your h.p.c. landmark designation work programme remains at the full f.t.e., community sponsored designations remains at the .s 15. i will just point out that your one f.t.e. heavily subsidizes this .15 which we've been able to see through the quarterly report that the susan parks has created. but, again, it is something that we think is manageable under these two f.t.e.s so y see any -- or we don't see any reason to increase those at this time. preservation specific legislation coordination, again, sort of on an as needed basis when this commission is involved in reviewing legislation. this usually is handled by quadrant-based staff depending on where that shesing occurring in the city or sometimes me working directly with pillar and the legislative -- our legislative team in the office.

preservation project reviews, which is embedded in part of current planning when a preservation planner is asked to attend a project review meeting. special projects and to give you a sense of what this includes where you see there is a slight decrease, i will have to double check this number. the one thing i did want to mention was special pronltzes does include grants. we do currently have a c.l.g. grant for the chinese-american experience, historic context statement. we are currently under contract. we do intend on applying for another c.l.g. grant next year. our civil rights underrepresented community grant is winding down so that is not reflected here, which is one of the reasons for the decrease. the one thing that may not be reflected here, as you're aware, the national trust will have its conference heres in november. we are working with the trust

and discussing with san francisco heritage to be a partner in that -- in that dofrns really help guide the intangible heritage tracks and the community involvement in the overall conference. there may be some financial commitment that the city is willing to provide to make sure that happens. so we'll make sure these numbers are adjusted to reflect that. if they are different. it won't be a huge change, though, from what you see here. and then finally, the legacy business programme and cultural heritage initiatives, which as you recall from last year, creating that position, now we have a full f.t. devoted to that. >> quick question for you. about the pick. is that reflected in this or is that -- you said that the pick is being increased from the part-time position to a full-time position, is that correct? >> that occurred last year. michelle langley is now our full-time preservation pick person.

there may have been, as deborah was mentioning, there may have been some attrition, depending on when she was hired and when she has been here just under a year. once she is here a full year, next year's blunt fully reflect that position. but that is currently listed. i'm not sure if it's listed under the preservation team, f.t.e., or maybe it is embedded in pick. do you know? ok. we'll double check for you. >> thank you. >> so, for the next slide, just to give you a sense of proposed fundings in comparison with previous years. no anticipated funding for the 1920 fiscal year for ceqa review, but we are proposing for the following year $100,000. this is usually for on-call consult tanlts to provide us support when we have priority

projects or city funded projects that may need an extra boost in meeting their aggressive timelines if they're associated with federal funding or some other important deadline. additional survey contracts. this is some seed money that we're going to keep. on record so we can continue to negotiate and work with the getty conservation institute to demonstrate that we're committed to finishing the city-wide survey in a timely manner and they will, in turn, give us access to their software developer, who we worked with in the past and currently working with, that created the arches programme that is the interface for survey. the c.l.g. grant, as mentioned before, is shown there in all three years. our friends of city planning preservation grant, library grant, $1200 every year to

support the purchase of books and other subscriptions for the use of staff, but also the public. as we mentioned, the african american c.s.er grant is winding down and is not reflected. and we have an ask to the historic preservation fund committee for $50,000 to augment the $20,000 the city is putting forward to complete the cultural heritage strategy for the lgbtq community that's currently under way. and with that, i will turn it back over to deborah. unless you have any questions. >> none at this moment. thank you. >> thank you. ok. so, our final slide here is the calendar to let you know what the next few months hold. we will be going to the planning commission with our informational initial presentation next shurz.

-- thursday. we will be back here february 7 and going to the planning commission february 8 and we need to submit the department's budget to the mayor's office by february 21. and following that, the mayor's office has a budget until june 1, at which point they give it to the board of supervisors. their hearing is in june and the final, final adopted budget actually comes in and out july, even though the fiscal year starts july 1. this is a very long process. the next few weeks we will take the feedback from this commission, from the planning commission, incorporate it and have a final package for you by february 7. >> thank you. >> ok. thank you. >> commissioner, any questions before we go to public comment? >> i do. >> just a few. >> there are more questions of curiosity than anything. thank you very much for the presentation.

