>> 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]

>> thank you very much for allowing me to walk you through, excuse me, the nomination. most of the purpose of this is to show you some photos, as you'll hear the planning department didn't receive the photos. and probably all of you could have written three quarters of

the nomination from what you know about the building. i'm not going to bother reading off all the bullet points here about the building. and really just try to concentrate on the photos. this is the entry portal which unfortunately in the '60s was modified and removed. it is a still character-defining feature. here's the building when viewed looking west on golden gate avenue. these are two of the most important character defining interior spaces above this. a men's gym and below in the basement is the swimming pool. the carpeted area in blue carpet. it covers the swimming pool, which is still there because tndc didn't need a swimming pool and could'nt operate one. this is the main lobby on the second floor looking down the

grand stair toward golden gate avenue. in the 1960s, the building was redone and the stair was taken out and the opening from the ground floor was floored over, if any of you remember it. it was kind of like going into a basement off golden gate avenue. this was restored by the projected tndc did in 2012. these are just some views of the rehab. that is the main window you saw from the other side on golden gate avenue. this is the original boy's entrance on leaven worth building. there isn't anymore an adult and children's programme because now it is housing for formerly homeless people, 174 units. and this is one of two stairs up from the second floor to the third floor in the main atrium lobby. one of them had been removed

during that earlier remodel and was reconstructed. this is just some of the character defining features. the italian renaissance revival. here you see the cornice, which like so many in town is made of sheet metal. this is the second floor up from the boy's entrance. the building has a number of character hfl defining circulation spaces that survive. that is the sky light in the atrium lobby on the second floor. and this is the auditorium which has a flat floor, i think, for flexibility of use. but is otherwise quite a remarkable auditorium and that is the caoelg looking back at the balcony, at the back of the auditorium. these next four images didn't

go in with the national registration, but we all love historic images so i thought we would throw them in. this is, i believe, a typical hotel room when the building was first completed. and here we have the gym with the kind of exercise activities the y offered. and there is the pool. in use. and anyone who's alive in the 1970s and '80s that see this, even though it wasn't in this building. i did want to address the staff comments. the nomination concentrated on the areas of significance that differentiate this building from other ymcas and that's what drove the emphasis. and just so you unls where we are in the process today, the

nomination originally went to o.h.p. in sacramento last april and by about september-october, the revisions with the staff historian were completed and it's scheduled for the february 2 resources commission meeting. [bell ringing] i found out last week about the planning department staff comments and you're now hearing this and any comments you make will then go with the staff comments to the historic resources commission and the historian there will consider them. so, we're on a very tight timeline. and i would like you to know that. and as some of you may know, approved nominations ready for action -- [bell ringing] jockeyed for position on agendas as a state historic research commission and tndc did this nomination voluntarily as a property owner. they are a nonprofits housing

developer, as you probably know. the executive director don faulk, is aware of this review. and he said he's hoping that this process will not derail action on february 2 from occurring and that's just for some future meeting of the historic resources commission. we don't know when. i will -- once the historian in sacramento receives the city's official comment and yours, i'll work with her and i'm just hoping we can get this acted on february 2 and not delayed for some indeterminant amount of time. on the comments the staff made, the social welfare programmes of the ymca are mentioned in the nomination. in my judgment, after doing the research, the education association of the building was

more important. so it got a lot more emphasis. similarly, the nomination does not suggest that the building is eligible under criterion three as the work of a mast sore that's why there waunlts lot of emphasis on the macdougall process. the copy ed iting and moving the social history, it went in to the state originally. organized the way the planning department is suggesting. the staff historian in sacramento said move all the social history to the end. so, there you go. two reviewers, two viewpoints. i personally agree with the planning department staff but you work with a reviewer you are working with. i would be a little bit concerned about removing the statement that it's significant as a building type, an early

20th century community building. it had it, as we showed here, a lot of different problematic components that supported its mission and were expressed in a certain architectural style and i think it's significant for that. so, i -- i just suggest consideration that. but thank you very much for allowing me to present it to you. >> thank you, mr. knapp. one final question. i'm not sure if you commented on this item revising the social history or reviewing section eight, which includes relevant information, the founding of the ymca >> that was the thing -- the way the planner and i both saw it eye-to-eye. the historian in sacramento said move all that stuff to the end, which i did and then the planner didn't even get the photos, by the way. so the communication here is not seamless so she didn't know that the order you see it in

was what the historian in sacramento judged best. >> ok. thank you. >> are there any questions for mr. knapp or for staff? that the time, we'll take public comment at this time. any member of the public have any comments? seeing none -- >> actually, i do have a question. >> ok, commissioner pearlman. >> that last point that mr. knapp made about whether it should go in as a community building or not, can you exmine why you think it should'nt? >> because by suggesting that it was a community building type that it was relevant to the organization -- the structure of what the -- or to meet the needs of the ymca. but not a -- or wasn't stated in the nomination that this was a new building type that generated other buildings, copying its style or between a new hospital building, that there is a new problematic anxietier of a building that becomes a commonly used style.

