zoosk, existing arts and cultur- al organizations have struggled to keep up with ris- ing rents. The Community Arts Stabilization Trust (CAST) was established in 2013 by the Northern California Community Loan Fund to permanently secure space for arts organizations in the Ten- derloin and Mid-Market. As a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, CAST’s mission is to “create stable physical spaces for arts and cultural organizations to facilitate equitable urban transformation.” With a $5 million seed grant from the Kenneth Rainin Foundation, CAST has acquired two prop- erties in its first year: The Luggage Store Gallery at 1007 Market Street and 80 Turk Street, the fu- ture home of CounterPULSE. By purchasing these buildings, CAST was able to freeze rents and per- manently secure low-cost arts space. CAST has entered into long-term leases with each organi- zation, including an option to buy in seven to ten years, combined with ongoing technical assistance to help build their financial and organizational ca- pacity. To fund its work, CAST leverages funds from pri- vate donors, foundations, New Market Tax Credits, and the sale of TDRs (Transfer of Development Rights). 35 CAST also collaborates with civic part- ners such as OEWD. profit CAST, for example, is an exemplary model that could be expanded into other neighborhoods and/or emulated by new CLTs focused on cultural heritage assets. Most of the hundreds of CLTs that have been formed in the U.S., such as the San Francisco Community Land Trust, focus on affordable housing. However, some CLTs also own, lease and sell neighborhood commercial spaces, arts spaces, and com- munity centers. Although nonprofit organizations typically form CLTs, some local governments have taken the lead in funding and staffing CLTs, including Chicago, Portland, and Burlington, Vermont. 34 Funding can come from a variety of sources, includ- ing grassroots fundraising, foundations, businesses, banks, de- velopment fees, New Markets Tax Credits, Transfer of Develop- ment Rights and grants for land acquisition. Case Study: Preserving Threatened Uses - “Vital’ Quartier” Program (Paris) The goal of the Vital’ Quartier program, administered by the Paris planning agency SEMAEST, is to preserve commercial diversity amid exceedingly high real es- tate and rental costs. SEMAEST purchases properties in eleven predefined areas and then leases to local businesses for specific uses. For example, SEMAEST rents several buildings in Paris’ Latin Quarter solely to bookstores, with other sites reserved for artisans or bakeries. Prioritizing specific uses counteracts the proliferation of tourist shops and formula retail outlets vying for Paris’ prime real estate. SEMAEST has acquired hundreds of properties since the Vital’ Quartier program was launched in 2008. Once SEMAEST purchases property and secures a tenant, the agency will either sell it to the tenant or a real estate subsidiary with a covenant to maintain the use. In the case of the Latin Quarter, however, the City owns the properties outright. In addition to property acquisition, SEMAEST offers a variety of services to help priority uses succeed, including technical train- ing, marketing assistance, and access to credit. CRAIGFINLAY (FLICKR) The Abbey Bookshop in Paris’s Latin Quarter. In defending the Vital’ Quartier program, Mayor Bertrand Delanoë insisted any attempt to resemble big “Anglo-Saxon” cities would be disastrous: “It would be madness. It would be an insult to our soul, an insult to our identity but also to our economic interests.” 28 SAN FRANCISCO HERITAGE Recommended Strategies RADIO NICOLE (FLICKR) ABOVE / GALERIA DE LA RAZA BELOW Above: After 100 years, Chinatown’s Sam Wo Restaurant closed its doors on April 20, 2012 due to the prohibitive costs of correcting numerous health and building code violations. Below: Founded in 1970 by a group of local artists, Galería de la Raza is an internationally recognized Latino art gallery. The nonprofit does not own the building in which it operates (2857 24th Street). Right of First Refusal Program Another strategy to promote ownership of cultural heritage assets would be through a Right of First Refusal (ROFR) pro- gram. A “Right of First Refusal” is a contractual right that en- titles its holder to enter into a business transaction, in this case purchase property, before the owner may sell to a third party. In other words, a ROFR could ensure that heritage businesses and nonprofits are given an opportunity to purchase the build- ing in which they operate before it is placed on the market. To encourage participation from the building owner, the City could make a ROFR a condition of a grant or other subsidy benefit- ing owners of buildings that house cultural heritage assets. The City of London’s “Community Right to Bid” program, which im- poses a six-month moratorium on the sale of designated “As- sets of Community Value,” could inform the development of a City-sponsored ROFR program in San Francisco (see discussion on p. 34). B. Institute tax benefits for cultural heritage assets and the owners of buildings in which they operate Property owners who lease space to heritage businesses and nonprofits have little incentive to retain longstanding tenants when they can charge more from a newer, wealthier tenant. Conversely, business owners and nonprofits that already own their buildings may find it very profitable to sell their property and relocate. Just as the City provides targeted tax exclusions to advance policy priorities or attract large employers, 36 San Francisco should explore targeted tax incentives to heritage businesses, nonprofits, and landlords who rent to them. In consultation with the County Assessor-Recorder and the Office of the Treasurer and Tax Collector, the Office of Small Business and OEWD could develop various financial incentives to help stabilize cultural heritage assets. 37 Examples include: » If a building houses a q ualified heritage business or non- pr ofit, the pr oper ty could be e x em pt ed fr om reassess- ment after a sale or major upgrade so long as the busi- ness or non pr ofit occupies the building » Institut e a financial incentiv e similar to the Mills A ct pr o- gram whereb y pr oper ty o wner s of q ualified heritage busi- ness sites receive property tax abatement. » Eliminate transfer, recordation, and property tax fees f or heritage businesses or non pr ofits that pur chase the property in which they have operated historically. CONSERVING CULTURAL HERITAGE ASSETS 29 5. Promote cultural heritage assets through public education and, when desirable, sustainable models of heritage tourism Whether targeted to local school children, families, or out-of- town guests, public history and interpretive programs provide opportunities to build awareness of significant places, commu- nicate their importance, and maintain cultural memory. Similar- ly, heritage tourism can offer meaningful learning opportunities and cultural experiences for visitors while generating revenue to support residents, businesses, and conservation efforts in cultural corridors. In 2013, San Francisco hosted 16.9 million visitors who spent over $9.38 billion at local businesses – an all-time record. 40 Among self-described cultural travelers, the city’s “historic sites and attractions” rank highest among arts and cultural attributes that visitors consider when choosing to travel to San Francisco. 41 Increased visitation to neighborhood commercial corridors, particularly those rich in cultural heritage Case Study: Longtime Owner Occupants Program (Philadelphia) Through the Longtime Owner Occupants Pro- gram (LOOP), the City of Philadelphia freezes property taxes for ten years for qualifying home- owners who have experienced steep increases in the assessed value of their property for tax pur- poses. To qualify, applicants must own and have lived on the property for ten years; have an an- nual income of less than about $110,000 (varies depending on household size); and experienced a 300 percent or more increase in their property as- sessment. 38 While targeted to homeowners, a pro- gram similar to LOOP could be developed in San Francisco for owners of commercial properties that house cultural heritage assets. This would provide a powerful incentive for owners to renew leases with heritage businesses or nonprofits. Case Study: “Association Center” Property Tax Exemption (New York) In an effort to secure downtown space for non - profit tenants, the New York City Industrial De- velopment Agency (NYCIDA) partnered with Sil- verstein Properties to establish the city’s first, and only, “Association Center” in 1992 at 120 Wall Street. Through state legislation authorizing NYCIDA to support not-for-profit civic facilities, the “Association Center” designation exempts the building owner from real estate taxes that are usu- ally passed through by landlords to tenants as part of the rent. The center occupies 400,000 square feet, or 20 floors of the 34-story building, which was built in 1929. Prospective nonprofit occupants have the choice of renting space or buying it at below-market rates that reflect the property tax exemption. Nominal title to Association Center space is held by the NYCIDA, thereby removing the space from prop- erty tax rolls and also allowing the agency to issue bonds to finance tenant improvements. Five years after it was established, the Association Center at 120 Wall Street was 100 percent occupied. 39 New York City’s “Association Center” model demonstrates how government-sponsored incen- tives can help secure long-term space for nonprofit tenants through targeted property tax relief. SAN FRANCISCO HERITAGE Octogenarian Tony Rosellini has been a fixture of Edwin Klockars Blacksmithing (City Landmark #149) for over half a century. Located at 443 Folsom Street, the 1912 wood structure with dirt floors is surrounded by skyscrapers today. 30 SAN FRANCISCO HERITAGE A. Encourage the development of heritage and cultural trails As noted by Dolores Hayden in The Power of Place: Urban Landscapes as Public History, “Networks of related places, organized in a thematic way, exploit the potential of reach- ing urban audiences more fully and with more complex his- tories.” A heritage trail can be an effective interpretive and educational strategy for connecting places and eras – both ex- tant and vanished – that express a common historical theme. Similarly, cultural trails promote living traditions and opportuni- ties to experience local culture. There are numerous examples of heritage and cultural trails in cities throughout the United States, including San Francisco. 42 Heritage trails typically consist of a self-guided map, physical markers, and in some cases, interactive websites and mobile apps that layer photographs, maps, videos, and other media. Washington D.C.’s African American Heritage Trail, for example, features over 200 sites in an online database and free print- able booklet, with 100 sites marked by physical plaques. A proj- ect of the nonprofit Cultural Tourism DC in cooperation with the assets, would expand the customer base while bringing aware- ness to lesser-known parts of the city. Heritage tourism can also help build community pride, rein- force neighborhood identity, promote intercultural understand- ing, encourage conservation of traditional crafts, and heighten internal and external support for preservation initiatives. Tour- ism, however, can also present challenges for local communi- ties that must be carefully managed and avoided. Potential negative impacts include: commodification and denigration of cultural traditions; loss of unique cultural identity; displace- ment of longtime residents and businesses; loss of authentic- ity; controversy within communities over who should benefit from tourist activities; and conflicts related to land rights and access to resources. For individual sites or neighborhoods looking to build aware- ness of their history and/or embrace heritage tourism, this sec- tion highlights public education programs and heritage tourism models that balance increased economic activity and visitation with a respect for the cultural values, businesses, and tradi- tions that define community identity. Recommended Strategies Case Study: South Bronx Cultural Trail Casita Maria Center for Arts and Education in the Bronx, New York received a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation Cultural Innovation Fund to create the South Bronx Culture Trail to “protect [their] community’s great cultural heritage and use it as a motor for future creative and economic de- velopment.” The Bronx served as ground zero for the development of New York-style salsa, birthed hip-hop, and launched the “voguing” dance phe- nomenon. Over the last decade, however, many theaters and clubs have closed and performers have left the area or passed on, leaving many young people completely unaware of their neigh- borhood’s cultural legacy. What makes the South Bronx Culture Trail unique from other heritage trails is its focus on producing and promoting new programming to illuminate the neighborhood’s culture. Events in- clude concerts, evenings of storytelling, and a new presenting program for emerging Bronx-based per- formers that includes stipends, work space, and technical support. A cultural history map, project website, and tours have also been developed. By launching the cultural trail, Casita Maria and their community partners “are beginning to arrest the loss of community memory.” 43 SOUTH BRONX HERITAGE TRAIL Dating to 1969, Casa Amadeo is the oldest continuously operating Latino music shop in the South Bronx. The business occupies the space that previously housed Casa Hernández, which opened in 1927 as the first Puerto Rican-owned music store in New York City. CONSERVING CULTURAL HERITAGE ASSETS 31 city’s Historic Preservation Office, the heritage trail highlights sites significant to local African American history. B. Establish a voluntary citywide heritage tourism program that focuses on neighborhood cultural heritage assets Myriad domestic and international cultural heritage tourism programs provide models for San Francisco neighborhoods Case Study: Santa Cruz Valley Heritage Alliance (Arizona) The Santa Cruz Valley Heritage Alliance, a non- profit based in southern Arizona, is an excellent model for a holistic approach to heritage conser- vation with an emphasis on sustainable heritage tourism. In partnership with local businesses and government agencies, including the Metropolitan Tucson Convention and Visitors Bureau, the Heri- tage Alliance developed the area’s first-ever re- gional heritage tourism map, “Experiences of the Santa Cruz Valley.” 44 The map highlights destina- tions in the Santa Cruz Valley that reveal themes and stories from a proposed National Heritage Area. In addition to publicizing heritage resourc- es, the Heritage Alliance promotes local heritage businesses on its website, including lodgings, res- taurants, and businesses that maintain particular foodways. The Heritage Alliance has also partnered with other local organizations on its “Heritage Foods Program,” which seeks to preserve and promote traditional foods through online resources, busi- ness directories, tourism, special workshops and events, and farm-to-chef networking. In 2013, the Heritage Alliance developed a proposal for a “Santa Cruz Valley Harvest” Heritage Food Brand Program, which provides a marketing tool for food producers, restaurants, and grocers to connect the local food movement to the Valley’s history as one of the longest continually cultivated regions in the United States. In order to participate in the pro- gram, members must commit to purchasing local ingredients directly from sustainable regional pro- ducers which, in turn, helps perpetuate local agri- cultural varieties, supports the local economy, and reduces the environmental costs of transporting goods over long distances. While the “Experiences of the Santa Cruz Valley” map is intended to reach both out-of-town and local visitors, the “Heritage Foods Program,” particularly the marketing com- ponent, is inherently designed to promote and sus- tain heritage assets among local residents. seeking to attract visitors to spur economic activity. Heritage tourism programs can contribute to the long-term sustainability of cultural heritage assets, provided they are culturally-specific and enjoy broad community support. A heritage tourism program in San Francisco would help pro- mote both tangible and intangible resources, including heritage businesses, festivals, workshops, and traditional crafts. Partici- pation in the heritage tourism initiative would be voluntary and, again, may not be desirable or appropriate for every neighbor- hood or cultural heritage asset. A promotional platform could be incorporated into the plan, modeled on the Santa Cruz Val- ley Harvest program or Heritage’s Legacy Bars & Restaurants initiative, in order to incentivize business participation and help consumers easily identify heritage resources. Such a program would also appeal to local residents and regional travelers who may be less likely to visit congested tourist attractions. SANTA CRUZ VALLEY HERITAGE ALLIANCE 32 SAN FRANCISCO HERITAGE The San Francisco Travel Association, or “SF Travel,” is well- positioned to coordinate a citywide heritage tourism program as an extension of its Neighborhood Partners Program, which “strives to extend the economic impact of tourism, San Fran- cisco’s #1 industry, into the city’s diverse neighborhoods.” SF Travel is a private, nonprofit organization that markets the city as a leisure, convention, and business travel destination. With nearly 1,500 partner businesses, it is one of the largest part- nership-based tourism promotion agencies in the country. Each year, the Neighborhood Partners Program selects unique, “only in San Francisco” businesses, nonprofits, and cultural destina- tions based on their potential to attract visitors to the neigh- borhood. Grantees receive a complimentary two-year member- ship, online and printed listings, admission to SF Travel member events, and individual mentoring. 6. Establish a citywide “Cultural Heritage As- set” designation program with targeted benefits Based on successful programs in other international cities, Heritage believes that development of a formal, citywide desig- nation program for cultural heritage assets would help ensure equal access to City-sponsored incentives and programs, as well as diverse representation of San Francisco communities. A formal designation program would also encourage owners to “self-select” and allow for consistent evaluation of assets seek- ing designation through a clearly-defined public process. Some international cities, such as Barcelona, have expanded historic designation programs that traditionally focus on archi- tecture to encompass intangible cultural resources. Inspired by the “Guapos ser sempre” award program, which honors historic shops and their shopkeepers for their long-lasting contributions Recommended Strategies ANDVARANAUT (FLICKR) Escriba, Barcelona. In 2013, Barcelona created a new cultural resources category for intangible heritage - “cultural assets and historical ethnological heritage” - paving the way for additional policies to protect traditional forms of commerce and other intangible resources. SHEEP”R”US (FLICKR) Cafe de l’Opera, Barcelona. In 1993, the Barcelona Urban Landscape Institute unveiled the “Guapos ser sempre” (“Forever Beautiful”) award, which recognizes historic shops and their shopkeepers for their ongoing contributions to the city’s identity. CONSERVING CULTURAL HERITAGE ASSETS 33 to the city’s heritage, the Barcelona City Council established the new “cultural assets and historical ethnological heritage” cat- egory in 2013 to pave the way for additional policies to protect traditional forms of commerce and other intangible resources. 45 Significantly, the San Francisco Historic Preservation Com- mission has already expressed support for a citywide cultural heritage asset designation program with targeted benefits. On December 19, 2012, the HPC passed a resolution “endorsing further exploration of a City program to document, designate, and incentivize social and cultural heritage.” 49 Recognizing that “social and cultural heritage is a vast and important issue confronting the City’s communities,” the resolution identifies the HPC as a willing forum to develop and refine the proposed designation program and solicit public input, both within and outside the preservation community. The HPC observed that the appropriate body to administer the program “may be an or- ganization or agency, other than the Planning Department, that is dedicated to the support of arts and culture in the City.” The HPC resolution also endorses the methodology developed by the Planning Department and Page & Turnbull for Japantown, recommending that the “Social Heritage Inventory Form” be augmented to identify ownership and past uses with their dates of activity at the site. Given the diverse range of businesses, organizations, festi- vals, and customs that comprise “cultural heritage,” Heritage recommends a standalone, incentive-based cultural heritage asset designation program, completely separate from the City Landmark designation process under Article 10 of the Planning Code. A Board of Supervisors-appointed Advisory Panel would guide the program with an agency such as the Planning De- partment, OEWD, or the Arts Commission providing staff and resources for its administration. The proposed designation program would establish: a defi- nition of “cultural heritage asset,” the process and criteria for nominating resources, standards for review, and the role and composition of the Cultural Heritage Advisory Panel. Designa- tion as a Cultural Heritage Asset would provide automatic eli- gibility for targeted City-sponsored programs, loans, grants, fee waivers, and tax incentives. As demonstrated by the following case studies in London and Buenos Aires, municipalities play an essential role in designating, promoting, and protecting in- tangible cultural heritage assets. ROCKETLASS (FLICKR) ABOVE / TORBAKHOPPER (FLICKR) Above: Founded in Japantown in 1906, Benkyo-do Company is a third- generation family-owned business. Today, it is a popular lunch counter and the last remaining manufacturer of the traditional Japanese confections mochi and manju in San Francisco. The treats are handmade on-site using the original methods from 1906. Below: Carnaval performers pose on 24th Street in the Mission District. 34 SAN FRANCISCO HERITAGE In response to the rapid disappearance of the city’s pubs, in 2013 the Mayor of London directed borough councils to work with communities and local organizations to list distinguished pubs as “Assets of Community Value,” thereby tighten- ing planning procedures. By the end of the year, over 100 London pubs had received the designa- tion. The nonprofit Campaign for Real Ale (CAM- RA), which has advocated for the preservation of historic pubs since the early 1990s, launched the #ListYourLocal initiative to raise awareness about the program. Any building or parcel can be listed as an Asset of Community Value based on its “social interest,” particularly its sustained use. The law defines “so- cial interest” broadly to include cultural, recre- ational, and sporting interests, extending coverage to places such as businesses, libraries, parks, and community centers. A property should be consid- ered an Asset of Community Value if: @kj Zlii \ek lj \ fi lj \ `e k_\ i \ Z \ek gXjk furthers the social wellbeing and interests of the community, and is not ancillary = fi gi fg\ik p `e Zlii \ek Z fddle`k p lj \# `k is realistic to think that there will continue to be a use that furthers social wellbeing and interests; or for property in community use in the recent past, it is realistic to think that there will be community use within the next five years (in either case, whether or not that use is exactly the same as the pres- ent or past) @k [f\j efk ] Xcc n`k_`e k_\ \o \dgk`fej c`jk \[ in the legislation (e.g. residential premis- es) 46 The application process is open to any local orga- nization with ties to the resource. Applicants must provide a description of the property or building, its address, information about the current occu- pants, a narrative justifying its value to the com- munity, and evidence indicating the nominator’s eligibility to submit the application. 47 The borough council has eight weeks to review the application and render a decision, during which the owner and leaseholder are notified of the application. If the council elects to designate the property, the owner can appeal the decision. While the law does not directly restrict the owner’s rights to the property once it has been listed, the local planning depart- ment must take the designation into account if any SELCAMRA (FLICKR) The Ivy House Pub in South East London became the first Community Right to Bid-acquired pub in April 2013 and now operates as a co-operative enterprise, enabling individuals to purchase shares in the business. Recommended Strategies applications for a change of use are submitted. To support listed pubs, the City enacted a series of benefits and protections for businesses and communi- ty groups. It reduced the beer tax, doubled small busi- ness tax relief, and expanded pub community services, including £150,000 for the “Pub is the Hub” program and public education about converting pubs to co-ops. Most significantly, the City expanded the “Community Right to Bid” program (introduced under the Localism Act of 2011) to include pubs that are listed as Community Assets. The program places a six-month moratorium on any proposed sales of registered assets, granting com- munity groups time to develop takeover proposals and bids when the property goes to market. Property own- ers can file claims with local authorities for any losses incurred during the moratorium period, and the provi- sions set forth in the law do not restrict the final sale in any way. Case Study: “Assets of Community Value” Designation and “Community Right to Bid” (London) CONSERVING CULTURAL HERITAGE ASSETS 35 Case Study: “Bares Notables” (Buenos Aires) The City of Buenos Aires launched “Bares No- tables” in 1998, an official designation program for bars, cafes, billiard halls, and confectioneries whose enduring impact on the city’s history and architecture has rendered them worthy of pres- ervation. 48 To qualify, businesses must have dis- tinctive architectural features, occupy a special place in the neighborhood’s identity, and/or con- tribute to a sense of history in Buenos Aires. The list expands yearly and includes both famous and lesser-known establishments throughout the city. As of 2013, there were 73 designated businesses. The City also administers a grant program for con- servation projects at designated establishments and distributes window decals indicating certified status. The Ministry of Culture and #54Bares (a citizens’ group) promote the initiative through an online map, social media, smart phone application, tours, and special events. GOBIERNO DE LA CIUDAD DE BUENOS AIRES (FLICKR) Mar Azul, recognized in Buenos Aires’ “Bares Notables” program, first opened in the 1940s in the San Nicolás neighborhood. ITALO10 (FLICKR) Plaque installed outside El Barbaro, which was founded by artist Luis Felipe Noé in 1969. The interior is adorned with paintings, writings, and sculptures of famous artists and writers dating to the 1970s. 36 SAN FRANCISCO HERITAGE Conclusion and Next Steps O ne of the greatest challenges facing heritage conserva- tion in San Francisco today is how to translate the need f or a more inclusiv e def inition of cultural heritage — and the t ools to sustain it — int o coor dinat ed citywide policy and action. Fledgling grassroots initiatives at the neighborhood level, as evidenced by the examples in this report, provide powerful in- sights into the challenges facing local communities that the City and preservation field must address. Drawing on domestic and international best practices, San Francisco Heritage is commit- ted to working with City policy makers to establish a citywide framework for the identification of cultural heritage assets and to advocating for incentives and other assistance needed to support them. To this end, we will seek out collaborative partnerships with City agencies and commissions, community groups, nonprofit organizations, and elected officials to identify and implement priority strategies, including: 1. Advocating for policies in the City’s General Plan that fur- ther cultural heritage conservation; 2. Providing technical assistance to communities seeking to inventory and document cultural heritage assets; 3. Partnering on youth educational programs that expose future generations to cultural heritage assets; 4. Providing funding to community groups through the Alice Carey Preservation Fund (to be launched by Heritage in fall 2014) for conservation of cultural heritage assets; and 5. Supporting the implementation of existing neighbor- hood heritage conservation initiatives, including projects in Japantown, Western SoMa, and the Mission District. As part of our ongoing commitment to supporting the city’s cultural heritage assets, San Francisco Heritage will continue to produce educational programs that explore these and related topics, including the Discover SF! Summer Camp in Heritage Conservation and the Legacy Bars & Restaurants initiative. Community-based heritage conservation initiatives have de- finitively altered the scope of traditional historic preservation efforts in San Francisco. The recommendations presented in this report are intended to infuse the citywide dialogue sur- rounding cultural heritage conservation with ideas and poten- tial solutions, contributing to the continuously growing body of work in this area. We look forward to further exploring these and other ideas with local stakeholders. ANDY BROOKS (FLICKR) TOP / ©PAMELA PALMA PHOTOGRAPHY, MIDDLE AND BOTTOM Located at 22nd and Valencia streets, Lucca Ravioli Co. first opened in 1925. The shop is one of the last remaining classic Italian delis in the Mission District. The ravioli is prepared on-site daily. CONSERVING CULTURAL HERITAGE ASSETS 37 where.” TakePart, 25 June 2014. <http://www.takepart. com/article/2014/06/24/affordable-housing-nation- wide>. 4. Torres, Blanca. “New Normal in the Mission: $1,000 sq. ft.” San Francisco Business Times, 18 April 2014. 5. San Francisco Planning Department. Japantown Cultural Heritage and Economic Sustainability Strategy (10 July 2013): 17. <http://www.sf-planning.org/ftp/files/plans- and-programs/in-your-neighborhood/japantown/JCHESS_ FinalDraft_07-10-13.pdf>. The Planning Department’s definition and criteria for “cultural heritage” represent a hybrid of definitions developed by the International Coun- cil on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) and the National Park Service (NPS), particularly the NPS’ definition of “traditional cultural properties” and criteria for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. 6. UNESCO. Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage (2003). <http://www.unesco.org/cul- ture/ich/index.php?pg=00006>. 1. In order to distinguish intangible cultural resources from tangible historic resources that are currently eligible for protections under existing City Landmark designation and incentive programs, Heritage proposes the term “cultural heritage asset” to describe historic businesses, nonprof- its, and other types of institutions that contribute to the city’s cultural identity. Existing programs may describe these elements as “social heritage resources” or “cultural heritage resources” to reflect the diverse range of histori- cal themes embodied in these places and institutions, and this report will reference both of those terms. 2. Berube, Alan. “All Cities Are Not Created Equal,” Brookings Institution. 