>> good afternoon, president wu, members of the commission, staff from the department. the department has and will continue to regard this as a historical resource. this is the facade of the department do acknowledge that and notice the faus on embarcadero and do contribute to the history. however, we believe it's the stuart street facade that is most closely associated with the historic events relate to why the building's significance in the first place. so there are changes to embarcadero facade that wouldn't be consistent with the interiors but as a whole we did not believe it would cause a significant impact to the resource. therefore an impact to the environment.

>> if the common wealth wouldn't move it there, would it be in the article? >> it would still be considered' resource and if someone wanted to pursue landmark of the property, they can. >> my question to the project sponsor, thank you. common wealth club. project sponsor team? and the fact taht is that you landmark that part of the billion are -- building, are you going to landmark it? >> hi, ceo of the club, daughter of the docks in san francisco in the 1930s. so we have not thought of landmarking it. we can certainly look into it.

i should say that the common wealth club intention is to bring this history including the association with harry bridges and the events of 1934 more to public attention through this building. we have very extensive plans to do that. so we'll certainly look at the landmark in question. it is not our intention at all to suppress that rather to bring it to public light. >> it just makes sense with the measures that you would take the next logical step. >> we have to look into it. >> what was your response to that letter? >> the letter was written without sf having heard the last corrections in the plan such as the setback.

i have been talking to you bureau because it has the set backs. the other points is we should consult with labor historians. the labor archives and i have spoken with the secretary treasurer adams who is very amenable to this project >> sea -- so you move this to 3 feet. >> she had seen prior drawings already setback. >> i don't know what the dimensions are and the other one has a crooked setback. >> again, i would like to ask our architect.

she's knowledgeable. the tower needs to be closed according to the fire code and we set the building back further creating that tariff setback. >> okay. i have no further questions. thank you. >vice-president cindy wu: commissioner antonini? >>commissioner michael j. antonini: i was present in the 2009 hearing on the building. it was a different project. it called for the demolition of the entire building and building of a new structure that was also contemporary i believe was well over 100 feet.

this building proposes on the 51 feet in 84 -foot hide district. in fact most of the discussion for the hearing which we approved was at the height of the building. i think there was mention of the historic nature of the building and that came up somewhat subsequent to the time we discussed the haines building at 120 embarcadero. we are looking for someone with a situation here and a lot of the integrity of the facade on the embarcadero side is no longer there because the windows have been removed. it's not the way it was. i think they are doing an excellent job of preserving the

stuart street side outside of where the shootings occurred and where this began. this calls for a lot of plaques and mention within the building of an historical memorializing this building in the 1934 strikes. i think that there are a lot of factors here it would be eligible for article 10, i'm not really sure. as part of the idea that the whole area could be a historic district, i skwenly would -- generally would have to agree with staff that there are buildings that need to be replaced that there isn't enough history for historic building for historic events.

the trees outside there seem to be unhealthy and block the sidewalks a little. they need to be paired down or removed and probably putting smaller trees makes more sense. so there were few other things that came up, there were questions about bird safety and my understanding is there is a way to put the glass in that that would make it bird safe and i believe that's part of the design. and we are able to temper the glass and treat it in such a way that it becomes actually more temperature regretting be the case with precast walls. i'm always an advocate for more precast than glass. but that's not what we are talking about. so i'm supportive mitigated

nag dak but i will see what other commissioners have to say before i make a motion. >vice-president cindy wu: commissioner hillis? it depends on how we act here and kind of what this building was used for before. it's an interesting but first on the p.m.d i would agree with staff that this adequately addresses and talks a lot about these issues here and adequately addresses the impact of the project. this is a little bit unusual

that the project doesn't come back for us but i guess it's code compliant, but i believe the p.m.d responds in the project itself. i don't think are necessarily related to the p.m.d. first of all in the 2009 project there was a lot of discussion brought up about the project. can somebody give us a brief history of what that project did and what the board of supervisors was talking about took some action to designation this building what it did do after that? >> i might be able to start. the project before you in 200 # 9 was a proposed office building of 30 feet

in height that would require a change to the zoning. it was an office building of 130 feet. they supported that proposal 4-3 and the board subsequently denied the project. the board didn't landmark the building afterwards but they did make a statement about the historic events that occurred in the billion, i -- building. staff can clarify that last point. >>commissioner kathrin moore: it was a low grade garbage adding 100 cars to the site. it eliminated any possible recall of the importance of the stuart street side and completely ignored the existing context of any of the buildings next to it. it was an aggressive office building which was as an office

building quite inappropriate in terms of it's facade treatment etc. had a strong push back from at least 3 commissioners. and also attitude -- used the public realm to exercise this for important purnsz. -- purpose. there were other issues involved. what stands clear for me is that it had a garbage entrance on -- garage entrance on the stuart street side and that was totally beyond comprehension. >> i recall being around that and a lot of issues revolved around land use. in that regard, i believe this project is appropriate for it's size,