it was very clear. on the expenditure budget page, fy18-20, you mentioned contracts. what kind of contracts? personnel contracts? >> not hiring people for staff use. so, personnel is our staff that is really -- that is the topline here in the expenditures. so, the contracts that we're talking about, a lot of the studies, so we have right now some really large ones for e.i.r.s, for example. the civic centre, public realm, that is a big one. in the additional resources for historic preservation, we have money set aside related to those grants to hire contractors to do some of the work there and we -- oh, gosh. we have a few dozen contracts

right now that are on call. so for example, if we have an archeological-specific need, then we can hire a contractor for something that's very limited scope and very specific area. >> so, there are contracts for a specific purpose for a particular project. >> yes. >> ok. thank you. just another question. i know it was mentioned several times by you and also by tim about this shift of the four f.t.e.s going from ceqa historic review to the environmental-related e.p. team. they're going to be doing the exact same work? >> yes. >> yes. >> ok. and then one last question. from this document. i read, i think it was on page 10 where you list the nonpersonnel expenditure

contracts and talks about the ethnic themed historic context statement that relates to what is listed here in the back on page -- in the attachment. i'm sorry. i was just trying to make sense of -- >> yeah. so, the grant for the $45,000, which i believe is c.l.g., page four. the $45,000 contract. >> all right. that is all i wanted to know. thank you. >> thank you. i guess we'll take public comments at this time. any member of the public wish to speak to this item? if so, come forward. seeing and hearing none, we'll close public comment bring it back to the commissioners. any comments? commissioner johnck? >> my questions are related to the grants budget on the sea level rise action plan. yep. deborah. on the grants, is that -- is that going to new positions or will the existing planners be working on being funded out of

those grants on the action plan? >> yeah. so, if we're able to secure that funding, which again we're optimistic and hopeful that we can secure all the grants that we're applying with here, we'll put most of it toward consultant support to help the existing staff. >> oh, it would be consult tanlts. all right. ok. thank you. and then this is for pillar or jim. listen to me. tim. [laughter] ok. new year. just getting back into the swing! [laughter] >> you look like a jim. >> yeah. anyway, i am a little -- i'm more interested in this switch from the historic to environmental planning. and i think -- i mean, if i can give you my perspective where i'm coming from, i would like

to encourage, and i'll have some more statements maybe later at the next meeting that when the e.i.r.s come before us, that the folks who were asked to comment on -- provide comment on the adequacy of the e.i.r.s that not enough has been focused on immediately on historic preservation versus just the promise, per se and appears -- my experience has been -- it appears as if the historic preservation -- the solutions come later and i want to push more emphasis to recommend that everyone that comes before us with a project takes on historic preservation equally or first before they get to the final project. so, that's sort of my overall thought. about the process. so, my thought would be to make sure the department is fully focused, that all -- there's 14, right?

14 staff people doing historic preservation -- >> team? >> per se. and so i just want to make sure that that group is still has the resources, is still functioning as best that it can. and i know the point was made, oh it's just budget tear. but this doesn't feel that way. ok? so maybe you could explain a little more. just give me some more insight into how this is going to work. [laughter] with a switch. >> the switch. right. so, i think that, yes. s in terms of what we do on a daily basis and our roles within the preservation team, within the department, really nothing has changed. i mean, literally like physically nothing has changed. we with still sit where we always sat and -- and our responsibilities are the same.

the decision to shift the sort of management responsibilities from current planning, taking those four positions from current planning and moving them to environmental planning had to do very much with the focus of those positions specifically on ceqa. so, those positions, because they -- while they -- those planners do other things within the preservation team, there's responsibilities in their work product are ceqa-specific. so they're issuing, you know, catexes or largerment dos that are issued and signed by the environmental review officer so it felt like there was a sort of disconnect between that

environmental review officer responsibility and signing off on those ceqa documents and the fact that those preservation planners working specifically on those were housed in current planning. so, that's sort of where that -- the motivation for that shift. >> all right. >> but i think to your, you know, your earlier point, you know, we are still -- i think we still feel like we have those resources to still do that work and we're still making every effort to -- when we bring in the larger documents to make it clear that yourself focus here is to discuss the alternatives and how the project has, or has not addressed the preservation impacts. >> all right. well, i guess my reaction to what you're saying, too, and i'm with you, is this is going to improve the overall functioning of the department and performance and the needed

reviews and all that. that sounds right. yeah. >> if i could just jump in. i praoernlt that question because it looks -- and i realised just now that we should -- those four people should still show up on that preservation slide that shows the 14 positions, it still should be 14. but the reason that we made the shift, i think pillarts explained it very well. but it is to make sure that there's better coordination. i have 30-some people, or i forget the number, doing environmental reviews who are responsible for ceqa. but our previous structure was that four of them were in a different place and that didn't make a whole lot of sense to us, that we should have those four people make sure that the preservation work under ceqa is coordinated with all the rest of the ceqa work and that is the purpose of that. >> i'm with you. i'm with you now. thank you. >> great. any other questions or comment on the budget? nope? thank you very much for your presentation. i think there's no action on this item, so we'll move on.

