1940 census, there were 40 philippino men who immigrated from the philippines from 28-62 employed in domestic work in sanfrancisco. the organization began purchasing property in south park, first with the building across the street in august of 1947 and then early 1948, it purchased the subject project and then again later that year, it purchased the third building across the street where it constructed a temple in 1951. while the new temple building expanded, the residential building at 104-106 remains in the organization. as francis summarized, the

building is nominated to the national register under criteria a, the grand oriented hotel stands as a strong bond of community that it forged in the early 20th century in racism and discrimination and it was a critical source of affordable housing and the organization occupied the building for over eight decades providing a space toly and celebrate philippino culture. although the building was sold in 2013 to mission housing, it will remain a force of affordable housing and is one of the larger cultural districts. i'm happy to answer questions. >> i'm paul barera. i would like to thank miss schultz and miss mcmillian for their presentations. i learned a little bit more.

it's a community treasure. it reflects the strength, resolve and commitment to building to philippino life in the city which is the mission. when the monhuhgs established this grand, it was illegal and that's why they incorporated as a masonic lodge because that would allow them to purchase the property. so that sort of, you know, clever, positive thinking is something that we like to consider one of our legacies to carry on the work that's been established by our ancestors in this country. it's now a permanent site for affordable housing and it's a testament to people power in the city and a crown jewel in the community. i would like to note that in one of the photos that francis

shared, there was an image of steve arevalo, who was a manila town activist and certainly one of, like, the last ogs from the hotel movement and he recently passed as well so it was refreshing to see his face in front. that was a nice moment for me and i think if my colleagues were here, they would have enjoyed that as well. they're quite honoured to support this, to the national register of historic places. i can't think of a better site in the city that reflects philippino life and strength. so thank you. >> memberany members that woulde to make public comment? >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm karen kye and i'm a board member of asian and pacific

islander americans in historic preservation, also known as apia hip. our consideratio organization so encourage the pacific islander communities in getting recognition for and preserving their community treasures. dr. don was one of our board members who is dearly missed. and it's a pleasure to be here today to support a project that was very dear to her heart. and for very obvious reasons and so thank you, we appreciate your inclusion of this treasure and hope that you will indeed forward its nomination on. thank you. >> i'm sorry. i had a speaker card. >> good afternoon. i'm woody labounty from san francisco heritage.

i would like to thank and welcome commissioners fol earthquakes and soh and thank them for their willingness, to serve the committee in this role. there regards to the national register nomination for 104-106 south park. , heritage commendsthem. the grands philippino hotel is the significant site not only to the formation of the community, but with san francisco's role as a gateway city, it is a significant site related to philippino ethnic heritage in the entire united states. we enthusiastically recommend the commission adopt a resolution supporting this nomination. thank you.

>> any a members of the public wish to make public comment? closing public comment and bringing it back to the commission. any commissioners, comment, public? >> yes, i move we adopt the resolution of support of this nomination to the national register of historic places foul. i second that. >> francis, is this going to be the very first national register nom nationomination for the phio community? do you know? >> i believe so. >> i think it is. it is in the county and city of san francisco but nation-body. nation-wood. >> i think stockton.

the only that i wanted to make is maybe -- i know you cannot dedicate this report to dr. movelon, but maybe you could add in a footnote of her and her efforts in making -- >> there is a footnote where i added that. >> i just saw her name mentioned. maybe if that could be called out more because she was such an active person in promoting preservation in the ful full pho community. >> were any oral histories taken to support this nomination? >> i don't believe so. i mean erica may have additional information. but as a part of the soma context statement that was created, there are oral

histories that were created. >> to maybe possibly include one or to, i think that would make this nomination even more powerful than it is. thank you. i'm sorry, there was a motion and was there a second? >> there was. >> so commissionerrerings, justf your resolution, you can call out and ask the ohp to further recognise the doctor. >> i would like to do that and include an oral history regarding this no this nominati. we really relied on this to help us support a project and that project could had a lot more strength, had oral histories been added. so i'm looking ahead to rely on

this, specificallily in the underrepresented communities. >> so if that's a proposed amendment to the motion -- >> yes. >> -- i accept that amendment. any seconds? >> yes, second. >> do you accept the proposed -- >> very gad, good, we adopt a resolution in support of the nomination with commissioner's recommendations. on that motion? (roll call). >> so moved and that passes 6-0. >> we're on item 12. this is 1830 sutter street. >> as president highland comes