2014. <http://www.brookings.edu/research/ papers/2014/02/cities-unequal-berube>. 3. “San Franciscans pay more than any other urban dwellers, with average rents of $3,057 a month, three times the national average. As tech money has flooded the city with new well-heeled residents, longtime locals have witnessed a 10.6 percent growth in rents during the last year and a transformation of their neighborhoods.” Schou, Solvej. “F orge t NY C and S.F .—the R ent Is T oo Damn High Ev er y- Notes DANI VERNON “The Great Cloud of Witnesses” is a collage covering the walls of the Gymnasium (aka Rev. Roland Gordon Fellowship Hall) at Ingleside Presbyterian Church. The collage, which has spilled into the hallways and most rooms in the church, features heroes and heroines of the civil rights movement and local leaders and residents. Rev. Roland Gordon has continuously worked on this collage over the past three decades. 38 SAN FRANCISCO HERITAGE 9. Rast, Raymond W. “A Matter of Alignment: Methods to Match the Goals of the Preservation Movement.” Forum Journal 28.3 (2014): 14. 10. Graves, Donna. The Legacy of California’s Landmarks: A Report for the California Cultural and Historical Endow- ment (Sept. 2012): 36-37. 11. San Francisco Historic Preservation Commission, Resolu- tion No. 0698, “Endorsing Further Exploration of a City Program to Document, Designate, and Incentives Social and Cultural Heritage,” 19 December 2012. <http:// commissions.sfplanning.org/hpcpackets/Social%20Heri- tage_12_5.pdf>. 12. San Francisco Board of Supervisors, Resolution 168-14, “Resolution establishing the Calle 24 (Veinticuatro) Latino Cultural District in San Francisco,” 20 May 2014. <http:// www.sfbos.org/ftp/uploadedfiles/bdsupvrs/committees/ materials/LU051914_140421.pdf>. 13. To download a copy of “Calle 24: Cuentos del Barrio,” visit: http://www.sfheritage.org/Calle24Booklet.pdf. 14. For more information about the proposed Filipino Social Heritage District, see http://www.sf-planning.org/Mod- ules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=7348 and http:// commissions.sfplanning.org/SoMa/DRAFT%20SoMa%20 Philippines%20SUD_PAL%206_11.pdf. 15. Walser, Lauren. “Young Explorers Discover San Francisco’s Architectural and Cultural Heritage.” PreservationNation Blog, 4 December 2013. <http://blog.preservationnation. org/2013/12/04/young-explorers-discover-san-francis- cos-architectural-and-cultural-heritage>. 16. The Japantown Cultural Heritage and Economic Sustain- ability Strategy can be downloaded from the San Fran- cisco Planning Department’s website at www.sf-planning. org/index.aspx?page=1692. 17 . Shoot, Brittany. “San Francisco – and Sean Penn – show a city’s heritage bars are worth saving.” Guardian Cities, 11 June 2014. <www.theguardian.com/cities/2014/jun/11/ san-francisco-sean-penn-city-heritage-bars-tosca-cafe>. 18. San Francisco Planning Department. Recognizing, Protect- ing and Memorializing South of Market LGBTQ Social Heri- 7. Designation as a traditional cultural property requires veri- fication by the cultural community and concurrence by the National Park Service, and can lead to listing of the prop- erty in the National Register of Historic Places. See http:// www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/pdfs/nrb38.pdf. 8. Donaldson, Milford Wayne. “To Whom Does Cultural Heri- tage Belong?” Preservation Matters 5.3 (2012): 1-5, 12. Notes SAN FRANCISCO HERITAGE Artist Johanna Poethig and her assistants painted the “Ang Lipi Ni Lapu Lapu” (The Descendants of Lapu Lapu) mural in 1984 on the San Lorenzo Ruiz Center, a residential building for low-income Filipino seniors in SoMa. CONSERVING CULTURAL HERITAGE ASSETS 39 tage Neighborhood Resources (18 July 2011): 2. <http:// commissions.sfplanning.org/SoMa/DRAFT%20LGBTQ%20 Proposal_PAL_6_11.pdf>. 19. Id. at 23. 20. The Mills Act is an economic incentive program to encour- age maintenance and rehabilitation of historic buildings. This state enabling legislation, enacted in 1972, signifi- cantly reduces property taxes for owners of historic prop- erties in exchange for a 10-year commitment by the owner to maintain and improve their historic property. For newly improved or recently purchased properties, it can result in a property tax savings of 50 percent or more. 21. Recent articles on out-migration and displacement of eth- nic and social populations include, “Black History Month? Not In San Francisco” by Caille Millner (San Francisco Chronicle, 31 Jan. 2014) at www.sfgate.com/living/ar- ticle/Black-History-Month-Not-in-San-Francisco-5194221. php and “Queer Flight: Does the Success of Gay Rights Mean the End of Gay Culture?” by Pete Kane (SF Weekly, 4 June 2014) at http://www.sfweekly.com/2014-06-04/ news/lgbt-castro-gay-bars/. 22. Because the focus of the afternoon working session, “Sustaining San Francisco’s Heritage Businesses and Cor- ridors,” was heritage businesses, most of the objectives listed for the June 2013 Community Summit relate to that topic. Businesses represent only a fraction of all cultural heritage assets and, as such, strategies and case studies addressing other types of resources are presented in the Recommended Strategies section of this report, on page 16. 23. San Francisco Historic Preservation Commission, Resolu- tion No. 0698, “Endorsing Further Exploration of a City Program to Document, Designate, and Incentives Social and Cultural Heritage,” 19 December 2012. <http:// commissions.sfplanning.org/hpcpackets/Social%20Heri- tage_12_5.pdf>. COMOTEVAS (FLICKR) LEFT / SAN FRANCISCO HERITAGE RIGHT In 2013, Encantada Gallery was evicted from its longtime location at 908 Valencia Street despite repeated attempts to work with the new landlord. “We were one of the first retail galleries in the Mission District to promote Chicano, Mexican, and Latino cultural heritage and memories through exhibitions and popular arts,” said gallery owner Mia Gonzalez at the time. “We regularly host openings where the artists and community come together for education and insights into the artistic process…” 40 SAN FRANCISCO HERITAGE have been identified as priority areas due to demonstrat- ed economic need, potential for economic growth, and/or existing social capital. For more information, see http:// oewd.org/IIN.aspx. 27 . Marcello, David. “Community Benefit Agreements: New Vehicle for Investment in America’s Neighborhoods,” 39 Urban Lawyer 657 (2007). 28. Geron, Tomio. “The Twitter Tax And Zendesk: How Tech Companies Affect The City.” Forbes, 5 Nov. 2012. <www. forbes.com/sites/tomiogeron/2012/11/05/the-twitter- tax-and-zendesk-how-tech-companies-affect-the-city/>. 29. Cote, John. “S.F. Mid-Market tax-break program grows up,” San Francisco Chronicle, 9 Jan. 2014. <www.sfgate.com/ bayarea/article/S-F-Mid-Market-tax-break-program-grows- up-5125877.php>. 30. Central Market Citizens Advisory Committee, “Frame- work for Community Benefit Agreements.” 21 June 2012. <www.sfgsa.org/modules/showdocument. aspx?documentid=10356>. 31. Other designated “heritage schools” in San Francisco include the Central Chinese High School in America, Centro Las Olas, Marineros Program, Cumberland Chi- nese School, Integr-ARTE San Francisco (Las Casa de los Sentidos), Monica Learning SF Center, and Star Learning Center. See www.cde.ca.gov/ls/pf/he/hsfaq.asp. 32. Remarks by Mayor Ed Lee at Bayview Opera House groundbreaking ceremony, 12 March 2014. Video on SF- GovTV at http://sanfrancisco.granicus.com/MediaPlayer. php?view_id=18&clip_id=19567. 33. San Francisco Planning Department. Japantown Cultural Heritage and Economic Sustainability Strategy (10 July 2013): 58. See also, Burlington Associates in Community Development, “Assessing the Feasibility of a Community Land Trust in Japantown” (2011) and Seifel Inc., “Eco- nomic Analysis of the Japan Center by a Community Land Trust” (2011). 34. Davis, John Emmeus. 2007. Starting a Community Land Trust: Organizational and Operational Choices. Burlington, VT: Burlington Associates in Community Development. <http://library.uniteddiversity.coop/Community_Land_ 24. Some cultural heritage assets may also qualify as histori- cal resources for the purposes of CEQA, but that determi- nation would need to be made through a separate evalua- tion process. 25. Office of the Mayor, Executive Directive 13-01, “Housing Production and Preservation of Rental Stock,” 18 Decem- ber 2013. The directive “order[s] all City departments that have the legal authority over the permitting or mapping of new or existing housing to prioritize in their administrative work plans the construction and development of all net new housing including permanently affordable hous- ing.” <http://www.sfmayor.org/modules/showdocument. aspx?documentid=374>. 26. The Invest in Neighborhoods program is focused on 25 different neighborhood commercial corridors, all of which Notes SAN FRANCISCO HERITAGE Gloria Toolsie, a Master Artist with the Alliance for California Traditional Arts and a co-founder of San Francisco’s Carnaval, poses with her grandchildren at the June 2013 Community Summit. CONSERVING CULTURAL HERITAGE ASSETS 41 fault.aspx. 39. Rothstein, Mervyn. “Nonprofits’ Wall St. Home Filling Up,” New York Times, 3 Sept. 1997. <www.nytimes. com/1997/09/03/nyregion/nonprofits-wall-st-home- filling-up.html>. 40. San Francisco Travel Association (SF Travel), San Francis- co Visitor Industry Statistics, at www.sanfrancisco.travel/ research/. 41. San Francisco Arts & Cultural Travel Study, December 2010. Prepared for SF Travel by Destination Analysts, Inc. <http://news.californiapreservation.org/wp-content/ uploads/2014/03/San-Francisco-Arts-and-Cultural-Travel- Study-2010.pdf>. 42. In San Francisco, heritage trails have been installed or are planned in the Upper Tenderloin Historic District (sidewalk plaques), the Castro (sidewalk etchings and “Rainbow Honor Walk”), and Western SoMa (LGBTQ “Heritage Path”). Trusts/Starting_a_Community_Land_Trust-Organizational_ and_Operational_Choices.pdf>. 35. CAST applied to have the building that houses the Lug- gage Store Gallery reclassified as a historic resource under Article 11 of the Planning Code so that the Luggage Store Gallery can sell TDR and use funds from the sale to put towards purchasing the property from CAST. 36. The City of San Francisco offers payroll tax exclusions for clean technology and biotechnology, including a tax exclu- sion for up to 10 years to clean energy technology firms and payroll tax exclusion to biotech firms for 7.5 years. 37 . Some ideas for financial incentives for cultural heritage assets are drawn from the “Proposal for Formal Social Heritage Resource Designations,” presented to the San Francisco Historic Preservation Commission by Com- missioner Diane Matsuda and then-Commissioner Alan Martinez on December 5, 2012. 38. For more information on Philadelphia’s Longtime Owner Occupants Program, see www.phila.gov/loop/Pages/de- SAN FRANCISCO HERITAGE Incorporated in 1987, nonprofit Acción Latina (2958 24th Street) strengthens Latino communities by promoting and preserving cultural traditions and by encouraging meaningful civic engagement to build and sustain healthy, informed communities. One of its most well-known programs is “El Tecolote” newspaper, which originated as a class project in the Raza Studies Department at San Francisco State University in 1970. 42 SAN FRANCISCO HERITAGE 31 Oct. 2013. <www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index. php?option=com_content&view=article&id=16072%3Ar ecent-developments-in-relation-to-assets-of-community- value&catid=58&Itemid=26>. 48. Articles on the “Bares Notables” program include “Buenos Aires Spotlights Its Cafes” by Camille Cusumano (New York Times, 9 July 2009) at www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/ travel/12journeys.html?_r=0 and “The Buenos Aires 54” by Rachel Hall (The Argentina Independent, 11 Jan. 2010) at www.argentinaindependent.com/life-style/thecity/the- buenos-aires-54/. 49. San Francisco Historic Preservation Commission, Resolu- tion No. 0698, “Endorsing Further Exploration of a City Program to Document, Designate, and Incentives Social and Cultural Heritage,” 19 December 2012. <http:// commissions.sfplanning.org/hpcpackets/Social%20Heri- tage_12_5.pdf>. 43. For more information on the South Bronx Culture Trail, see www.casitamaria.org/southbronxculturetrail. 44. For more information on the Santa Cruz Heritage Alli- ance’s heritage tourism program, see www.santacruzher- itage.org/heritagetourism. 45. In July 2013, the Barcelona City Council introduced legisla- tion to create a new cultural resources category for intan- gible heritage. For more information on the legislation, see www.btv.cat/btvnoticies/2013/07/16/lajuntament-vol- protegir-les-botigues-emblematiques. 46. Assets of Community Value (England) Regula- tions 2012. <http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ ukdsi/2012/9780111526293/pdfs/ukd- si_9780111526293_en.pdf>. 47 . Murillo, Antonia. “Recent developments in relation to Assets of Community Value.” Local Government Lawyer, Notes SAN FRANCISCO HERITAGE Established in 1916, the Verdi Club is an Italian American social club that moved to 2424 Mariposa Street in 1935. For nearly a century, its members have been dancing, dining, and socializing in the hall. In its appeal of the 480 Potrero project - currently under construction next door - the club raised concerns about the incompatibility of locating residential units atop noise, cooking exhaust, and parking demands created by its events. CONSERVING CULTURAL HERITAGE ASSETS 43 Appendix A: Community Summit Agenda Community Summit: Sustaining San Francisco’s Living History June 15, 2013 “Sustaining San Francisco’s Living History” was presented by San Francisco Heritage in partnership with the Alliance for California, Traditional Arts, California Office of Historic Preservation, Gellert Family Business Resource Center (USF), Japantown Organizing Committee, National Trust for Historic Preservation, Page & Turnbull, San Francisco Latino Historical Society, San Fran- cisco Planning Department, and SoMa Pilipinas. The event was held at the Bayanihan Community Center with support from the California Office of Historic Preservation and the San Fran- cisco Planning Department. Additional Presenters: » Erick Arguello, Calle 24 SF » Mary Brown, San Francisco Planning Department » Shelley Caltagirone, San Francisco Planning Department » M.C. Canlas, Filipino American Development Foundation » Anne Cervantes, San Francisco Latino Historical Society » Clyde Colen, Sam Jordan’s Bar » Robert Hamaguchi, Japantown Task Force » Karl Hasz, San Francisco Historic Preservation Commission » Jonathan Lammers, San Francisco Planning Department » Angelina Yu, Chinatown Community Development Center 44 SAN FRANCISCO HERITAGE Appendix B: Social Heritage Inventory Record CONSERVING CULTURAL HERITAGE ASSETS 45 46 SAN FRANCISCO HERITAGE Appendix B: Social Heritage Inventory Record CONSERVING CULTURAL HERITAGE ASSETS 47 48 SAN FRANCISCO HERITAGE Appendix C: Eastside Heritage Consortium (Survey Excerpt) CONSERVING CULTURAL HERITAGE ASSETS 49 Culturally-focused Historic Designation Reports » Chicano Park and the Chicano Park Murals, National Reg- ister Nomination: http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1067/ files/chicano%20park%20national%20register%20nomi - nation%20final.pdf » Detroit Industry Murals, National Register Nomination: http://www.nps.gov/nhl/news/LC/spring2013/DetroitIn- dustryMurals.pdf » Epic of American Civilization Murals, National Register Nomination: http://www.nps.gov/nhl/news/LC/fall2012/ EpicOfAmericanCiv.pdf » Jimbo’s Bop City/Marcus Books Building, Landmark Desig- nating Ordinance: http://ec2-50-17-237-182.compute-1. amazonaws.com/docs/landmarks_and_districts/LM266. pdf » Sam Jordan’s Bar, Landmark Designating Ordinance: http://ec2-50-17-237-182.compute-1.amazonaws.com/ docs/landmarks_and_districts/LM263.pdf » Twin Peaks Tavern, Landmark Designating Ordinance: http://ec2-50-17-237-182.compute-1.amazonaws.com/ docs/landmarks_and_districts/LM264.pdf State and Federal Reports and Initiatives » Asian P acific Islander Heritage Initiativ e: http://www.nps. gov/aapi » American Latino Theme Study: http://www.nps.gov/latino/ latinothemestudy » Calif ornia Office of Hist oric Preser v ation’s “Preser v e Latino History” Initiative: http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_ id=27915 » Five Views: An Ethnic Historic Site Survey for California: http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_ books/5views/5views.htm » The Legacy of California’s Landmarks: A Report for the Cali- fornia Cultural and Historical Endowment: http://resources. Appendix D: Resources Recommendations for Further Reading Existing Preservation Programs, Incentives, and Funding Sources » Alice Carey Preservation Fund (San Francisco Heritage will launch in fall 2014): www.sfheritage.org » Calif ornia R egist er of Hist oric Places (Calif ornia Office of Historic Preservation): http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_ id=21238 » City of San Francisco Historic Preservation Program, includ- ing information about local Landmark procedures, the City’s Mills Act program, and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): http://www.sf-planning.org/index. aspx?page=1825#landmarks » Historic Preservation Fund (City of San Francisco): http:// sfgsa.org/index.aspx?page=676 » National Register of Historic Places (National Park Service): http://www.nps.gov/nr » National Trust for Historic Preservation Grants: http://www. preservationnation.org/resources/find-funding » Traditional Cultural Properties (National Park Service): http://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/pdfs/nrb38. pdf Culturally-focused Historic Context Statements in San Francisco » African American Historic Context Statement: http://www. sf-planning.org/index.aspx?page=3552 » Japantown Historic Context Statement: http://www.sf-plan- ning.org/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=1696 » Latino Historic Context Statement: http://www.sfheritage. org/social-heritage/latino-heritage » LGBT Historic Context Statement: http://www.sf-planning. org/index.aspx?page=3673 » SoMa Historic Context Statement: http://www.sf-planning. org/modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=372 50 SAN FRANCISCO HERITAGE Appendix D: Resources ca.gov/cche/docs/TheLegacy_of_CaliforniasLandmarks. pdf » Lesbian, Bisexual, Gay, and Transgender Heritage Initiative: http://www.nps.gov/heritageinitiatives/LGBThistory International Resources » The Burra Charter: The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance: http://australia.icomos.org/ publications/charters » English-language translation of the Principles for the Con- servation of Heritage Sites in China: http://www.getty.edu/ conservation/publications_resources/pdf_publications/ pdf/china_prin_heritage_sites.pdf » UNESCO’s Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage: http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/in- dex.php?pg=00006 San Francisco Cultural/Social Heritage Programs and Proposals » Calle 24 Latino Cultural District » Calle 24 SF website: www.calle24sf.org » San Francisco Board of Supervisors, Resolution 168- 14, “Resolution establishing the Calle 24 (Veinticuatro) Latino Cultural District in San Francisco”: http://www. sfbos.org/ftp/uploadedfiles/bdsupvrs/committees/ma - terials/LU051914_140421.pdf » Calle 24: Cuentos del Barrio: http://www.sfheritage. org/Calle24Booklet.pdf » Filipino Social Heritage District (proposed): http:// www.sf-planning.org/Modules/ShowDocument. aspx?documentid=7348 and http://commissions.sfplan- ning.org/SoMa/DRAFT%20SoMa%20Philippines%20 SUD_PAL%206_11.pdf » HPC proposal for a Citywide Cultural Heritage Resource Designation: http://commissions.sfplanning.org/hpcpack- ets/Social%20Heritage_12_5.pdf » Japantown Cultural Heritage and Economic Sustainability Strategy: http://www.sf-planning.org/ftp/files/plans-and- programs/in-your-neighborhood/japantown/JCHESS_Final- Draft_07-10-13.pdf » LGBTQ Social Heritage District (proposed): http://commis- sions.sfplanning.org/SoMa/DRAFT%20LGBTQ%20Pro- posal_PAL_6_11.pdf Educational, Interpretive, and Promotional Programs » California Department of Education’s Heritage Schools Program: www.cde.ca.gov/ls/pf/he/hsfaq.asp » Chinatown Alleyway Tours: https://chinatownalleywaytours. org » Legacy Bars & Restaurants: http://www.sfheritage.org/ legacy » Planning Interpretive Walking Tours for Communities and Historic Districts: http://portal.uni-freiburg.de/interpreteu- rope/service/publications/recommended-publications/ veverka_planning-interpretive-walkingtours.pdf Resources for San Francisco Neighborhoods » Central Market Citizens Advisory Committee, “Framework f or Community Benefit A greements”: www.sfgsa.org/mod- ules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=10356 » Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC) Bay Area: http://www.lisc.org/bay_area » San Francisco Travel Association: http://www.sanfrancisco. travel » SF Ma y or’s Office of Economic and W or kf or ce De v elop- ment: http://www.oewd.org » City of San F rancisco Community Benefit Districts: http://www.oewd.org/Neighborhood-Revitalization- Community-Benefit-Districts.aspx » Invest in Neighborhoods: http://www.oewd.org/Neigh- borhoods.aspx CONSERVING CULTURAL HERITAGE ASSETS 51 Resources for Businesses in San Francisco » Gellert Family Business Resource Center: http://www. usfca.edu/management/centers/Gellert_Family_Busi- ness_Resource_Center » SF Office of Small Business: http://sfgsa.org/index. aspx?page=3805 » Small Business Commission: http://sfgsa.org/index. aspx?page=4204 » Small Business Revolving Loan Fund: http://sfgsa.org/in- dex.aspx?page=4214 Resources for Cultural Organizations and Individual Artists in San Francisco » Alliance for California Traditional Arts (ACTA): http://www. actaonline.org » The Cultural Conservancy: http://www.nativeland.org » NEA Folk and Traditional Arts Programs: http://arts.gov/ artistic-fields/folk-traditional-arts » NEA National Heritage Fellowships: http://arts.gov/hon- ors/heritage » San Francisco Arts Commission: http://www.sfartscommis- sion.org Community Land Trusts » Community Arts Stabilization Trust: http://cast-sf.org » National Community Land Trust Network: http://cltnetwork. org » SF Community Land Trust: http://www.sfclt.org For over forty years, San Francisco Heritage has been leading the civic discussion about the compatibility of rapid change and protecting our past. Built on its activist underpinnings, SF Heritage has been instrumental in establishing the preservation protections that have allowed our city to evolve and flourish. SF Heritage is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) membership organization with a mission to preserve and enhance San Francisco’s unique architectural and cultural identity. CRAIG BUCHANAN Calle 24 Latino Cultural District Report on the Community Planning Process ! ! ! ! Report prepared by Garo Consulting For the Calle 24 Latino Cultural District Community Council December 2014 Appendix C ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Calle%24%Latino%Cultural%District%% Report%on%the%Community%Planning%Process% ! Report:!Garo!Consulting!! Funding!provided!by!the!SF!Mayor’s!Office!of!Economic!and!Workforce!Development! ! December!2014! ! ! Acknowledgements! ! The!Calle!24!Latino!Cultural!District!Council!(Calle!24)!wishes!to!acknowledge!and!thank! neighborhood!residents,!merchants,!artists,!community!workers!and!other!stakeholders! who!provided!invaluable!input!and!perspectives!throughout!the!planning!process.!In! particular,!Calle!24!wishes!to!thank!the!following!key!individuals,!organizations!and! businesses!for!their!contributions!to!the!planning!process:!The!Mayor’s!Office!of! Economic!and!Workforce!Development!(OEWD);!Supervisor!David!Campos;!Mayor!Ed! Lee;!Acción!Latina;!Brava!Theater;!Remy!De!La!Peza,!Little!Tokyo!Service!Center;!Marsha! Murrington,!Local!Initiatives!Support!Corporation!(LISC);!Sofia!Navarro,!The!Unity! Council;!Mayor’s!Office/San!Francisco!County!staff!members!Martin!Esteban!Farfan,! Laura!Lane,!Anne!Romero,!Diego!Sanchez!and!Aaron!Starr;!Mission!Girls;!Mission! Cultural!Center!for!Latino!Arts;!SF!Heritage!and!SF!Latino!Historical!Society;!Tio!Chilo’s! Grill;!Pig!and!Pie;!Vallarta’s;!and!Cecilia!Cassandra!Peña[Govea.! ! ! ! ! ! ! 4 Contents! ! EXECUTIVE SUMMARY!.....................................................................................................!5! 1. INTRODUCTION!..............................................................................................................!7! 2. APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY!..........................................................................!9! 3. KEY FINDINGS!................................................................................................................!12! Strengths!.........................................................................................................................................!12! Challenges!.......................................................................................................................................!13! Opportunities!................................................................................................................................!14! 4. VISION, MISSION, PURPOSES & GOALS!...............................................................!18! Mission and Vision Statements!..............................................................................................!18! Purposes and Goals!.....................................................................................................................!18! 5. PROPOSED PROGRAMS AND STRATEGIES!.......................................................!20! Key Strategies!................................................................................................................................!20! Program Activities!.......................................................................................................................!21! 6. ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE & GOVERNANCE!......................................!23! Structure!..........................................................................................................................................!23! Governance!.....................................................................................................................................!23! 7. CONCLUSION!.................................................................................................................!25! APPENDICES!.......................................................................................................................!27! ! ! 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ! n!2014,!with!support!from!Supervisor!Campos!and!advocacy!by!the!community,!the! Calle!24!Latino!Cultural!District!(LCD)!was!formed!by!a!Board!of!Supervisors! resolution.!The!planning!process!was!initiated!to!get!the!community’s!input!about!how! the!LCD!should!be!governed!and!how!it!should!serve!the!community.!Through!a! competitive!process,!consultants!were!hired!to!facilitate!the!planning!process,!engage! community!stakeholders,!and!gather!input!through!a!number!of!data!collection!activities! including!community!meetings,!one[on[one!interviews,!focus!groups,!and!a!review!of! other!cultural!district!plans.!The!objectives!of!the!planning!process!were:!1)!To!gather! community!input!about!the!Latino!Cultural!District’s!purposes,!strengths,!opportunities,! challenges,!targeted!strategies,!and!governance;!2)!To!review!best!practices!employed!by! other!designated!cultural!districts!(e.g.,!Little!Tokyo,!Fruitvale,!Japantown),!and!3)!To! draft!a!final!report!with!findings!and!recommendations.!! ! Mission&and&Vision&Statements& The!Calle!24!Community!Council!adopted!the!following!mission!and!vision!statements! as!one!outcome!of!the!community!planning!process:! Mission:!To!preserve,!enhance!and!advocate!for!Latino!cultural!continuity,!vitality,!and! community!in!San!Francisco’s!touchstone!Latino!Cultural!District!and!the!greater! Mission!community.!! Vision:!!The!Latino!Cultural!District!will!be!an!economically!vibrant!community!that!is! inclusive!of!diverse!income!households!and!businesses!that!together!compassionately! embrace!the!unique!Latino!heritage!and!cultures!of!24th!Street!and!that!celebrate!Latino! cultural!events,!foods,!businesses,!activities,!art!and!music.! ! Calle24&Latino&Cultural&District&Beneficiaries& Beneficiaries!of!the!Latino!Cultural!District!include!individuals!(e.g.,!LCD!families,! including!traditional,!non[traditional,!and!extended;!artists;!working!people;!residents;! immigrants;!youth;!and!elders),!organizations!(neighborhood!businesses,!arts!and! culture!organizations,!educational!institutions,!and!community!service!agencies),!and! San!Francisco!and!the!general!public.! ! Calle24&Latino&Cultural&District&Purposes&and&Goals& The!purposes!of!the!LCD!are!to:! 1. Strengthen,!preserve!and!enhance!Latino!arts!&!cultural!institutions,!enterprises! and!activities! 2. Encourage!civic!engagement!and!advocate!for!social!justice! 3. Encourage!economic!vitality!and!economic!justice!for!district!families,!working! people,!and!immigrants! 4. Promote!economic!sustainability!for!neighborhood!businesses!and!nonprofits! 5. Promote!education!about!Latino!cultures! I! ! ! 6 6. Ensure!collaboration!and!coordination!with!other!local!arts,!community,!social! service!agencies,!schools,!and!businesses! ! The!goals!of!the!LCD!are!to:! 1. Create!a!safe,!clean,!and!healthy!environment!for!residents,!families,!artists,!and! merchants!to!work,!live,!and!play.! 2. Foster!an!empowered,!activist!community!and!pride!in!our!community.! 3. Create!a!beautiful,!clearly!designated!Latino!corridor!along!Calle!24,!and! preserve!the!unique!beauty!and!cultures!that!identify!Calle!24!and!the!Mission! 4. Preserve!and!create!stable,!genuinely!affordable!and!low[income!housing!in!the! District!and!related!infrastructure.! 5. Manage!and!establish!guidelines!for!development!and!economic!change!in!the! District!in!ways!that!preserve!the!District’s!Latino!community!and!cultures.! 6. Foster!a!sustainable!local!economy!that!provides!vital!goods!and!services!to!the! District!and!supports!living!Latino!cultures.! ! Key&Strategies&and&Program&Areas& Through!community!input!gathered!during!the!planning!process,!the!following!key! strategies!and!program!activities!were!developed:! ! Key!Strategies!! • Create!an!organizational!entity!–!a!501(c)(3)!–!to!manage!the!LCD! • Create!and!leverage!Special!Use!District!designations! • Implement!a!Cultural!Benefits!District!campaign!and!assessment! • Develop!a!community[wide!communications!infrastructure!and!promotion!of! the!District!through!traditional!and!social!media! • Collaborate!with,!connect,!and!support!existing!arts!and!cultures!and!other! nonprofit!service!organizations!in!implementing!the!Latino!Cultural!District’s! mission,!rather!than!replacing!or!competing!with!them! • Serve!as!a!safety!net!for!the!District’s!traditional!cultural[critical!community! events,!such!as!Carnaval,!Día!de!los!Muertos,!and!the!Cesar!E.!Chavez!Holiday! Celebration! • Generate!sufficient!resources!to!support!creation!and!sustainability!of!the!Latino! Cultural!District!programs!and!activities! • Pursue!social!and!economic!justice!fervently,!and!conduct!its!work!with!the!Si!Se! Puede!spirit!of!determination,!collective!strength,!and!compassion! ! Community!input!also!helped!define!four!program!areas:!!land!use!and!housing;! economic!vitality;!cultural!assets!and!arts;!and!quality!of!life,!with!related!activities!that! are!further!discussed!in!the!report.!Finally,!the!community!provided!extensive!input!on! the!governance!structure!for!the!LCD,!including!the!organizational!structure,!committee! structure,!member!eligibility,!and!board!size,!composition,!and!conditions.!The! following!report!shares!the!results!of!the!planning!process.! ! ! 