it's massing and design. my question is how do you honor events that happened here and is whapg -- what's happening here honoring the events. the use is not there. that's within this building and it's an interesting question on how you best honor that. it's not necessarily the best of the building or the design of the building that was paramount to what happened in terms of who was occupying the building and what happened around the area. certainly, you can make arguments for the embarcadero facade to keep the integrity of the building. i don't think it necessarily adds recognizing what happened in 1934. i think it great that the common wealth club with it's mission one has a home and will be able to stay here, but also is it an organization that will take seriously what happened there and honor that as

opposed to an office developer. i think it's responded sense actively to the stuart street side. the p.m.d has addressed it's impact. >vice-president cindy wu: commissioner moore? >>commissioner kathrin moore: thank you for your comments because i sat through the first one which didn't do anything and they had to be reminded and then there was a blank stare to acknowledging the importance. facts and details from p.m.d spells out the importance and again the question of how do you preserve memory, how do you honor memory and in what form do you respectfully now bring the archives, the library, etc literally to the doorstep of stuart street? you have to walk in and you

are in the middle of it. huh? i do not believe the building which you don't even know when you walk by on the embarcadero side reads as one building. it's clearly read as two buildings because of today's use and transformation. i would acknowledge that the p.m.d it's complete. that it doesn't address the emotional response to how this building moved forward and this issue that it's in front of us today. >vice-president cindy wu: commissioner johnson. >> thank you very much. i agree with commissioner moore that this is about commemorating an event

rather than commemorating an actual structure. i will make a point that i don't necessarily think they will ride to appeal the p.m.d but with minor changes. this is a minor one in terms of mitigation towards looking at the historical resources itself. the first one on page 24 impacts pp 1 looks at is there an impact to historical resource and the determination and what they are saying about how you commemorate an event and this is something that is very important to us and looks at ways to do that and the impact is less significant with the mitigation. that's a different determination. i'm not sure if again that rises to a level of accepting the appeal. it's something that i noted in my reading. the second is again on talking about

the mitigation and i'm focused on the p.m.d is what stands. so one of the things and the number of mitigation that were proposed by the common wealth club to memo rate the events that happened m 1934. but when i think about a building, i think about it's a structure that will potentially out live the common wealth club being the owner tenant. i look at which the mitigation at the time as they decide to move to a larger space or somewhere else. to me what stood out. i'm not sure this is something that is reflected in the p.m.d and not sure that it rises to the level of the appeal or p.m.d but i would put out there that there are potential let's look an other mitigations for maintaining the history of

that site in ways that are not directly connected to the common wealth club being the tenant, although of course i support everything the common wealth club is going to do in terms of programming and having other resources in the building itself when they are there. so those are a few points in the historical resources and a couple other ones. this one is when we talk about greenhouse emissions for the building, the impact ggw when -- 1 when it talks about greenhouse emissions and it would be great to see more about that status what you are going to do to get to platinum status will get new status than just being a new building. that could be amended in the p.m.d and can help the cause of new construction

and more environmentally sustainable than what's there now. the final one is a minor question, this is actually the next action item we are going to consider, we are looking at some modifications to article 38 at the planning commission and in this p.m.d, this actually is an air pollutant exposure zone. if article 38 goes forward would this project be underneath soon with that? are there other environmental documents that will reference the legislation if it goes through? >> the short answer that this project is going under the current regulations. if the regulations are adopted, the work has already been done to address the project by project basis. i think if those changes happen it

allows for some of the things we've done in this project to apply citywide. >> president wu, commissioners, environmental planning. i will be here on the next item but the mitigation measures that i believe applies to construction equipment, the next item is only going to deal with public projects, i will define what that means. so this would not be updated as part of that ordinance. >> okay. excellent. thank you. >> commissioner antonini? >>commissioner michael j. antonini: i'm going to move to uphold this declaration. >> second. cl eric clerk commissioners there is a motion and second to uphold the negative declaration, on that motion, commissioner antonini, hillis,

johnson, moore, richards, fong and president wu? aye. city clerk: that passes unanimously with a vote a >> please silence any mobile devices and whe speaking before the commission, if you do care to state your name for the record. commissioners we left on items 13 ab. item 13: . 2014.1295u w. wietgrefe; 4155 575-90500 health and building code amendment - amending health code, article 38 [board file no. 140806] - ordinance amending the health code, article 38 to require an enhanced ventilation system for sensitive use projects within the air pollutant exposure zone, and establishing document review fees; amending the building code to correspond to the health code changes, and making environmental findings, and findings under the california health and safety code; and directing the clerk of the board of supervisors to forward this ordinance to the

