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] whats 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, theres 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 cants as recommended will be in conformance with the requirements of article 10 and the secretary of the interiors standards for rehabilitation. The proposed project would cause minimal changes to the form of the building without removing any characterdefining 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 rightofway. 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. Staffs 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. Im a project manager on this for this project. Im 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. Its located within the liberty hill landmark district and was constructed in 1895. The existing home is an existing twostorey 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, were 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 thats 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, im 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, well take Public Comment. Any member of the public wish to speak . Seeing and hearing none, well 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 theres a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter with conditions. On that motion [roll call] so move, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously 50. 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, its 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 amendments 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 its 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 regions 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 preservations 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. Im happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Any questions for ms. Ferguson . No . That at this time, well take Public Comment. I believe the authors are also here today. Ok. I see one of them right there. Good afternoon. Im 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 whos also going to speak. I thought wed 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 governments effort to employ citizen artists during the depression through the public works of art project which was only a sevenmonthlong 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 towers interior represents the largest collection of federally funded art, created under this programme and its an extensive fresco undertaking, which makes it unique. The coit tower group included the most wellknown 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. Ill 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 highprofile 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. Im 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 didnt 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 its 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 whats in the record now because it is much more accurate and id be happy to answer any questions if you have some. Thank you. I dont believe we have any questions at the moment. Any other member of the public wish to speak . Seeing and hearing none, well close Public Comment. Commissioners, comments . Commissioner johnck . Id like to congratulate catherine and mr. Churney and john [bell ringing] a great project coming forward and looking into the investigation of [inaudible] so im certainly honoured to be part of the sequel because ive 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 theres 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 50 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 womens 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