back, i'll be asked to recuse myself from this particular item. >> i move you be recused and recommend we install a revolving door. >> thank you. >> commissioner black? (roll call). >> that motion passed 6-0. >> good afternoon. francis mcmillian. the item before you is a national register nomination for the japanese ywca women's building at 1830 sutte resource street. r strategy. they will comment on national

registries and forwarded to the state presente preservation. the building is a two-story wood framed structure in a japanese eclectic stool. style. it's on the east side elevation. it's a cross gable flat and consists of wood, multi-like casements. one story overraised based from the west elevation. it consists of aluminum windows. the japanese ywca is in the area of japanese ethnic heritage and social history for its associations with the struggles and accomplishments of the women

and african american ethic heritage. during world war ii, 1830

subtler was turned over the to ywca. contact tduring this period, thg was the location of numerous gatherings that advanced multiple, political and social causes, including the state for african-american civil rights. russ continue h.there wasthey hk course at the building. during the occupying of 1830 1830 subtler, ther sutter. (reading from document).

the period of significance from 1932-1959 encompasses the relocation to another site. as noted, the san francisco ywca

moved into the building in 1960 and programmed it to the late 1990s when he announced the buildings failed. the japanese american redress, a group of japanese americans lead a successful, legal struggle to retain title to the buildings to be kept in use for the benefit of the japanese community. it is anticipated that the community effort to retain the building for japanese use will be for significance in the future. staff agrees under criteria a with the ethnic heritage and struggles and accomplishments. staff agrees the building is locally significant for the civil rights and lgbtq right. the commissioner may recommend the nomination, not recommend

the nomination or recommend the nomination be revised. comments may be added to the resolution in your packets and forwarded to the reservation. this concludes my presentation. there are two patrons available for your questions. >> do you have an idea of how much time you would need? three or five. a couple of minutes. and karen probably another. >> three each, ok. >> good afternoon. my name is kathy and i'm executive director of the little friends and with me is karen kye, a former board member and current member of our capital campaign committee. on behalf of the organization, we thank you for your consideration of our facility to the national register of

historic places. we woulin addition, mr. hashimoo couldn't make it today but wanted us to state his support for nomination. there was a preschool programme in japan town in 1975. for nearly 44 years, we leased property from the golden gate institute, another historic japan town institution. the organization approached the ywca, the san francisco ywca to lease space in the former japanese facility to open a second preschool programme and we have operated there ever since. in 2012, there was the owner and steward of the women's building through an out-of-court settlement. we made a commitment for use of

the japanese american community and we have continued to keep this promise. we hope the recognition of this resource will promote the unique history and significance and allow the women's struggles in overing those struggles.

i walkethe first type i walked o 18318301830 sutter, it was so rk bibleremarkable and i had no idf its history and understand why it looked so japanese. i thought some day, this would be great to learn more about. i got that chance in 1996 when the san francisco ywca announced that they were evicting all tenants in order to sell the building. this moved the japanese american community to organize to save the building. there was a glimmer of hope that was offered by vague memories

from people who sort of remembered that there was something about a right to purchase the building because the japanese had actually built it. it was soon discovered the san francisco ywca held paper title to the building and that was due to the california alien land laws which forbid persons ineligible for citizenship, a euphemism for japanese americans, from owning real property. although it was paid for, they were legally barred from owning it outright. the modern-day san francisco ywca decided to deny this history and the courage of their own predecessors whose sense of justice compelled them to enter into a legal trust and that exposed them to the possibility of liability and even arrest for evading the alien land law. and the japanese american

community decided having lost so many cultural properties through the internment of japanese americans during world war ii, through the destruction and diaspra during the redevelopment and exclusion from je gent gentrification was formed.

we hope you'll continue supporting us. >> public comment? any members of the public wish to comment. >> i'm sorry i'm late. i'm auggi philip and my children took part and they, i guess -- they themselves are fifth generation from the western edition. aside from all of these wonderful reasons why this building is important for this nomination, i think also just that the architect herself that julian morgan, she did this work for this building pro bono and i think that says a lot. she did it for a specific reason. she believed in the women that

were her clients and believed in the cause and community. so she's probably the most important architect from california to this day that a female architect, if not from the united states. so please support this project. thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm robert rusky. i had the honor to be colead counsel in the litigation returning the building to the community and as karen mentions, the owner who has not only promised but more than lived up to the promise of the steward of the building and perpetuate who

were introduced to the history, the national importance of the history that the building represents. there's some structures that are important because of the people or the events or both that happen in them. and others seem to take on a character and a life of their own and almost seem to attract those very people and events that make them important. in my mind, the women's legacy building is one of those buildings. both architecture and cultural history make it eminently qualified in my view for national, local and state, historic recognition and i urge you to approve the recommendation for national recognition. thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon. i'm from the sanfrancisco