>> very good. that will place us on item eight for 554 fillmore street, 730 south street and 660 oak street. this is a landmark designation. i do understand there was a request for continue wants from the project sponsor. >> yes, there was. >> do we know the date? good afternoon, commissioners. we dids request a continue wants, just for some background. for those of you that aren't on the a.r.c., we just received written comments from the a.r.c. hearing that was held back in the fall. and we have a meeting -- i'm representing the owner of the project sponsor and we have a meeting set with preservation staff later this month to go over those comment and talk about a refined programming

that would address some of the comments that the a.r.c. had and so we just want to make sure that the landmarking of this building is done more in tandem with an adaptive reuse that makes sense for the future of this building. i can answer any other questions. thank you. >> did you have a date in which you are requesting the continuance to? >> this is the second or third time that we've had to go through this exercise. i would suggest leaving it up to the discretion of department staff for when department staff thinks it would be appropriate to come back for a hearing. >> thank you. ms. ferguson, do you want to speak to that potential date? >> commissioners, if i could just chime in. i feel at this point it is really up to the commission to decide on when you all would like to hear the item. you know, we're certainly

committed to making sure that the project sponsor has a project that they're comfortable with and that the community can be really proud of. but at this point, we don't think the character defining features or the history that is outlined in the very thorough case report that's in front of you is going to change. so, it really is up to you all. and then if you feel that it's worth postponing one more time or, you know, scheduling further out several months out to give us an opportunity to work with their newark tekt -- new architect so we can work come prehencively, we're in support of either approach but we would defer to you. >> thank you. >> i have a question. >> commissioner pearlman. >> mr. frye. i understand there is a new architect so they will be coming up with a completely new approach. would that be something that would then come back to the a.r.c.? >> that would be our intents, yes. >> i don't know if we want to wait until then to sort of see

what they're planning. and i agree. i mean, i don't anticipate there's any new information relative to the report. the case report. i don't know if we want to suggest two meetings out, three meetings out. >> the first one in march, the first hearing in march. >> commissioner highland? >> i think that the designation and the proposed project are two separate processes. and out of courtesy, i wouldn't be opposed to continuing this for a hearing or two. but as we talked about on the peace pagoda, the landmark designation will provide a lot of guidance for the new team and the design. so waiting for that project shouldn't be syncked up, in my opinion, with the designation. >> maybe march then? >> march 7 or the 21st are your options. >> march 21. >> 7th.

>> 21st. [laughter] >> hands up. >> i suggest the 21st of march. well at this time, we need to take public comment on this item. does a member of the public wish to speak to this matter? if so, please come forward. >> hello, commissioners. my name is meryl easton. i want to remind the commission and the public that there is a great deal of public support for the landmarking of this property and there is a number of us that show up at every continuance. >> thank you. and thank you for coming can. any other member of the public wish to speak to this item? seeing and hearing none, we'll close public comment. do not close it yet. >> good afternoon, commission. my name is robert pritchard, one of the parishioners at sacred heart and also the vice president of the sacred heart

gospel choir and with the save our sacred heart preservation. there is a large contingent that is very much in agreement for historic preservation and landmarking. we're not all here because this continue wants keeps happening and people haven't been able to show up. believe me there is a large amount of and the western addition that are still dedicated to the preservation of sacred heart. thank you. >> thank you. thank you for coming can. >> maybe we should ask the public about what we should have done. [laughter] what's convenient -- >> this actually has been continued -- >> before? >> yes. >> i think we continued it maybe twice before, is that -- >> twice. >> twice, yes. from july 19 and then again from october 18. so, this will be the third continuance. >> i would suggest march 21. do i have a motion? >> yes. >> and does it come back to us a second time? for landmarking, it comes to us

twice, right? >> so we would initiate it and then it could come back again. >> nothing in the designation report or the application will change. >> this is the recommendation. that you initiated earlier on this item last year. so this would be the recommendation. >> oh, all right. >> this is the second final. >> yeah. ok. thank you for that clarification. all right. >> i move the item be continued to march 231. -- march 21. >> thank you. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners. if there is nothing further, there's been a motion sected to continue this matter to march 21, 2018. [roll call] so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously. and places us on item nine at 363920th street.