7 1. INTRODUCTION ! n May 2014, under the leadership of Supervisor Campos, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors approved a resolution (SF Heritage, 2014) to designate 24 TH Street a Latino Cultural District (LCD). This unanimous vote was the result of a collaborative effort between Calle 24 SF, a neighborhood coalition of residents, merchants, non-profits in the area, the San Francisco Latino Historical Society, San Francisco Heritage, and the Offices of Mayor Ed Lee and Supervisor David Campos. A cultural district is a region and community linked together by similar cultural or heritage resources, and offering a visitor experiences that showcase those resources. The San Francisco Board of Supervisors resolution eloquently describes the rationale for the designation of this historic neighborhood as a Latino Cultural District: Whereas, the Calle 24 Latino Cultural District memorializes a place whose richness of culture, history and entrepreneurship is unrivaled in San Francisco; and Whereas, the Calle 24 (“Veinticuatro”) Latino Cultural District has deep Latino roots that are embedded within the institutions, events and experiences of the Latino community living there; and Whereas, because of numerous historic, social and economic events, the Mission District has become the center of highly concentrated Latino residential population, as well as a cultural center of Latino businesses… (page 1, SF Heritage) With the adoption of the Board of Supervisor’s resolution, the City and County recognized the significance of 24 th Street to the City’s history and culture, while also acknowledging a number of significant factors impacting the Mission District and, in particular, the 24 th Street area. Calle 24 (“Veinticuatro”) is a demographically diverse area, rich in Latino cultural heritage and assets (SF Office of Economic and Workforce Development, SF Planning Department, & LISC, 2014). As noted in the Lower 24 th Street Neighborhood Profile, Calle 24 features over 200 small businesses (a majority of which are retail) and a high level of pedestrian traffic. Since 2006, sales tax revenue in the area has grown faster in this area than in the city overall, and the neighborhood is rich in community-based arts, cultural, and social service organizations. Approximately 23,000 people live in the neighborhood, with significant percentages of White, Latino, and other or mixed race individuals. (SF Office of Economic and Workforce Development, SF Planning Department, & LISC, 2014). A strong sense of community and history, many cultural events, the area’s walkability, its low vacancy rate, and destination as a Latino cultural center are among the area’s strengths. However, challenges include the increasing commercial rents, the lack of opportunities for youth, a fear of the “Mission” culture disappearing, an increase in gang violence and crime in general, the deterioration of sidewalks and storefronts, and a lack of lighting and nighttime activity. The pursuit of community-driven strategies to preserve the local history and culture and the development of partnerships between old and new businesses I ! ! 8 and the various commercial and non-profit entities in the area were cited as important opportunities to seize. As a backdrop to Calle 24 organizing the community to preserve the history and culture of the 24 th Street corridor was the very recent history of the dot-com boom and the departure of 50,000 from the Bay Area because of the lack of affordable housing (Zito, 2000); approximately 10% of the Latino population left San Francisco in the early 2000s, making San Francisco one of the only U.S. cities to lose Latino/a residents (Census, 2000; Census, 2005). In her project collecting oral histories from Mission district residents about the neighborhood’s gentrification, Dr. Mirabal found that many saw the loss of Latino residents, businesses, and culture not only as examples of gentrification but also as acts of cultural exclusion and erasure (Mirabal, 2009). As the technology sector began to boom again and the neighborhood began to quickly change, Calle 24 advocated for the successful designation of Calle 24 as a Latino Cultural District (LCD) to preserve and further develop the area’s rich cultural heritage (see Appendix D for news articles describing the recent community transformation and advocacy for the LCD). This report describes the development of a plan for governance and implementation of the LCD.! ! ! ! 9 2. APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY o!develop!a!plan!for!the!Calle!24!Latino!Cultural!District,!San!Francisco’s!Mayor’s! Office!of!Economic!and!Workforce!Development!provided!funding!to!Calle!24!SF.!! Calle!24!SF!selected!the!Garo!Group!as!consultants!to!facilitate!a!process!of!involving!the! community!in!the!development!of!a!plan!for!the!Calle!24!Latino!Cultural!District!(see! Appendix!B!for!a!description!and!map!of!the!LCD).!This!project!was!guided!by!a! collaborative,!participatory!and!inclusive!approach!to!engage!the!community!in! articulating!a!vision!and!plan!for!the!LCD.!The!planning!process,!coordinated!and! guided!by!the!Calle!24!Planning!Committee 1 ,!began!in!July,!2014.!The!methods!used!in! the!planning!process!included!the!following:!!10!in[depth!interviews,!four!focus!groups,! one!study!session!with!experts!in!the!field,!4!community!meetings,!and!1!Council!retreat.! The!planning!committee!met!regularly!throughout!the!planning!process!to!utilize! community!input!to!inform!each!step!of!the!planning!process.!The!figure!below!depicts! the!steps!in!the!6[month!planning!process.! ! ! Figure!1:!Overview!of!the!Community!Planning!Process! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1 !The!Calle!24!Planning!Committee!includes!Erick!Argüello,!Georgiana!Hernández,! Anastacia!Powers[Cuellar,!and!Miles!Pickering.! Calle 24 Committee Meeting (ongoing throughout planning process) 10 Stakeholder interviews September Community Meeting Four Stakeholder focus groups Study Session November Community Meeting December Community Meeting Council Retreat January Community Meeting T! ! ! 10 ! ! Key&Stakeholder&Outreach&and&Recruitment&for&Interviews&and&Focus&Groups& The!Calle!24!Planning!Committee!collaboratively!brainstormed!a!list!of!key!stakeholders! (including!residents,!merchants,!artists,!non[profit!service!and!arts!organizations,!etc.)!to! interview.!Interviewees!were!contacted!by!phone!or!by!email,!and!a!date!and!time!was! agreed!upon!for!them!to!be!interviewed.!All!but!three!of!the!interviews!were!conducted! by!phone.!Interviews!were!not!audio!recorded,!but!detailed!notes!were!taken!by!the! interviewer!and!edited!immediately!after!the!interview.!The!planning!committee!also! felt!it!was!important!to!have!focus!groups!with!each!of!the!following!stakeholder! groups:!!residents,!merchants,!youth,!and!non[profit!arts!organizations.!Recruitment!for! the!focus!groups!was!done!through!convenience!and!snowball!sampling!approaches.! Members!of!the!planning!committee,!who!are!also!well[known!and!trusted!community! leaders,!identified!people!from!their!social!networks!and!these!people!invited!others! within!their!networks.!For!the!youth!focus!group,!two!youth!who!were!involved!in!the! planning!process!contacted!friends!and!neighbors!living!in!the!corridor.!In!addition,! youth!organizations!such!as!Mission!Girls!were!invited!to!participate.!Erick!Argüello!of! the!planning!committee,!known!to!most!local!merchants,!personally!invited!each! merchant!to!attend.!Stacie!Powers!Cuellar!of!the!planning!committee!provided!a!list!of! all!the!artists!and!arts!organizations!in!the!corridor,!and!an!email!invitation!was!sent!to! all.!Some!of!these!artists!invited!others!to!attend.!(See!Appendix!E!for!a!full!list!of! interviewees!and!focus!group!attendees.)! ! The!Planning!Team!developed!questions!(see!Appendix!F!for!the!interview!and!focus! group!guides)!to!explore!the!neighborhood’s!strengths!and!assets,!challenges,!as!well!as! further!understand!critical!opportunities!for!the!LCD.!Each!of!the!group!discussions!was! facilitated!by!members!of!the!consulting!team!with!a!long!history!of!experience!in! community!development,!community!mediation!and!facilitation,!and!participatory! research.!Each!group!discussion!had!at!least!two!members!of!the!consulting!team! present,!with!1[2!co[facilitators!and!a!note!taker.!Notes!from!the!interviews,!focus! groups,!and!community!meetings!were!edited!and!analyzed!using!standard!qualitative! procedures.!Themes!were!identified!using!individual!and!group!responses!to!questions! regarding!cultural!assets!of!the!area,!desired!changes,!vision!for!the!LCD,!and! recommendations.!!Data!collection!related!to!vision!of!the!LCD!and!challenges!to!be! addressed!was!concluded!when!no!new!themes!emerged,!and!the!inventory!of!cultural! resources!in!the!Calle!24!corridor!appeared!to!be!complete.! The!planning!process!was!also!informed!by!a!review!of!other!cultural!district!plans!as! well!as!a!study!session!with!experts!from!the!Fruitvale!and!Little!Tokyo!Cultural! Districts!(see!Appendix!G!for!notes!from!the!study!session).!Some!of!the!plans!reviewed! included!Creative!Place!making,!Taos!Arts!and!Cultural!District!Plan!and!Sustaining!San! Francisco’s!Living!History!Strategies!for!Conserving!Cultural!Heritage!Assets!(see! Appendix!C).! ! ! 11 Three!community!meetings!(open!to!the!general!public)!and!one!Calle!24!Council!retreat! were!also!critical!to!the!planning!process!(see!Appendix!I!and!J!for!community!meeting! agendas!and!notes!and!Appendix!K!for!notes!from!the!Council!Retreat).!These! community!meetings!were!designed!to!gather!input!from!the!broader!community!to! inform!the!planning!process!and!to!share!findings!from!the!planning!process.!Outreach! for!the!community!meetings!was!done!using!Facebook,!email,!word[of[mouth,!and! handing!out!and!posting!flyers!in!the!neighborhood.!A!Calle!24!Council!retreat!was!held! toward!the!end!of!the!planning!process!in!order!to!finalize!decisions!regarding! governance!and!program!activities!as!outlined!in!this!report.! ! ! ! ! ! 12 3. KEY FINDINGS ! his!section!outlines!the!major!findings!from!the!interviews,!focus!groups,!review!of! cultural!district!plans,!study!session!and!community!meetings.!!Findings!are! organized!according!to!strengths,!challenges!and!opportunities!for!the!Latino!Cultural! District.!The!themes!identified!here!are!those!that!emerged!most!often!during!the!data! gathering!phase,!and!do!not!necessarily!reflect!the!views!of!Calle!24.! ! Strengths Throughout!the!planning!process,!a!number!of!strengths!of!the!Latino!Cultural!District! emerged!in!two!broad!categories:%%cultural%assets%and%arts%and%community%identity.%% The!community!stakeholders!who!participated!in!discussions,!interviews,!and!the! community!meetings!identified!a!vast!array!of!cultural!assets!and!arts!(see!appendices!K! and!L!for!a!complete!inventory!of!the!cultural!assets!and!art!that!emerged!throughout! the!planning!process).!These!included!the!iconic!murals!and!other!art,!cultural!events! such!as!Carnaval!and!Día!de!Los!Muertos,!arts!organizations!such!as!Galería!de!la!Raza! and!Precita!Eyes,!service!non[profits,!parks,!businesses!including!incredible!restaurants,! churches.!The!other!major!theme!that!emerged!in!stakeholder!discussions!of!the! neighborhood!strengths!was!the!community%identity!or!the!spirit!of!Calle!24,!including! both!tangible!and!intangible!characteristics!such!as!the!demographic!diversity,!the! strong!community!connections,!the!commitment!to!social!justice,!and!the! neighborhood’s!walkability,!tree!canopy!and!landscaping.!A!more!detailed!listing!of! tangible!and!intangible!cultural!assets!is!below.!! % Cultural%Assets%and%Art% • Murals!and!art! • Cultural!events! • Artists!and!arts!organizations! • Latino!business!enclave! • Established!community!based!organizations! • Thriving!faith!community! • Culinary!destinations! ! Community%Identity% • Long[term!presence!of!families!and!historic!or!legacy!businesses! • Commitment!to!social!justice! • Strong!community!connections! • Local!leadership! • Unique!neighborhood!character! • Strong!sense!of!community,!place!and!history! • Demographic!diversity! • Strong!core!shopper!base! T! ! ! 13 • Cultural!events! • Tourism! • Business!ownership! • Character! • Walkability! ! Challenges There!were!a!few!key!challenges!that!emerged!from!the!data!gathering!during!the! planning!process.!These!challenges!revolved!around!five!key!themes:!!the!lack!of! affordable!housing,!rapid!community!transformation,!tensions!in!the!community,! quality!of!life,!and!sustainability!of!the!LCD.!There!were!major!concerns!among! all!stakeholders!about!the!lack%of%affordable%housing%and!about!the!gentrification! and!recent!eviction!and!displacement!of!long[time!residents.!!A!related!theme!was! the!rapid!community%transformation!underway,!with!some!saying!they!wanted! to!prevent!another!“Valencia”!(referring!to!the!way!Valencia!lost!much!of!its! Latino!culture!in!the!1990s!and!2000s).!Community%relations,!often!discussed!as! tensions!between!newcomers!and!old[timers,!was!another!key!challenge!that! emerged!in!many!interviews,!focus!groups,!and!community!meetings.!Many! mentioned!that!there!often!appears!to!be!a!division!between!the!predominantly! Latino,!long[time!residents,!and!the!newer,!predominantly!White,!residents.!One! person!mentioned!feeling!an!increased!police!presence!to!address!the!fear!of! “brown!boys”.!The!cultural!differences!between!old!and!new!can!be!challenging,! and!many!of!those!who!have!lived!in!the!neighborhood!for!years!struggle!with! how!to!integrate!newcomers!and!“convince&them&that&Brava,!Galería&de&la&Raza,& Acción&Latina&and&the&fish&market&are&all&important”.!!Challenges!affecting!residents’! quality%of%life!also!emerged!frequently;!these!included!things!such!as!gang! violence,!liquor!stores,!broken!sidewalks,!lack!of!public!spaces,!lack!of!police! presence,!etc.!Finally,!a!few!of!the!often[mentioned!challenges!revolved!around! the!implementation!and!sustainability%of%the%LCD.!The!limited!resources!(lack!of! funding!and!staff)!to!develop!and!maintain!a!governance!structure!and! implement!all!the!desired!activities!of!the!LCD!were!discussed!by!many.!!These! themes!are!elaborated!below.! % Lack%of%Affordable%Housing% • Evictions!and!displacements! • Inadequate!rent!control! • Rapid!gentrification! • Housing/building!code!violations! ! Community%Transformation% • Rapid!transformation!of!neighborhood!without!a!plan!(“not!another! Valencia”)! ! ! 14 • Loss!of!historical!businesses,!residents!and!services! • Unaffordable!commercial!rents!(difficult!for!long!time!tenants!to!pay)! • Increase!in!health!code!and!building!code!violations! • Fear!of!“Mission”!culture!disappearing! • Loss!of!historical!establishments! % Community%Relations% • Tension!between!the!old!and!the!new!(lack!of!integration)! • Partnership!challenges!with!City/County! • Lack!of!opportunities!for!youth! • Frictions!with!new!residents!and!businesses! ! Quality%of%Life% • Lack!of!public!spaces!and!seating! • Lack!of!signage,!dilapidated!structures,!dirty!gates!drawn!during!day! • Gang!violence!and!fear!of!gangs!limiting!activity! • Insufficient!police!vigilance!(beat!cops!rarely!seen)! • Too!many!liquor!stores! • Dirty,!broken!sidewalks;!public!spaces,!trees!overgrown! • Poor!lighting,!dark!at!night,!increased!perception!of!unsafe! • Homeless!populations! % Sustainability% • Limited!resources!to!sustain!the!LCD! • Building!a!sustainable!governance!model!! • Lack!of!resources!to!hire!full!time!LCD!Coordinator! ! Opportunities Throughout!the!data!gathering!process,!many!opportunities!for!the!LCD!emerged.!! These!are!organized!according!to!five!key!areas:!!1)!land!use!design!and!housing;!2)! economic!vitality;!3)!cultural!assets!and!arts;!4)!quality!of!life;!and!5)!governance.!!In!the! area!of!land%use%design%and%housing,!recommendations!had!to!do!with!land!use!and! other!policies!to!help!preserve!and!further!develop!cultural!assets,!the!preservation!and! development!of!affordable!housing,!and!strategies!to!promote!property!ownership,! particularly!for!Latino!residents!and!businesses.!Economic%vitality!revolved!around! opportunities!and!strategies!to!promote!the!economic!viability!and!growth!of!businesses! and!organizations,!particularly!those!with!historic!and!cultural!significance!in!the! District.!!Stakeholders!discussed!many!opportunities!related!to!the!preservation!and! promotion!of!cultural%assets%and%arts.!Quality%of%life!opportunities!included!things!that! focused!on!improving!the!physical!appearance!and!accessibility!of!the!District,! particularly!things!that!promote!the!Latino!Cultural!District!(e.g.,!way!finding,!visual! ! ! 15 cues,!etc.).!!Finally,!a!key!opportunity!that!emerged!throughout!the!planning!process! and!ultimately!became!a!priority!in!community!discussions!was!the!development!of!a! governance!structure!to!oversee!and!manage!the!Latino!Cultural!District.!The! opportunities!in!each!of!these!key!areas!are!listed!in!more!detail!below.! ! 1)%Land%use%design%and%housing% • Work!with!Building!and!Planning!Developments!to!create!new!land!use!policies! to!support!cultural!assets.!Integrate!SF!Heritage!frameworks!and!language!for! designation!and!support!of!Cultural!Heritage!Assets.! • Explore!Special!Use!District,!Business!Improvement!District,!and!Community! Benefit!District!creation.!Connect!with!community[based!efforts!that!have! successfully!adopted!these!tax!increment!measures:!Castro!Community!Benefit! District!and!Fruitvale!Business!Improvement!District.!! • Pursue!community[driven!strategies!to!preserve!local!history!and!culture.! Continue!partnerships!with!SF!Heritage!and!universities!to!capture!history!and! preserve!it!for!future!generations.! • Protect!existing!parking.! • Regulate!rents!for!housing!and!cultural!spaces!and!explore!models!that!preserve! historical!residents!and!merchants.!! • Programs!to!provide!financial!and!legal!assistance!to!residents,!businesses!and! organizations/tenants’!rights.!Enforce!HUD!Fair!Housing!laws.! • Advocate!for!the!development!of!affordable!housing!(for!example,!through!early! identification!of!sites!that!may!be!available!for!development!and!small!sites! development!where!existing!units!can!be!converted!to!affordable!housing).! • Advocate!for!rent!regulation!for!tenants,!businesses,!and!non[profits.!Engage! diverse!neighborhood!stakeholders!(residents,!businesses,!and!non[profits)!in! affordable!housing!movement.! • Advocate!for!a!moratorium!on!Ellis!evictions.! • Educate!community!about!local,!state,!federal!housing!laws!and!housing! assistance!programs!(e.g.,!DALP).! • Identify!funding!sources!and!strategies!to!develop!and!purchase!properties!(e.g.,! affordable!housing!trust!fund!controlled!by!Mayor’s!Office!on!Housing;! foundations;!technology!industry;!land!trust!models,!utilizing!cooperative! development!strategies!such!as!tenants’!collective!to!purchase!properties;! eminent!domain,!interim!controls!(for!businesses).! • Seek!help!from!the!city!and!others!to!help!legacy!institutions!such!as!the!Mission! Cultural!Center!and!Galería!de%la!Raza!purchase!their!buildings.! • Promote!Latino!ownership!of!businesses.! • Create!artist[centered!housing!(artist[in[residence;!work/live!space;!community! service!with!art!work,!NPS!structure)!as!well!as!housing.! • Identify!strategies!to!decrease!ability!of!speculators/developers!to!come!in!and! sweep!up!real!estate!as!soon!as!it!becomes!available!(right!of!first!refusal!for! locals,!long[term!residents).! ! ! 16 • Develop!innovative!land!use!in!line!with!LCD!(some!possibilities!include! pedestrian!only!spaces!or!zones!on!certain!days/develop!walkability;! development!of!open!space!like!a!zocalo!/!picnic!areas!with!grills).! ! ! 2)%Economic%Vitality% • Create!electronic!tools!to!assist!businesses!and!promote!arts.! • Promote!branding:!logos!and!plaques!to!identify!CHAs,!signage!to!designate!the! LCD!area,!aesthetic,!cultural!demarcations!unique!to!the!LCD,!and!the! development!of!consistent!marketing!of!cultural!activities.% • Increase!business!engagement:!increase!the!engagement!of!local!businesses!in!the! development!of!the!LCD,!improve!communication!between!businesses,!schedule! meetings!at!times!that!are!convenient!to!local!businesses,!ensure!that!businesses! have!reasons!to!participate!and!are!motivated!to!participate,!and!create!a! community!through!common!activities!and!interests.% • Promote!preservation:!ensuring!the!survival!and!viability!of!tangible!CHAs,! developing!protocols!for!the!designation!of!CHAs,!developing!strategies!to! stabilize!residential!and!commercial!rents!and!leases,!developing!warning! system!to!alert!businesses!and!non[profits!about!expiring!leases,!and!continuing! façade!improvement!following!LCD!standards!and!design.!!A!key!priority!under! preservation!is!to!conduct!a!SWOT!analysis!to!determine!strengths,!weaknesses,! opportunities!and!threats!facing!historic!and!legacy!businesses.% • Increase!capacity!building:!create!technical!assistance!initiatives!to!help! businesses!improve!their!capacity!through!marketing,!social!media,!market! segmentation,!strategic!planning,!and!financial!management.!Strategies!to! strengthen!the!capacity!of!local!businesses!include:!!providing!assistance!to!help! businesses!survive!and!expand,!tailoring!assistance!to!needs!of!businesses!(e.g.,! individual,!traditional,!virtual),!creating!business!incubators!and!accelerators,! forming!information!technology!team!to!support!legacy!businesses,!providing! businesses!with!demographic!and!market!data!to!help!them!develop!better! goods!and!services,!and!creating!directories!and!other!databases!with! information!that!could!be!of!value!to!local!businesses.% • Articulate!a!legislative!agenda:!explore!and!promote!designation!of!parts!or!the! entire!LCD!as!a!Business!Improvement!District!(BID),!Special!Use!District!or! Community!Benefit!District.!Two!other!ideas!include!the!creation!of!community! debit!cards!for!legacy!businesses!as!well!as!the!creation!of!community!banks!or! credit!unions.% • Identify!opportunities!to!leverage!Mission!Promise!investments!to!support!the! Mission’s!neighborhood.! • Create!loan!programs!targeting!historical!business!and!renters.% • Develop!partnership!opportunities!between!longtime!businesses!and!new! businesses,!and!between!businesses!and!arts!organizations.! ! ! ! 17 3)%Cultural%Assets%and%Arts% • Organize!advocacy!efforts!to!identify!available!resources,!preservation!priorities,! and!facilities!for!arts!programming.!! • Use!technology!to!promote!LCD!(e.g.,!create!electronic!calendar!of!cultural! events!that!can!also!be!printed!and!distributed).! • Educate!new!residents!on!CHAs!(develop!social!connections;!provide! opportunities!for!new!residents!to!volunteer!and!get!involved;!integrate!an! educational!component!in!cultural!events;!create!welcome!packet!and! neighborhood!newsletter;!bulletin!boards!at!CHAs.! • Learn!about!models!that!balance!beautification!and!preservation.! • Regulate!rents!for!housing!(to!help!artists!stay!in!the!area)!and!cultural! spaces/facilities.! • Leverage!potential!of!LCD!to!preserve!local!businesses!&!non[profits!and!protect! residents!from!displacement.! • Recognize!San!Francisco!and!LCD!as!a!safe!haven!for!immigrant!artists.! • Invite!tourism!to!the!LCD,!but!avoid!the!commercialization/”Disneyland”!effect! (develop!self[guided!tours!educating!people!about!cultural!history!of!area,! Mayan!kiosks,!“This!is!24th!Street”!events!to!reinforce!identity!and!educate!new! residents,!classes).! • Programs!to!provide!financial!and!legal!assistance!to!residents,!businesses,!and! organizations/tenants’!rights.! • Promote!architectural!features!that!emphasize!the!Latin!American!“feel”!(e.g.,! arches!at!24 th /Potrero!&!24 th /Mission,&papel&picado,!murals,!Mayan!kiosks.! • Create!arts!spaces!(i.e.!Gum!Wall!and!other!spaces!for!youth)!as!well!as! community!spaces!for!dialogue!regarding!gentrification,!hate!tagging,!historical! values,!traditions,!discrimination!in!businesses,!etc.! % 4)%Quality%of%Life% • Capital!improvements;!prune!trees,!fix!broken!sidewalks,!add!pedestrian! lighting,!landscaping.! • Define!off[hour!truck!loading!times!to!reduce!day[time!parking!problems.! • Promote!free!shuttle!and!pedestrian!traffic!(walkability)!for!the!LCD.! • Facilitate!access!to!LCD!from!Valencia!to!24th!Street.! • Create!visual,!tangible!elements!(e.g.,!flags,!maps,!way!finders).! • Storefront!façade!improvement!(e.g.,!murals!on!every!façade!along!24th!Street,! window!art,!for!example!utilizing!art!created!by!local!artists!or!schoolchildren;! colors,!flowers,!lights;!“Welcome”!signs!in!Spanish/English).! • Prevent!chain!and!high[end!restaurants!from!coming!into!neighborhood.! • Conduct!awareness!campaign!about!health!and!building!codes.! ! 5)%Governance%% • Create!strong!governance!structure!to!manage!LCD.! • Implement!and!execute!LCD!branding.!! ! ! 18 4. VISION, MISSION, PURPOSES & GOALS ! he!planning!process!engaged!key!stakeholders!in!defining!and!articulating!a! vision,!mission,!purpose!statement,!targeted!beneficiaries,!and!goals!that! could!guide!the!implementation!of!the!Calle!24!Latino!Cultural!District.!!These! strategic!planning!elements!are!outlined!below.!! Mission and Vision Statements The!mission!statement!developed!through!the!planning!process!is:!!To!preserve,!enhance! and!advocate!for!Latino!cultural!continuity,!vitality,!and!community!in!San!Francisco’s! touchstone!Latino!Cultural!District!and!the!greater!Mission!community.!! The!vision!statement!developed!is:!!The!Latino!Cultural!District!will!be!an!economically! vibrant!community!that!is!inclusive!of!diverse!income!households!and!businesses!that! together!compassionately!embrace!the!unique!Latino!heritage!and!cultures!of!24 th !Street! and!that!celebrate!Latino!cultural!events,!foods,!businesses,!activities,!art!and!music.! Beneficiaries!of!the!Latino!Cultural!District!include!individuals!(e.g.,!LCD!families,! including!traditional,!non[traditional,!and!extended;!artists;!working!people;!residents;! immigrants;!youth;!and!elders),!organizations!(neighborhood!businesses,!arts!and! culture!organizations,!educational!institutions,!and!community!service!agencies),!and! San!Francisco!and!the!general!public.! Purposes and Goals The!purposes!of!the!LCD!are!to:! • Strengthen,!preserve!and!enhance!Latino!arts!&!cultural!institutions,!enterprises! and!activities! • Encourage!civic!engagement!and!advocate!for!social!justice! • Encourage!economic!vitality!and!economic!justice!for!district!families,!working! people,!and!immigrants! • Promote!economic!sustainability!for!neighborhood!businesses!and!nonprofits! • Promote!education!about!Latino!cultures! • Ensure!collaboration!and!coordination!with!other!local!arts,!community,!social! service!agencies,!schools,!and!businesses! The!goals!of!the!LCD!are!to:! 1. Create!a!safe,!clean,!and!healthy!environment!for!residents,!families,!artists,!and! merchants!to!work,!live,!and!play.! 2. Foster!an!empowered,!activist!community!and!pride!in!our!community.! T! ! ! 19 3. Create!a!beautiful,!clearly!designated!Latino!corridor!along!Calle!24,!and! preserve!the!unique!beauty!and!cultures!that!identify!Calle!24!and!the!Mission! 4. Preserve!and!create!stable,!genuinely!affordable!and!low[income!housing!in!the! District!and!related!infrastructure.! 5. Manage!and!establish!guidelines!for!development!and!economic!change!in!the! District!in!ways!that!preserve!the!District’s!Latino!community!and!cultures.! 6. Foster!a!sustainable!local!economy!that!provides!vital!goods!and!services!to!the! District!and!supports!living!Latino!cultures.! ! ! % ! ! 20 5. PROPOSED PROGRAMS AND STRATEGIES ! indings!from!the!data!gathering!activities!conducted!throughout!the!planning!process! led!to!the!development!of!the!following!key!strategies!for!the!LCD!to!prioritize.!!In! addition,!these!four!program!areas!(and!related!activities)!will!be!the!focus!of!the!LCD:!!1)! land!use!design!and!housing;!2)!economic!vitality;!3)!cultural!assets!and!arts;!4)!quality!of! life.!! ! Program!area!1:!Land!Use!Design!! The!LCD!wishes!to!utilize!land!use!design!as!a!tool!to!promote!housing!and!commercial! stability!of!historical!assets!and!demographic!diversity.!!The!planning!process!identified!a! long!list!of!potential!actions!within!this!priority!and!the!recommended!next!step!should!be! to!establish!a!process!to!analyze!the!feasibility!of!various!options.!! ! Program!area!2:!Economic!Vitality!! The!LCD!recognizes!the!importance!of!sustaining!the!business!vitality!of!the!District!by! first!acknowledging!the!challenges!affecting!the!stability!of!historical!businesses.!!The!LCD! wants!to!clearly!delineate!the!differences!in!priorities!of!new!and!historical!businesses.!! ! Program!area!3:!Preservation,!Revitalization!and!Restoration!of!Cultural!Assets! The!LCD!wishes!to!recognize,!promote!and!preserve!cultural!assets!unique!to!the!Latino! Cultural!District.!The!planning!process!created!an!inventory!of!close!to!60!cultural!assets.! One!crucial!next!step!to!operationalize!this!priority!is!the!creation!of!protocols!to!clearly! identify!what!constitutes!a!Cultural!Historical!Assets!(CHAs).!!San!Francisco!Heritage! suggests!the!use!of!this!terminology!to!describe!“the!practices,!representations,!expressions,! knowledge,!skill[!as!well!as!the!instruments,!objects,!artifacts!and!cultural!spaces!associated! therewith[!that!communities,!groups,!and!in!some!cases,!individuals!recognize!as!part!of! their!cultural!heritage.!!This!intangible!heritage,!transmitted!from!generation!to!generation,! is!constantly!recreated!by!communities!and!groups!in!response!to!their!environment,!their! interaction!with!nature!and!their!history,!and!provides!them!with!a!sense!of!identify!and! continuity,!thus!promoting!respect!for!cultural!diversity!and!human!creativity.”!! ! Program!area!4:!Quality!of!Life! Calle!24!recognizes!that!preserving!positive!quality!of!life!indicators!is!as!important!as! affecting!negative!quality!of!life!indicators.!LCD!will!foster!further!dialogue!to!spell!out! strategies!for!preserving!and!improving!quality!of!life.!! Key Strategies 1. Create!an!organizational!entity!–!a!501(c)(3)!–!to!manage!the!activities!of!the!Latino! Cultural!District! 2. Create!and!leverage!Special!Use!District!designation! F! ! ! 21 3. Implement!a!Cultural!Benefits!District!campaign!and!assessment! 4. Develop!a!community[wide!communications!infrastructure!and!promote!the! District!through!traditional!and!social!media! 5. Collaborate!with,!connect,!and!support!existing!arts!and!cultures!and!other! nonprofit!service!organizations!in!implementing!the!Latino!Cultural!District’s! mission,!rather!than!replacing!or!competing!with!them! 6. Serve!as!a!safety!net!for!the!District’s!traditional!cultural[critical!community!events,! such!as!Carnaval,!Día!de!los!Muertos,!and!the!Cesar!E.!Chavez!Holiday!Celebration! 7. Generate!sufficient!resources!to!support!creation!and!sustainability!of!the!Latino! Cultural!District!programs!and!activities! 8. Pursue!social!and!economic!justice!fervently,!and!conduct!its!work!with!the!Si!Se! Puede!spirit!of!determination,!collective!strength,!and!compassion! ! Program Activities ! 1)!Land!Use!Design!and!Housing!! • Design!Special!Use!District!campaign! • Advocate!for!genuinely!affordable!and!low[income!housing!in!the!District!and! related!infrastructure,!including!promoting!education!about!financial!literacy,!home! ownership,!and!tenants’!rights! • Advocate!for!certificates!of!preference!that!would!allow!long[time!residents!who! have!been!forced!out!of!the!District!by!waves!of!gentrification!to!return!to!new! housing!opportunities!in!the!District! • Advocate!for!height!limits!and!design!guidelines! • Engage!in!activism!and!advocacy!to!ensure!that!new!development!is!responsive!to! and!reflective!of!the!Latino!Cultural!District! % 2)!Economic!Vitality! • Provide!technical!and!lease!assistance!to!small!businesses! • Create!culturally!relevant!business!attraction!and!retention!strategies! • Provide!district!event!support! • Implement! neighborhood! enhancements! (such! as! arches,! tiles,! banderas,! and/or! plaques!that!identify!the!District,!much!as!Chinatown’s!arches!and!architecture! distinguish!it!from!surrounding!neighborhoods)! • Help!preserve!local!businesses!and!attract!new!ones! % 3)!Cultural!Assets!and!Arts! • Participate!in!and!support!traditional!culture[critical!community!events,!such!as! Carnaval,!Día!de!Los!Muertos,!and!the!Chavez!Holiday!Celebration! ! ! 