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 youll hear the Planning Department didnt receive the photos. And probably all of you could have written three quarters of the nomination from what you know about the building. Im 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 characterdefining feature. Heres the building when viewed looking west on golden gate avenue. These are two of the most important character defining interior spaces above this. A mens 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 didnt need a Swimming Pool and couldnt 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 boys entrance on leaven worth building. There isnt anymore an adult and Childrens 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 boys 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 didnt 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 whos alive in the 1970s and 80s that see this, even though it wasnt 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 thats 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 septemberoctober, the revisions with the staff historian were completed and its scheduled for the february 2 Resources Commission meeting. [bell ringing] i found out last week about the Planning Department staff comments and youre 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, were 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 hes hoping that this process will not derail action on february 2 from occurring and thats just for some future meeting of the historic Resources Commission. We dont know when. I will once the historian in sacramento receives the citys official comment and yours, ill work with her and im 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 thats 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 its 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 its 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. Im 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 eyetoeye. The historian in sacramento said move all that stuff to the end, which i did and then the planner didnt even get the photos, by the way. So the communication here is not seamless so she didnt 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, well 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 shouldnt . 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 wasnt 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 wasnt explained clearly in the nomination. So, im 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, thats what yes. Thats 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 youre 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 facilitys in it is how theyre 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 wasnt 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. Its 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 im driving at is, you know, is the Community Building already a type . Its 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 renaissancestyle architecture. But the way the statement significance is worded, its significant under criterion c in architecture because it embodies the distinctive characteristics of an early 20th century building. Its not stating wlitzs like because of its architecture or because that its this Community Building type. That is the difference. Ok. Why cant it be both . It could potential little be both. It could potentially be both, but it is not stating as its viable and eligible example of a early 20th Century Community building. Right. Could that be added . The renaissance revival thats faced later. Thats why im saying the recommendations for copy editing, its not stated clearly up front that it is a example of renaissance reviralstyle building. Its discussed later in that style in the Community Building details is not discussed at length later. So it could thank you, joe. [laughter] weve 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, its kind of like saying thank you. Gave some clarity. Commissioner . I swouz thrilled to see the photos of the pediment because ives 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 were 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 dont think so. And i dont 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 thats sufficient, it seems like its 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 . Im happy to work with it. I dont know, you are out workload. I dont know the workload of the historian. I dont know how many days ahead she has to have it final. So that would be my only concern. Mr. Knapp, im sorry. Tim frye, department staff. If i could interrupt for a second. I dont 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 . Id 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, im 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 its probably 10 or 15 days ahead of february 2. So 16 days from now. And that is only 16 days from now. So, im wondering that is what im 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 im 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. Im 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 dont see that clearly reflected. I dont 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 todays 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 theyre 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. But fast forward to all the things that happened post world war ii as well. Theres many communitis that benefited and continue to benefit. Yeah. If its it may be a simple fix like bullet points, stating the number of programmes and theres already a good bit of information in the nomination, just expanding that a little bit further. Right. We could rely on this information, you know, for nominations at other levels and other Historic Context statements could use this information. Right. Thank you. Commissioner pearlman. Can i ask about the need for speed. Were talking about cramming a lot of information and deadlines and up to the 16 days from now is friday, february 2. So is there another hearing within a short period of time, because like were saying, id hate to have it almost done and then something happens because its almost done as opposed to waiting a months or two. So, mr. Frye . Commissioners, i was going to reframe what our thinking of the process would be moving forward is if this commission because this commission has passed resolutions in favour of a National Register nomination with the condition that certain edits be tidied up before the state hears the item. You could do that, in this case, and your recommendation is still advice to the state commission if they decide to agree with it or disagree wit, that is their discretion. I think what ms. Mcmillan and mr. Knapp have said is theyre willing to Work Together quickly to address these edits so that way when mr. Knapp is at the state commission can say hes addressed this commissions concerns. I think that is still an appropriate approach. If you dont, i mean, were certainly open to other options. Its fine. You know, i heard a number of people, including maybe the director of the ymc, or mr. Knapp said something that the ymca, you know, i feel this kind of vibration about gotta get done, gotta get done. The tnbc yeah. Ymca. Mr. Faulk, im sorry. Im just wondering is there some reason that, you know, if there is another hearing on march 2, can it just be moved one month. We postpone thing all the time here. Im just wondering if there is something about this particular date, mr. Knapp . You know something about this . Maybe i didnt explain it before. They meet four times a year only. And in the hopper of nominations, the staff in sacramento have approved, they cant hear them all at one hearing and there is this jockeying. So my concern is not only could we get bumped three months, then we could be competing with other people who are better at lobbying than we are and find ourselves bumped six months. That is my concern. Ok. I appreciate that. Thank you. Thats helpful. Thank you. Is commissioners oh, ok. [laughter] ill move that we ill move the staff recommendation that we do the edits, that we explained here and described today. And that mr. Knapp work with our staff to support our recommendation for nomination to the National Register [inaudible]. Thank you. Commissioner hyland . I just want to understand mr. Frye and ms. Mcmillan is can we commit to working with mr. Knapp to get the edits done so it doesnt get booted off of this right. It would have to go immediately because they requested 15 days before their hearing. We would get the letter right away and it would say that were recommending approval with these revisions. I guess the question is, can the revisions be made in the time and that means hspc staff would want to see the revisions before they made their own recommendations. Correct. Once we have the resolution number, well forward remail the resolutions to the state, o. H. P. And then well just continue to work with mr. Knapp. If he needs ours tansing, great. If not, were happy to just work dlektsly with the state office to let them know that, you know,