-- 3639 20th street. >> good afternoon, planning staff. before you is a request for a certificate of appropriateness to make exterior and ulteriour alterations between guerrero street and valencia street. the supreme court located within the article 10laverde hill landmark district. it includes the existing gabled roof at the rear of the building to build a new roof deck, the double hung window sashes at the 20th street facade. replacement of the secondary entrance doors, modifications to existing window and door openings at the site and rear elevations, installation of new skylights. removal of a nonhistoric rear deck. modifications to the rear yard landscaping and related interior alterations. staff finds that the proposed work can'ts as recommended will be in conformance with the

requirements of article 10 and the secretary of the interior's standards for rehabilitation. the proposed project would cause minimal changes to the form of the building without removing any character-defining features or materials with the exception of the historic window sashes at the front facade. the new roof deck to be create by the removal of the rear portion of the roof will be simple in design, will be located within the historic foot prinltz of the building and will not be visible from a public right-of-way. the replacement of wood siding will be limited only to areas where it is deteriorated as well at select locations where window and door openings are being altered. staff's preliminary recommend daysing for approval with conditions. staff recommends three conditions of approval as part of the permit -- building permit approval process. the first condition of approval stipulates that shop drawings of the proposed new window sashes for the 20th street

facade be provided to planning staff for review and approval. the second condition of approval is that cut sheets of proposed new light fixtures, replacement doors and hardware and sky lights be provided for staff and approval. the third condition of approval is the stipulation that the project sponsor set up a site visit with staff before any historic wood siding is removed from the side and rear elevations and then provide a physical sample of the proposed replacement wood siding to be used at approved areas. no public comments have been received since packets were submitted. this concludes my presentation unless there is any questions and the project sponsor is also here to give a brief presentation on the project. >> thank you. would the sponsor like to come forward? >> thank you. good afternoon, commission

members. thank you for letting us present this project to you today. my name is blake evans. i'm a project manager on this -- for this project. i'm with the architect on. record for this pronltz. the proposed project is at 3639 through 41 20th street. it is located on the south side as indicated in this image. it's located within the liberty hill landmark district and was constructed in 1895. the existing home is an existing two-storey building over high basement with an attic space. the first floor and basement make up the existing lower unit number one and the second floor and attic make up the existing upper unit number two. depiktsed in this image is the existing front facade of the home which was substantially altered in 1939, resulting in what you see today. our proposed project includes very minor alterations to the front facade, including a

replacement of the existing wood sashes and single pane glazing on the front and side single hung windows with new wood dashes and double pane glazing in all windows to match the existing. in addition to the replacement sashs, we're proposing to replace the nonhistoric garage door in the exact opening and also replacing the glazing and hardware on the existing front doors. illustrated in these next few photos are depicting the praoer of the property in an aerial and some photos at the grade of the rear. illustrated are -- there is a very large existing nonhistoric wood deck within the rear yard that's attached to the second floor of the building, elevated above the rear yard. this large wood deck makes the rear yard unusable by open space for the lower unit and reduces natural light from entering the first floor that the rear.

shown in this image, i'm not sure if you can see it very well, the project proposes to remove the existing wood deck at the rear and include landscape upgradings throughout rear yard for better use of the rear yard open space, directly accessible by the lower unit number one. also allowing more natural light into the first floor at the rear facade. with the removal of the existing wood deck from the second floor and the access from the existing second unit, the project proposes to cutback the rear most portion of the roof, the existing gable roof to provide a roof deck for access by the existing upper unit and we, as the project team, wanted to make sure that there was direct access of open space from that unit, not having thome go around. we wanted to provide that roof deck at the top. all of this work is not viz frbl the street and it is only approximately nine feet from cutting back from the existing roof facade.

