Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Rules Committee forwards Jonathan Perlman nomination for Historic Preservation Commission after debate over qualifications
Summary
The Rules Committee moved Mayor’s nomination of Jonathan Perlman for the Historic Preservation Commission (seat 3) to the full Board after Perlman outlined his architecture and preservation experience and after public commenters raised questions about his background and the nomination process.
Jonathan Perlman, a practicing architect who described himself as bridging hands-on preservation and historical research, asked the Rules Committee on March 7 to recommend his appointment to seat 3 of San Francisco’s Historic Preservation Commission. Perlman read a prepared statement detailing work on projects including the Hibernia Bank and Alexandria Theatre, his involvement with documentation and educational programs, and his belief that preservation rules should be applied on a context-by-context basis rather than rigidly.
Committee members questioned Perlman about a previous 2009 nomination he withdrew and about whether his academic and professional credentials meet the charter’s standard for the Architectural Historian seat. Perlman said the 2009 process was politicized and that subsequent projects and outreach experience better prepared him to serve. He described efforts to explain preservation to property owners and to balance preservation with livability.
Public commenters were split. Supporters, including engineers and preservation volunteers, said Perlman brings practical experience working with building owners and planning staff. One critic questioned entries on Perlman’s résumé and whether his undergraduate transcript lists an architectural history major. The city’s deputy attorney reminded the committee that seat 3 carries specific professional expectations and that the committee must determine whether the nominee meets the charter standard.
A procedural error on the agenda line for the item—the packet printed the motion as “approvingrejecting”—led the committee to amend the wording to permit a vote. The amendment to strike the word "rejecting" passed on a roll call. After discussion, the committee moved Perlman’s nomination to the full Board with a positive recommendation; the item will be considered by the Board on March 12.
Perlman’s nomination now advances for full Board review, where supervisors will again have the opportunity to examine the record and the qualifications for seat 3.