22 • Identify!and!preserve!cultural!assets! • Create!corridor!monuments,!arts!projects,!a!walk!of!fame,!light!pole!signs,!and!the! like! • Foster!collaboration!among!the!arts!organizations! % 4)!Quality!of!Life! • Ensure!the!safety!of!the!neighborhood! • Abate!graffiti!! • Develop!a!neighborhood[based!communications!infrastructure,!and!promote!the! District!through!traditional!and!social!media! • Preserve!street!parking,!public!transit,!and!walking!options! • Preserve!open!space,!light,!air,!(trees,!vegetation?)! ! % ! ! 23 6. ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE & GOVERNANCE ! Structure The!LCD!will!be!managed!by!a! nonprofit!organization! 510(c)(3),!the!Calle!24!Council,! which!will!be!incorporated!as!a! membership!organization.!! The!follow!committee!structure! of!the!501(c)(3)!is! recommended.!!! Executive!Committee:!!An! executive!committee!will!be! comprised!of!officers!of!the! Calle!24!Council.! ! Advisory!Committees:!! Advisory!committees!will!be! comprised!of!at!least!one!board!member!and!other!members.!All!committees!will!recruit! youth!in!order!to!cultivate!new!generations!of!leaders.!Suggested!advisory!committees! include:!!! • Land!Use!Design!and!Housing! • Cultural!Assets!and!Arts! • Quality!of!Life!and!Neighborhood!Enhancements! • Economic!Vitality! • Nominating!Committee! Governance One!must!meet!one!or!more!of!the!following!qualifications!to!become!a!member! of!the!Council:! • Live!and/or!work!in!the!Mission!for!ten!or!more!years;!or! • Born!and!raised!in!the!Mission;!or! • History!of!activism!in!support!of!the!Latino!Cultural!District’s!mission;! and! • Have!served!reliably!on!one!of!the!organization’s!committees!for!at!least! one!year.! Figure!2:!Calle!24!Organizational!Structure ! ! 24 Membership Eligibility There!will!be!no!charge!for!membership!on!the!Council.!To!be!eligible!for!membership,! one!must:! • Participate!on!one!of!the!committees!and/or!volunteer!for!one!of!the!endorsed! events!(e.g.,!Cesar!Chavez!Festival;!Carnaval)!or!with!one!of!the!neighborhood! nonprofits)! • Support!the!mission!and!vision!of!the!organization! • Reflect!Calle!24!constituencies! • Adhere!to!a!code!of!good!conduct!and!nonprofit!best!practices! Board Size/Composition The!Board!should!be!comprised!of!no!fewer!than!9!individuals,!with!a! maximum!number!to!be!determined.!The!Board!composition!should!include:! ! • A!majority!of!Latino/as!(%!to!be!determined)! • Long[term!residents:!!15!(?)!or!more!years!(%!to!be!determined)! • At!least!one!youth!(ages!24!or!under)! • Representation!from!all!the!constituencies!the!Latino!Cultural!District!is! designed!to!benefit ! ! 25 7. CONCLUSION he!resolution!that!San!Francisco’s!Board!of!Supervisors!unanimously!passed!in! May!2014!to!designate!the!24 th !Street!corridor!as!the!Latino!Cultural!District! offers!community!residents!and!other!stakeholders!a!unique!opportunity!to! preserve!and!advance!the!rich!legacy!of!Latino!culture!within!the!neighborhood.! As!stated!in!the!resolution,!“[…]!the!Calle!24!Latino!Cultural!District!memorializes! a!place!whose!richness!of!culture,!history!and!entrepreneurship!is!unrivaled!in!San! Francisco...”!The!community!planning!process!undertaken!by!the!Calle!24!Council! during!the!last!six!months!of!2014!sought!to!solicit!and!distill!a!wide!range!of!ideas! about!the!strategies!and!actions!the!Council!should!pursue!to!achieve!its!mission!to! preserve,!enhance!and!advocate!for!Latino!cultural!continuity,!vitality!and! community!in!San!Francisco’s!touchstone!Latino!Cultural!District!and!the!greater! Mission!community.! The!findings!from!the!community!planning!process!reflect!a!clear!consensus!on!the! goals!for!the!LCD,!including!the!desire!to!create!a!safe,!clean!and!healthy! environment!for!residents,!families,!artists!and!merchants!to!work,!live!and!play;! the!desire!to!create!stable!and!affordable!housing!for!working[class!families;!the! desire!to!manage!and!establish!guidelines!for!economic!development!and!land!use! that!preserve!the!District’s!Latino!community!and!cultures;!the!desire!to!foster!a! sustainable!local!economy!that!provides!vital!goods!and!services;!and!the!desire!to! create!a!beautiful,!clearly!designated!Latino!corridor!along!Calle!24!that! exemplifies!the!cultural!and!artistic!richness!of!San!Francisco’s!Latino! communities.!! Key!to!achieving!these!goals!will!be!the!creation!of!an!organizational!infrastructure!that! can!support!the!strategies!adopted!by!the!Council.!Over!the!next!few!years,!the!Council! will!incorporate!as!a!charitable,!nonprofit!organization!and!begin!to!pursue!and!leverage! Special!Use!District!designation,!followed!by!neighborhood!organizing!to!launch!a! Cultural!Benefits!District!campaign!and!assessment!that!could!potentially!offer!the! district!a!source!of!long[term!financial!support.!The!Council!will!work!to!implement! community!programs!that!focus!on!land!use!design!and!housing,!economic!vitality,! cultural!assets!and!arts,!and!quality!of!life!issues.! The!community!planning!process!undertaken!by!the!Calle!24!Council!represents!just! the!first!step!in!a!journey!that!neighborhood!residents!and!merchants,!with!support! from!city!officials,!are!taking!to!preserve!the!authenticity!and!legacy!of!Latino!culture! along!the!24 th !Street!corridor.!The!Council!looks!forward!to!implementing!the!strategies! outlined!in!the!report.!The!vigor!of!our!stride,!given!the!fast!pace!of!gentrification,!will! be!key!to!the!success!of!this!endeavor.! ! T! ! ! 26 REFERENCES Mirabal,!N.R!(2009).!Geographies!of!displacement:!!Latina/os,!oral!history,!and!the! politics!of!gentrification!in!San!Francisco’s!Mission!District.!The&Public&Historian,! 31,!2,!7[31.!!Retrieved!from:!http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/tph.2009.31.2.7! ! San!Francisco!Office!of!Economic!and!Workforce!Development,!San!Francisco!Office!of! Planning,!LISC.!!(2014).!Lower!24 th !Street!neighborhood!profile.!!Retrieved!from:!! http://investsf.org/wordpress/wp[content/uploads/2014/03/Neighborhood[ ProfileMLOWER[24TH[STREET.pdf! ! San!Francisco!Heritage.!(May,!2014).!Resolution!establishing!the!Calle!24! (“Veinticuatro”)!Latino!Cultural!District!in!San!Francisco.!Retrieved!from! http://www.sfbos.org/ftp/uploadedfiles/bdsupvrs/committees/materials/LU05191 4_140421.pdf! ! !!U.S.!Census!Bureau.!(2000).!Electronic!ownership!by!household!(italicized).!Washington,! D.C.:!Government!Printing!Office.!U.S.!Census!Bureau.!(2000).!Electronic! ownership!by!household!(italicized).!Retrieved!from! http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html!! ! !!U.S.!Census!Bureau.!(2005).!Electronic!ownership!by!household!(italicized).!Washington,! D.C.:!Government!Printing!Office.!U.S.!Census!Bureau.!(2005).!Electronic! ownership!by!household!(italicized).!Retrieved!from! http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2005.html!! ! !Zito,!Kelly.!!(May!26,!2000)!!Expanding!or!ready!to!burst?!!San!Francisco!Chronicle.! Appendix!A![!Calle!24!Council!Members! ! ! 27 APPENDICES ! Appendix!A:!Calle!24!Council!List! Appendix!B:!!Map!of!LCD! Appendix!C:!!Background!Research:!Strategic!Plans!&!Document!Review! Appendix!D:!!LCD!News!Articles! Appendix!E:!List!of!Interviews,!Focus!Groups,!and!Community!Meetings! Appendix!F:!!Facilitator!Guide:!Interviews!&!Focus!Groups! Appendix!G:!!Major!Themes!from!Interviews!&!Focus!Groups! Appendix!H:!Strengths,!Opportunities!&!Challenges!of!the!LCD! Appendix!I:!!Agendas!from!Community!Meetings!1!–!3! Appendix!J:!Notes!from!Community!Meetings!1!–!3:! Community!Meeting!1!Notes! Community!Meeting!2!Notes! Community!Meeting!3!Notes! !Appendix!K:!PowerPoint!of!Calle!24!LCD!Final!Draft!Recommendations! !Appendix!L:!!Cultural!Historical!Assets!(CHAs)!Identified!through!Data!Gathering! Process,!2014[2015:! ! Summary!of!CHAs! ! Cultural!Events! ! Arts!&!Culture:!Installations!&!Public!Art! ! Arts!&!Culture:!Organizations!&!Venues! ! Arts!&!Culture:!Retail! ! Religion! ! Services!&!Non[profits! ! Food!&!Culinary!Arts! ! Parks ! ! 28 Appendix A: Calle 24 Council Erick!Argüello,!Volunteer!Program!Coordinator,!AGUILAS! Rose!Arrieta,!Media!Director,!Causa!Justa! Rita!Alviar,!Executive!Director,!Mission!Education!Project!Inc.! Wendy!Bardsley,!Community!Media!Freelancer! Miguel!Bustos,!Senior!Vice[President,!Government!Affairs,!Wells!Fargo!Bank! Susan!Cervantes,!Founder!and!Executive/Artistic!Director,!Precita!Eyes! Marcia!Contreras,!Resident!Manager,!Mission!Housing!Development!Corporation! Annalisa!Escobedo,!Student,!John!F!Kennedy!University! Carlos!Gonzales,!Probation!Officer,!SF!Juvenile!Probation!Department!! Louie!Gutierrez,!Owner,!La!Reyna!Bakery! Georgiana!Hernández,!Executive!Director,!Acción!Latina! Roberto!Hernandez,!Artist!&!Community!Organizer! Gabby!Lozano,!Owner,!L’s!Café! Ruth!Mahaney,!Founding!Member,!Modern!Times!Books! Diana!Medina,!Owner,!Diju!Jewelry!and!Gallery! John!Mendoza,!Independent!Contractor! Brooke!Oliver,!Principal,!Oliver/Sabec! Miles!Pickering,!Owner,!Pigs!and!Pie! Stacie!Powers,!Executive!Director,!Brava!Theater!for!Women!in!the!Arts! Eva!Royale,!Director,!Cesar!Chavez!Parade!and!Festival! Martha!Sanchez,!Owner,!Casa!Sanchez! Marie!Sorenson,!Retired! Elizabeth!Vazquez,!Owner,!Tio!Chilos! ! ! 29 Appendix B: Map of the Latino Cultural District (LCD) The!SF!Board!of!Supervisors!resolution 2 !(defined!the!Calle&24&Latino&Cultural& District!as!the!area!within!the!boundaries!of!Mission!Street!to!the!west,!Potrero! Street!to!the!East,!22 nd !Street!to!the!North!and!Cesar!Chavez!to!the!South.!It!also! includes!the!24 th !Street!commercial!corridor!from!Bartlett!Street!to!Potrero! Avenue.!This!boundary!demarcates!the!greatest!concentration!of!Latino! landmarks,!businesses,!institutions,!festivals!and!history!in!the!Mission!District! and!San!Francisco;!based!on!the!2012!census,!49%!of!residents!in!this!area!self[ identify!as!Latinos.!Calle!24!is!also!known!as!a!Latino!business!enclave!of!77! Latino!owned!businesses,!some!of!which!date!back!to!1922.!In!addition!to!its! residents,!this!area!is!the!home!to!many!Latino!community!based!organizations! that!have!served!the!Latino!community!for!decades.!% ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 2 The full resolution can be found at http://www.sfbos.org/ftp/uploadedfiles/bdsupvrs/committees/materials/LU051914_14042 1.pdf ! ! 30 Appendix C: Background Research: Strategic Plans & Document Review DOCUMENT TITLE DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION KEY POINTS Lower 24 th Street Profile By Invest in Neighborhoods This document provides a comprehensive view of the Lower 24 th Street District with great emphasis on important economic, housing, transportation and demographic information and data points. This document should be used for context in the planning of the LCD. • List of cultural Assets • Commercial vitality indicators • SWOT analysis • Demographics • Land use • Business Mix • Transportation • Other plans and intervention Taos Arts and Cultural District Plan, January 2012 (89 pp.) After designation as a state Arts and Cultural District program in 2009, this plan was developed for strategies and projects in Physical Infrastructure, Planning and Urban Design, Financing, Marketing and Promotion, Cultural Programming, and Community Outreach. It is organized according to a 3-5 year time frame beginning in 2012. The plan can be accessed at http://www.gonm.biz/upload s/files/ACDCulturalPlanTaos 2012.pdf • The Arts and Cultural District strategy emphasizes creative economic development focusing on the quality of a place (cultural assets, downtown vibrancy, entertainment) and natural environment and things to attract “knowledge workers” or creative entrepreneurs to the area) • Depressed economy is a significant challenge to implementing this strategy, and requires attracting private investment • Metropolitan redevelopment and a Business Improvement District are key to economic development and financial sustainability • Lack of an organizational capacity or entity to leverage resources and do economic development is a challenge • Some ideas with potential for implementation include: small seed grants; improved spaces for cultural events; “virtual” salons for idea exchange; internet art marketing; and signature events Sustaining San Francisco’s Purpose of Report: Propose conservation of cultural heritage assets through • Tangible historical resources are eligible for protection under City landmark designation. (i.e. ! ! 31 DOCUMENT TITLE DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION KEY POINTS Living History Strategies for Conserving Cultural Heritage Assets by San Francisco Heritage September 2014 51 pages incentive based strategies. Goals: 1. Define the problem and identity challenges to conserving local cultural heritage assets; 2. Summarize existing efforts to conserve San Francisco’s cultural heritage assets; 3. Create a common language that will advance citywide public policy and neighborhood level cultural heritage conservation initiatives; and 4. Provide useful examples of strategies and case studies that can be employed by communities, non profits, academic institutions, foundations and City agencies. buildings, public art, murals, etc.) • Cultural Heritage Assets (CHA) include historic businesses, non profits that contribute to City’s cultural identity. These are not protected by traditional strategies. • CHA = Intangible Cultural Heritage (UNESCO)= The practices, representations, expressions, knowledge, skill- as well as the instruments, objects, artifacts and cultural spaces associated therewith- that communities, groups, and in some cases, individuals recognize as part of their cultural heritage. This intangible heritage, transmitted from generation to generation, is constantly recreated by communities and groups in response to their environment, their interaction with nature and their history, and provides them with a sense of identify and continuity, thus promoting respect for cultural diversity and human creativity. • SF Planning Department has introduced (2011): Urban design guidelines, economic incentives and zoning program. STATUS? ! June 2013 SFH Summit recommendations: o Develop recognition program for CHAs o Educate new residents on history o Explore Central Business District and Community Land Trust o Offer technical assistance to CHAs/ succession planning o Incentives to CHA businesses and property owners that rent to CHAs o Promote tours Tool box/Ideas: ! ! 32 DOCUMENT TITLE DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION KEY POINTS ! Legacy establishment designation ! Special Use District ! Social Heritage Citizen Advisory ! Community Benefit Agreements ! Community Benefits District ! Community Development Corporations ! Main Street concepts ! Business Improvement District ! Certification of Heritage Compliance- process that allows new development to qualify for a floor area ratio (FAR) exemption for replacement in kind of a traditional retail business or dedicate a portion of project to community arts projects and events. ! Urban Design Guidelines ! Zoning programs ! Property tax exemption from reassessment after sale or improvement – if CHA is preserved ! Decrease in permit fees, transfer, recordation and property tax fees for CHAs ! Central Business District ! Community Land Trust ! Add Preservation Element to General Plan (with specific goals on how many CHAs will own businesses and how many units will be acquired by Land Trusts ! Community Arts Stabilization Trust (CAST) ! Transfer of Development ! ! 33 DOCUMENT TITLE DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION KEY POINTS Rights ! Right of First Refusal ! Longtime Owner Occupant Program (LOOP) ! Association Center (non profit benefit) Recommendations: 1. Develop consistent methodology to define and document CHAs. Use SF Planning Social Heritage Inventory Record 2. Support current strategies (LCD) 3. Build capacity of CHAs and youth 4. Develop financial incentives and ownership 5. Promote CHAs through public education and tourism 6. Establish a CHA designation with benefits City of Lawrence Cultural District Task Force Recommendation s for Enhancing the Lawrence Cultural District By Task Force December 10. 2013 83 pages Purpose of report: to identify best practices for improving cultural districts. Approach: Looked at three models: ! Columbia MO ! Indianapolis, IN ! Providence, RI Types of CHAs: ! History ! Historical sites ! Geography ! Cultural Institutions ! Creative Sector Businesses ! Natural Sites 8 month evaluation process Goal of Cultural District (Lawrence): • Preserve history and cultural identity • Identify District as destination: Culture and business • Improve community vitality • Encourage public access • Host cultural events Shared Elements (among models): ! City level leadership ! City level financing ! Private financing ! City Director of Arts and Culture ! Coordination among municipal leaders, arts organizations, chamber of commerce and tourism ! Strong internet presence ! Excellent physical features: ! ! 34 DOCUMENT TITLE DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION KEY POINTS walkable paths, lighting, way finding, signs and maps ! Commitment to investing in arts as an economic development approach 4TH Avenue Cultural Corridor Design Implementation and Funding Plan by City of Edmonds, WA October 2009 86 pages Purpose of report: To present a “15% Design Plan”, describing proposed design, implementation, and funding for the 4 th Avenue Cultural Corridor in Edmonds, WA. Goal: To guide development along the Cultural Corridor in ways compatible with historic context, current scale, massing and texture of the corridor, resulting in increased cultural tourism, economic vitality, and enjoyment of the corridor. ! Small historic district. ! Final product: series of improvements to physical environment resulting in increased cultural tourism. ! Seeks to integrate concepts of historical preservation, sustainability, economic enhancement, and urban design. ! Low impact development (LID) ! Leveraged funding (specific to State of WA): ! State transportation board ! Department of Ecology, Water Quality grants and loans ! Public Works construction loans ! Pedestrian and bicycle safety grants ! Community Advisory Group (CAG) formed at beginning of conceptual design process ! CAG established guiding principles ! Final design proposal was the result of three CAG meetings & two public meetings where alternative design concepts were presented to the community, and strongest elements were integrated into a unified, consensus-based plan. Summary: ! 4 th Avenue Cultural Corridor identified in the City of Edmonds’ 2006 Streetscape Plan, and 2008 Comprehensive Parks Plan & Community Cultural Plan. ! Collaboration with Community ! ! 35 DOCUMENT TITLE DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION KEY POINTS Advisory Group (CAG), community members, City of Edmonds staff, and design team. ! Urban and Historic context ! Photo inventory of historic buildings/properties ! Site analysis ! Community design guidance ! Cultural Corridor conceptual design ! Art installation and integration ! Urban design ! Funding and Implementation ! Leveraged funding Creative Placemaking by Ann Markusen and Anne Gadwa (69 pp.) This is a White Paper for the Mayor’s Institute on City Design, a leadership initiative of the National Endowment for the Arts in partnership with the United States Conference of Mayors and American Architectural Foundation. It reviews and summarizes case studies and economic research representing creative American placemaking across the diverse cities in the United States. There is an emphasis in this white paper on developing partnerships across sectors to improve the likelihood of success of creative placemaking and also integrating evaluation and metrics in order to determine the outcomes of creative placemaking. (Full report accessible at: • Creative placemaking refers to strategic initiatives to influence the physical and social character of a town, city, or region around arts and cultural activities. This includes developing programming to revitalize public and private spaces, regenerating structures and streetscapes to improve local businesses & economic viability and to improve public safety and bringing together diverse people to celebrate the arts and culture of their neighborhoods. • Challenges for creative placemaking noted include: 1) forging partnerships; 2) countering community skepticism; 3) getting funding; 4) overcoming regulatory barriers; 5) ensuring ongoing maintenance and sustainability; 6) avoiding displacement and gentrification; 7) developing measures to evaluate outcomes related to creative placemaking. • Successful creative placemaking was characterized by the following: 1) leadership who innovates and creates vision and motivation; 2) an approach tailored to the uniqueness of each ! ! 36 DOCUMENT TITLE DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION KEY POINTS http://arts.gov/sites/default/fil es/CreativePlacemaking- Paper.pdf) place; 3) organizing and galvanizing the will of the public; 4) getting support from the private sector; 5) supported by local arts and cultural leaders; 6) partnerships across sectors, missions and levels of government • Public policy has been slow to recognize the substantial contributions of arts and culture to local economic development and livability; the best examples of creative placemaking indicate that different levels of government and public/non-profit/private sector organizations should collaborate in developing policy platforms (informed by evidence on what works and where) Additional Documents For Future Review Plans Alice Carey Preservation Fund San Francisco Historic Preservation Program Latino Historic Context Statement American Latino Theme Study Central Market Citizens Advisory Committee- Framework for Community Benefit Agreements Laws San Francisco Historic Preservation Commission Resolution No. 0698 San Francisco Executive Directive 13-01 Mills Act CEQA Documents/Reports/Guidance SF Planning Department – Japantown Cultural Heritage and Economic Sustainability Strategy July 10, 2013 Central Market Citizen Advisory Committee 21 June 2012 Alliance for California Traditional Arts Community Arts Stabilization Trust SF Community Land Trust ! ! 37 Appendix D: LCD News Articles Source Date of Publication Title Link The Huffington Post January 3, 2014 Latino 'Cultural Corridor' Planned To Push Back Against Gentrification http://www.huffingtonpost. com/2014/01/03/latino- cultural-corridor- _n_4535891.html CBS Local - SF Bay Area April 22, 2014 San Francisco Looks At Preserving Character Of Mission District http://sanfrancisco.cbsloca l.com/2014/04/22/san- francisco-looks-at- preserving-character-of- mission-district/ KQED April 22, 2014 Group Proposes ‘Calle 24′ Cultural District in the Mission http://ww2.kqed.org/news/ 2014/04/22/group- proposes-calle-24-in-the- mission SF Gate April 22, 2014 A mission for the Mission: Preserve Latino legacy for future http://www.sfgate.com/poli tics/article/A-mission-for- the-Mission-Preserve- Latino-legacy- 5419370.php The Usual Suspects April 22, 2014 Calle 24 Latino Cultural District http://www.sfusualsuspect s.com/landing/detail/3552 Fox News Latino April 23, 2014 Latinos Fight To Preserve San Francisco Mission District's Cultural Heritage http://latino.foxnews.com/l atino/lifestyle/2014/04/23/l atinos-fight-to-preserve- san-francisco-mission- district-cultural-heritage/ The Bold Italic April 24, 2014 Calle 24 is Real Solution to Fight Gentrification http://www.thebolditalic.co m/articles/4878-calle-24- is-a-real-solution-to-fight- gentrification Southern California Public Radio April 24, 2014 In immigration news: DHS watchdog under fire, ‘modest’ deportation changes, preserving ‘The Mission’ http://www.scpr.org/blogs/ multiamerican/2014/04/24/ 16453/in-immigration- news-dhs-watchdog- deportation/ KGO – San Francisco April 25, 2014 Mission residents celebrate Calle 24 designation https://screen.yahoo.com/ mission-residents- celebrate-calle-24- 032901898.html ABC 7 News May 5, 2014 Cinco de Mayo Celebrations Raise Gentrification Awareness http://abc7news.com/archi ve/9528545/ ! ! 38 El Tecolote May 6, 2014 Latino Cultural Corridor District designation is just the first step http://eltecolote.org/conten t/en/commentary/latino- cultural-corridor-district- designation-is-just-the- first-step/ Curbed SF May 20, 2014 Calle 24 Latino Cultural District http://sf.curbed.com/archiv es/2014/05/20/calle_24_la tino_cultural_district.php San Francisco Examiner May 20, 2014 Calle 24 resolution to be voted on at Board of Supervisors meeting this afternoon http://www.sfexaminer.co m/PoliticsBlog/archives/20 14/05/20/calle-24- resolution-to-be-voted-on- at-board-of-supervisors- meeting-this-afternoon Socket Site May 20, 2014 Calle 24: San Francisco’s Latino Cultural District http://www.socketsite.com /archives/2014/05/hola- calle-24-san-franciscos- proposed-latino-cultural- district.html Mission Economic Development Agency May 21, 2014 Calle 24 Latino Cultural District to Preserve Mission Community for Future Generations http://medasf.org/calle-24- latino-cultural-district- preserve-mission-future- generations/ ABC 7 News May 23, 2014 Community Celebrates Latino Cultural Preservation in Mission http://abc7news.com/news /community-celebrates- latino-cultural- preservation-in- mission/75987/ Latin Life May 23, 2014 Grand Opening! Calle 24 SF Latino Cultural District http://www.latinlife.com/art icle/130/grand-opening- calle-24-sf-latino-cultural- district Mission Local May 23, 2014 It’s Official! 24th Street District is Calle 24 http://missionlocal.org/201 4/05/its-official-24th- street-district-is-calle-24/ El Tecolote May 29, 2014 Latino Cultural Corridor officially designated by the city http://eltecolote.org/conten t/news/latino-cultural- corridor/ SF Bay May 29, 2014 ‘Calle 24′ aims to preserve Latino heritage http://sfbay.ca/2014/05/29/ calle-24-aims-to-preserve- latino-heritage/ Mission Bernal Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerme nt (ACCE) September 13, 2014 Town Hall About Mission Cultural District – Saturday Sept. 13 http://honorjourney.org/mi ssionbernalacce/events/to wn-hall-about-mission- cultural-district-saturday- sept-13/ ! ! 39 Mission Local September 14, 2014 A Year Later, Less Shock Over Gentrification http://missionlocal.org/201 4/09/a-year-later-less- shock-over-gentrification/ SF Environment September 30, 2014 Resolution Support Calle 24 Cultural Latino District: Environmental policy and legislation in San Francisco http://www.sfenvironment. org/policy/resolution- support-calle-24-cultural- latino-district The Sacramento Bee October 4, 2014 Battling for the Mission’s soul http://www.sacbee.com/ne ws/politics- government/article262069 7.html Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation October 10, 2014 Ideas for Preserving Our Small Businesses and Creative Spaces http://gvshp.org/blog/2014 /10/10/ideas-for- preserving-our-small- businesses-and-creative- spaces/ KALW Local Public Radio November 17, 2014 Calle 24 - The official Latino Cultural District of San Francisco http://kalw.org/post/calle- 24-official-latino-cultural- district-san-francisco El Tecolote December 20, 2014 El Tecolote 2014 Year in review: Arts & Culture http://eltecolote.org/conten t/features/el-tecolote- 2014-year-in-review-arts- culture/ San Francisco Chronicle December 2014 A Changing Mission http://www.sfchronicle.co m/the-mission/ California Office of Historic Preservation N/A Challenges of Heritage Tourism: A San Francisco Perspective http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pa ges/1054/files/2014_volu me7_issue2_final.pdf ! ! 40 Appendix E: List of Interviews, Focus Groups, and Community Meetings Event Date # of Participants Participants Interview 1 August 2014 1 Rita Alviar Interview 2 August 22, 2014 1 Ben Feldman Interview 3 August 25, 2014 2 Esther Hernandez & René Yañez Interview 4 August 26, 2014 1 Jaime Maldonado Interview 5 August 26, 2014 1 Maria X. Martinez Focus group: Calle 24 Council August 27, 2014 10 Miles Pickering, Susan Cervantes, Marie Sorenson, Ruth Mahaney, AnnaLisa Escobedo, Marcia Contreras, Eva Royale, Wendy Bardsley, Erick Arguello, John R. Mendoza Interview 6 August 28. 2014 1 Sarah Guerra Focus group: Youth August 28, 2014 10 Lakayla Shelton, Tiamane Haney, Jasmine Tirrez, Liset Gutierrez, Nancy "Mitzi" Magdaleno, Chris Vargas, Dan Vargas, Luis DeGuzman, Cecilia Peña-Govea, Nina Potepan Focus group: Merchants September 4, 2014 13 Louie Gutierrez, Juana Mayhben Huerta, Patricia Helmer, Denise Gonzales, Patricia Torres, Sofia Elias, Angeles Lopez, Connie R., Jose Marenco, Blanca Equinoccio, Ron Mullick, Cesar O., Mia Gonzalez Community Meeting 1 September 13, 2014 50 Mia Gonzalez, Paul Monye-Rodriguez, Miguel de Ocampo, Ben Feldman, Buck Bagot, Lulula Lee, Lucho Ramirez, Carlos Gonzalez, Leo Beckerman, Carlos Valdiviezo, Maria de la Mora, Christie Hakim, Andra Cernavskis, Eric Dimond, Patricia Reischl Crahan, Juan Carlos Ibarra, Steve Wertham, Blake Kutner, Laura Lane, Eva Royale, Gustavo Vazquez, Ann Golden, Noemi Sohn, Susan Cervantes, Anabelle Bolanos, Brian Baker, Sergio Lainez, Rob Thomson, Martha Arguello, Melissa Lareau, Mary C Magee, Mayra Madriz, Brooke Oliver, Luis Granados, Gabriel Medina, Reuben David Goodman, Joshua Arce, Roberto Y. Hernandez, Rosa Nazario, Sergio Espino, Gabriela Peña, Adriana Cruz, Gladys Soto, Michael Crahan, Thomas Ray, Julien Ball, ! ! 41 Gregory Liggons, Derek Raskin, Kathy & Dewey Focus group: Arts September 24, 2014 24 Stella Adelman, Adriana Cruz, Melody Wang, Maggie Wilson, Todd T Brown, Indira Urrutia, Sofia Elias, Arezoo Islami, Katherine Paulson, Michael Warr, Annie Jupiter-Jones, Georgiana Hernandez, Susan Cervantes, Ani Rivera, Lou Dematteis, Anastacia Powers, Sarah Guerra, Cecilia Peña-Govea, Ashton DiVito, Carolina Dutton, Emily Klian, Roberto Y. Hernandez, Alma Robinson, Mauricio Avilés Community Meeting 2 November 1, 2014 36 Jim Burnett, Martin Steinman, Carolyn Burnett, Anabelle Bolanos, Marsha Murrington, Thomas Ray, Sam Moss, Marie Sorenson, John R Mendoza, Maria De La Mora, Ani Rivera, Stella Adelman, Pete Gallegos, Todd Brown, Martin Esteban Farfan, Kelly Haro, Paul Monge-Rodriguez, Oscar Grande, Carlos Gutierrez, Edwin Lindo, Miles Pickering, Gustavo Vazquez, Aaron Starr, Patti Cuadra-Eng, Kate Rosenberger, Jorge Sanchez, Desiree Smith, Sylvia Lynch, Wendy Bardsley, Ben Feldman, Erick Arguello, Marcia Contreras, Susan Cervantes, Ann Golden, Georgiana Hernandez, Joaquin Torres Community Meeting 3 December 20. 2014 Joshua Arce, Paula Fleisher, Edwin Lindo, Anabelle Bolaños, Miles Pickering, Eva Royale, Gene Royale, Wendy Bardsley, Miguel Bustos, Chris Norman, Martin Farfan, Stacie Powers, Erick Arguello, Georgiana Hernandez, Ani Rivera, Ruth Mahaney, Susan Cervantes, Martin Steinman, Brooke Oliver, Abby Stopper, Maricela Leon-Barrera, Malo Hutson, Anne Romero, Pete Gallegos, Diego Sanchez, Emilio Victorio, John Mendoza, Ben Feldman, Matthew Rogers Consulants & OEWD (4): Ana Cortez, Ori Reyes, Perla, Diana Ponce de Leon ! ! 42 Appendix F: Facilitator Guide for Interviews & Focus Groups Interviewer Script: Thank you very much for agreeing to meet/talk to me today. I am working with Calle 24, a neighborhood coalition of Mission residents, merchants, non- profits, and artists, to develop a plan for a Latino Cultural District (LCD) on 24 th Street from Mission to Potrero, 22 nd to Cesar Chavez. Community input is critical to developing a plan that reflects the values, spirit, and culture of the Mission and its residents. The purpose of this interview is to hear your vision for a cultural district on Calle 24, including any concerns you may have or opportunities you would like to see developed. We are happy to share our final report and recommendations for the Latino Cultural District with you, if you would like to leave your name and email with us at the end of the interview. We also promise to keep your identity confidential in the final report, referring simply to different stakeholder groups, rather than to individuals. Vision for LCD 1) When you walk around the neighborhood, particularly along 24 th street, how would you describe it? a. What do you like about it? (What do you do when you come out to 24 th Street?) 