heritage. san francisco heritage is dedicated to preservation of the city's architectural legacy but also to sites that have important connections to the diverse cultures, subcultures, emergent social history and political movements that make san francisco singular and extraordinary. in 1830 sut ter, you have most of the character defined features in tact. but a building which is locally significant to japanese and american ethnic heritage. you have the african-american civil rights and lgbtq right's movements. this is a site well detailed prepared by donna graves and the planning department and we strongly recommend a resolution to support the nomination to the

national register of historic places. and i would like to add, you know, with redevelopment that had gone through the area after world war ii, this is a pretty singular building with japanese style that represents the japanese community that was there before internment removed it. this is another thing to consider. thank you. >> closing public comment. back to the commission. commissioner perlman? >> i do have one question for miss mcmillen. is there a reason why julia morgan is not identified as one of the identifiers for the area? >> i focused on the social history of the building. and so focusing more on that and

not on architecture. i would have to check and see if it's referenced in other nominations. i believe that's the strength of the nomination was developed. one of you said it's about doing what's right. from the architect who said i will do it pro bono to the group of women who said, we have to do something for our community through, you know, all the way to the present and the current ownership, it's just a very moving story.

it's the history of communities doing the right thing for the right reasons so i heartly endorse. this. >> i move we adopt the resolution. >> i second it. >> did you have a comment? >> i want to second it.

>> there's a motion that has been seconded to off adopt a resolution supporting the nomination. roll call (. pair (rol (rol (crime). >> the motion passed 5-0. >> we're on item 13.

>> good afternoon. i'm the preservation planner for environmental review of the 447 battery street project. joining me is the senior environmental planner for the project. members of the sponsored team are present, as well. today we're here to give the commission an opportunity to provide its comments on the adequacy of the alternatives for inclusion in the draft environmental impact report which is scheduled to be

published in spring of 2020. the building is on the southeast corner of battery and merchant streets. constructed in 1907 to the designs of act tex architect frk vantrese, this was a coffee center. this was adopted by the board of supervisors in 1970 as an official inven inventory. this determined that the subject building is individually eligible for the california register of historical resources under criterion 1 for the associations with post 1906 reconstruction and the historic

san francisco coffee industry and under criterion 3, as an example of 20th warehouse and type which has become increasingly rare. the period of significance is 1907 to 1967. the building is not located in a noted district. character to defining features are the rectangular footprint, the configuration of storefront entries on the ground story, the rhythm and upper story window openings and brick hornace. the new building will be alter with new awnings.

the planning department proposed this does not meet secretary of the interior standard for rehabilitation 2, 9 and 10. the project would negate the historic property status as a building through the demolition of the facade and entire roof and structure. furthermore, the new 18-story building that would rise out this would be incompatible in size and scale. therefore, the proposed project would cause a exhibit and unavoidable impact to the historic resource. purpose to the california environmental quality act or sequa, any project that results in an unavoi avoidable resourcet identify impacts, analyzes feasible alternatives and describes measures. this is to solicit comments from the preservation commission on

the adequacy on the alternatives for inclusion in the draft environmental impact report. in audition to the required no-project alternative, the team developed a full preservation alternative with a two-story rooftop addition and alterations in interiorinterventions. you will now hand the preservation over to the project team describing the project and alternatives in graduato greate. >> any idea of how much time do you need? >> up to ten but if you can do it in five. >> in five, absolutely. jodie knight, here on behalf of the project team. thanks for your time today. thanks very much to staff for their hard work on the presentation. justhis is the proposed project

which you saw a small picture of. wear excited about this project. it's been a long time in the making with a lot of discussions over the course of the years it's been underway with staff and have victi come to the currt design of the existing facade and harmonizing that with a proposed addition through the proposed materials.

if we want to do it in five, we should jump into stacie's presentation. thank you again for your time. >> we don't need to rush through it but i wanted a sense -- >> you don't need to hear from me any more. >> thank you. >> i'm with paige and turn turn. it's a no-project alternative including no modifications to the historic resource, no hotel unit added. all of the defining features would be retaunted wit retained.