despited in this section, you can kind of see the area towards the left is the roof deck being proposed. the roof deck that we propose will be surrounded on the perimeter with planter boxes for screening and allow for the top of the partial height walls on the perimeter to extend up to the bottom portion of the existing roof eaves. i will happily answer any questions that you have and i thank you for allowing us to present this and we respectfully hope for your vote. >> thank you. any questions for the sponsor? at this time, we'll take public comment. any member of the public wish to speak? seeing and hearing none, we'll close public comment. any comment or motion? >> i move that we approve with the conditions outlined in the staff report. >> thank you. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners. if there is nothing further there's a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter with conditions. on that motion -- [roll call]

>> so move, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 5-0. and places us on item 10 at 1 telegraph hill boulevard. this iss for your review and comment. >> good afternoon, commissioners. shannon ferguson, department staff. the item before you today is a national register nomination amendment for coit memorial tower. in its capacity as a certified local governments, the city has given the opportunity to comment on nominations to the registration. in 2008, it was named under criterion c in the area of art at the local level of significance. the nomination before you today amends the 2008 nomination in order to document coit tower at the national level of significance. situated within the boundaries

of pioneer park, it's located atop telegraph hill. the unpainted reinforced concrete tower was designed in the art deck style as a commemorative monument and observation tower. it was completed in october of 1833 during the great depression and its construction was likely financed by the city of and county of san francisco from lily hitchcock coit. the interior walls are covered in 27 murals that were produced for public works of art project by many noted bay area artists. the amendment upgrades and expands on the 2008 nomination. new information incolludes descriptions of each individual mural, the artist and technique used to paint the mural, biographies of selected artists and a chronology of building alterations and mural conservation efforts. it documents the contemporary events, local, national and international and political mood that informed the content of the murals. the amendment includes a

summary of contemporary art criticism and subsequent scholarship on the murals. according to the amendment's significance, a statement of significance, coit tower is significant at the national level under criterion c in the area of art and meets criterion consideration f for amendment properties. it goes on to say that it's intrinsically associated with the permanent exhibition of federal will have he funded art created through the public works of art project. the coit tower mural project was the sing largest venture in the country and served as a model for new deal art programmes that followed. the mural helped to interpret the themes of the great depression and showcase the works of the region's best artist and murals are examples of large groups of artists working in unison. the nomination states that the memorial tower meets the requirements of criterion consideration tuxer for commemorative property, a property commemorative in intents can be eligible if design, tradition, age or

symbolic value has invested it with its own historical significance. commemorative property can demonstrate its own exceptional significance apart from the value of the person memorialized by the mon yaoumentz. originally designed as a monument to lily hitchcock coit is not associated with her productive life. rather it derives its significance to the murals. the departments also received a letter from the telegraph hills dwellers in support and i have copies of that letter here. additional public correspondence received after the submittal date of this report will be placed in the historic preservation's correspondence folder. the department agrees with the nomination and requests your review and comments on the registration form.

the department recommends the h.p.c. send a resolution of findings recommending shipa approve the nomination of the property to the national register. that concludes my presentation. i'm happy to answer any questions. >> thank you. any questions for ms. ferguson? no? that -- at this time, we'll take public comment. >> i believe the authors are also here today. >> ok. i see one of them right there. >> good afternoon. i'm an architectural historian and preservation planner. just to give you a little bit of background about the project, this was initiated by protect coit tower, an

independent, autonomous advocacy group. the nomination was prepared by me with rigorous review by john goldinger and professor bob churnny who's also going to speak. i thought we'd explain a little bit why there was a need for the project. as ms. ferguson stated, coit tower was listed on the national register in 2008 but it was listed at the state level of significance which was a slightly inexplicable decision and, unfortunately, the nomination also contains a number of omissions and errors, most notably that the state level of significance rather than national, we felt that it was important to correct the official record and to address various other inaccuracies. it is of itself a civic monument and would not necessarily merit national significance.

