about the events and the 1934 strike and no one mentions that two men were erroneously jailed -- moonings and buildings and murders they didn't have anything to do with. i don't know why there is more enthusiasm preserving these two buildings that are really one building. i hope you remember the way your predecessors voted in 1989 and roll back the development plans. they have been modified. we appreciate that but should be provided more. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker please. >> hello supervisors. i am richard mc kree and live in e the area and i have nothing against new buildings or

construction. i thinkthe challenge today is not identify what we can do to make jobs but we need to make with climate change our whole game is changing. we need to be become aware there is tremendous waste if we don't recognize the history we have and build on that. we have done that in the past but i think ever since some call it the greedy 80's or nasty 90's things are kind of mean in this town and we haven't paid attention to some important factors and that is called environmental embodied energy. i don't know if you have heard of this but existing buildings represent the resources that went into them in the first place and something our whole society begins to recognize and stop unnecessary destruction and creating green jobs by doing that by respecting the past and we will not needlessly

destroying things. the world knows we're foss you will fools and nothing to be proud of. >> >> because america is responsible for a disproportions eatd amount of the chamber of commerce and if san francisco is progressive we should stop rubber stamping unnecessary destruction. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker please. >> tom gilbert. i live in san francisco. i'm kind of like a neighbor, kind of place where i like to roll. it's flat. i used to do that more often. i am surrounded by facades that have been saved and buildings that have grown out of them. we don't really need just to save the facade. we need to save the buildings. the surrounding area around the ferry building right there is unique. it's a

historical link through time to a different architecture and to another historical gem of an event. we need to protect our gems. we need to continue our link and part of 80 years ago is a gem especially an event of magnitude. if the commonwealth club can't fit in the building as it is we should save the whole building, but if they can't fit that way, then they should find another shoe. cinderella can only work the magic in certain places and certain times. with that said i would like to save the whole block again. thank you. >> thank you very much. are there any other members of the public who would like to speak in support of the appeal at this time please come forward.

seeing none public comment is closed. [gavel] and now at this time we will recognize the planning department. >> good afternoon president breed and members of the board. i am the environmental and transportation planner with the planning department. joining me staff from the office. the subject of this appeal hearing is the finally mitigated negative declaration prepared by the planning department for the proposed project at 110 the embarcadero and 115 steuart street. the proposed project includes vertical addition of a 30 story roof deck to the vacant building and rehabilitation of the building to house functions for the commonwealth club of

california. the decision is whether up hold the decision and deny the appeal or return the project to the department for preparation of an environmental impact report. we sent you a packet dated january 16, 2015 responding to the issues in the appeal. in the report the department find that the proposed project would not result in any significant impacts on the environment that could not be mitigated thus we believe the report was properly prepared. the appeal letter filed with the board of supervisors by david os good with the rincon neighborhood association focuses on the impacts of historic resources. the appellant cites a 2009 position on a proposed project on the site. involved demolition of the existing

building and construction of a a story building in its place. this project involves renovation and i will turn the presentation over to tina who will address the concerns in the appeal letter. >> good afternoon president breed and members of the board. tina tam senior preservation planner for the planning department. according to the appellant there are three concerns. . the building is not only significant to the strike but significant with the association of harry bridges and not compatible with the neighborhood that insure considered historic district. it's in the findings that these areas are a historic resource. the property qualifies as a historic resources with the

association with the longshoremen's association and has a district association with the 1934 general strike and other events such as the shootings that occurred outside of the building known as bloody sunday and the property is a resource. as stated in the documents the building was not found under listing two for persons and because of the lack of association between the building and in individual includes harry bridges. while he was a member of the union and one of the organizers of the strike the building doesn't have direct association with harry bridges or union members or leaders. without evidence to give connection between them the department stands behind the determination that the property

is significant under one criteria. please note that even if the building had been determined to also be eligible for this under criterion two for person the evaluation of impacts would have been be conducted in any different matter and the department would conclude no changes to the building so the changes along the embarcadero the department stands by the changes will not impact the historic resource. [inaudible] one along the embarcadero and the other along steuart street. while much of the embarcadero facade is original and contributes to the building's history the significant property closely associated with the steuart street facade. the changes to the embarcadero facade will not cause a material impairment and such that the building will no longer convey

the significance. the project will preserve and restore the facade with the completion of the project and give the significance under criteria one. with regard to the design and not being compatible with the neighborhood character the department disagrees with the appellant. the department disagrees with the statement that the property is within a potential historic district and out of design with the neighborhood character. the department studied the surroundings buildings and didn't find that with the theme. many of the buildings have been drastically altered and don't maintain sufficient integrity. the property is a historic resources whether under one criteria or two -- significant for more than one doesn't make it more of a historic resource.