california building standards commission upon final passage. preliminary recommendation: adopt a recommendation for approval 13b. 2014.1296u w. wietgrefe; 4155 575-90500 administrative and environment code amendment - amending clean construction ordinance [board file no. 140805] - ordinance amending the administrative code to require a construction emissions minimization plan and monitoring for public projects within the air pollutant exposure zone, as mapped pursuant to health code, article 38; amending the administrative and environment codes to reflect these requirements; and making environmental findings 1234 >> good afternoon commissioners i'm from environmental public staff and the office of supervisor >> cohen. >> the ordinances introduced by supervisor cohen achieved this by aligning city law with measures by california environmental quality act as ceqa. before i present this further, i'm going to have andrea talk about why supervisor cohen introduces this. >> good afternoon commissioners, andrea, from supervisor cohen's office. thank you for listening to this item today. we worked with staff to introduce these two items which they have spent a lot of time on over

the past couple of years. largely, the supervisor represents a portion of san francisco that is experiencing a tremendous amount of growth and also contains as you will see on the map which has a large number of hot spot zones. it is no secret that exposure to particulate matters like to from traffic and -- diesel transmission can cause significant impact. both of these ordinances before you today take approach, both on the operator's side make it more predictable what the ventilation will be under ceqa and making it part of the regulations and expand the public health requirements that we have for new residential buildings and rehabilitation of building in the identified air quality hot spot zones. the clean construction ordinance also

increases the standards for diesel equipment that are used in public projects. so both of these are part of an overall strategy to provide more predictability to project sponsors that are ceqa obligations as far as provide additional public health strategies for residential construction . i will turn it over to planning staff but i'm happy to answer any questions you have. >> thank you, andrea. first i'm going to walk through the ordinance. the 16th construction is for public projects. public projects just to para

phrase the definition in the existing ordinance means a contract performed by the city and fully funded by the city estimated to 20 or more required days of construction. there is specific requirements in the ordinance that say what that clean air construction equipment must be. the existing article 38 was adopted in 2008. if modeling requiring pursuant to article 38 that only roadway pollution pursuant to health base criteria requires an inhalation system prior to entering a unit. the exist is law applies to buildings of 10 units or more. the law was created as a result of the eastern planning process because a lot of the uses, we are going to be zoning for a lot of uses near

existing zonings for air pollution. so air pollution is not something that is often susceptible to the public which is fine part collar matter that andrea talked about that consist of particles one 30th the size of a human hair. some of the larger particles can be per susceptible. to illustrate this, this slide shows the inside of a condominium development near the station and construction project. tht z do the. it was common 10 years ago before this ordinance went into effect.

the z dot systema allows opening into the air of the unit. a colleague of department of public health who lives in this building started to put in filters inside and outside of the unit. cohen has been bringing this. this is after two 2 months of installing them on the inside of the unit and this is two months 2 months on the outside of the unit. as you see a lot of the particles have actually fallen off since that time. we have been taking notes for about a year now. but this does not capture the fine pashls that -- particles that i mentioned and not get ting to

the air pollution that get into the system. this is the notice articles. i just noted my notes on tv here. anyhow, i don't think i say anything disparaging in my notes. this last refers to san francisco chronicle article that really talk about the negative effects of the air pollution and talks about the two proposed ordinances and the article on the right was more recently about a proposed development that i'm not sure if it's been before the commission yet but it's planned near a freeway. i'm not necessarily going into detail with health effects associated with pollution. karen can talk about that better than i could, but more and more research is coming out about

the negative health effects. it's not related just to the respiratory but cardiovascular diseases. with that research in 2009 and 2010, the bay bay area air quality management district released guides that the local health affects pollution more which was in 2002. most jurisdictions in san francisco used the guide put out by the districts when analyzing projects impact subject to ceqa. the new guidance required most development and construction projects to hire consultants in time consuming and cost remodeling from all -- known sources of air pollution. not just what it is required. during construction the use of cleaning of construction equipment

what this meant even cleaner construction on top of what is already required. during operation, the installation offen enhanced ventilation system. even the roadway model that the project would not require to install the system, for example if the project included child care or less than 10 residential units, ceqa was still making us install these systems chls these two were imposed on projects through ceqa imposed mitigation measures. given this burdensome process that is resulted in the same outcomes, the planning and department of public health used climatology in the data for air pollution not just road ways to estimate and

excess cancer risk in san francisco. criteria was established to create the map which is shown on exhibit e in your packet and the blue on the map. so for projects sites located in the zone, are not required for modeling but for active ceqa mitigation measures. therefore the pros amendments to the ordinances seek to codify this mitigation measures and would continue to protect the public health during the process of the potential health effects but instead of being mitigation measures it would be codified. the proposed amendments to the clean construction ordinance would require even cleaner equipment for the public projects and outside the air pollutant exposure zone you will still