2) What do you think makes the 24 th Street cultural corridor unique? 3) What challenges or problems do you see along 24 th Street? a. When you come to the 24 th Street corridor, what, if anything, bothers you? 4) What changes would you like to see along 24 th Street? a. Can you tell me more? 5) Five years from now, what would you like to see along the corridor? a. What’s you long-term vision for the corridor?? b. What particular activities you would like to see happening? c. What particular opportunities you would like to see developed? 6) Thinking about all the things you’ve mentioned, what are the 1 or 2 most important changes you would like to see implemented as part of the 24 th Street Latino Cultural District? 7) What, to you, might be signs that the Latino Cultural District is successful? 8) (for Council only?): What should be the guiding principles for the Latino Cultural corridor? ! ! 43 (Probe): What are some of the values or beliefs that are important to you that should guide the development of a Latino Cultural corridor? Implementation of LCD Plan Fast forward 6 months and assume that we have developed a comprehensive plan for the Latino Cultural District. The following questions focus on the implementation of that plan. 1) What organizational structure is needed for governance and staffing to sustain the LCD? 2) How do you think the community could best be engaged in the (planning & implementation) of the Latino Cultural District? 3) Who are some of the stakeholders that should be engaged in developing and implementing the LCD? a. What are the best ways to communicate regularly with these stakeholders? 4) What ideas do you have that could help ensure affordable housing for residents? 5) What ideas do you have that could help ensure that merchants can continue to afford to lease their properties? 6) Thinking about all the ideas you have suggested for a Latino Cultural District, what kind of budget do you think is needed to implement this plan for years 1-5? Interviewer: Thank you very much for taking the time to answer these questions. Your input is critical to the development of a LCD that reflects the values and beliefs of Mission residents. If you’d like to write your name/email on this card, we will ensure that you receive a copy of the final report, anticipated in January, 2015. ! ! 44 Appendix G: Major Themes from Interviews & Focus Groups Interviews & Focus Groups Referenced 8.27.14 Council focus group (CFG) 8.28.14 Youth focus group (YFG) 9.04.14 Merchant focus group (MFG) 9.13.14 Community Meeting #1 (CM1) 9.24.14 Arts focus group (AFG) Interview: resident Rita Alviar (RA) Interview: resident Maria X (MX) Interview: resident Ben Feldman (BF) Interview: residents Esther Hernandez & Rene Yañez (EHRN) Interview: merchant Jaime Maldonado (JM) Interview: arts Sarah Guerra (SG)! ! Summary of Major Themes Topic Major Themes Cultural Resources / Assets • Uniqueness (EHRN, BF, MX) • History (MX) - History of Latinos in the Mission / modern history of the Mission (MFG) - Oral history projects (CFG) - Historical archives (CFG) - Archives of art history (AFG) • Cultural atmosphere - The feel; community feel (JM, RA, BF) - Culture (MX, RA) - Vitality (MX) - Cultural institutions (CM1) • Affordable Housing - Rent control (YFG) • Events - Celebrations: dance, cars, murals, language (BF) - Cultural events, spaces, and discussion (BF, CM1) - Street festivals (CFG) • Built Environment - Walkability (MFG, BF, MX, RA) - Tree canopy and landscaping (BF, MX) - Transportation (RA) - Schools (RA) - Community gardens (CFG) - Ability to transform negative spaces into positives, i.e. Garfield park (JM) • Diversity - In real estate and services (JM) ! ! 45 - Diverse community (BF, RA) • Community - Community feel (JM, RA) - Those that are still here (JM) - Working families (JM) - The community that arrived here, many left and keep coming back (JM) - Continue to welcome residents that left and keep coming (MX) - Families with children and old folks (BF) - Residents who are involved in community events (BF) - Friendly people (SG) - Long-term residents take care of each other, despite history of struggle (SG) - Community fundraising (AFG) - Activism (AFG) • Services - After-school programs (BF) - STEM-related activities for youth (BF) - Effectiveness of community-based organizations (RA) • Businesses (CFG) - Customer Loyalty (JM) - Affordable wages (JM) - Independent businesses (BH) - Small stores (MX) - Merchants (RA) - Business owners who have been here a long time (SG) - Legacy businesses, family-owned, possible for successive generations (AFG) - New businesses with new visions (AFG) • Arts - Others’ appreciation of our art (EHRN) - Murals (EHRN, BF, YFG, CFG) - Graffiti & street art (EHRN, YFG) - Dance studios (BF) - Old cars, lowriders (BF, AFG, CM1) - Arts organizations that support each other, collaborate and share resources (SG) - Music and musicians (AFG) - Artists (AFG) - Free access to art (AFG) - Bookstores (AFG) - Arts Inventory, digital (AFG) • Food (CFG) - Spicy food (BF) - Restaurants (MX, RA) - Panaderias (MX) • Weather (RA) ! ! 46 Inventory of Resources • Events - Sunday Streets (MFG) - Día de los Muertos (CFG, AFG) - Cesar Chavez festival (CFG, AFG) - Carnaval (CFG, AFG) • Arts & Culture - Brava (EHRN, MX, CFG, AFG, CM1) - Murals (EHRN, BF, YFG) - Alley Cat books (EHRN) - Modern Times books (CFG, AFG) - Galería de la Raza (EHRN, MX, AFG, CM1) - El Tecolote / Acción Latina (EHRN, MX, CFG, AFG) - Precita Eyes (EHRN, YFG, AFG) - Puppet shows (23 rd & Bryant) - Red Poppy Art House (EHRN, CFG, AFG) - Mission Cultural Center (EHRN, MX, AFG) - Cars / Lowriders (BF, CFG AFG, CM1) - Balmy Alley (YFG, CFG) - Lilac Alley (YFG, CFG) - Cypress Alley (CFG) - Pirate Radio (YFG) - Southern Exposure Gallery (YFG) - Flags of the Americas (CFG) - BART plaza (CFG) - Dance Mission (AFG, CM1) - Carnaval Mural Restoration Committee (CRC) - SF Mime Troupe (AFG) - Loco Bloco (AFG, CM1) - SF Found (AFG) - Public Library (AFG) • Religion - St. Peter’s (MX, CFG) • Services & Non profits - Mission Girls (YFG) - MEPI (CFG) - MNC (CFG) - Good Samaritan (CFG) - Jamestown (CFG) - Instituto de la Raza (CFG) - MAPP (CFG) - Musing (CFG) - Will Brown Gallery (CFG) - La Latina (CFG) - Mixcoatl (CFG) • Businesses - Goodwill (YFG) - Luz y Luna (CFG) • Food ! ! 47 - Taqueria Vallarta (YFG) - El Farolito (YFG) - Quickly’s (YFG) - Happy Donuts (YFG) - L’s Café (YFG) - La Cocina (CFG) - Frutilandia (CFG) - El Metate (CFG) - La Michoacana (CFG) - La Victoria (CFG) - La Reina (CFG) - Las Palmas (CFG) - Café La Boheme (CFG) - Casa Sanchez (CFG) - El Mercadito (CFG) • Parks & Recreation - Garfield Park and mini-parks (BF, YFG) - Precita Park (YFG) - Skatepark (YFG) - Potrero (YFG) - Garfield swimming pool (YFG) Concerns / Deficits • Displacement - Displacement of historical residents (JM) - Lack of communal space; used to have such space (EHRN) - Challenges preserving the organizations that serve traditional residents (MX) - Families leaving (RA) - Latino families with children leaving (RA, AFG) - As households leave, community-based organizations may also have to leave (RA, AFG) - Evictions (YFG) - Fewer youth and children (YFG, AFG) - City is not willing to buy housing for specific groups / interests (AFG) • Affordability - Dying culture due to unaffordable housing (JM) - High rents for businesses and households (MX, RA, YFG) - Expensive food & coffee (YFG) - Expense creates too much pressure on organizations to fundraise (SG) - Lots of residents, businesses and organizations do not own property (AFG) - Lack of housing initiatives for non-profits (AFG) • Preservation - Preserving murals on properties that change hands (AFG) - Lack of funding for preservation and restoration (AFG) - Preserving history and culture (AFG) ! ! 48 • Crime & Safety Concerns - Need to transform magnets for criminal activity (JM) - Gang activity (RA, YFG) - Drivers’ disregard for bikers (YFG) - Violence (AFG) • Homelessness - St. Peter’s magnet for homeless activity (JM) - Homelessness around SF General & BART (EHRN) - Transients (YFG) • Discrimination - Hate towards “other”: red/blue, saggy pants/youth, language other than English and Spanish, groups of tourists, people with maps, homeless/transients, those who look from outside, white or perceived as hipsters (YFG) Police presence to address fear of “brown boys” (SG) Hard to bring communities together, ignorance at one end and anger on the other (SG) Police targeting residents, injunctions. Fear of brown people, assumptions that teenage boys are always in gangs (SG) • Gentrification - Gentrification driven by money (JM) - Community members not capable of capitalizing on changes (EHRN) - Fear of becoming 16 th St, the new party district (EHRN) - Avoid becoming a circus (MX) - New businesses (MX) - Repeat of 1991 revitalization efforts (MX) - Sense of “other” (YFG) - Blocks have lost traditions like neighborhood water fights (YFG) - Regret that this work is only happening now, should have happened when Valencia went down the drain (SG) - We’re forced to adapt to bicycles and techies (SG) • New residents - New residents moving in (MX) - Influx of new residents that may or may not want to be part of the community (RA) - New businesses/newcomers less friendly; “unfriendliness to the unfamiliar” (SG) - Cultural differences are challenging (SG) - How to convince newcomers that Galería, Acción Latina, the fish market are all important (SG) - A lot of tension with new residents. Resident upstairs from Galería complained about noise during event (SG) - Us vs. them mentality (AFG) • Lack of engagement - Lack of engagement by SF Arts Commission. Used to ! ! 49 be a partner; they have checked out (EHRN) - Not blending or folding into established community (MX) - Neighbors are strangers (YFG) - People coming in take, but don’t give. Culture vultures (SG, AFG) • Built environment - Lack of bike lanes (YFG) • Parking (JM, CFG) Vision & Desired Change • Housing, Affordability & Ownership - Need more middle income housing (JM) - Combine uses – housing and industrial (JM) - Ways for Latino artists to stay in the Mission (EHRN, CFG) - Create artist-centered housing: artists in residence, work/live space, combine community service with artwork (CFG) - Housing for artists is imperative. Create live/work spaces for (EHRN) - Help negotiate better leases for key organizations (EHRN) - Affordable venues for culture (MX) - Stabilization for households, businesses, and nonprofits (RA, CFG) - Housing for historical residents (YFG) - Help long-time non-profits and businesses buy their buildings (CFG) - Ownership of historical cultural assets: Galería, MCC (CFG, CM1) - Galería should own its own building (SG, CM1) - Housing collective/nonprofit. Need to purchase buildings (AFG) - Advocate for housing (AFG) - Ask City Hall to offer tax breaks if landlords sell to nonprofits (AFG) - Reach out personally to landlords and negotiate sales directly with nonprofits and small businesses, possible a housing collective (AFG) - Co-op and shared housing (CM1) - Housing first approaches (CM1) - Establish housing zones for low income housing (CM1) • Arts & Entertainment - Rehearsal spaces for performing arts (EHRN) - Spaces for arts, theater and comedy (EHRN, CFG) - Entertainment district, connect with major venues in SF (JM) - High-standard entertainment district, cultural events & new venues (MX) - Creation of curator standards (MX) ! ! 50 - Identifying target population for various arts elements (MX) - Movie theater (YFG) - Gum wall (i.e. Seattle) or paint wall (YFG) - Music and dance venues for youth, under 21 with no alcohol (YFG) - Youth programming and art space (YFG, CFG) - Create a 24 th St. flag design, logo, branding (YFG, CM1) - Window art: school projects (CFG) - Arches on 24 th St x Mission & 24 th St x Potrero (CFG) - Murals on every façade (CFG) - Map, way finders (CFG) - New arts exhibits and cultural performances (CFG) - Mayan kiosks (CFG) • Preservation - Preservation of present culture as illustrated by business mix, household income and activities (JM) - Preservation of identity (BF) - Slow change without rejecting others (BF) - Preserve cultural resources (YFG, CFG, CM1) - Self-guided tours (CFG) - Keep bookstores healthy (CFG) - Preserve political and alternative history (AFG) • Suggestions for Built Environment & Development - Culturally based beautification (CM1) - Flowers, lights, colors. Must be authentic. (MFG) - Clean and welcoming public environment (EHRN) - Balanced: housing, businesses, parking, bikes, pedestrian (JM) - Open space (MX) - Free bus that runs through a defined area (YFG) - Visual effect: You should feel like you’re in Latino America. Architectural features, land uses, businesses and establishments, street décor like papel picado, arches murals (YFG) - Develop city-owned land (JM) - School district could become developer (JM) - A place of gathering: zocalo (MX, AFG) - A chill space like a zocalo with picnic areas and grills (YFG) - Bus stops with swings (YFG) - Lighting (CFG) - Improved pedestrian uses (CFG) - Parking considerations (CFG) - Pedestrian only spaces (CFG) - Develop available land, like Cala (CM1) - Consider land use. No parklets (CM1) - Define the district using cultural context (CM1) - Prevent chain and high-end restaurants (CM1) • Signage ! ! 51 - Welcome signs in English / Spanish (MFG) - Signs, mapping way finding (EHRN) - Signs with information (BF) • Increased communication & coordination - Among merchants (MFG) - Need to better communicate between established and new residents (JM) - Greater coordination amongst cultural venues, and with businesses (EHRN) - Greater coordination of cultural events (EHRN) - Strong coalition among Brava, Calle 24, Causa Justa, Galería de la Raza, Precita Eyes, City government (EHRN) - Need to better engage Interception for the Arts, Mexican Museum, other ethnic museums - Organize the community to preserve the identity and protect it against speculators, crime, gangs , prostitution (BF) - Greater education of tenants rights (RA, YFG, CM1) - Space for dialogue: gentrification, hate tagging, historical values, traditions, discrimination in businesses, etc. (YFG) - Invite tourists to cultural district, avoid Disneyland effect (CFG) - Better communication infrastructure (AFG) • Increased engagement - More engagement by tech companies (EHRN) - Better engagement of General Hospital employees – understanding their needs and desires (EHRN) - SF Arts Commission, SF General, City College (EHRN) - Co-exhibits DeYoung, MOMA, LAVA (MX) - Greater interaction among neighbors, especially new ones (YFG) - Community involvement and ownership (YFG) - Educate new residents on historical cultural assets. Welcome packet, neighborhood newsletter, bulletin boards in businesses, opportunities to volunteer and get involved (CFG, AFG) - How to engage those with deep pockets to invest in organizations (SG) - Support schools (AFG) - Through art, promote participation, not just consumption (AFG) - Lots of outreach needed to educate new neighbors about the existing community, help them integrate (AFG) - Engage the often invisible undocumented population (CM1) - Engage those living in illegal units (CM1) - Engage residents, old and new (CM1) - Engage philanthropy (CM1) ! ! 52 - Resident advisory committee (CM1) • Economic & Funding Strategies - Need to better connect arts community into the economic and physical life of the community (EHRN) - Economic opportunities for historical businesses and long-term residents (CFG) - Focus on business and economic development: loan program, marketing, façade/storefront (CFG) - Culinary schools invited into, and working with restaurants (CFG) - Find and re-direct funding streams into target housing (CFG) - Develop an artists collective and become a non-profit, fundraise together (AFG) - Pressure developers to invest in existing nonprofits (AFG) - Pressure City Hall to allocate AirB&B tax revenues proportionally. Since the Mission hosts the most AirB&B rentals, the Mission should receive their share of revenues (AFG, CM1) - Develop production, distribution, repair jobs for people with limited education (CM1) • Cultural Events - Closing off streets on certain days, pedestrian-only zones (MFG) - Street closure for special events (RA) - “This is 24 th St” events to reinforce our identity while educating new residents (MFG) - Día de los Muertos, Carnaval, Cesar Chavez parade as cultural experience vs. business opportunity (EHRN) - Celebration of cultures, all not just Mexican. Las Posadas, Día de los Niños, Día de la Madre, La Pena (EHRN) - Celebration of all cultures – a number of Yemenese families live here now (RA) - Celebration of food, arts and culture – no beer (EHRN) - Latina Day, Mariachi Festival, Salsa in the Street (MX) - Street fair that celebrates many cultures (RA) - Block parties (YFG) - More street fairs (YFG) - Free events (YFG) - Neighborhood water fight (YFG) - Re-instate 24 th Street Festival (CFG, AFG) - Calendar of cultural events: print and electronic (CFG) - More intimate conversations with large event corporate sponsors (AFG) • Services - Activities designed and targeted for teens, parents, young professionals, older folks - Incorporate supportive services, mental health (CM1) ! ! 53 • Businesses - Restaurants that serve all residents and workers (RA) - Served by Latino workforce (YFG) - Owned by Latino owners whenever possible (YFG) - Preserve Latino flavor of the district, even if simply by leaving a sign unchanged (YFG) • Policy & Assistance - Programs to increase ownership of Latino businesses (MFG) - Legal assistance to help negotiate better leases (MFG) - Controls of commercial rents (MFG) - Monitoring of fraudulent business assistance (MFG) - Reclaim 24 th St through planning codes and architecture (MX) - Better regulation of illegal bed and breakfasts like AirB&B (YFG, AFG) - Zoning or designation for historic businesses and residents (YFG) - Legislative priorities: set controls (CFG) - Re-defining affordability (CFG, CM1) - City should purchase buildings for centers. Galería should own its own building (SG) - Need policies and advocacy to fund arts (AFG) - Insert into planning code that requires developers to contribute to arts fund (AFG) - Incentivize landlords to sell to community (AFG) - City needs to focus more resources to the Mission. Give the Mission its fair share of Air B&B tax revenues (AFG) - Use of eminent domain (CM1) - Right of first refusal (CM1) - Ellis Act eviction moratorium (CM1) - Insurance structure to diminish cost (CM1) • Improved Safety / Crime Reduction - Benefit from elimination of gangs (EHRN) - Gang injunction was positive (BF) - Diagonal pedestrian crosswalk (MX) • Attitudes - Better understanding by merchants that new clients have new tastes (MFG) - Welcoming attitude towards tourists so they spend money (MFG) - A community that greets (RA) - Zero tolerance for haters (YFG) - Address new resident fears with education (CFG) - Recognize cultural capital in neighborhood (SG) Planning and Implementation • Values & Guiding Principles - Data-driven (CFG) - Collaborative (CFG) - Latino-centric (CFG) - Inclusive (CFG, SG, CM1) ! ! 54 - Innovative, outside-the-box thinking (CM1) - Consider sustainability (CM1) • Tools - Look at models in London and Paris (JM) - Logic model that shows how activities, goals, strategies are connected: who, what, what, where , when, why, money (CFG) - Guided by work plan: steps to implement. Based on model BIC + CDC + DBD + CBDO (CFG). - Tenants collectives to purchase buildings (CFG) - Special-use district tied to code and architectural design (CFG) - Land trust models (CM1) • Funding & Resources - Investigate resources through National Association of Latino Arts and Culture (EHRN) - Subsidize arts (MX) - Driven by Fund Development Plan: tech money, philanthropy, City Arts, City of SF (CFG) - CAST (Community Arts Stabilization Trust), trust bought buildings on Market St., and organizations have 7 years to buy back property. The city is invested in mid-Market, but convincing them to invest in Calle 24 is a challenge. CAST is tricky, complicated real estate transaction that requires organizations to have a lot of resources, strong board, business plan, business person to keep the deal in order. (AFG) - MEDA? (AFG) • Outreach & Coordination - Receive information, hard to attend meetings as these are during hours of operation (JM) - One on one outreach to merchants (JM) - Receive information from Calle 24 and similar associations (JM) - Coordination of cultural assets to maximize their cultural and community binding value (EHRN) - Inclusive of city government, philanthropy, technology, community-based organizations (CFG) • Structure - Create Calle 24 governance structure to sustain effort (CFG) - Organization/entity whose responsibility it is to run the LCD (AFG) ! ! 55 Appendix H: Strengths, Opportunities & Challenges of LCD ! Strengths " Opportunities • Challenges ! Long term residents/stability ! Strong community connections ! Local leadership ! Unique neighborhood character ! Artists and arts organizations ! Strong sense of community, place and history. ! Demographic diversity ! Latino business enclave ! Established community based organizations ! Thriving faith community ! Numerous cultural events (i.e. Carnaval, mural tours, Cesar Chavez Parade). ! Neighborhood- oriented, variety of restaurants, convenient goods & services. ! Low retail vacancy rate. ! Strong core shopper-base: locals shop daily, specialty shoppers from Bay Area, ! international tourists. ! High percentage of business owners that also own their " Work with Building and Planning Departments to develop new land use policies to support cultural assets " Protect existing parking " Develop more pedestrian friendly options " Create Special Use District " Create Cultural Benefits District or Community Benefits District " Create loan programs targeting historical business and renters " Create strong governance structure to manage LCD " Implement and execute LCD branding opportunities " Leverage legacy business " Pursue community-driven strategies to preserve local history and culture. " Capital improvements; prune trees, fix broken sidewalks, add pedestrian lighting, landscaping. " Define off-hour truck loading times • Lack of affordable housing (evictions and displacements) • Tension between the old and the new (lack of integration) • Rapid transformation of neighborhood without a plan (not another Valencia) • Losing historical businesses, residents and services • Partnership challenges with City/County • Limited resources to sustain LCD • Building a sustainable governance model • Increasing commercial rents (difficult for long time tenants to pay). • Increase in health code and building code violations. • Lack of opportunities for youth. • Fear of “Mission” culture disappearing. ! ! 56 property. ! Destination for Latino specialty food stores and restaurants, bars. ! Street trees and sidewalk plantings bring character. ! Murals and art institutions are destinations /attractions. ! Walkable, access to public transportation (bus, BART). to reduce day time parking problems. " Develop partnership opportunities between longtime businesses and new businesses, and between businesses and arts organizations. " Conduct campaign to increase merchants’ awareness of health and building code issues. " Identify opportunities to leverage Mission Promise investments to support the Mission’s neighborhood • 2009-2012 crime data shows slight upswing in most categories: Assaults decreased by 67% from 09-11, slight increase 2012. • Gang violence and fear of gangs limiting activity. • Insufficient police vigilance (beat cops rarely seen). • Too many liquor stores. • Dirty, broken sidewalks; public spaces, trees overgrown. • Poor lighting, dark at night, increased perception of unsafe. • Lack of public spaces and seating. • Signage dilapidated, dirty, gates drawn during day. ! ! 57 Appendix I: Agendas for Community Meetings 1, 2 & 3 Agenda for Community Meeting 1 ! ! 58 Agenda for Community Meeting 2 ! ! 59 Agenda for Community Meeting 3 ! ! ! ! ! ! 60 Appendix J: Notes for Community Meetings 1, 2 & 3 ! Community Meeting 1 Notes Saturday, September 13, 2014 Attendance (50): Mia Gonzalez, Paul Monye-Rodriguez, Miguel de Ocampo, Ben Feldman, Buck Bagot, Lulula Lee, Lucho Ramirez, Carlos Gonzalez, Leo Beckerman, Carlos Valdiviezo, Maria de la Mora, Christie Hakim, Andra Cernavskis, Eric Dimond, Patricia Reischl Crahan, Juan Carlos Ibarra, Steve Wertham, Blake Kutner, Laura Lane, Eva Royale, Gustavo Vazquez, Ann Golden, Noemi Sohn, Susan Cervantes, Anabelle Bolanos, Brian Baker, Sergio Lainez, Rob Thomson, Martha Arguello, Melissa Lareau, Mary C Magee, Mayra Madriz, Brooke Oliver, Luis Granados, Gabriel Medina, Reuben David Goodman, Joshua Arce, Roberto Y. Hernandez, Rosa Nazario, Sergio Espino, Gabriela Peña, Adriana Cruz, Gladys Soto, Michael Crahan, Thomas Ray, Julien Ball, Gregory Liggons, Derek Raskin, Kathy & Dewey This process has to be: # Innovative, outside the box and aware of housing/real estate conflicts, solutions, issues and legislation ! Decrease of housing footprint- microhomes ! Understand housing impacts on services, schools, etc. ! Land trust models ! Coop and shared housing ! Use of eminent domain ! First right of refusal ! Interim controls ! Develop available land- CalaFoods ! Redefine affordable # Comprehensive and inclusive to involve as many stakeholders as possible ! Engage the often invisible undocumented population ! Engage those living in illegal units ! Engage new and historical residents # Community Education ! Must educate community on tenant rights ! Address housing needs of historical populations: $ Immigrant $ Artist $ Elderly $ Housing first approaches ! ! 61 $ Incorporate supportive services: mental health, ! Understand business issues, challenges and solutions $ Interim controls $ Develop PDR (Production Distribution Repair) jobs for people with limited education # Preserve historical community based organizations: ! Culture ! Social Services ! Purchase buildings to gain control: Galeria de la Raza ! Assists with operational costs # Consider land use ! No parklets ! Define the district using historical context ! Airbnb tax revenue/ tax increment ! Prevent chain and high scale restaurants ! Ellis eviction moratorium ! Increase culturally based beautification strategies ! Establish housing zones/sites for low income residents # Set outreach strategies ! Philanthropy ! Resident advisory committee to evaluate cultural resources ! Set out logo to identify cultural assets # Consider governance ! Sustainability ! Resident involvement ! Structure ! Insurance structure to diminish cost # Evaluate innovative financial strategies ! Set up loans for historical organizations and individuals ! Set up tax pool to support artist related housing and craft expenses # Asset Inventory ! Brava ! Galeria de la Raza ! Dance Mission ! Loco Bloco ! Cultural Events ! Cultural Institutions ! Low riders! ! ! 62 Saturday, November 1, 2014 Community Meeting 2 Notes ! Attendance (36): Jim Burnett,Martin Steinman, Carolyn Burnett, Anabelle Bolanos, Marsha Murrington, Thomas Ray, Sam Moss, Marie Sorenson, John R Mendoza, Maria De La Mora, Ani Rivera, Stella Adelman, Pete Gallegos, Todd Brown, Martin Esteban Farfan, Kelly Haro, Paul Monge-Rodriguez, Oscar Grande, Carlos Gutierrez, Edwin Lindo, Miles Pickering, Gustavo Vazquez, Aaron Starr, Patti Cuadra-Eng, Kate Rosenberger, Jorge Sanchez, Desiree Smith, Sylvia Lynch, Wendy Bardsley, Ben Feldman, Erick Arguello, Marcia Contreras, Susan Cervantes, Ann Golden, Georgiana Hernandez, Joaquin Torres Juliana gives an overview • Priority 1: Preserve and help grow Latino historical and cultural resources - Cultural Heritage Assets (from SF Heritage), CHA’s for short - Tangible and intangible (spirit of solidarity, orientation towards human rights, Latino “feel” of the neighborhood) - This is the discussion that will be held by the CHAs work group. • Priority 2: What can we do to protect businesses, organizations, and residents as tenants? - Affordable rents and housing, for both businesses and residents - This is the discussion that will be held by the Housing work group and Business work groups. Introduce Ana, who will go over the Little Tokyo model and other cultural district models - Must create a plan that is sustainable, and for that we look at sustainability strategies of other cultural districts. - Potential model is Little Tokyo in LA. Notion of creating a membership organization, consisting - Membership gives you the opportunity to vote - Council votes in board members and chairs - Created committees, selected according to the priorities of Little Tokyo. Committees can change along with changing priorities - Pro - provides people many ways to participate, connection to the person she voted for. Allows membership to make decisions. Con – not everyone has an equal say. Someone needs to manage the bylaws, so you need someone to keep track of these things and it can get complicated. - LT model, they are a CDC who is managing the whole process, an entity that is involved in managing the cultural district and is able to apply for grants that allows them to sustain the whole effort. ! ! 63 - Governance will be discussed in future meetings with Calle 24 Council & community Break into working groups: Economic vitality, Housing, & Cultural Historical Assets (CHAs) Working Group Facilitators: Ana Cortez (Economic vitality), Juliana van Olphen (Housing), Jorge Sanchez (CHAs). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- Notes: Economic Vitality working group Date: November 1, 2014 Purpose: Identify important business vitality priorities for incorporation in the Latino Cultural District Plan Themes/Action Items: # Branding • Creation of logos and plaques to identify Cultural Heritage Assets (CHAs) including businesses, homes, non profits, structures • Development of culturally appropriate signage of LCD areas • Design of aesthetic, cultural demarcations unique to LCD • Development of consistent marketing of cultural activities # Business Engagement • Hold meetings at times that are convenient to local businesses • Give businesses reasons to participate • Create a community through common activities and interests # Preservation • Reinforce current tangible CHAs • Develop strategies to stabilize residential and commercial rents and leases • Continue Façade improvement program following LCD standards and design # Capacity Building • Create technical assistance initiatives to help businesses improve capacity: marketing, social media, market segmentation, strategic planning, financial management. • Provide assistance tailored to sustain and to expand businesses • Develop diverse methods for delivery of technical assistance: group, individualized, traditional, virtual • Create business incubators and accelerators • Form IT team and floating staff to support historical businesses • Provide demographic data and metrics to develop better goods and services ! ! 