there are no other -- [inaudible] criterion. the review of changes is done in the same matter no matter how many and the department finds the project would not cause significant impact to the historic resources. while the department appreciates this concern he hasn't given any evidence to refute that. >> in conclusion the department has found with mitigation the project wouldn't have significant impact on the environment and to the mitigated negative declaration pursuant to the california environmental quality act. and didn't show this

showed occur as part of the project. nor would it provide further information for assessing the topics for environmental review. the department upheld this recommendation at the hearing. for these reasons the department recommends that the department up hold this and deny the appeal. this concludes the planning department's appeal and we're available if you have questions. >> thank you very much. supervisor kim. >> thank you madam president. i just had a couple of questions coming from a place not being a historic preservation expert i wanted to ask about this project in particular, so to me it's new to see a building or a parcel where one side is deemed a historic resource and other is not and i am curious how often

do these determinations happen and what leads to that determination? >> tina tam for the planning department. the subject building is a historic resource. we called the facade on embarcadero and steuart street [inaudible] and based on why it's significant and association with the longshoremen and it's closely related with the headquarters located on the steuart street side. the department didn't find that it's consistent with the standards but we didn't feel that the project would materially impair the resource so the building is no longer a resource under ceqa. >> okay. that was slightly hard for me to follow but just to follow up on that so the building as a whole is considered historic resource. in the plan i have seen

presented to plan a the commonwealth club is proposing to preserve the steuart street side which is considered to have -- >> most closely associated with why the building is significant in the first place. >> and why the building is considered historically significant is due to the 1934 events. is that correct. >> correct [inaudible] >> [inaudible] >> one criterion and not for persons or events and architecture. >> could you explain that to me more. i want to understand how one side of the building can be closely associated with an event and how you can determine that is one side is the one that is more directly related versus the other side is of ? and of course listening to their argument and they showed the strike occurring on

the embarcadero side with the shootings and the funeral march and started on the steuart street and went through the embarcadero as well and i want to know how your differentiating the two sides and related to this closely related event? >> we felt that the research and the planning materials from the consultant directed the focus on the steuart street side. we're not saying that the embarcadero side is not important. we're not saying that the embarcadero facade is not [inaudible] defining. we are and the whole is a historic resource and the steuart street side and all of the documentation with the photographs and newspaper clippings and a lot happened on the steuart street side so we're saying one facade has more association with the significance of the building. that's it.

>> okay. but the historical event that this building is associated -- i'm sorry, what is associated with the historical nature of the building is the event itself, not necessarily the fact there was an office in the building. at least what i read the the -- 1934 event and why would one have a stronger correlation and because of the office and fronted on the steuart street side i would understand that but if it's related to the event i'm not sure why we're differentiating between the two? >> right. the significance of the association with events is with the association of the international long shore men's association. it's not about the 34 strike itself -- >> [inaudible] >> or the funeral. it's about the whole building is tied to is connection with the longshoremen's association.

>> now because i am not familiar was the entire building an office building for them? >> i believe there were other tenants for the building. it's a non descrypt warehouse building. i imagine there were others. it's quite tall. >> is it common to have this and other places in the city? >> the primary facades and the secondary and we rank the importance of the sasad in those fashions and do it the same way for this building, not so much for architecture but events. >> in other cases like this we will prioritizize facade over the other?

>> sometimes yes, depends on the resource and why it's significant in the first place. >> and my last -- well, my last question at least on this issue if a building his. >> >> is historical due to an association or event or person do we have to preserve the facade as well? it's if significant to preservation or architecture than it's more important but in this case is it more important to ensure that i guess the historical nature of the building is remembered versus the facade in of itself being preserved? >> i think it is important still even though it's not significant for architecture and design. you have to be able to read the buildings. the building needs to the ability to convey the significance. if someone came back from time and

saw the building and can't recognize it that building wouldn't be eligible for the resource. >> >> they're restoring the ground frownt front and bringing it back to the original design. >> so in this case planning did ask the project sponsor to preserve the steuart street facade due to the relationship with the event and the association? >> right both reserve and restore because it's been altered too. >> my next questions are actually not related to this particular issue but an issue brought up by the appellants in meetings i had with them and the preservation of trees on both sides. i know it was indicated that the project sponsor would have to preserve or keep the trees and if not have to pay a

in lou fee and i am curious of the project and will the trees be preserved on both sides or not. i am from the planning department. in regard to the trees it's subject to the urban forestry ordinance and overseen by the department of public works so the sponsor submitted a estimate application to them to review the condition of the existing trees. it's an application for removal and replacement which dpw would confirm is warranted and how many of the trees would nee to be replaced. >> >> and from a ceqa sequence

it wouldn't occur. >> what is the final agreement of the trees on both side of the buildings? >> first on the steuart street side are the only ones proposed to be replaced. as far as dpw's process to my knowledge i'm not sure if that has been completed yet. >> it would be great to get an answer what is occurring. was it four trees on the steuart street side and maybe the project sponsor can answer that question. >> just to reiterate for ceqa purposes and comply with the ordinance and ensure there is no significant impact under ceqa. >> it's good to know it will comply with the urban forestry ordinance. i would like to know what the conclusion is and how it applies and therefore not a ceqa issue. thank you.