but it is the murals that elevate the importance of the site to the national level. we believe the murals possess exceptional value in interpreting the themes of the depression and new deal idealism. originally coit tower was intended to be ung decorated on the interior. but the murals came about as a result of the government's effort to employ citizen artists during the depression through the public works of art project which was only a seven-month-long projected that existed from december 1933 to june 1934 and it was the first new deal programme to employ artists and to use public funds for arts projects. as stated, the murals depict variations on the theme of the american scene and coit tower's interior represents the largest collection of federally funded art, created under this

programme and it's an extensive fresco undertaking, which makes it unique. the coit tower group included the most well-known artists of the day -- [bell ringing] and most of the artists painted directly at the location on the walls. five artists worked previously with diego rivera in mexico using the fresco technique. with the 1934 waterfront strike unfolding nearby, coit tower artists completed their work, most by late -- [bell ringing] >> do you wanted more time? >> i do. >> ok. i'll give you another three mince. >> and the programme, the p.w.a. programme ended in june. but the pwap programme engaged more than 3,000 artists across the nation to beautify public

buildings with murals. but the mural project at coit tower remains the largest project in the country and it was, at the time, and remains the most high-profile and ambitious test of whether federally funded arts programmes would work. sometimes it said that it was the first programme. there were 15 regions across the country. this was -- so there are other projects. happening simultaneously but this one stands out for the size of the project and its legacy. in closing, we note that coit tower retains an extremely high level of integrity on the interior and on the exterior. and we would be happy to answer any questions you have about this nomination. and we hope that you will forward it favorably to sacramento. it will be heard on february 2

at the state historic resources commission and then the nomination will advance. >> thank you. any other members of the public wishing to speak to this item? if so, please come forward. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm robert churney, retired professor of history from san francisco state. i was on the landmarks preservation advisory board in 2008 when this was originally approved. and i must play a bit of mea culpa here because i should have known more about it because i had never really done research on coit tower at the time. i had misgivings about the twai some of those things in the report were written but i didn't feel i knew enough about it to make a challenge at that time. and no one on the board questioned the state level of

significance rather than the national level. we should have been all much more alert at the time. i began doing research on a biography of victor arnetoff who was the technical coordinator for the entire murals project. a number of years ago. when i got to the coit tower project. i found a number of primary sources that had not been used by previous historians. and they called into question not only some of the statements in that previous 2008 document, but also some of the previous academic work on coit tower. and i do think that in my biography of victor arnetoff and in the article that was published on coit tower last july that there is now a much better published record of what went on at coit tower during those months in 1934.

i made all of that research fully available to catherine when she was preparing this amended report. i certainly commend the report to you. i think it's based on the most thorough research possible. john gollinger was also help informal that research, i have to say. and i think it definitely needs to replace what's in the record now because it is much more accurate and i'd be happy to answer any questions if you have some. >> thank you. i don't believe we have any questions at the moment. any other member of the public wish to speak? seeing and hearing none, we'll close public comment. commissioners, comments? commissioner johnck? >> i'd like to congratulate catherine and mr. churney and john -- [bell ringing] a great project coming forward and looking into the investigation of [inaudible] so

i'm certainly honoured to be part of the sequel because i've only been on the commission since '12, '13. >> '13. >> anyway, those are my comments. if there are other comments. otherwise -- >> looks like a motion. >> i move to nominate the amended recommendation to the national register for coit tower. >> second. >> thank you. there f there's nothing further, there is a motion that has been seconded to adopt the resolution supporting the amendment of the national register of historic places nomination. on that motion -- [roll call] is move, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 5-0 and places us on item 11. 3543 18th street. this is for your review and

comment. >> good afternoon, commissioners. desiree smith, planning department staff. if i could please ask for the sfgov tv for the powerpoint. thank you. the following is for the women's building located at 4533 18th street in the mission district. the national register

nomination was prepared by donna graves with funding from the national park service as an extension of the national lgbtq heritage theme study. in its capacity as a certified local government, the city and county of san francisco is given the opportunity to comment on nominations to the national register of historical places. any comments from this commission will be forwarded to the state office of historic preservation. the women's building is located at the corner of 18th and lapidge streets in the mission drifjts i was constructed in 109 and contains four-storeys and a basement they are classed and stucco over brick and featured balconies, awnings and applied ornament and cornice. the west fa saids are utilitarian in nature with no ornament. a built-up roof caps the building. the 1994 mural that envelopes the building's main facades is included as a contributing resource. the mural was painted by a