that wasn't explained clearly in the nomination. >> so, i'm still not understanding. is the term "community building" implying that you -- that you think or that the nomination would imply that community building is a new building type? >> yes, that's what -- yes. that's it implies. yes. >> and so can i ask mr. knapp a question? would you come up for a second? so, could you respond to that? because you're thinking that it should be in there as a community building. s >> the nomination traces earlier, san francisco ymca as different facilities. and the description says what facility's in it is how they're laid out and this one was much larger than the previous ones and had more different facilities. so, i feel the nomination makes a case that this building has

significance for not only its size but the number of different programmatic rooms and facilities. >> but do you characterize it as an evolution of this building type? >> it wasn't the first time anyone -- >> right. >> combined these things. but -- >> this is a type that existed, the ymca hadle previous buildings. and so this is just a continue wall streeting of a specific type. >> it's a continue -- continuation of a period in which the ymca is an organization not only here but around the country and in other countries was growing and building larger buildings that could do more. >> ok. >> and this is an example of that. >> i guess what i'm driving at is, you know, is the community building already a type? it's not a type. ok. this seems confusion because it seems like if there were previous ymcas and there were

community buildings that had programmatic things like this one, it would be part of those kind of buildings. >> the difference is the department is suggesting that the building is locally significant under example of renaissance-style architecture. but the way the statement significance is worded, it's significant under criterion c in architecture because it embodies the distinctive characteristics of an early 20th century building. it's not stating wlitz's like because of its architecture or because that it's this community building type. that is the difference. >> ok. why can't it be both? >> it could potential little be both. -- it could potentially be both, but it is not stating as it's viable and eligible example of a early 20th century community building. >> right. could that be added? the renaissance revival -- >> that's faced later. that's why i'm saying the recommendations for copy

editing, it's not stated clearly up front that it is a example of renaissance reviral-style building. it's discussed later in that style in the community building details is not discussed at length later. so it could -- >> thank you, joe. [laughter] we've been watching all day long. thank you. [laughter] >> so yes. and it could -- if it is -- it could be revised also to say if this generated other ymcas following this, you know, this building plan. the nomination does mention the ymca. the first one that had elements of the same -- you know, trying to have public spaces, public and private spaces, to meet a variety of needs and programmes and then this followed that example. but that not that it generated, you know, this is a building

type that became building wide and would be a good detail to add if that was the case. but this is one of models for community buildings. >> got it. >> ate really innovative design of a community building? because criterion a addresses the social programme and the social history. so, it's kind of like saying -- >> thank you. gave some clarity. >> commissioner? >> i swouz thrilled to see the photos of the pediment because i'ves driven by that building so many times and thought there had to be something there. [laughter] i appreciated seeing that. >> thank you. >> commissioner hyland? >> i have some questions for staff and for mr. knapp.

the point here is we're trying to get this approved in the february meeting. so, the question for staff is do you think without these changes it might jeopardize that? >> i don't think so. and i don't think what the recommendations require a great amount of work. >> that was my question for mr. knapp. these seemed to be minor edits potentially and can they be picked up in time to get -- >> i think we can all agree on the interpretation and the question is how quickly and how minimally it can address this because the point is well taken and bringing that distinction up within that one sentence, if that's sufficient, it seems like it's just a tweak to that. >> do you have a response? >> yeah. mr. knapp? >> the proof is in the pudding on timing. can we all do it in time and get it on the agenda?

i'm happy to work with it. i don't know, you are out workload. i don't know the workload of the historian. i don't know how many days ahead she has to have it final. so that would be my only concern. >> mr. knapp, i'm sorry. tim frye, department staff. if i could interrupt for a second. i don't believe this would feel to come before the commission again. so, that may address your concern. i think what the commission would do is direct staff to make edits and send a positive resolution to the state commission. >> at the state level, you may want to make the tweaks. >> commissioner johnck? >> i'd like the get this right. thinking about what mr. churney said about the coit tower. [laughter] and i think if all of this is a

tweak and the staff can get it done. i mean, i'm just -- >> mr. knapp would be doing it and staff would be reviewing it. correct. ok. >> the something usually the commissions have to get out the agenda with the staff report, well it's probably 10 or 15 days ahead of february 2. so -- >> 16 days from now. >> and that is only 16 days from now. so, i'm wondering -- that is what i'm wondering about. i do think that we should get this right and if it is just a tweak they can get it. that would be getting to it staff and check on when their deadline is. today. >> and ms. mcmillan? >> we just discussed this is the version thaft state has and i'm happy to work with mr. knapp to address these edits and contact the state as well

and how this works with their process and how it is -- to fit within their timeline so it stays on track to go ahead in early february. >> commissioner matsuda. >> i'm interested in making sure we get this right and i thoroughly agree with the staff recommendation and the social welfare programmes and because this particular place, so many very positive things have happened within various communities and i don't see that clearly reflected. i don't think it would be that hard to collect data and even to bullet point all the various xhunltzs that have benefited from this building being there. i was a recipient of being a beneficiary of using their gym when i was in law school. i know that there are many

communities, specific communities that have specific place to help them heal and help them empower themselves and move on to expand to other bigger and better things. the social welfare, the social history of this is clearly missing and it is really important, particularly until today's world. >> those programmes were offered at the y, this is at the central branch, but if the focus was more on education, then it should -- the social history, social welfare programmes should be expanded. but if they're greater pramenting was devoted to education, then that should be explain add little more clearly in the nomination as well to make it clear why, in the nomination, the focus was more on education than social welfare was of its link to golden gate university. that is very clear. >> yeah.