64 • Create directories and other data bases/information # Process • Conduct needs analysis to determine Assets, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats of historical businesses • Elaborate and adopt protocols to evaluate and designate CHAs • Develop warning system to alert commercial renters of expiring leases # Legislative • Explore Business Improvement District designation for specific parts/entire LCD • Create community debit cards for historical businesses • Create community banks/credit unions ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- Notes: Housing working group Date: November 1, 2014 Purpose: Identify important housing understandings, questions, challenges and suggestions to be addressed in the Latino Cultural District Plan. Themes/Action Items: # Understandings • Housing, property ownership is a complex issue • No “one size fits all” approach • Need short- and long-term goals (first preserve what we have, then expand what we have) • Movements builds through small steps and small wins # Overarching questions • How can we increase affordable housing? • How can we increase property ownership? • How can we increase protections for cultural heritage assets such as legacy businesses, non-profits, etc.? • What can we do locally? • What kind of powers can the LCD leverage? # Challenges • Takes a long time to build new affordable housing – time from site acquisition to new available units can be ~ 5 years • In SF, very costly to build -- $500,000 per unit to build; no building discounts for affordable housing ! ! 65 • Some housing policy (e.g., small sites development) very hard to understand for a lay person or even for someone familiar with housing policy • Community members may not know about available programs that could help # Suggestions for early steps • Educate residents, businesses, and non-profits about definition of affordable housing, types of affordable housing, and how to qualify for affordable housing in SF; • Educate community about housing assistance programs (e.g., Down Payment Loan Program or DALP that provides subsidies for down payments – funding varies over time; also “teacher next door” that provides $ to teachers to purchase property; money for First Responders) • Encourage more transparency in how policies/local programs are developed (e.g., how is it determined who gets money for down payments); • Advocate for more funding to programs like DALP through Mayor’s Office; provide funding to other groups, not only First Responders and teachers • Be more aggressive regarding new sites or buildings that are coming on market; make sure that someone from Calle 24 advocates for the development of affordable housing or rent regulation for tenants and businesses/non-profits • Forge alliances between Calle 24 and housing advocates; ensure that housing advocates/organizers are part of Calle 24 and that Calle 24 is part of housing movement • Organizing & empowerment • education (of community about local, state, federal housing laws and programs, e.g., DALP) • engagement of residents, businesses, and non-profits # Long-term strategies to explore • Identify early what sites may be available for development; Calle 24 can be advocates for how the sites are developed (recent sites being developed: 26 th /Folsom; 1950 Mission; 17 th and Folsom) • Move toward decolonizing – self-governance • Small sites development – existing units can be converted to affordable housing; city will allow organization to purchase existing property; stabilize property • Affordable housing trust fund controlled by Mayor’s Office on Housing (MOH); non-profit developers can apply for this money • Land trust strategy (22 nd /Florida – co-operative development as model) ! ! 66 • Right of first refusal for locals, long-term residents – they should have first choice to purchase units or buildings– put brakes on ability of speculators to come in and sweep up real estate as soon as it comes on the market • Get units out of speculators’ market • Raise money to purchase property (challenge is market) • Solicit funding from technology industry, foundations • Reduce reliance on city government; think about developing more self-governance • Legacy business – should give you some status that affords you some protections (Campos introduced) - benefits for landlord to sell to legacy business/tax breaks - should also be mechanisms for community entrepreneurs to step in to preserve a legacy business - develop cooperative business model – worker-owned cooperatives • No person should pay more than 30% of income for housing; qualification for affordable housing determined by percent of Area Median Income (71,000 for 1 person or 105,000 for 4 people) – usually 55-60% of AMI but can be up to 80% ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes: Cultural Historical Assets (CHAs) working group Date: November 1, 2014 Purpose: Identify challenges, priorities and suggestions for the preservation of cultural historical assets (CHAs) within the Latino Cultural District. Themes/Action Items: # Cultural Historical Assets (CHAs) • Dance Mission • Red Poppy: Intersection between different communities, unique organizationally, small staff • SF Heritage: Working on SF Latino Historic Context Statement, involved in the writing of the historical narrative, created self-guided tours, etc. • Precita Eyes: Murals • Accion Latina: AL produces El Tecolote 45 yrs old, extensive archive, was also given North Mission News Archive, Encuento del Canto Popular • Galeria De La Raza • Chicano Latino Filmmakers Society • Alley Cat Books and Gallery • Brava Theater # Cultural significance of LCD ! ! 67 • Culture is a way of life: Language, Food, Music, Casa Lucas is different than Safeway. Culture of indigenous resistance of colonization, power in culture of resistance. • Culture is engaged in what is happening now • Culture as a point of reference for the importance of having an LCD. • Retaining our place in history. All these things that aren’t in mainstream media, honoring that, how do we share it among all of us. It’s important to us to not just work nostalgically but engage on what’s happening now. • Beautiful overlapping/ of communities in Balmy Alley event. • We slow people’s time down. Art has a healing role. • Often the first wave of gentrification comes through artists. Reflect on how culture has responsibility for preceding gentrification. Dia de los Muertos: Nobody knew about it until Galeria de la Raza. • Artistic sanctuary city. First generation of working class artists, “We couldn’t make art in our home countries because it was too political”. # Strategic Questions • How do we organize ourselves and figure out an advocacy agenda, advocate for resources or whatever that is. • How do we leverage the LCD to ensure real cultural preservation? • Anything that works to make a neighborhood more attractive will gentrify it, so how can we create those checks and balances to preserve affordable housing or arts orgs? • As institutions, how do we provide space to bring artists back to our neighborhoods? Artists are families and community? • What are the values of the LCD? How do we articulate those? # Challenges facing CHAs & LCD • OEWD didn’t consider arts and culture orgs as businesses, so they didn’t get to benefit. • Demonstrations don’t have the same impact that they used to have, people in power aren’t embarrassed by that anymore. • Original Precita Eyes space getting harassed about eviction • Affordable youth platform, youth population has shrunk dramatically. Do we move, or do we find a place to bring those kids to us? • We’ve become a bedroom community, like the suburbs of old # Priorities & Suggestions for Next Steps • Maintaining these arts spaces that are getting evicted • Advocate as arts orgs and create specific tools. ! ! 68 • Preservation is a social justice, living issue. Preserve the right to make art. • Create a cultural inventory of everything that has happened, and make it through this point in time when everything is shifting, and become more organized and make some commitment for the next five years. The next five years are incredibly important for our kids. • Cultural inventory is important. Look at the body of work that has come out of this district and document it. • Latinos are increasing in the city as a whole, while they’re decreasing in the Mission. We do represent inclusivity, and we do need to come out with programs that attract and include those populations. • Preserving cultural assets, partnering with youth orgs and other cultural arts orgs. • LCD benefited Mayor’s office and economic development. This is our opportunity in pushing them to making sure that they support our economic reality. Legacy business. Make sure that Latino businesses have some incentive to stay here. ! ! 69 Saturday, December 20, 2014 Community Meeting 3 Notes Attendance (29) • Joshua Arce, Paula Fleisher, Edwin Lindo, Anabelle Bolaños, Miles Pickering, Eva Royale, Gene Royale, Wendy Bardsley, Miguel Bustos, Chris Norman, Martin Farfan, Stacie Powers, Erick Arguello, Georgiana Hernandez, Ani Rivera, Ruth Mahaney, Susan Cervantes, Martin Steinman, Brooke Oliver, Abby Stopper, Maricela Leon-Barrera, Malo Hutson, Anne Romero, Pete Gallegos, Diego Sanchez, Emilio Victorio, John Mendoza, Ben Feldman, Matthew Rogers • Consulants & OEWD (4): Ana Cortez, Ori Reyes, Perla, Diana Ponce de Leon Meeting Objectives • To update community about the planning activities undertaken and findings to date. • To receive input regarding LCD’s organizational mission, vision and guiding principles • To receive input regarding LCD’s governance model • To receive input about strategic priorities LCD should pursue in the next 3 years Findings Discussion • Housing - For whom? - Certificates of preference for Mission District - Immigrants in general, not just artists - What are the categories for deeply affordable housing? To be changed and inclusive - Affordable family housing • Look at land use policies - Preserving open spaces - Make sure that policies and their histories are looked to, to learn why they took place - Look at the history of the neighborhood when future planning takes place • Youth Involvement - In all aspects, including governance - Outreach to schools, jail systems • Residents, Non-Profits, CBO’s - Incorporate thinking of long-term effects for the population who will continue living in the area (20 years) - Rent control for businesses & CBO’s or non-profits. - Including services for elders ! ! 70 Guiding Principles Principles were presented. • Community = Mission to Potrero, 22 nd St. to Cesar Chavez are the boundaries • Preservation of culture (specifically, Latino culture), Celebrate assets (businesses & arts), Strengthen legacy • Encourage elder & LGBT & youth & disabled communities Mission • Gentrification or other market forces (gentrification, ghettoization) • Recognize district is large & call out geography • Continuity, protect, enhance (#2) • Promote • Manage, instead of mitigate • Focus on Latino community/manage • Preserve the goods • Flip mitigation & preservation " General satisfaction with the 2 nd version of the Mission statement % Goals • Ethnically Latino culture & demo(graphic) preservation • Proactively connect communities/networks (age & demographics & origin) • Attract more Latinos to come back (residents & businesses) Vision • Focus on district (not 24 th ) • Place somewhere for input • Businesses & non-profits Governance • Mutual Benefit Assistance – designed to benefit users VS. Public Benefit – serves all • Want to benefit all – public - 501 C3; gets grants • Formalize Calle structure • Benefits District & CBD (community/residents, property tax) BID (business owners, business tax • Requires election - Hard to sell; not micro-managed • Spread taxes on the entire LCD (residents & businesses) • 501 C3 - Will manage CBD ! ! 71 - Board & staff - Limits liability - How do we relate to other non-profits? Support, collaboration, communication, safety net - Association ensures sustainability (avoid Carnaval) - Voting members or not? Should not be insular - Little Tokyo = 100+ members, elected board who manage staff - Who could be a member? (slide) - Who would be on the board? (slide) & majority Latino • Questions & Comments - By-laws should be firm yet flexible; changes by members challenged by quorum - Manage LCD to reflect Latino traditions - Yes, membership! - Board diversity (sectors, age, gender) - Activities: cultural, land use, events, street-scaping, design standards, advocacy, clean up, management Calle 24 Roadmap Calle 24 Incorporates as Public Benefit Corporation Files for 501 C3 status Continue at 501 C3 level No Special Elections Yes CBD (Simple majority/ weighted vote) Special!use!district!(SUD):! Code/planning!&!bld! housing! ! ! 72 Projects (arts, crosswalk) Priorities " #1 is having a structure to incorporate governance model " Program priority (immediate): land use advocacy, development of housing • Land use issues – look at it closely • Housing opportunities - Real affordable housing - Pro-family and pro-youth • Community education • Moratorium of housing developments - To be more family friendly • Sustain 24 th St. cultural assets Important Dates • Governance meeting – January 10 th • Community meeting – January 17 th - Strategic Plan presentation Wrap-up • Next steps: - Presentation on Jan 17. th - Policy intervention & City of SF, WFD ! Programming ! Funding ! Tech. assistance ! Advisory on leases - David Campos staff ! Environmental justice commission ! Resolution to support the district ! ! 73 Appendix K: Calle 24 LCD Final Draft Recommendations ! ! ! ! ! 74 ! ! 75 ! ! 76 ! ! 77 . ! ! 78 ! ! 79 ! ! 80 ! ! 81 ! ! 82 Appendix L: Cultural Historical Assets (CHAs) Identified through Data Gathering Process, 2014 Summary of CHAs CHA Category # of CHAs List of CHAs Cultural Events 6 Carnaval Grand Parade & Festival, Cesar E. Chavez Parade & Festival, Día de los Muertos Procession & Festival of Altars, Encuentro del Canto Popular Music Festival, Arts & Culture: Installations & Public Art 7 24 th Street BART Station Plaza, Balmy Alley murals, Cypress Street (Alley) murals, Flags of the Americas lamp post posters, Lilac Street (Alley) murals, Lowriders, Other murals along 24 th Street Arts & Culture: Organizations and Venues 12 Acción Latina, Brava Theater Center / Brava for Women in the Arts, Calle 24 Art for BART Committee, Carnaval Mural Restoration Committee (CMRC), Dance Mission Theater, Galería de la Raza, Loco Bloco, Mission Arts Performance Project (MAPP), Precita Eyes Mural Arts, Public Library Mission Branch, Red Poppy Art House, Will Brown Gallery Arts & Culture: Retail 3 Alley Cat Books, Mixcoatl Arts & Crafts, Modern Times Bookstore Collective Religion 2 Mission Presbyterian Church, St. Peter’s Catholic Church & School ! ! 83 Services & Non- profits 8 Acción Latina, Central American Resource Center (CARECEN), Good Samaritan Family Resource Center, Instituto Familiar de la Raza, Jamestown Community Center, Mission Educational Projects, Inc. (MEPI), Mission Neighborhood Centers, Inc. (MNC), Mission Girls Food & Culinary Arts 16 Café La Boheme, Casa Lucas Market, El Chico Market #4, El Farolito Taquerias, El Metate, El Nuevo Frutilandia, The Jelly Donut, L’s Caffé, La Cocina, La Reina Bakery & Coffee Shop, La Victoria Bakery, La Palma Mexicatessen, Pan Lido Salvadoreño, Panaderia La Mexicana, Roosevelt Tamale Parlor, Taqueria Vallarta Parks 5 24 th & York Mini Park, Garfield Square (Garfield Park), James Rolph Jr. Playground, Parques Niños Unidos, Potrero del Sol (La Raza Park) ! ! 84 Cultural Events Event Name Description Carnaval Grand Parade & Festival Founded in 1979 and held annually in May, Carnaval San Francisco is a 3–day event featuring a Grand Parade and 2– day Festival, celebrating music and cultural elements from Latin American and Caribbean traditions. Cesar E. Chavez Parade & Festival Founded in 2001 and held annually in mid-April. Parade, music, entertainment, arts & crafts booths celebrate the life of Cesar E. Chavez. Día de los Muertos Procession & Festival of Altars In San Francisco, Day of the Dead has been celebrated since the early 1970s with altar installations, music, performances and a walking procession. Held annually on November 2. Encuentro del Canto Popular Music Festival Founded in 1982 and held annually in early December. Acción Latina hosts this yearly concert and cultural festival. Encuentro celebrates the Latin American nueva cancion movement and follows the evolution of that musical style from its roots as a protest movement against Latin American dictatorships, to the current iterations of new Latin American song. ! ! 85 Arts & Culture: Installations & Public Art Name Location Description 24 th Street BART Station Plaza 24 th Street at Mission Street Plaza Sandino is a prominent public space were artwork is featured, including the 1975 BART Station Mural painted by Michael Rios with Anthony Machado and Richard Montez. Balmy Alley murals Balmy Alley between 24 th Street & 25 th Streets The block long alley boasts the most concentrated collection of murals in San Francisco. The murals began in the mid-80's as an expression of artists' outrage over human rights and political abuses in Central America. Today the alley contains murals on a myriad of styles and subjects from human rights to local gentrification and Hurricane Katrina. Cypress Street (Alley) murals Cypress Street between 24 th Street & 26 th Street Cypress Street features numerous murals and street art. Flags of the Americas 24 th Street from Mission Street to Potrero Street Flags from Central & South American countries. Lilac Street (Alley) murals Lilac Street between 24 th Street & 26 th Street The Lilac Mural Project was founded in 2007 by MISSIONART415, and features murals and street art by Bay Area artists. Lowriders N/A Popularized in the 1970s and 1980s, lowriders are a cultural symbol of the Mission and are prominently featured in many cultural events, such as parades, festivals, and art shows. Murals N/A In the 1970s, Mission artists began painting the sides of buildings and doors, reflecting social, political and community themes. Precita Eyes offers walking tours of the hundreds of murals in the LCD. ! ! 86 Arts & Culture: Organizations and Venues Name Location Description Acción Latina 2958 24th Street Acción Latina is a non-profit organization dedicated to the promotion of cultural arts, community media, and civic engagement as a way of building healthy and empowered Latino communities. Home of El Tecolote newspaper and Encuentro del Canto Popular. Brava Theater Center / Brava for Women in the Arts 2781 24th Street Founded in 1986, Brava for Women in the Arts is a professional arts organization that owns and operates the Brava Theater Center. Brava produces, presents, and cultivates the artistic expression of women, people of color, youth, LGBTQ and other unheard voices. Brava Theater Center also provides a venue for community art & music events. Dance Mission Theater 3316 24th Street Dance Mission Theater is a non-profit, multicultural dance center offering adult and children's classes from hip hop to Salsa to Afro-Caribbean to taiko to modern dance. Galería de la Raza 2857 24th Street Founded in 1970, Galería de la Raza is a non-profit art gallery and artist collective that serves the heavily Latino population of San Francisco's Mission District. Loco Bloco 2781 24th Street Founded in 1994, Loco Bloco provides low-income, minority and immigrant families access to professional level arts education for youth ages 3-25. After school classes, summer camps, international exchanges/tours, and annual self- produced events and community performances feature multicultural drumming, dance and community- based performance art. Precita Eyes Mural Arts 2981 24th Street Founded in 1977, Precita Eyes is an inner city, community-based mural arts organization, Precita Eyes Muralists Association seeks to enrich and beautify urban environments and educate communities locally and internationally about the process and ! ! 87 the history of public community mural art. Public Library Mission Branch 300 Bartlett Street Opened in 1888, the Mission Branch of the San Francisco Public Library system serves Mission residents and offers English and Spanish-language resources and materials. Red Poppy Art House 2698 Folsom Street Founded in 2003, Red Poppy Art House is a creative space which hosts a varied performance program, artist residencies, a socially-engaged professional development track, weekly family art activities, and assistance in curating space for MAPP. MAPP is a community arts event that takes place in the Mission the first Saturday every two months. MAPP events are hosted in venues , public spaces, street corners, BART, cafes, bars, taquerias, and homes all over La Mission & 24 th Street. Events include live music, spoken word, performance art, film screenings, BBQ's, etc. ! ! 88 Arts & Culture: Retail ! Name Location Description Alley Cat Books 3036 24th Street Alley Cat Books opened on 24th Street in 2011, and offers new, used, and remaindered books in English and Spanish. Alley Cat also hosts workshops and events. Mixcoatl Arts & Crafts 3201 24th Street Mixcoatl offers a wide range of traditional and contemporary Mexican fine jewelry, art, and accessories. Mixcoatl reflects the Arts and Crafts of the Huichol people, descendents of the Aztecs. Modern Times Bookstore Collective 2919 24th Street Founded in 1971, Modern times opened on 24 th Street in 2011. Collectively owned and operated, this progressive bookstore offers a wide selection of genres in addition to hosting workshops, community forums, and literary events. Religion ! Name Location Description Mission Presbyterian Church 3261 23rd Street Built in 1891 and added to the National Register of Historic Places in 1982. St. Peter’s Catholic Church & School 1200 Florida Street Built in 1867, St. Peter’s is a Parish of The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of San Francisco. ! ! ! ! ! 89 Services & Non-profits ! Name Location Description Acción Latina See “Arts & Culture: Organizations and Venues” Central American Resource Center (CARECEN) 3101 Mission Street, Suite 101 CARECEN provides health and social services to the Latino and immigrant community. The Immigration Legal Services Program serves more than 5,000 low-income immigrants each year through direct legal services, community education, and advocacy. CARECEN provides vital direct services and advocacy to help create a vibrant and thriving Latino immigrant community in San Francisco and the Bay Area. Good Samaritan Family Resource Center 1294 Potrero Avenue Good Samaritan delivers comprehensive educational, health and social services tailored to the needs of the Latino immigrant community. Instituto Familiar de la Raza 2919 Mission Street For over 30 years, IFR has established a leadership role in community violence prevention, school-based mental health consultations, family programming, culturally-based integrated HIV services, and indigenous/Maya wellness programs. Jamestown Community Center 3382 26th Street Founded in 1971, Jamestown serves over 600 youth and their families with a full array of high- quality programs. Mission Educational Projects, Inc. (MEPI) 3049 24th Street For over 30 years, MEPI us a non- profit and public benefit entity. MEPI’s mission is to provide at-risk youth and their families an equal opportunity to access quality, culturally sensitive and holistic educational and quality of life experiences through tutoring, homework assistance, parenting workshops, and employment workshops. Mission Neighborhood Centers, Inc. (MNC) 362 Capp Street Founded in 1959, MNC is a 501 (c) (3) non-profit organization with 11 ! ! 90 community centers. MNC promotes self-sufficiency and community growth for San Francisco’s children, youth, families and seniors through Child Development, Youth and Senior Services Programs. Mission Girls 3007 24th street A youth program run by Mission Neighborhood Centers, Inc. (MNC), Mission Girls serves 300 girls annually, 9-25 years of age who come from communities experiencing significant barriers. Clients are predominately Latina youth and girls of color. Programming consists of after school and summer programming, in-school violence prevention girls’ circles, evening services, health education, cultural enrichment, career exploration, college awareness, youth leadership, and LGBTQ services. ! ! ! 91 Food & Culinary Arts ! Name Location Description Café La Boheme 3318 24th Street Established in 1973. Café serves coffee drinks, beer, pastries, sandwiches, soups, and more. Casa Lucas Market 2934 24th Street Established approx. 1980. Neighborhood market for fruits, vegetables, dairy items & basic groceries, specializing in Latino products. El Chico Market #4 2965 24th Street Latino grocer with sidewalk fruit & veggie displays, plus pantry staples, meat & seafood. El Farolito Taquerias 2779 Mission Street & 2950 24 th Street Established in 1982. Serving tacos, burritos, tortas, and more. El Metate 2406 Bryant Street Established in 2003. Restaurant serving traditional Mexican cuisine with vegetarian options. El Nuevo Frutilandia 3077 24th Street Established in 1974. Restaurant serving traditional Puerto Rican & Cuban dishes plus fresh-fruit drinks. The Jelly Donut 3198 24th Street Established in 1987. Family- owned donut shop. L’s Caffé 2871 24th Street Established in 2005. Family owned and operated, L's Caffé serves a variety of coffee drinks, pastries, salads, sandwiches, and more. L’s also provides a forum for community meetings or events. La Cocina 2948 Folsom Street Established in 2005. La Cocina is a business incubator providing affordable commercial kitchen space, industry-specific technical assistance and access to market opportunities. We focus primarily on women from communities of color and immigrant communities. La Reina Bakery & Coffee Shop 3114 24th Street Established in 1965. Family-owned and operated Mexican panaderia. La Victoria Bakery 2937 24th Street Established in 1951. Family-owned and operated Mexican panaderia. La Palma Mexicatessen 2884 24th Street Established in 1953. Tortilleria, restaurant, and market serving Mexican cuisine, tamales, etc. and in- house handmade and machine made tortillas. Pan Lido Salvadoreño 3147 22nd Street Established in 1981. Traditional panaderia Salvadoreño. ! ! 92 Panaderia La Mexicana 2804 24th Street Established approx. 1972. Traditional Mexican panaderia. Roosevelt Tamale Parlor 2817 24th Street Established in 1922. Under current ownership since 2006. Restaurant serving Mexican cuisine, notably tamales. Taqueria Vallarta 3033 24th Street Serving tacos, burritos, tortas, and more. Known for tacos al vapor. ! ! ! 93 Parks ! Name Location Description 24 th & York Mini Park 24th Street between Bryant Street & York Street The .12-acre mini park features a children’s play area, with an interesting serpent play structure, a small picnic area, and park benches Garfield Square (Garfield Park) 26th Street & Harrison Street The 3.5-acre park features a new, artificial turf soccer field for league play or pickup games. The playground, athletic field, clubhouse and swimming pool have all been remodeled, along with the basketball court, picnic and BBQ areas. Garfield Square is the traditional gathering spot for annual Day of the Dead ceremonies. James Rolph Jr. Playground Potrero Ave & Cesar Chavez Street The 2.93-acre park features a community center, clubhouse, play structures, athletic field, baseball field, basketball & tennis courts. Parques Niños Unidos 23rd & Treat Street The .53-acre park is built especially for kids under 12. Parque Niños Unidos features a clubhous, two play areas, a gazebo and a community garden. The courtyard provides outdoor gathering space, and the entire park is fenced and gated. Potrero del Sol (La Raza Park) Potrero Ave & 25 th Street The 4.36-acre park features San Francisco’s largest skatepark, grassy lawns for picnicking and ball-playing, a playground, a performance space, and a nearby community garden ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! DATE: October 20, 2016 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Shelley Caltagirone, Preservation Staff, (415) 558‐6625 REVIEWED BY: Tim Frye, Preservation Coordinator, (415) 575‐6822 RE: Informational Presentation at October 27 th Hearing SoMa Pilipinas Progress Report Case No. 2016‐008314CWP The attached report will be the subject of an Informational Presentation by Planning Department staff regarding the Filipino Cultural Heritage District, also known as SoMa Pilipinas. In April 2016, the Board of Supervisors created the cultural heritage district to contribute to the sustainability, cultural visibility, vibrancy and economic opportunity for Filipinos and Filipino‐Americans in the South of Market (SoMa) neighborhood (Resolution No. 119‐16, File No. 151109). The Board’s resolution directed the Planning Department to work with the Soma Pilipinas Working Group to develop a strategic and implementation plan to set policies that promote community development and stabilization while increasing the visibility of the cultural district. Planning staff will report on the progress of the community planning process to date and review the next steps in the planning process. This report was presented to the SoMa Pilipinas community on October 18, 2016 and the Historic Preservation Commission on October 19, 2016. The report will be submitted for consideration to the Board of Supervisors on October 28, 2016. This is an informational item only and requires no action by the Planning Commission. Appendix D October 2016 Progress Report Filipino Cultural Heritage District Community Planning Process SF Planning Department and SoMa Pilipinas Working Group i Table of Contents Introduction .................................................. ............................................................... ............................................................... 1 Purpose Geogr a phy Background Community Participat ion & Outreach ............................ ............................................................... ................................... 3 Community Vision & Goals ...................................... ............................................................... .............................................. 6 Community Concerns ............................................ ............................................................... ................................................... 7 Arts & Cultu re Business & Economic Development Community Services & Education Heritage & H istoric Preservation Housing & Land Use Urban Design Progress & N e xt S t e p s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............................................................... ................................................. 