this would have office and retail space on the first and third floors. the preservation would be the defining features of the resource and a portion of the interior structure would be retained and spacial relationships would be somewhat altered. the full preservation alternative would be a two-story addition, a mechanical penthouse for a total of 31,419 square feet. this would include a ground-floor restaurant and kitchen as well as hotel use, including guest and service lobbies at the guest floor with 42 hotel rooms. the full preservation would not require excavation but retain the full historic building including all facades. the existing rectangular

openings would be maintained but extended to the ground to create two entries and a window system which you can see a little bit on the sketch underneath the closed captioning. the glazed entries would be protected by flat glass awnings and all other openings on the primary and south facades would be preserved with glazing. a portion of the structure including the posts would be retained in this alternative. materials would be removed from the northwest circulation core and there would need to be interventions to support the rooftop. the two-story addition compromising the fourth and fifth floors are set back from the east and south facades of the historic portion of the building. the addition would be designed in a contemporary architectural style. the penthouse would be in the

northwest corner, further setback from the fifth floor. the final alternative is the partial preservation which would be the character defining features, mostly located at east and south street facades. the north and west facades would not be retained. this partial reservation would be stories beneath the existing building, thre three stories win the facades and five additional story and a mechanical penthouse. this would require excavation in order to construct the four base levels. due to this, none of the structure would be retained.

the partial preservation alternative would retain the east-facing and south facing facades. the ground floor openings on the east facade would be maintained and extended to create two entries and a centered full height window system and these entries would be protected by flat glass awnings. the south facade facing merchant street would be replaced with a glazed roll-up garage door, a single glazed door and two recollecrectangular flat awning. the third stories would be retaunted antauntretained and rh glazed awnings. the upper fleit would be designn

architectural style with glazing and a mechanical penthouse set back from the roof of the eighth floor. those are the three alternatives and i will hand it back to jodie. >> if eric would have a couple of minutes, that would be great. >> explain the proposed project. >> we originally designed a stand-off lope buildinstand-alos was before we started to understand the existing building and so we started working closely with the planners to come up with a scheme and a design to retain the facades of the existing buildings. our problem is because of anything you get over 75 feet with this type of building, you become a life safety building and even with the historical

codes, you have to gut the interior out because it's a hood and that's typical anywhere in the city. so we were trying to make the project work with the existing facade, be able to keep it up and we have done this before and we were the architects where we preserved the mining exchange building and th architects for y hall, too. we chose materials above the height to match with the brick building below. we have stone panels and glass panes.

thank you. >> thank you. whyda we take public comment. any members wish to comment. >> i'm woody labounty and we have not fully reviewed this project but i just want to make a point that we are consistently on record against facadism, which the partial, quote, preservation option that's been presented on the screa screen so be a part of, the hig hyphen dos not mitigate the imposition above and the scale is out of proportion with the resource. so we would like to know more

about this project and be involved going forward, but i just want to put us on record as being un-equivcally opposed to the facadism. >> any other members of the public? closing public comment. before we open it up to commissioners, i just wanted to point out two things and maybe have staff talk about the second one. the first item, i wanted to remind everyone of is over the years, we have been reviewing the draft eirs an alternatives and have made improvements to the process and most recently, we've been asking the project to come before us during the scoping phase, which i believe this is close to, or at least before publishing of the draft eir to give better guidance to the public sponsor before they spend money evaluating projects we come back and ask them to reevaluate.

so that's where we're at. that's some of the comments we want to be giving fea feedback . i don't know if director ram or rich, if you can talk about how the retained element's policy that we're developing either could be applied to this, if it was applied or if there was any further interaction around what we've learned and where we're at with retained element's policy. >> the department is working on a a policy for elements. there's a lead for urban design in the department and looking at applying toward projects and i

think there's, obviously, a lot of confusion about whether or not that's considered preservation or not. in a lot of instances, wear not using the retained elements as a matter of preservation but more for urban design purposes or designer view in certain cases. we have a lot of texture within the city and a pretty wide variety of neighborhoods and in certain cases, the kind of old elements of the neighborhood can kind of fit in nicely with new design and certainly it's certainly something to consider. but today we haven't adopted a retained policy. >> so this project hasn't benefited from any our work in regards to the retained element's policy? >> in the preservation staff, this project was developed with the urban design team.

so you can sea that reflected in certain specific aspects of the zane, includindesign, includingr above and in the cladding materials selected for the new construction, masonry materials meant to be compatible with the brick and in the way that stone cladding is applied to the tower is actually in some ways resembles brick mason relative y construction. it did benefit from the draft retained element's policy but that has not yet been approve. thank you. >> that policy is scheduled before the planning commission in november. >> great. >> will it come before us? >> if you would like it to. >> i would.

