Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Committee forwards Mother’s Building landmark designation to full board

Land Use and Transportation Committee of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors · July 25, 2022
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Land Use & Transportation Committee voted to forward an ordinance recommending that the Mother’s Building at the San Francisco Zoo be designated a city landmark after planning staff described its 1925 architecture and WPA‑era murals and public commenters urged designation.

The Land Use and Transportation Committee on Monday voted to forward an ordinance recommending that the Mother’s Building at the San Francisco Zoo be designated a San Francisco landmark.

Supervisor Mierna Melgaard, who sponsored the measure for her District 7, said the 1925 structure is “unique” and houses murals and mosaics created under the Works Progress Administration. Planning department staff told the committee the building meets Article 10 eligibility standards for significance in women’s social history and as an example of Italian Renaissance‑style architecture.

Shannon Ferguson of the Planning Department summarized the case for designation, noting the building’s WPA murals and mosaics and that the Historic Preservation Commission had unanimously recommended designation on June 15, 2022. “The department recommends approval of landmark designation,” Ferguson told the committee.

Speakers representing preservation groups urged approval during public comment. Carolyn Monquet, introducing herself as the new president and CEO of San Francisco Heritage, said the designation would honor the building’s WPA artwork and thanked Supervisor Melgaard and earlier advocates for advancing the nomination.

After public comment, Chair Melgaard moved to forward the ordinance “to the full board with a positive recommendation as a committee report.” The committee recorded three ayes and the motion passed.

Next steps: the ordinance will be considered by the full Board of Supervisors on a later agenda (the clerk noted committee‑report items are expected to appear on the board’s September 6 agenda unless otherwise stated).