Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Interpretation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission debates plaque, banner and app options for a citywide interpretive program
Summary
Staff outlined plaque, banner and mobile options to recognize Article 10 landmarks and Article 11 conservation districts, with cost estimates and program models from other cities; commissioners pressed on whether plaques should be required and who would pay or administer them.
Department staff presented an overview Aug. 19 of a proposed historic interpretive program that would use plaques, banners, kiosks and a mobile-friendly website or app to recognize Article 10 landmark buildings and Article 11 conservation districts.
The draft template shown to the commission included a round plaque carrying a landmark number, name and text about the building's significance. Staff noted plaque cost estimates of $1,100 to $2,000 for an 18-inch to 24-inch plaque, and suggested aluminum with a bronze-painted finish as a lower-cost alternative. "The plaque program could be voluntary, or if the commission wants to require landmark buildings to display a plaque, a code amendment may be required," a department presenter said.
Staff also presented banner and kiosk options for district recognition and outlined digital options: a mobile-friendly website estimated at $20,000 to $40,000 with about $1,500 annual hosting, and an app estimated at $50,000 to $75,000 to develop for a single platform (additional costs would apply for more platforms). They suggested using templates such as ArcGIS story maps and partnerships with organizations including SF Travel, SF Library and community benefit districts to expand reach.
Commissioners split on whether plaques should be mandatory. Commissioner Matsuda said she favored requiring plaques but wanted guidance on expected plaque lifetime and owner costs; another commissioner said that if plaques became mandatory the city often assumes costs and that including plaques in the designation workflow could streamline permitting. Several commissioners raised cost and funding questions and suggested partners such as Friends of City Planning or the Fund Committee. Concerns about graffiti and vandalism led some members to favor banners or elevated signage in certain locations; accessibility concerns were raised about high-mounted banners and the need for alternate accessible formats.
Staff proposed a follow-up meeting with partners (including SF Bridal and the communications team) to explore revenue sources and return with a program update before year-end. Commissioners generally expressed support for a branded program but asked staff to clarify funding, permit integration and whether existing landmarks would be grandfathered or required to conform to new signage.
