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 saying we want an environmental review. too project could not go forward without a ceqa document. until there is this negative declaration upheld and affirmed by this form or some environmental report completed. without that, no project can move forward on this site. >> same as the indemnitial review departmental review who have to be conducted. >> yes. any planning review

would be avoided by the board of supervisors over turning this internal document. they would have to start over with the process. they would have to go back and do whatever of the environmental review is required and go back and get the earlier approvals already received and another appeal would have to be filed if it needs to come back on this board for another appeal. >> could the department come for approvals after the environmental review. in other words if there is a subsequent environmental review the project could still be approved. >> assuming whatever project is proposed has the environmental review finalized for it. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you, supervisor avalos? >>supervisor john avalos: thank you. this was kind of deja vu when on the other side in 2009. but, i do have to state that my father was a

long shore worker and every july 5th, we would go in san pedro, go to peck park and celebrate bloody thursday. it has some significance in that way. i remember that was significant for me looking at the building back in 2009 and for me it was ascribed as not a very interesting historical resource. there was talk about just a shell of a building and i recall my father's long shore hall in wilmington california, a very big shell of a building. i'm trying to remember what was happening in the embarcadero side when the last appeal came before us. what was the design for that building just trying to compare you know today's design that we have before us to that?

>> that was an entirely new 10 story building. so it was a contemporary design on both sides. >> they used a shell of the building but it would be built above the current height. >> no. it was demolition of the entire building and construction of a new building and much at taller. >> i'm trying to figure out this process for this current design. was there an approach to planning with a particular design and based on this being a historical resource there was encouragement to preserve the historic side and then allowance to dramatically change the embarcadero side or that was the planning that came before planning from the get-go? >> tam from the planning department. we responded to the plan that was given.

>> wondering other examples in san francisco where the building is historic resource, the entire building is an historic resource is bifurcated like this. i think the example that campos gave as in city hall with a historic resource. what are the examples of buildings where planning has made the determination. bifurcating one side of the building over the other, a building that is an historic resource. is this an exception to what typically happens in the planning commission department? >> no, it's not an exception. very often a project that involved modification to a building that is an historic resource would remove some of the historic features of the building, and you know remove them or alter them. and also

typically involves restoration of the remaining portion of the historic building. one of them that is coming to mind that's been constructed is 178 townsend street. it was a power plant, the electric and power company. the shell remains, some of the features were removed and there's a good sign addition of a contemporary design added to the building and resulted to not impact the resource. >> there was no appeal on that but they were trying to get a mills act determination for that building if ire recall correctly and that it was an historic resource and the tags to keep up for the historic resource but what they really

wanted to use it for a high level and keeping the shell building in place. in that case there was the core of the building on townsend was built it was a building in height in function. but the building in its entirety remained. is that correct? to differentiate that building from the current where we are at on stuart and embarcadero. >> yes, as i recall. it was years ago now. i didn't go on this particular project but there were smoke stacks on the building. >> smoke stacks are not in

vogue these days, is that correct. >> i don't think it would help with the luxury of the condo sales. >> it seems like it's a very uncommon thing is what i'm hearing. if you can only give one example it's not something that happens very frequently and to me it doesn't seem like something that is the norm for how we approve modifications in historic buildings that are historic resources in its entirety. >> part of the reason that we are having a little bit of struggle is this building is unusual in being significant. when you have a building significant for it's architecture, it's something that is clearer to parse out

to modify the building and maintain it's historic character. it happens with for example many of the single family homes and the models that we see. in this case, the planning department needing to tie the changes to the building to the events as they took place and make the connection between a physical structure and historical event which is why the issue of the interpretive display is so important here. in terms of conveying actual history and meaning to display the meaning there. >> i think this building had an historic significance as well. this is not part of the historic district? >> that's correct. >> supervisor campos?

>>supervisor david campos: thank you. i wanted to follow-up on that because this is historic because of an event that that's unusual and that's why it's different . but let's talk about the event because my understanding is that the slay men they lie in state in the entire building and i think the canisters of gas went through i think both sides of the building, it wasn't just historic street side. is that incorrect going back to the event. do you know if for instance looking at the canisters were they thrown on one side of the building and not the other. >> the planning department. i would have to go back to the file and read through the information to give you that

answer. >> the appellants are saying the canisters are thrown on both sides. so, if it's tied to an event, doesn't seem like you can really distinguish for purposes of the event one side or the other. do you have evidence to the contrary? >> we are simply saying there is more information about the building and the cessation on the stuart street side. we are not saying the entire building on embarcadero didn't also play a part in the building significance. we are saying that the stuart treat side is the facade most closely associated. >> for purposes of looking at the event for what was said earlier is the event makes it other unique. for purposes of the event is there a distinction between one side of the building or the other?