>> supervisor campos. >> thank you very much madam president and i just wanted to follow up on the questions that supervisor kim was asking and specifically going back to the issue of the embarcadero side (paused). is that correct that at this time the finding was with respect to the building, the entire building? >> yes. sara jones environmental review officer. in 2009 the board of supervisors did find that the building -- or did conclude that the building should be considered a historical resource so

demolition of that building as was proposed under that project would be a significant impact and require an eir. >> okay thank you. what i am having a hard time understanding is how it is that planning can say on one hand the talk about the steuart street facade and its significance, but not on the embarcadero side, so can you once again explain to me what your rational is because if you're talking about an entire building having an historical significance -- take city hall as an example. how do you decide that one side of the building is more important than another or for purposes of your analysis? >> tina tam for the planning department. so let me try and

go ahead and -- >> maybe to help you sort of explain it are there objective criteria that you look at? judgment call? >> there are. we treatment of historical propertyingses. we analyze the projects in accordance to the standards. if you read our response we did conclude that the project met some of the standards but not all of the standards. >> so what's the difference between the steuart street facade and the embarcadero facade relative to the standards? >> we have apply them for both sides and the steuart street side and the embarcadero so we laid it out in terms of what is being changed in terms of the standards and whether the original material is removed, whether it's

supportive to the main building? that's a lot of of standards outlined in our requirements. >> so you say that the significance of the property and the criterion one is closely tied to the steuart street facade? >> no i'm saying it's significant with the longshoremen's association and evidence in the records that shows that the headquarters for the association is located on the second floor on the steuart street side (paused for change of captioners).

>> the process we go through first of all we make a determination to make sure it is a historical resource and this building that first step in the determination is what the board of supervisors question. they make sure at the time that the planning department was not a resource. at this point in time, we are not making that determination. we have concluded it's a

resource. the next step that happens is that what's called character defining features are identified. those features that are conveying the building significance. in the case of this project, both facades are considered character defining. but then often there is the project will be affecting some portion of the character defining features of the building and it's up to us based on the evidence of our records to make the determination as to whether that change would materially impair the building such that it would no longer be eligible for listing in the california register. so in the evaluation that ms. tim and her team made with regard to this building they concluded the art ratio of the embarcadero facades while it would change the detail of

the building would not change the resource such that it would no longer be able to the listed in the register. >> my question goes to the explanation for that determination. why? why is it that it will not affect, the changes will not affect the resource? >> tina texas texas -- tam for the planning department. i believe it will change the resource. what we think is the final determination is we don't think it will affect it in such a way where it's no longer going to affect the california register. it still has enough integrity left on the building to still represent the significance that it has with the association with the longshoreman. >> for me to sustain a finding

by planning or declaration for planning, i have to be able to articulate it and it seems we are going back at a very circular way and i have yet to really hear a clearly articulated distinction between one facade or the other. i think it goes back to the question that supervisor kim started asking. i'm still not clear. you know, maybe i'm not smart enough to understand it. it doesn't make sense to me. >> there is also one element to the project that hasn't been discussed and it's important to note that an interpretive historical display is included as part of the project. that is something that will need to be provided. taking it as a whole will

need involving a number of factors. the restoration of the historic street side. the interpretive of the current display and the changes to embarcadero side taking the whole on balance is not impairing the building as a resource and compared to the current situation, would be able to convey the significance of the building in its history better than it does in its present state . >> just a final question. if we were to vote against the planning department's negative declaration, what would be the significance of that. what does that mean? what would happen? >> deputy city attorney.

marla burns. the board could take different actions. it could merely send the item back to planning for further analysis and discussion without directing specifically what kind of documents the planning department should prepare. it should layout the kinds of questions the board would like to address and leave it to the department to whether those would be addressed in a negative declaration or whether they need an environmental impact report or the board could be more directive and say we don't understand this and there is a fair argument that this project does require an eir. if the board would take that, i would advise the board to give some planning on the direction there on where the lack of substantial evidence is. >> so by voting against the negative declaration we are not voting against the project, we could be simply