who's who of bay area muralists. one alicia miranda bergman, edith boon, mira desay, yvonne littleton. the property was designated as local landmark number 178 in 1985. as an expression of san francisco's associate history, the nomination -- the local nomination document this is association with mission hall, dover hall and the women's building. although it focuses mostly on the building's early history. dotinger national register nomination, the women's building is nationally significant under cry tier your a for its association with second wave femininism. one of the 20th century's most consequencial social movements. the women's sbllg one of the first women-owned and operated community centres in the united states. women centres which appeared in various forms and occupied a variety of building types across the u.s. in the 1960s

and 1970s were especially important manifestations for this grassroots movement for gender quality and cultural transformation. the period of significance captures the beginning of consolidation of the women's building, culminating with the mural project which visually communicates the organization's mission of supporting and celebrating women across time and around the world. the nomination also states that the women's building meets the requirement ls of criterion consideration g for propertis that have achieved significance within the past 50 years for its association with the nationally significant second wave femininist movement and at the location where the struggle for women's rights was linked to additional community struggles, including those of marginalized racial ethnic community, lgbtq2 people, imgranltzes and others. staff agrees that the property is nationally significant under criterion a for its association with second wave femininism and

agrees that the property meets the criterion consideration g for propertis that have achieved significance within the past 50 years. staff requests the commission review the national registration and provide comments on whether the women's building meets the criteria of significance. the commission may recommend the nomination, not recommend the nomination or recommend the nomination to be revised. comments may be added to the resolution found in your packets. it will then be forwarded to the office of historic preservation. this concludes my presentation. i'm happy to answer any questions. we also have the author, donna graves here, as well as a representive of the women's building who would like to say a few words. >> thank you. would ms. graves like to come forward? >> thank you, desiree. hello, commissioners. i'm donna graves a bay area public his toirnl. i want to give you a little background on how this nomination came to be. when i was working with shane watson on the historic context

statement, the women's building came up as an important venue for so many community groups organizing for social change. within the lgbtq2 community, but other important social movements in san francisco. i started talking with the national park service about it being a very significant site that had not yet received the recognition that was due. at first we were work on nominating it as a national historic landmark, which i was thrilled about because it represented a kind of radical shift for the park service to think about funding and nomination for an nhl that was about radical history and was about second wave femininism for which there are very few sites nominated or designated at the national level. after trump was elected, the park service called me and said there's no way we're going to get this signed by whatever secretary of the interior comes into place. so let's make this nomination to the national register so

that's the path i've been work on. this nomination was developed with financial support, from the national park service as i mentioned, but it couldn't have happened without very enthusiastic support from the women's building. both current staff and founders such as roama guy, who you'll hear from in a minute. what struck me is the multitude of fascinating stories that the women's building held from the time when it was a german social hall and then a norwegian social mall. but especially in this most recent history. san -- and this was a site where multiple community felt a stake. so that kind of platform, a place where many community felt their past reflected is something that's worth lifting up. the other comment i'd like to make before i close is that the radical women who decided that they needed a permanent home for the women's building and

made a commitment to owning property in the late 1970s, which while it was much easier to do then than it is now was still a real stretch, were iraqlar. to have control over that space has meant that they are the longest serving, longest standing women's centre from the -- that dates from that era and they've continued over the decades to serve multiple constituencies in san francisco and make the connections between the social issues that women face and that many other communities face. so, that brings me around to saying that it is really important that the preservation programme beb thinking about how you can support community institutions to stay in place. i think the fact that the women's building is still here, and that it's due to them being able to control the building they're in is a really pertinent issue to point out at this point.

i will close unless you have any questions about the nomination and introduce one of the building's founders, roama guy. >> thank you. >> roma? >> commissioners, thank you for putting this on your agenda today. it's a thrill for me, you know, because i was one of the leaders that helped create the women's building and create the framework and the message that women needed a room of their own in their own community if they weren't just going to go to the polls. but also sit at the table and develop the agenda. and because women are in every social class, every migrant, immigrant refugee, native born, category that you want to name,

every wealth category, every poverty category, including the incarcerated. so, we feel that we modernized the movement and welcomed, for example tgay movement because some of us were lesbians, myself included. so, we were ready for external pressures like the mystery disease that we now know as h.i.v. and aids and helped build consensus for getting through the morass and the controversy of that period, just to name one or two things. this also happened during the war in central america when we were targeted, including by the government of that time. including the issues on reproductive justice and agism. so again, i think the women's building has generated, reflected, and nurtured how we

are moving into the 21st century and that is why i can still say, with my grey hair, that this is worth the national registry honouring us as a community and forward-thinking san francisco and i can -- ask you to take a look at that and honour the populations that will follow us, including girls, transgendered and whatever else definitions around gender evolve in the 22nd century. so thank you for hearing us out today and i hope this recommendation receives your endorsement. >> thank you. at this time we'll take public comment. does any member of the public wish to speak to this item? if so, please come forward. seeing and hearing none, we'll close public comment. commissioner pearlman. >> thank you very much.

