SF school board declines to endorse city landmark nominations amid concerns over Washington High mural

Planning Department staff and historians told the San Francisco Unified School District Board of Education on March 6 that three district properties—Roosevelt Middle School, George Washington High School and the former Sunshine School—had been nominated for local landmark designation and that the Historic Preservation Commission had voted unanimously to recommend designation to the Board of Supervisors. Desiree Smith, a city preservation planner, and Tim Frey, the city’s historic preservation officer, said local designation is honorific for state land and would not change the district’s legal authority over maintenance or alterations.

Preservation advocates, including Mike Bueller of nonprofit San Francisco Heritage and historian Donna Graves, defended the nominations and suggested ways the city and district could interpret or contextualize historical murals. Robert Cherney, a historian and author of a biography of muralist Victor Arnautoff, said Arnautoff’s murals offer a counter‑narrative to earlier textbooks and argued the works are historically significant and should be documented and interpreted rather than removed.

Several board members, notably Commissioner Walton, expressed deep reservations about advancing designation now because of concerns raised by members of the Native American community about a portion of the Arnautoff mural at George Washington High that depicts the body of a Native American. Walton said it was “insulting” for people not depicted in the murals to dictate how affected communities should feel, and she said she opposed moving forward with the nominations while the mural controversy remained unresolved. Commissioner Sanchez urged tabling the item and noted that the Washington School Site Council had not yet weighed in; other members including Commissioners Haney and Norton echoed concerns about process and timing.

Deputy Superintendent Myung Lee told the board the presentation was informational and staff wanted to record the board’s sense of support or reluctance to proceed so that staff could memorialize the board’s views in a letter to planning department staff and supervisors. After discussion, the board signaled it would not provide support for landmark designation at this time and asked for further deliberation, particularly on the mural and on engagement with affected school communities.

Planning staff emphasized the nomination reports are intended as resources and noted the statewide California Art Preservation Act and other laws govern alteration of murals. They also said local designation would not legally block district action on murals, because SFUSD properties are state land and exempt from the city’s Planning Code. The board requested copies of the landmark designation reports and recommended additional local conversation—especially at the Washington site—before the district takes a formal position.

The planning department urged the board to provide feedback to inform forthcoming hearings at the Board of Supervisors’ Land Use Committee; the nominations will proceed at the city level regardless of the district’s position. The board’s expressed reluctance leaves the district’s formal stance undecided pending further review and community consultation.

The planning department presentation will be followed at the city level by Land Use Committee and Board of Supervisors hearings; the board said it expects to continue deliberations and to provide staff with guidance for any letters to the supervisors or planning staff.