>> i don't think this meets the requirement of working. i believe the preservational lacklooks the same but in termsa preservational alternative, it is not. it's pretty much a full demolition. so i don't think that we have a partial preservation alternative for this. so i don't think it works at this point. >> commissioner john's? >> well, actually, it's funny that you say that, because i agree with you and i thought that the partial preservation alternative and the project were

not only pretty much the same but i preferred the project to the preservation alternative and the reason i did was because at least the project soars and it has an interesting step-back group. whereas the preservation alternative which guts the building is like a giant hand squishing down on what is left of the brick. i have to say, i am not automatically offended by what some people call facadism. for me, there's a continuum and it starts with the facade preserved and as you go along the way, you get into retaken rd elements. you have to look at the

individual project and see, well, what is the best that you can do under the circumstances? it does seem to me that we're in this position here, there's a building of a structure and size that is just not going to work for most purposes. and some i'm not sure. that was the first thing i thought of, well want could be done to preserve this building? it seems like there isn't a lot. so i do agree with commissioner perlman that the preservation alternative aren't really preservation alternatives. so i think that, maybe, the thing to do is be honest and straightforward about it, saying this is where we are and you keep the building or you tear it down. >> if i can interject, commissioner perlman.

my understanding is that we can get further feedback and this isn't necessarily a preservation alternative. i one in which it would not meet the standards but would go somewhere between a small alternative and mitigating some of the impacts. so in that context, i agree thar comment on that?

i do think there are aping applications that could be added no a contemporary way. if i wasn't explained to me, i wouldn't have understood it. there's a base, a cornice. there's a cornices at the top and the existing could be the existing base and there could be

arctic kaarticulation. weda have enough context in the urban context to understand how this stepping of the upper floors relate to the other buildings and won't be needed. the top floor which has the highest floor, whatever floor that has the full african-american, there could be arctic coarticulation.

the whole goal is to understand if there's a superior project to the proposed project. and while i understand the goals and the modern, you know, bend of the design, i do think with the retaunted element of the facade, speaking to it is important. otherwise it becomes a, lack, another project where the preservation made you keep these facades and it's a riddle bandaid to the building. so the alternative could have a similar programme to it. articulate a cornice and i don't know the context here but i know

at 706 mission, we talked about a hotel mid-block and i forget which one it is, on third between mission and market, a '60s hotel that really responded to the cornice lines of the block and this one does it. idi don't know if there's any context to respond to. i think it could be grounded but that could be my comments. >> i disagree with that analysis. first of all, we're designing the building, which i don't think we're supposed to be done. i think we're analyzing whether these particular alternatives are appropriate for the project and i disagree. i think the partial

alternative -- the partial project alternative is exactly the same as the project. i mean, i get it there's not a big tower on top of it, but there needs to be a partial preservation alternative dust dt different from the project. whether it has a cornice, it's still the project proposed. i don't think this meets what we are to review. we have the full preservation alternative, the no project alternative but we don't have any partial alternative that meets the requirements of what it is supposed to do as being

different from the project. we started chewing away at it and the whole deal blew up and now we have nothing and i saw the rendering of the project that's going at 450 and the building is gone. so either we accept that the building is gone or we honor the notion of having these alternatives to try to evaluate whether a project makes sense or not. youda thinyouwe shouldn't be det here but evaluating the process. >> commissioner black? >> i find both arguments compelling. i think part of the problem wit

partial preservation alternative is that it does look just like the project. the swear footage, of course, is a bit less because it doesn't soar as much as the project. i think a partial preservation alternative that is physically different from the project would solve the problem. in terms of being adequate in terms of the premise of the eir. so i would recommend that be the project -- or that be the alternative that is workin workn the most because i think it's similar to the project. >> i have a question for staff, does the partial preservation have to be that dust? different?

>> the difference is to design an alternative that reduces impacts to the historic resource. not as much as the full preservation alternative but reduces impacts. another clarifying comment to make is that the resolution that this commission adopted to specify the process of developing alternatives, that a full preservation alternative is required, but that a partial preservation alternative may be required, so it could be that the commission's direction to omit a partial preservation alternative if that's decided to be the direction. but yes. >> i was going to add, i many, one of the things i heard you say and i think i appreciate you on clarifying the purpose. that termimplies, you're preserving by some standards,

part of the building. i heard you say the issue isn't necessarily the size of the addition for the partial preservation alternative. it's how much you're changing the existing been. so building.it had to do with ws happening to the existing structure that would constitute, perhaps, a partial preservation alternative. so maybe less changes to the existing been that would meat that. meet that. >> absolutely. although -- unless i'm unaware of some really extraordinary character-defining feature on the interior, i'm a little less concerned about losing some of that. i get it that structurally it doesn't make sense. i think it's the effect of the design on the structure of the existing resource that