12 Appendices A: S oMa Pili pinas Meeting Participants B: C ommuni ty‐Developed Potenti al S trategi e s C: P otenti al SoMa Pilipinas Partners D: Historic Overview of Filipinos in San Francisco E: Centr al S oMa Cultural Heritage P ol i cies F: Western SoMa Social Heritag e & Cultural Preservation Polic ies G: So M a Pilipinas Resolu tion No. 11 9‐16 1 Introduction Purpose In April of 2016, the Board of Supervisors unanimously passed Resolution No. 119‐16 (File No. 151109) creating the Filipino Cultural Heritage District, also known as SoMa Pilipinas. The purpose of the Board’s resolution is to encourage the preservation and further development of SoMa Pilipinas as the regional center of Filipino and Filipino‐American culture and commerce, to recognize the historical and present contributions of the community and neighborhood, and to stabilize Filipino residents, business, and community‐serving institutions. Through this resolution, the Board directed City staff to work with the community to develop a strategic and implementation plan, which will establish policies that promote community development and stabilization and increase the presence and visibility of the district. The following report is an update on the community planning process initiated by the Board’s resolution. Geography The Filipino Cultural Heritage District, heretofore referred to as SoMa Pilipinas, reaches from 2 nd Street on the east to 11 th Street on the west and from Market Street on the north to Brannan Street on the south. SoMa Pilipinas encompasses a wide variety of buildings, parks, and community service groups that have served the Filipino community for decades. While there are certainly many Filipino cultural heritage assets located outside of the South of Market (SoMa) neighborhood, they are particularly concentrated in this district. Appendix D of this document contains a brief history of Filipino heritage in San Francisco and a list of cultural heritage assets associated with SoMa Pilipinas. Cultural heritage assets associated with other communities are also located within SoMa, including LGBTQ assets, which will be the focus of future but separate planning efforts. Image from SoMa Pilipinas Website [http://www.somapilipinas.org] 2 Background Previous Community Plans Work on the SoMa Pilipinas cultural heritage district concept began during the development of the Western SoMa Community Plan, adopted in 2013. It was during this earlier planning process that the community first identified and mapped the cultural heritage assets that constitute SoMa Pilipinas. Relying heavily on research conducted with the community’s own historians and long‐term residents, the Planning Department published the San Francisco Filipino Heritage – Addendum to the South of Market Historic Context Statement to inform the cultural heritage components of the plan. Policy 6.1.2 of the Western SoMa Plan specifically calls for recognition of the contributions of the Filipino community by creating a cultural heritage district. Support for the creation of SoMa Pilipinas was further developed through the Central SoMa planning process. Policy 7.2.1 of the Central SoMa Plan specifically directs the City to “facilitate the creation and implementation of a SoMa Pilipinas – Filipino Cultural Heritage Strategy.” Excerpts from the Western SoMa and Central SoMa Plans can be found in Appendices E and F. The SoMa Pilipinas Strategy and Implementation Plan will supplement and support these two underlying community plans and provide targeted support for the Filipino Cultural Heritage District. Cultural Heritage Districts In recent years, the City’s Board of Supervisors has recognized several cultural heritage districts that are distinguished by unique social and historical associations and living traditions. While the districts have geographic boundaries, they are primarily identified by the activities that occur within them, including commerce, services, arts, events, and practices. Designation as a cultural heritage district does not currently convey any regulatory controls, but the recognition has spurred community efforts facilitated by the Planning Department and the Office of Economic and Workforce Development to develop strategies for sustaining the living culture of these places. The first such strategy was developed for and by the Japantown community and adopted by the City in 2013. The first formally designated cultural heritage district in San Francisco soon followed in 2014 with the creation of the “Calle 24 (Veinticuatro) Latino Cultural District” in the Mission neighborhood. This was followed by the formal designation the “SoMa Pilipinas – Filipino Cultural Heritage District” in 2016. Each community associated with the cultural heritage districts has developed strategies tailored to needs of their district. In the future, this community‐led work may evolve into a more formalized partnership with City agencies to implement a toolkit economic, zoning, educational, marketing, and planning tools appropriate to the safeguarding of living heritage. 3 Community Participation & Outreach SoMa Pilipinas Working Group The Board of Supervisors resolution directed the Planning Department to work with a SoMa Pilipinas Working Group consisting of members of the community representing the following sectors: arts and culture, workers, business, schools, affordable housing, community advocacy and land use, and services. A core Working Group was formed with the following members: Business & Economic Development Desi Danganan Entrepreneur, Plinth Agency Seniors & Tenants Caroline Calderon Outreach Worker, Veterans Equity Center Arts & Culture Weston Teruya Visual Artist / Arts Administrator Alleluia Pannis Executive Director, KulArts Workers Rupert Estanislao Worker / Artist / Activist Housing & Land Use Angelica Cabande Organizational Director, South of Market Community Action Network Heritage & Historic Preservation M.C. Canlas Historian / Academic Children, Youth & Families Charm Consolacion Program Coordinator, Galing Bata Project Sponsor Bernadette Sy Executive Director, Filipino American Development Foundation The core Working Group has invited the community to become members of SoMa Pilipinas and to actively participate in the planning process. Each of the Working Group members leads a committee to investigate and document community concerns and to produce draft strategies to build the cultural district. The Working Group’s facilitator, Ada Chan, has acted as a liaison to District 6 Supervisor Kim’s office, the Planning Department, the Office of Economic and Workforce Development (OEWD), and other City agencies to guide the planning process and initiate dialogue about SoMa Pilipinas goals and concerns. Community Engagement The Working Group has engaged in a vigorous community outreach effort to gather insight into community concerns and to generate potential solutions to meet these concerns. Appendix A of this report contains a list of SoMa Pilipinas meeting participants. All community meetings have been focused on gathering information about what people consider the uniquely Filipino assets that exist in SoMa to be, what assets people would like to see more of, what are the community’s needs, interests and concerns, and how participants can contribute to the life and growth of the district. At community meetings, people mapped areas in the neighborhood of importance, paths of travel, barriers to access, and frequently visited locations. The maps were the basis for a conversation about the unique cultural 4 aspects that currently exist in SoMa Pilipinas and what could enhance and amplify the cultural district. The following is a list of community outreach efforts conducted by the Working Group. Seventeen (17) key stakeholder interviews occurred throughout the Spring of 2016. Stakeholders were identified through the Working Group, and then referral through the interviews. Key stakeholders included informal cultural groups like Damayan, artists, health and mental health workers, educators and service workers in the community, as well as established leaders, and funders. All interviews were one on one with an established set of questions. Less formal interviews also occurred between Working Group members and the other formally and informally recognized cultural districts, including Calle 24, Japantown and Chinatown. Over 300 general surveys were gathered at community events informing the Working Group of who is currently coming to SoMa for cultural events, their purpose and interests in coming to SoMa, and what they would like to see more of. One hundred (100) additional surveys were collected specifically gathering information from Filipino workers in SoMa. This was done through street outreach, at Pistahan, through different community organizations who shared with their clients, the congregation at St Patrick’s church, and parents at Bessie Carmichael schools. Four (4) large meetings (40+ participants) were held with different sectors of the communities: seniors, workers, professionals, families, youth and transitional‐age youth, people with disabilities, artists and single adults. Outreach for these meetings was broad, using social media, fliers, and outreach through community organizations and churches. Participants ranged from newcomers (recently arrived immigrants) to second‐generation college graduates, long‐ time neighborhood residents to people from throughout the region who come to SoMa for work, culture or services. Three (3) meetings specifically focused on Business Development were held with Filipino business owners and entrepreneurs. Business participants ranged from international real estate development to pop‐ups and ranged from retail to back room office support, health and wellness to restaurants. Meeting sizes ranged from 15‐30 participants. Outreach for the business meet‐ups was largely accomplished through social media, which allowed participant tracking and exit surveys were conducted at each meeting. The Business and Economic Development committee has been actively reaching out to Filipino entrepreneurs Bay Area wide to develop strategies to jumpstart a new Filipino Business Renaissance to build a vibrant new commercial cluster. Over +20 businesses in food and beverages, fashion, consumer retail, health and wellness, and professional series have indicated an interest to expand or relocate to the cultural district. The business community has started to self‐organize to build the capacity to implement programs to bring new businesses and strengthen existing ones. The working group has also started to establish partnerships with non‐ profit business incubators, for profit co‐working spaces, local businesses, and local tech companies to explore ways they can contribute to the development of a commercial corridor in the cultural district. 5 The Arts and Culture working group has held two meetings with a third meeting to be held on October 17th. The first meeting was organizational, with the neighborhood arts and cultural organizations: Kearny Street Workshop, Bindlestiff Studio, KulArts, and San Francisco Filipino Cultural Center. The second was a smaller artist meeting and listening session, and the final meeting will be a regional gathering with a call‐out to multi‐disciplinary and intergenerational group of artists. The Heritage and Historic Preservation committee has met weekly over the past six months to identify issues/concerns and invited guest speakers to join the meetings to help identify solutions and opportunities for partnerships, including: City Archivist, Center for Asian American Media (CAAM), Story Corps, and SF Heritage. The committee has also met with the Planning Department’s Historic Preservation staff to discuss concerns and potential solutions. The Community Services committee has led small group discussions with non‐profit organizations throughout the planning process and has held three (3) small focus group meetings with SoMa residents. The Philippine Consulate and service providers are setting up a meeting to discuss how to collaborate on keeping Filipinos informed about community services. Local Government Engagement Since April 2016, the Working Group has met with District 6 Supervisor Kim’s Office, the Planning Department, the Office of Economic and Workforce Development (OEWD), the Mayor’s Office of Housing and Community Development (MOHCD), and the Department of Public Works (DPW) to initiate dialogue about the community’s concerns and potential tools for addressing those concerns. Two general kick‐off meetings with these participants were held in the Spring to establish the purpose and values of the cultural district and the process for developing a SoMa Pilipinas strategy. The Working Group has maintained weekly communication with Planning Department staff. Engagement with the various City agencies and departments to explore SoMa Pilipinas potential strategies will kick off in October and November of this year. 6 Community Vision and Goals Vision The following vision statement has been generated by the SoMa Pilipinas Working Group and presented to the broader community. The statement articulates aspirations for the cultural heritage district. Cultural Heritage District To maintain and grow SoMa Pilipinas as the regional center for Filipinos that facilitates opportunities for increasing the presence and visibility of the Filipino community and guides the implementation of the cultural district policies and strategies in collaboration with public and private partners. Goals The following goal statements have been generated by the SoMa Pilipinas Working Group and presented to the broader community. The goals describe the ways in which the community vision will be achieved. The group is in the process of refining these statements and developing supporting objectives that will set a direction for policies and actions. 1. Cultural Celebration. The Filipino community has a distinct culture. The Philippines is a melting pot of Malay, Chinese, Spanish, Christian, Muslim influences. The fusion of these cultures has given the Filipino community a unique flavor that straddles East and West that has propelled the community to adapt and prosper in American society. Filipinos are tastemakers in the arts, vanguards in progressive civic activism, and occupy key roles in business. We want to increase the visibility and celebrate the contributions of the Filipino community in SoMa, San Francisco, and the greater Bay‐Area region. 2. Community Preservation. SoMa Pilipinas is a regional hub for all Bay Area wide Filipino communities from Daly City, Vallejo, Milpitas, and beyond. The cultural assets and community services located here are unmatched anywhere in the Bay Area. SoMa Pilipinas is a vanguard of community activism that other Filipino American communities all over America model themselves after. We seek to preserve and nurture SoMa Pilipinas’ role as the regional center of gravity for the Filipino‐American Community. 3. Economic Opportunity. Economic equality is a foundational pillar to keep the Filipino community healthy, self‐sufficient, and prosperous. We seek to develop initiatives for the Filipino community to participate in the wealth creation of the Bay Area and in building assets in SoMa to keep the community net contributors of society. 7 Community Concerns In order to plan for the stabilization and growth of SoMa Pilipinas, it is necessary to first understand the neighborhood’s existing conditions and particularly those areas of concern that need to be addressed to fulfill the community’s vision. The SoMa Pilipinas Working Group has generated a list of concerns organized by the following topics, which reflect the various aspects of the cultural heritage district. Arts & Culture Business & Economic Development Community Services & Education Heritage & Historic Preservation Housing & Land Use Urban Design Arts & Culture 1. There is a need for rehearsal, performance, workshop, residency and exhibition space that is accessible to the SoMa Pilipinas community, culturally appropriate/sensitive, and meets standards for professional quality within specific disciplines. Existing spaces (beyond SoMa Pilipinas organizations) are not able to meet the full needs of the Filipino artist community. There is no space that upholds an aesthetic vision that champions Filipino contemporary and tribal arts and is responsible to the community. Access for other spaces is also limited due to cost and availability (both in dates and scheduling process). And access that does exist is typically tied to specific relationships rather than institutional policy so staff turnover or changes in organizational priorities unravels access. 2. There is a need for professional development, mentorships, and artist capacity building (especially around high‐barrier‐to‐access opportunities like public art) that is culturally competent, rooted in Filipino arts practices, and accessible to new immigrant communities. 3. There is a need for SoMa Pilipinas to be on the radar and at the table when public art or other opportunities are developed in the neighborhood, including private developers creating onsite work as part of their 1% development fee for public art requirements. 4. There is a need for opportunities and support around Filipino artistic programs and artwork in outdoor public spaces (empty lots, alleyways, private/public community benefit spaces, open walls)‐‐to date have been cost, logistical, and permission prohibitive. 5. Most Filipino organizations and cultural organizers in the district are overtaxed and undercapitalized (volunteer run or limited part‐time staffing, budgets are project driven with almost no margin for overhead, no owned spaces). There is very little bandwidth for necessary district‐wide cultural planning and capacity building. 6. Aside from Pistahan and the Parol Festival, there are no other festivities that align with festivities held in the Philippines that would bring Filipinos from the Bay area to SoMa (ex: Philippine Independence Day, Holy holidays, etc.). 7. Filipinos can only watch mainstream Filipino movies at Stonestown and Tanforan Mall, and it would be better to have films in SoMa because of easy transportation and accessibility. 8 Business & Economic Development 8. There are few remaining Filipino‐owned businesses in SoMa. Legacy Businesses in the district are vulnerable and have not adapted to a changing market and the new economy. 9. There are few new Filipino businesses locating in the district, and business recruitment of Filipino businesses to the cultural district is not occurring. 10. There are no affordable spaces for new and emerging businesses. 11. Since the loss of Redevelopment Agency projects, neighborhood residents’ access to jobs in new developments has been minimal or none. 12. Only one of the businesses attending the meetings was familiar with small business services funded by the City. 13. There is a need to understand how to maximize the presence and participation of technology companies in SoMa Pilipinas. 14. Rents are too high, especially for a small business that need to do tenant improvements and for staffing for multiple serving times. 15. SoMa and 6th Street specifically, is not safe for pedestrian traffic or businesses. 16. Filipinos in SoMa are largely tenants. Very few assets are held by Filipinos in SoMa. 17. Filipino organizations in SoMa do not own their spaces. 18. There needs to be stable employment with fair wages for workers because currently majority of companies are only hiring part‐time positions causing workers to find 2 nd or 3 rd jobs with majority of their income going towards rent. 19. Filipino professionals who have finished degrees/masters in the Philippines are not able to practice in their fields in San Francisco due to the US not accepting their qualifications. Community Services & Education 20. Filipinos are the third largest immigrant population in San Francisco and yet it is severely underserved, under‐resourced and lacking culturally‐competent support to thrive as a community of immigrants in this city. 21. Newcomers and Filipino immigrants have no knowledge of and/or are not informed about the Filipino Education Center because it is not recognized by the San Francisco Unified School District, including not being listed on their website: http://www.sfusd.edu/en/schools/all‐ schools.html. 22. There are limited basic direct family and child resource services with Tagalog language capacity. 23. There are not enough training programs offered in Tagalog that address economic development, wealth development, or managing financial assets. 24. There are still gaps in services that need to be identified based on client intakes and needs assessments, for example: How many Filipinos are homeless? Is there an increase in mental health issues in the community? Are there culturally competent services being provided that the community is unaware of? 25. Recreation and Parks Department programming is not culturally competent or accessible for the Filipino families and youth. 26. Because many of the workers commute to the city and are under employed, they have no place to hang out between jobs and no central place for them to get resources. 9 27. Due to the escalating commercial rents in the area, nonprofits have not been able to build capacity to expand services since an increasing amount of operating budget is dedicated to paying rents. They are also vulnerable to losing their space due to competing with higher paying commercial tenants. 28. Victoria Manalo Draves Park and South Park is the only multi‐use full park in SoMa and there’s a need for more open space. 29. There is a lack of youth‐friendly gathering spaces. 30. SoMa Pilipinas has the largest concentration of seniors in the City, and seniors make up the highest percentage of Filipinos residents in the district. Yet SoMa senior services are lagging behind, and there are missing pieces in the service delivery for seniors. 31. Due to the fact that cost of living is skyrocketing in SoMa, there is need for a long‐term strategy to stabilize the numbers of children, youth, and families in the neighborhood by slowing the rapid in‐migration and out‐migration cycle. 32. Need employment for Filipinos and local residents in the neighborhood. 33. Need for affordable childcare for working Filipino parents. 34. The Filipino bilingual pathways are lagging behind among the bilingual language pathways in the San Francisco Unified School District. 35. Need to enhance the pre‐k to 8 programs and two‐site facilities of Bessie Carmichael School/ Filipino Education Center. 36. Young people in SoMa are exposed to negative influences on a daily basis and without enhanced, culturally competent teen and youth programs, isolated children and youth are more prone to be victims or perpetrators of high‐risk behavior. 37. Lack of data on health and behavioral fitness of children, youth and their families. 38. The lack of promotion of the use of Filipino language (Tagalog) in the City' service agencies. 39. Lack of comprehensive and integrated community services for SoMa Pilipinas. 40. There is an increase of homelessness in SoMa and there’s a need to deal with homelessness and problems associated with homelessness in SoMa Pilipinas that will not criminalize homeless people. 41. Need to maximize the presence and participation of colleges and universities to SoMa Pilipinas. 42. Gene Friend Rec Center has started to operate as an enterprise making it harder for neighborhood youth and families to access for recreation and community functions. 43. Many Filipino newcomers and immigrants who are no longer residents of San Francisco come to SoMa for information resources, referrals, and services because of the unique cluster of Filipino service providers that only exists in SoMa. 44. Filipinos are being evicted. There is a lack of knowledge and access to benefits because they have not been educated around their tenant rights. 45. There is not enough tenant outreach and education available in Tagalog, Ilocano, and Kapampangan. 46. There is an increasing number of homeless families/individuals or families/individuals at risk of homelessness, and there are limited homeless service outreach workers and case managers that speak Tagalog, Ilocano or Kapampangan. 10 47. There is an increase of mental health issues in the Filipino community and there are multiple layers of barriers that prevent these issues from being resolved. 48. There’s a need for wrap‐around services for workers that will provide workforce development training and skills building; affordable childcare, referrals to SFUSD programs that provide free to low services; referral to other services including addressing the barriers that workers are face with that hinders them to achieve economic stability. Heritage & Historic Preservation 49. History and Presence of the Filipino American community in San Francisco not integrated into mainstream history of San Francisco. 50. Notable contributions of Filipino Americans in San Francisco are not known by the general population. 51. Filipino‐American landmarks in San Francisco are not recognized as historically important. 52. Notable historic places and monuments related to Filipino‐American history in San Francisco do not accurately include the contributions made by Filipino‐Americans or do not accurately describe historical impacts to Filipinos here or in the Philippines at the time. Housing & Land Use 53. It is essential that the ground floor of new buildings include businesses that encourage the flow of foot traffic and keep sidewalks active. 54. Regional Filipino visitors shy away from bringing family to SoMa, citing dirty sidewalks, safety, and proliferation of cannabis dispensaries. 55. Housing prices are too high for Filipino families, workers, and seniors. 56. A lot of Filipinos live in rent controlled buildings in the SoMa alleyways, which are vulnerable to conversion. 57. Units in new residential buildings are being master leased, taking units off the market and making them inaccessible to immigrants and the general population. In particular, student housing or micro units are master leased, which would be affordable to workers. 58. Because of limited land opportunities in San Francisco ‐ and in SoMa ‐ strategies for development need to focus on benefiting families in SoMa and San Francisco. Units that are master leased and taken off the market for institutional uses exclude the neighborhood population. 59. Filipinos who have been evicted are trying to find ways to "come back" to SoMa. 60. No Grand Civic Parks that engage residents, workers and tourists on multiple levels. There are no parks or public spaces for Filipino workers to congregate, bar‐b‐que, and share food. There are no public open spaces that serve as a center for residents and call for civic engagement. 61. SoMa is severely underserved with recreation space. Privately owned public open spaces (POPOS) have become extensions private business endeavors. 62. There is a lack of affordable housing for Filipino workers that currently commute into the city for service jobs. 11 Urban Design 63. Regional visitors complain about safety in SoMa – this is specific to crime, but perceptions of safety also relate to pedestrian safety. The aggressive street traffic and new developments that are up against the sidewalk with no setbacks are not pedestrian‐friendly and do not encourage pedestrian activities in the district. 64. The neighborhood has long walls on long blocks with no pedestrian scale amenities at the ground floor level. No pedestrian‐scale synergy is being created by new developments. 65. There is a lack of visibility of the Filipino presence in SoMa. 66. There are no design guidelines and restrictions for new developments therefore developers build up to the property line of their project making the pedestrian experience unpleasant. 67. The core of the neighborhood continues to have a lot of Filipino seniors and families. Out of scale high intensity development has made sidewalks more congested and difficult for seniors and people with disabilities to traverse. 68. There are no strong visual cultural identifiers in SoMa. 69. There is no culturally specific signage and place making or Filipino design elements incorporated within new developments. 70. Branding and place‐making need to occur with a package and palette that incorporates the image, character, and identity of SoMa Pilipinas. 12 Progress & Next Steps The SoMa Pilipinas planning efforts to date have harnessed a wealth of knowledge and generated innovative ideas and significant momentum to address the challenges facing the community. At this stage in the planning process, the Working Group has engaged the broader SoMa community to articulate SoMa Pilipinas vision and goals, to document the community’s concerns, and to develop a list of potential strategies that could support and enhance the cultural heritage district. Appendix B of this report contains an extensive list of strategies developed by the community. The Working Group and Planning have identified key partners and next steps for each potential strategy. The varied nature of the cultural heritage assets that compose SoMa Pilipinas – people, arts, businesses, organizations, institutions, traditions, events, and places – has resulted in a diverse list of potential strategies that range widely in scale and complexity. The work of sorting through these potential strategies with key partners to determine their level of feasibility and effectiveness in addressing community concerns is the next major step in the community planning process. In this second phase of planning, the Working Group is now prepared to engage key City departments and agencies to continue the process of problem‐solving. This work will identify existing tools and resources that may be brought to bear and identify when new tools and resources will be required. A contacts list of the various City departments and agencies that may be involved in implementation of the SoMa Pilipinas Strategy has been created by District 6 Supervisor’s Office and the Planning Department to aid this effort, and the two offices will continue to facilitate communication within the City family. The Planning Department has also created a notification mechanism to keep the Working Group informed of proposed development within the cultural heritage district so that the community can initiate early dialogue with Project Sponsors that may participate in the implementation of SoMa Pilipinas strategies. Projects Underway While many of the strategies and projects proposed by the community require further research and refinement, a few projects are already underway. These include: In August 2016, the Historic Preservation Commission added the Gran Oriente Filipino Masonic Lodge and the Omiya Hotel to its Landmark Work Program. In Fall 2016, the Mayor of Housing and Community Development (MOHCD) awarded the Filipino‐American Development Foundation funding to hire a SoMa Pilipinas Project Manager to be responsible for developing and implementing the SoMa Pilipinas Planning Strategy. In May 2017, the Heritage and Historic Preservation Committee will hold a Photo Day with the City Archivist. The Heritage and Historic Preservation Committee is working with Center for Asian American Media (CAAM) CAAM in digitizing home movies from community members, and is partnering with StoryCorps and CAAM to collect SoMa Pilipinas Stories. The Business and Economic Development committee is coordinating with the Office of Economic and Workforce Development’s (OEWD) Invest in Neighborhoods 6th Street Project. 