i think it is an honour to have ms. guy -- [feedback] i didn't do that. [laughter] maybe i did do that. [laughter] >> [inaudible]. >> for those of you who saw the television production of "when we rise," there was a whole segment on ms. guy and her involvement and certainly the beginnings of the women building were noted in all of that. i think it's also interesting to -- it is almost like a peril that are on the murals with the women's building to the murals that are in coit tower, that's interesting that these two are back-to-back in this particular hearing today. because of the breadth of artists who participated in making the murals happen. i am enthusiastically endorsing this and i'll make a motion, but i'm sure others have something to say. so, thank you very much. thank you for the research and

it's, i think, an excellent contribution to our national scene and national register. >> commissioner hyland? >> thank you to ms. guy for thank you you've done for sour community. >> thank you. >> commissioner johnck? >> and i'd like the thank you and donna for your initiative and very creative and valuable thinking on how to move this forward. it's terrific. so, if you want to move, i'll second. >> yeah. i would love to make a motion to adopt this resolution to support the national register nomination. >> second. >> if there is nothing further, commissioners, there is a motion that has been seconded to adopt a resolution, supporting the nomination to national register of historic places. on that motion -- [roll call]

so move, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 5-0. >> thank you. >> thank you, commissioners. that places us on item 12. 220 golden gate avenue. this is also for your review and comment. >> good afternoon, commissioners t. item before you today is the national register nomination for the san francisco central ymca at 220 golden gate avenue. in its capacity as the local government, the city has g*ifptsen the opportunity to comment on nomination to the national register. the nomination was prepeared by frederick knapp. it's located on the north west corner of golden gate avenue and levenworth street in the tenderloin neighbourhood. the nine-storey building was

designed and constructed in 1910. it is a contributor to the uptown tenderloin district. the san francisco central ymca is locally significant ufrnlz chi tier i don't know events in the area of social history and education and as the birth place of golden gate university. one of the few universities nationwide that evolved from programmes offered by a ym xr, a. the identified period of significance since 1910 through 1967, this period begins with the construction of the building and ends with the day the golden gate university moved to a new location. it's locally significant under criterion c as an example of revival and renaissance revival architecture and is a representive example of an early 20th century period building. the period of significance is 1910, the date of the building's construction. staff agrees that the supreme

court locally significant for its role in providing services, recreational and educational programmes to the residents of san francisco. however, the department recommends expanding the nomination's discussion of the social welfare programmes offered at the central ymca. it could benefit from more detail on the social services that were a major component of the institution's mission. the sbllg locally significant under criterion c. however, the department recommends further analysis of the work of the macdougall brothers. it does not discuss how the property fits within their body of work and the history of the built environment of san francisco and california as a whole. the department does not agree that the ymca is eligible under criterion c as weptsive of an early 20th century community building. ymca buildings were designed to build the needs of the

organization and required a thoughtfully-considered building plan but it is unclear how it differs from other large scale buildings. staff recommends revising the nomination and removing the early 20th century community building type in the discussion of eligibility under criterion c. the department also recommends a copy ed iting the document to ensure consistency and improve the organization and readability of the nomination. in particular, social history significance of the ymca would benefit from further ed iting to make sure it includes relative information on the founding of the ymca, its mission programmes, organisations and the populations it serves. it's discussed later at length in the nomination and would be nice to immediately provide readers with necessary information on the history and function of the ymca. staff recommend that they provide comments on whether the

ymca meets significance and recommend or not recommend the nomination for listing on the national register subject to the revisions discussed. comments may be added to the resolution found in your packets. this concludes my presentation. i'm happy. to answer any questions. the project author -- the nomination author has a short presentation and is also here to answer questions. >> thank you. any questions before we go to the nomination author? no. thank you. mr. knapp, are you making your presentation? >> will five minutes be adequate? >> i'll fry. yeah. thank you. [whispering]