13 The Working Group is collecting data on the use of the public realm, typical paths of travel through the district, popular destinations, and potential sites for murals and signage. The SoMa Community Action Grant has awarded funding to the SoMa Pilipinas Community Launch Event, a free community event that will bring together San Francisco residents, artists, nonprofits, and business owners to generate awareness about SoMa Pilipinas, its programs and community initiatives, as well as create a sustainable community event that highlights the rich culture and businesses in SoMa. The event will feature local food vendors, artist booths, live music, dance performances, and family‐friendly activities. Furthermore, the Working Group continues to work with artists, businesses and community groups to identify and share opportunities for increasing community presence through events, place‐making, and the incorporation of Filipino arts and cultural history into capital improvements and public arts. Creating a Strategy and Implementation Plan The following steps are required in order to create a final strategy and implementation plan to guide public and private decision‐making in SoMa Pilipinas: The Working Group must finalize the SoMa Pilipinas goals and objectives with the endorsement of the broader SoMa Pilipinas community. The Planning Department and Working Group must work with key private and public partners to refine and prioritize the list of potential strategies developed by the community. The Planning Department, Working Group, and Implementation Partners must develop Implementation Measures – a list of actions, procedures, programs, or techniques that should be implemented to carry out the project goals and objectives. The Planning Department, Working Group, and Implementation Partners must identify lead entities and timelines for each Implementation Measure to create an Implementation Plan (similar to the Mission 2020 Action Plan). The Planning Department, Working Group, and Implementation Partners must develop a monitoring and reporting plan to track the progress of the Implementation Plan. The Planning Department and Working Group must publish the SoMa Pilipinas Strategy and Implementation Plan for public review. The Planning Department and Working Group must present the SoMa Pilipinas Strategy and Implementation Plan to the Historic Preservation Commission, the Planning Commission, and the Board of Supervisors for adoption. The Planning Department and Working Group intend this Progress Report to serve as a catalyst for continued and new engagement with key partners to collaborate on the development of strategies and implementation measures that will secure the future of SoMa Pilipinas. APPENDICES Appendix A: SoMa Pilipinas Meeting Participants Organizations/Businesses that have participated in meetings or attended presentations by SoMa Pilipinas Working Group: Academy of Art University API Legal Outreach (APILO) Bessie/Lakas Bindlestiff Studio Canon Kip Senior Center City of Daly City D6 Youth Commissioner Mary Claire Amable Eastwind Books of Berkeley Entertainment Commission Eskabo Daan San Francisco Filipino Cultural Center Filipino Arts and Events FAATAA FACCSMC FACINE Filipino‐American Development Foundation (FADF) Filipino Community Center (FCC) Fil‐Am Star Newspaper Filipino Bar Association NorCal Filipino Community Development Corp. Filipino Mental Health Initiative‐SF Filipina Women’s Network Gabriela Galing Bata sa FEC Gran Oriente Greg Roja + Architects Assoc. Historical Bayan Society Inay Filipino Kitchen Inquirer.net Kearny Street Workshop (KSW) KulArts LIPS Manilatown Heritage Foundation (MHF) Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services MHCC Michael G. C. Migrante SoMa/TL NAAC Pampalasa Philippine American Assoc. Pilipino Senior Resource Center Pistahan + For Joy PNANC S&E Enterprises SELP SF DBI SF Fil‐Am Jazz Festival SF Mnl Sister City / Pistahan SF Mayor’s Office of Housing SF Philippine Consul General SFFACC National Alliance for Filipino Concerns (NAFCON) NAFFAA SOMA Family Resource Center South of Market Community Action Network (SOMCAN) Pilipino‐American Student Union (PASU) at Stanford Steps, Stuffs & Spotlights Supervisor Jane Kim United Playaz SoMa Youth Collaborative Veterans Equity Center (VEC) Pin@y Educational Partnerships (PEP) West Bay YOHANA Businesses that have participated in the development of the Business Strategy through business specific community meetings, presentations, or one on one interviews: 1945 Active Leadership to Advance the Youth (ALAY) Arkipelago Books Assembly Hall Ayala Land International Mktg Baybayin LLC Bindlestiff Studio Buffalo Tehory couplescordinate.com Equity Residential Eskabo Daan FILHOFF Filhoff Filipino Food Movement FK Frozen Custard FOB Kitchen Helpware.io Human Heart Nature USA JP Investments Language Immersion Program Lei Living Aloha LinkedIn Lumpia Company Luna Riene Gallery Manalo Pictures Manilatown Heritage Foundation Nicolas Enterprises Otherwise Pampalasa Panalo Panolo Solutions PapaLoDown Salupongan International (salupongan.org) PhilDev Pilipino American Alliance Pinoy Heritage Pinterest Plinth Agency Prime Image Media Group Resource Catalysts Sagemark Consulting Salupongan International SCRUBBED Sugar and Spun Techcrunch The Archipelago Store The Attic The Family Room SF The Luna Company, Inc. The Sarap Shop Tradecraft Twitter University of San Francisco USEED USF Entrepreneurs Club Vega VEGA Cafe Veterans Equity Center Victory Hall Wells and Bennett WLA Global Appendix B: Community ‐Developed Potential Strategies The following table lists potential strategies developed by the Working Group meetings that could further the SoMa Pilipinas Goals and Objectives. In most cases, these potential strategies have been developed without input from City agencies and departments. Therefore, engagement with key local government partners is cited as the ‘Next Step’ for the majority of strategies listed below. Key partners required for further research and development of the potential strategies have been listed. The ‘Timeline’ provided reflects the estimated time required to accomplish the identified ‘Next Step’, i.e. “1 month to engage local government in dialogue…” There is not currently enough information to predict the feasibility or overall timing for most potential strategies. Each topic in the table is preceded by a vision statement generated by the SoMa Pilipinas Working Group to guide the development of strategies and objectives. This table is a draft working document that will be further refined and expanded as the final strategy and implementation plan is developed. GENERAL PLANNING # Potential Strategy Key Partners Next Steps Timeline G1 Appoint Cultural Heritage District liaisons at key City departments and agencies to facilitate communication with the SoMa Pilipinas Working Group and to manage Implementation Measures to be led by those entities. Planning; OEWD; MOHCD; SFAC; DPW; RPD; SFMTA Working Group will engage potential local government partners in a dialogue about their ability to provide staffing support to research and implement strategies. 1 month G2 Maintain a permanent project manager to staff the SoMa Pilipinas district, develop a work plan, develop policy and necessary legislation, and coordinate the Working Group. FADF FADF will use grant funding awarded by MOHCD in Fall 2016 to hire and support a project manager for one year. 12 months Arts & Culture Vision SoMa Pilipinas is a dynamic neighborhood home to traditional and contemporary cultural expression from Filipino and Filipino American artists and cultural workers across all disciplines. These creative forms are visible and accessible to the public, giving the neighborhood a clear and rich character; sustained and incubated by healthy arts institutions rooted in the Filipino community; and developed by artists and cultural workers who have ample opportunities to strengthen their craft through professional resources, collaborations, and commissions. ARTS & CULTURE # Potential Strategy Key Partners Next Steps Timeline A1 Develop a cultural arts center tailored to the specific professional needs of SoMa Pilipinas’ artists and cultural workers. SFAC; MOHCD Working Group will engage potential local government partners in a dialogue about their ability to help attain affordable space for SoMa Pilipinas Arts. 1 month A2 Support arts incubation, mentorships, and professional development for Filipino artists, without competing with current funding programs that support individual organizational work. SFAC Working Group will engage potential local government partners in a dialogue about existing and needed programming for the SoMa Pilipinas Arts. 1 month A3 Encourage developers moving through the permitting and community benefits pipeline to incorporate design elements reflective of Filipino culture by becoming involved in the San Francisco Arts Commission Public Art Program. SFAC Working Group will engage the Arts Commission in a dialogue about the Public Art Program and the 1% development fee for public art requirements. 1 month A4 Create an online artist registry of Filipino artists going through training programs (and additional qualified artists) to facilitate communications with developers, art consultants, and other public art entities. SFAC Working Group will engage potential public and private partners in a dialogue about collecting and distributing artist data. 6 months A5 Create an online artist registry of local, national and internationally recognized Filipino artists. SFAC Working Group will engage potential public and private partners in a dialogue about collecting and distributing artist data. 6 months ARTS & CULTURE # Potential Strategy Key Partners Next Steps Timeline A6 Support site inventory, analysis, and planning for public art installations, performances, and programs, including streamlined permissions/permitting process overall and/or at a district level by exploring existing programs and funding sources. SFAC Working Group will engage potential public and private partners in a dialogue about existing and needed programming for the Arts. 6 months A7 Develop a cultural district funding category within Grants for the Arts and/or the Arts Commission that does not compete with existing funding and allows non‐arts specific organizations to apply. SFAC Working Group will engage the Arts Commission in a dialogue about modifying the Grants for the Arts program. 1 month Business & Economic Development Vision Small business and economic development will be a foundational pillar of the cultural district. SoMa Pilipinas will jumpstart a new Filipino Business Renaissance by attracting new entrepreneurs, strengthening existing businesses, by providing innovating programs to try out new businesses ventures thru pop‐up restaurants, outdoor markets, pop‐up to permeant retail programs, and developing an accelerator program. BUSINESS & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT # Potential Strategy Key Partners Next Steps Timeline B1 Alignment with the Invest in Neighborhoods 6th Street Project. OEWD Working Group will continue to engage with the Invest in Neighborhood's team on meeting SoMa Pilipinas Goals. 1 year B2 Development of Filipino business clusters. OEWD; MOHCD; OSB Working Group will engage potential public and private partners in a dialogue about achieving business clusters. 1 month B3 Provide technical assistance to assist existing Filipino businesses to pivot and refine their products and services and to develop their cultural niches. OEWD; MOHCD; OSB Working Group will engage potential local government partners in a dialogue about programming to assist businesses. 1 month B4 Utilize marketing and events as a means of promoting and raising the visibility of the cultural district. SF Travel Working Group will engage SF Travel in a dialogue regarding marketing assistance for SoMa Pilipinas businesses. 1 month Community Services & Education Vision SoMa Pilipinas continues to be destination for San Francisco and non‐San Franciscan Filipino residents seeking community services, and newcomers are directed to SoMa because of the unique cluster of Filipino service providers and services that exist in SoMa, that do not exist anywhere else in the region. Expanding the range of programs available in Tagalog, Ilocano, and Kapampangan is important way to ensure the community is served and a yearly assessment of these organizations’ services will ensure accountability to the community. COMMUNITY SERVICES & EDUCATION # Potential Strategy Key Partners Next Steps Timeline C1 Assess the delivery of senior services in the City, particularly in the cultural and linguistic capacity of programs for Filipinos. DAAS Working Group will engage potential local government partners in a dialogue about SoMa Pilipinas senior service needs. 1 month C2 Use magnet programs to attract newly‐arrived Filipino immigrants to the area, including high performing schools, strong Filipino bilingual programs, affordable child care and pre‐school programs, parenting support programs. SFUSD Working Group will engage potential local government partners in a dialogue about SoMa Pilipinas educational needs. 1 month C3 Work with school district to improve school performance in the district. SFUSD Working Group will engage potential local government partners in a dialogue about SoMa Pilipinas educational needs. 1 month C4 Direct school fees generated by SoMa development projects to go directly to Bessie Carmichael Elementary and Bessie Carmichael/FEC Middle School sites. SFUSD Working Group will engage potential local government partners in a dialogue about SoMa Pilipinas educational needs. 1 month C5 Work with the community college to provide SoMa campus programming that can address professional growth and development needs of workers in trades and professions. CCSF Working Group will engage potential local government partners in a dialogue about SoMa Pilipinas educational needs, including statistics on retention of Filipino students. 1 month COMMUNITY SERVICES & EDUCATION # Potential Strategy Key Partners Next Steps Timeline C6 Identify how homeless outreach and services in Tagalog, Ilocano, and Kapampangan can occur and how follow‐up case management will occur. DHSH; SFUSD Working Group will engage potential local government partners in a dialogue about homelessness in SoMa Pilipinas. 1 month C7 Include affordable child care, early childhood education, and family support facilities in future developments. Planning; MOHCD Working Group will engage potential local government partners in a dialogue about SoMa Pilipinas concerns related to child care, early education, and family support. 1 month C8 Increase the amount of culturally appropriate Filipino tenant outreach and education in Tagalog, Ilocano, and Kapampangan. MOHCD Working Group will engage potential public and private partners in a dialogue about SoMa Pilipinas concerns and their ability to support potential strategy. 6 months C9 Create a local jobs set‐aside program that guarantees 30% permanent jobs to SoMa workers. MOHCD Working Group will engage potential public and private partners in a dialogue about SoMa Pilipinas concerns and their ability to support potential strategy. 6 months C10 Provide more youth‐friendly venues in the district. MOHCD Working Group will engage potential public and private partners in a dialogue about SoMa Pilipinas concerns and their ability to support potential strategy. 6 months C11 Improve and broaden the means of intra‐neighborhood travel. SFMTA Working Group will engage potential public and private partners in a dialogue about SoMa Pilipinas concerns and their ability to support potential strategy. 6 months C12 Assess the need and feasibility of creating a multi‐purpose community center with cultural and linguistic competency for workers, youth, transitional age youth, family, and senior programs in SoMa. DAAS; DCYF Working Group will engage potential local government partners in a dialogue about SoMa Pilipinas concerns for seniors. 1 month COMMUNITY SERVICES & EDUCATION # Potential Strategy Key Partners Next Steps Timeline C13 Provide improved street and sidewalk cleaning services. DPW Working Group will engage potential local government partners in a dialogue about SoMa Pilipinas concerns for clean streets. 1 month C14 Generate health data and statistics for Filipinos in SoMa. DPH Working Group will engage potential local government partners in a dialogue about SoMa Pilipinas concerns and their ability to support potential strategy. 1 month Heritage & Historic Preservation Vision SoMa Pilipinas has and continues to serve as a touchstone for Filipinos seeking to connect with their cultural heritage. As a Filipino cultural heritage district, it celebrates and preserves the community, individual and family narratives, common cultural memory, and historical continuity that gives a sense of bounded solidarity with the country of origin as an immigrant community and with San Francisco and America as an emerging and thriving community. HERITAGE & HISTORIC PRESERVATION # Potential Strategy Key Partners Next Steps Timeline H1 Pursue National Register Nomination and Local Landmark Designation for priority historic sites. HPC Working Group will engage the Historic Preservation Commission staff to identify and prioritize list of properties associated with Filipino American community to nominate for landmark designation 1 year H2 Identify and amend landmark designations within the district that have not been previously recognized for their connection to Filipino history. Planning Working Group will review the Filipino Heritage Historic Context Statement and determine if there is a need to further refine the evaluation criteria for Filipino American historic resources. 6 months H3 Include more Filipino American artifacts, documents, and cultural effects in the City's general collections. SFPL; SFAC Working Group will engage SFPL in a dialogue about Public History programming. 1 month H4 Amend local school curriculum to include history about Filipino Americans. SFUSD Working Group will engage SFUSD in a dialogue about Public History education. 1 month H5 Increase public art depicting Filipino American history and community in SoMa/SF: murals, statues, paintings, memory walls SFAC Working Group will engage with potential local government partners and local artists regarding potential public art projects. 6 months H6 Install interpretive signage at various historic places and monuments throughout the City and integrate the signage program with a walking tour. Planning Working Group will engage the HPC staff to utilize the City’s landmark plaque program and assist property owners to install markers to identify historical places and monuments. 6 months Housing & Land Use Vision SoMa continues to be the cultural center of the Filipino community due to its accessibility in transportation, housing numerous culturally competent services focused on Filipino needs, established cultural assets and has been home to Filipinos since the 1960’s. SoMa Pilipinas will stabilize and grow the Filipino community’s presence including sustain cultural visibility, vibrancy, and provide economic opportunities for the community. HOUSING & LAND USE # Potential Strategy Key Partners Next Steps Timeline L1 Align SoMa Pilipinas goals, objectives, and strategies with the Western SoMa and Central SoMa Plans. Planning Working Group will engage with Planning Department Implementation staff to discuss SoMa Pilipinas goals and concerns for the area. 1 month L2 Strengthen and expand the SoMa Youth and Family Special Use District in order to improve monitoring and enforcement, further restrict the sale of alcohol and cannabis, and increase the number of all‐age venues. Planning Working Group will engage potential local government partners to discuss the YFSUD. 1 month L3 Ban formula retail and large banks between 5th and 9th Streets, Howard and Folsom Streets to encourage small neighborhood‐serving businesses. Planning Working Group will engage potential local government partners to discuss a formula retail ban. 1 month L4 Restrict ground floor commercial space sizes to reduce the size of spaces while increasing opportunities for new small businesses. Planning Working Group will engage potential local government partners to discuss commercial spaces. 1 month L5 Increase the number of community facilities by requiring inclusionary space in new office buildings or requiring contribution to a community facilities fund for new development. Planning Working Group will engage potential local government partners to discuss need for community facilities. 1 month L6 Require commercial buildings above a certain footprint size to provide public toilets. Planning Working Group will engage potential local government partners to discuss need for public restrooms. 1 month HOUSING & LAND USE # Potential Strategy Key Partners Next Steps Timeline L7 Direct development park fees collected from SoMa projects to go to SoMa parks. RPD Working Group will engage potential local government partners to discuss park administration. 1 month L8 Improve the programing, design, and monitoring of Privately Owned Public Open Spaces (POPOS) by banning advertising, protecting from shading, and requiring intergenerational family recreations functions. Planning Working Group will engage potential local government partners to discuss need for POPOS improvements. 1 month L9 Explore the benefits of transferring ownership of Yerba Buena Gardens to the Recreation and Parks Department with the goal of making it the Bryant Park of the West. RPD Working Group will engage potential local government partners to discuss Yerba Buena Gardens ownership. 1 month L10 Increase affordable housing in the district by adjusting requirements to align with increases in Filipino families and seniors; expanding the affordable housing impact fee to include all new development; increasing affordable housing requirements near transit hubs; banning demolition of units; banning micro‐units; banning corporate leasing; and banning student housing. Planning; MOHCD Working Group will engage potential local government partners to discuss need for increased affordable housing. 1 month L11 Utilize the Small Sites Program in SoMa to increase affordable housing. MOHCD Working Group will engage potential local government partners to discuss need for increased affordable housing. 1 month L12 Develop robust relocation policies including right‐to‐ return and displacement vouchers for local relocation. MOHCD Working Group will engage potential local government partners to discuss need for increased affordable housing. 1 month HOUSING & LAND USE # Potential Strategy Key Partners Next Steps Timeline L13 Raise Bike Lanes (off streets/level with sidewalks) on Howard and Folsom from South Van Ness to the Bay. For families and youth to ride along recreationally. (differentiated from bike commuter lanes) Planning: MTA Working group will engage with potential local government partners to discuss need for Bike lanes that are friendly and safe for youth. 1 month L14 Ongoing cleaning of dirty sidewalks and trash DPW Working group will engage with potential local government partners to discuss need for street to be cleaned and scheduled maintenance. 1 month L15 Increase the proportion of affordable units of 30%‐60% AMI, compared to market rate units, planned and under construction to balance the housing mix. Planning Working group will engage with potential local government partners to discuss need for ratio of affordable housing to same ratio of market rate 1 month L16 Limit cannabis dispensaries in the area Planning Working group will engage with potential local government partners to discuss need for limiting approval of cannabis dispensaries. 1 month L17 Restrict conversion of Single Room Occupancy (SRO) units to higher income co‐opts and/or co‐working spaces Planning; MOHCD Working group will engage with potential local government partners to discuss need for monitoring SRO conversion to higher income co‐opts and/or co‐ working spaces. 1 month L18 Damaged sidewalks to have ongoing maintenance and repair to enhance youth, seniors, and people with disabilities pedestrian walking experience DPW Working group will engage with potential local government partners to discuss need for damage sidewalks to be fixed and maintained. 1 month Urban Design Vision SoMa Pilipinas is a place that is clean, welcoming and pleasant for families and senior to walk with ease and enjoy local businesses and cultural events. Wayfinding signage, design elements and art in buildings, public art, and banners make it clear that you are in SoMa Pilipinas. New immigrants and visitors know they can find Filipino services and support here. URBAN DESIGN # Potential Strategy Key Partners Next Steps Timeline D1 Establish SoMa Pilipinas Design Guidelines for buildings and the public realm to improve safety and comfort, to encourage the use of public spaces, and to raise the visibility of Filipino culture. The guidelines should include identifying treatments, patterns and color pallet for capital improvements and elements that can be included in new developments that will help expand the visual presence of SoMa Pilipinas. Planning; DBI Working Group will (1) Hold a community design charrette engaging Filipino artists, architects and designers in developing framework for design guidelines with the community; (2) Engage with the Planning Department and the Department of Building Inspection in developing framework for how design guidelines will be administered and implemented. 1 year D2 Establish a SoMa Pilipinas Design Review Committee to work with developers and City entities undertaking building construction and changes to the public realm. Planning Working Group will explore community interest forming a design committee. 6 months D3 Install public wayfinding and informational signage in Tagalog. DPW Working Group will engage with potential local government partners to investigate the leveraging of existing programs and resources towards supporting the proposed strategies for the public realm 6 months D4 Create a system of visual markers to identify the district and associated cultural assets. DPW; SFMTA Engage with the DPW to discuss leveraging existing resources to support the proposed strategies for the public realm. 1 month URBAN DESIGN # Potential Strategy Key Partners Next Steps Timeline D5 Identify opportunities for incorporating art and cultural work in capital improvement projects, and outline processes and timelines for department work plans. DPW; SFMTA; PUC Engage with the DPW and SFMTA to discuss leveraging existing resources to support the proposed strategies for the public realm. 1 month D6 Create bike lanes that are friendly and safe for youth by creating raised bike lanes (off streets/level with sidewalks) on Howard and Folsom from South Van Ness to the Bay for recreational rather than commuter use. DPW; SFMTA; Planning Engage with the DPW to discuss leveraging existing resources to support the proposed strategies for the public realm. 1 month Appendix C: Potential SoMa Pilipinas Partners The following public and private entities may have a role in addressing the community concerns listed in the previous section. Organizations, agencies, and departments are listed alphabetically. The Working Group has begun outreach to some of these entities, but the bulk of engagement will be accomplished in the next phase of the community planning process, starting in late October 2016. Local Government Partners City College of San Francisco (CCSF) Dept. of Aging and Adult Services (DAAS) Dept. of Building Inspections (DBI) Dept. of Children, Youth & Their Families (DCYF) Dept. of Homelessness & Supportive Housing (DHSH) Dept. of Human Services (DHS) Dept. of Public Health (DPH) Dept. of Public Works (DPW) District 6 Board of Supervisor’s Office Mayor’s Office of Housing & Community Development (MOHCD) Office of Community Investment & Infrastructure (OCII) Office of Economic & Workforce Development (OEWD) Office of Small Business (OSB) Public Utilities Commission (PUC) Recreation and Parks Department (RPD) SF Arts Commission (SFAC) SF Country Transit Authority (SFCTA) SF Municipal Transit Authority (SFMTA) SF Planning Department (SFPD) SF Police Department SF Public Library (SFPL) SF Unified School District (SFUSD) SF Travel State Government Partners California Arts Council (CAC) California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Federal Government Partners National Park Service (NPS) US Dept. of Housing & Urban Development (HUD) Non ‐Government Partners Asian & Pacific Islander Americans in Historic Preservation (APIAHiP) Bayanihan Community Center Bessie Carmichael Elementary and Bessie Carmichael/FEC Middle School Bindlestiff Studio California Historical Society California Preservation Foundation Canon Kip Senior Center Center for Asian American Media (CAAM) FACINE Filipino American Development Foundation (FADF) Filipino Architects, Contractors and Engineers (FACE) Galing Bata sa Filipino Education Center Kearny Street Workshop KulArts Manilatown Heritage Foundation National Trust New Filipino Cinema Pilipino Senior Resource Center Pistahan / FAAE SF Filipino‐American Jazz Festival SF Heritage SF Museum and Historical Society SoMa Pilipinas Historical Society South of Market Community Action Network (SOMCAN) United Playaz Various Bands & DJ Collectives Veterans Equity Center West Bay Pilipino Multi‐Service Center YOHANA Appendix D: Historic Overview of Filipinos in SoMa As described in the San Francisco Filipino Heritage – Addendum to the South of Market Historic Context Statement, the establishment of Filipino ethnic enclave in the area was the result of a combination of factors that included inexpensive housing, proximity to both the waterfront and service industry jobs downtown, two Catholic parishes, and an established multi‐ethnic population. Likewise, many Filipinos relocated to the South of Market as the Financial District expanded to the north and west—resulting in the demolition of numerous businesses and residential hotels along Kearny and adjacent streets in Manilatown. The Filipino community’s most dramatic period of growth followed the passage of the Immigration Act of 1965, which allowed 20,000 people from each Asian country to enter the United States each year, and for family members of Asians who were already citizens to enter the country. During this period, the South of Market frequently served as a first‐stop for new Filipino immigrants. As more immigrants arrived, many joined family members or relatives already living in the neighborhood, while others were attracted by the growing number of Filipino establishments in what came to be known as “Central City.” The post‐1965 era also marks the period when most of the resources today associated with Filipino culture and heritage in the South of Market were established. These included new businesses, social and educational programs, and cultural festivals. Many Filipino families at that time lived in the residential enclaves found along streets such as Natoma, Tehama, Russ and Minna streets. According to Don Marcos, Executive Director of the South of Market Employment Center, the Filipino population in the neighborhood was concentrated between Market, Brannan, 3 rd and 8 th streets during the 1960s and 1970s. Rudy Delphino, whose family moved to the South of Market from the North Beach area, states that “we wanted to go where there were people we knew, so we just followed along.” In time, various organizations focused on immigrant services were established, including the Filipino‐ American Council of San Francisco (1969); the Mission Hiring Hall (1971); the Sandigan Newcomer Service Center (1972); The Filipino‐American (Fil‐Am) Senior Citizens Center (1972); the South of Market Health Center (1973); and the West Bay Pilipino Multi‐Services Corporation, established by Ed de la Cruz (1977). Part of these organizing activities also included the establishment of the Pilipina Organizing Committee (POC) by Tony Grafilo in 1972. Along with TOOR, the POC undertook efforts to mitigate the economic hardships and displacement caused by redevelopment. Most of these organizations were headquartered west of 6 th Street outside the Central Corridor study area. Perhaps the most important Filipino‐related organization operating within the Central Corridor study area is the Filipino Education Center (FEC). The FEC opened on May 1, 1972 at 390 4 th Street (soon after moving to 824 Harrison Street) with contributions from the San Francisco Unified School District and the State of California. It provided classroom education to non‐English speaking children from kindergarten through twelfth grade. A mid‐1970s description of the school stated that the “program is based on the regular school curriculum, with emphasis on developing oral and written English proficiency. In addition to this, the Center also assesses the educational, health and social services needs of the child and his family and provides appropriate referral services.” In 2004, the Bessie Carmichael School/FEC was rebuilt as a K‐5 campus at a new location adjacent to Columbia Square at 375 7 th Street. At the same time, the old Filipino Education Center at 824 Harrison Street became home to Bessie Carmichael School’s middle school grades. Today, the K‐5 and middle school facilities are the only public schools located South of Market. Other identifiably Filipino establishments in the Central Corridor study area include the Mint Mall, a mixed‐use building at 953 Mission Street that was purchased by the Nocon family in the 1970s. Since that time, the apartments have largely been occupied by newly‐arrived Filipino families, while the ground floor commercial space has provided a home for numerous organizations serving the Filipino community. These included the West Bay Pilipino Multi‐Service Center, the South of Market Employment Center, Bayanihan Community Center, the Pilipino AIDS Project, and Bindlestiff Theater. Arkipelago Books was also