very respectable to the neighborhood and that we clean up after ourselves and those of us who help run the league reinforce that with the people. we also would like to say that the free gold watch has brought many people into bay area. for more popular tournaments, people come from sacramento, san jose, we tend to get a lot of out of towners from the east coast where it's made a name for itself in the pinball community. we have some people from boston, some from colorado who came last night and some europeans that came in. it's bringing a lot to the community. it's the only place we have for a place of that size.

i appreciate your consideration of this matter. >vice-president cindy wu: thank you. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner antonini? >>commissioner michael j. antonini: mr. sanchez, could i ask you the request to buy the supervisors aid to add that language, i think the language is for the purposes of planning issues if i'm not mistaken. >> for the purnsz of purposes of the planning code for clarification. >> that sounds right to me and from your testimony and our speakers that our arcade games don't spell trouble. we want to encourage pinball wizards. i want to approve this with modification including the language for the purposes of the planning code as part of the measure.

>> second. >> commissioner johnson? >> i also have a couple questions, i normally take issue with regulation when it's just about cleaning up regulation for one business because it will apply to the ncd in general. just a question, i'm totally in support of this but what does mechanical use device mean in this day. we have seen a change in gaming and i would like to know what constitutes a mechanical music many device today? >> it could be pinball, video game, pacman type of video game, a computer game, those are the types of things from what i understand in the planning code is mechanical amusement device. >> it includes things like virtual reality things like that.

is there anything it doesn't include? >> it could include virtual reality, i think so, yeah. >> okay. >> johnson, lee legislative office. breed. mechanical device is any machine or device without or with a display. upon an insertion of a coin slot or any connected there with operations or which maybe operated for use as a game contest or amusement or which maybe used for any such game contest or amusement which does not contain a pay of device for tax, merchandise. it's anything for which you submit some sort of payment and you

participate in some sort of amusement. >> okay the only thing i would say that definition seems a little knack -- an cronyismist to me. like saying we have this big apple k does that count. >> that came up in our final revisions of the legislations. we added a clause that said any form of payment. so cherokee, -- check, credit card. >vice-president cindy wu: commissioner richards. >> this is the most difficult project come before us. couple of questions, what was the nature of

complaint started by this? i read there was a complaint by a neighbor? >> yes, commissioners it was a complaint by a neighbor, actual lau e a friend of mine that i won't rename. the business code was out of date for the planning code. >> other question i have is i come from an area where we have this kind of thing happen where we legalize these games everywhere and popped up in unintended consequences where it said for amusement only. how do you get around that and it says i won this amount of money which is actually creating gambling parlors. >> that's what the police brought up repeatedly and it's something we took very seriously and there was concern about potential illegal

gaming. we made it very clear that this legislation deals only with amusement devices and the police of have the authority to investigate any complaints about gambling. they can go in the business anytime it's open and address any concerns. >> okay. thank you. city clerk: commissioners there is a motion to adopt the approval with modifications including for the purposes of the planning code amendment. on that motion, commissioner antonini, hillis, johnson, moore, richards, fong, wu. that motion passes unanimously 7-0 places you on item 12. item 12: 2011.1388e k. uchida; 4155 575-90488 110 the embarcadero/115 steuart street - through-lot fronting the west side of the embarcadero and east side of steuart street between mission and

howard streets, lot 002 in assessor's block 3715 - appeal of preliminary mitigated negative declaration for: 11 vertical addition of a third story, roof deck, and circulation penthouse to the existing two-story-over-basement, 19,374 square-foot vacant building - a net increase of 4,445 square feet, raising the building's height from 35 feet to 51 feet; 22 replacement of the embarcadero façade; and 33 rehabilitation of the building for office and assembly use, to house functions for the commonwealth club of california. sf 121234 commissioners before you hear from staff, i wanted to introduce you to a staff member. he's new in the planning division department. he's been here since december of last year. he comes from chicago where he was a rail corridor project development and environmental review planner and work with the los angeles county metro transportation authority and chicago transparent authority. he worked on several properties on the corridor and los angeles and modern lines in chicago in his tenure there. we welcome him to the planning commission.

good afternoon. the proposed project includes vertical addition of a story to a 2 two 2 story vacant building, rehabilitation to the building for office to house functions for the common wealth of cal. california. it would increase 4500 feet to 24,000 feet. the height would increase from 35 feet to approximately 51 feet. you should have before you a packet continuing an executive summary, a draft motion to uphold the tmd, our response to the appeal letter itself. copies of additional comment letters received and a copy of the pmd. the pmd for the project was publiced

on june 25th, 2014 , of the department received a timely filed appeal letter from david osgood of rincon point on july 2014. as discussed in the packet include concerned about compatibility of the proposed project with the surrounding neighborhood. potential tree storage impact and tree removal and bird impact and energy use. in response requested by staff, mr. osgood indicated by e-mail that a letter presented by mr. weed miles an hour is presented in the appeal and also raises concerns about the historic . the packet addressed the concerns in the appeal letter and other letters

received. ascribed in detail in our responses, staff believes that no substantial evidence of a significant environment amount effect was presented that warrant preparation of environmental impact report. staff therefore recommends the planning commission adopt the motion to uphold the pmd. preservation planner and senior preservation planner are here with us as well to respond to questions that maya rise regarding potential historic resources. this concludes my presentation. i'm available if you have any questions. >vice-president cindy wu: thank you. i'm familiar with the procedures for this. mr. osgood?

>> how much time? >> 10 minutes. hi, david osgood. rincon area. i don't come here very often. let me give you a biography. i was vice-chair of mayor brown's neighborhood advisory committee and we were active members of that for 8 years. i have lived near the embarcadero for over 20 years and descended from 49er. i worked on architectural draftsman and have been a union member and probably the world's worst public speaker. when we filed our appeal we were quickly joined on the same day by san francisco heritage and the noted architectural historian.

later the neighborhood passed a resolution of 21-1 representing groups all across san francisco expressing their concerns about this project. the sponsors claim there were comments from only one of their organizations is false. i would like to have mr. secretary distribute their resolution if you don't mind. please review both sides of it. there is two main reasons we are here concerning the modern facade being included in historic building which was recommended by the planning department. i met with the common wealth folks and we had a meeting and

when i asked about the facade, they said planning adviced them. they didn't want that. the other reason is the club refuse to consider any adjustments. i know they met with three community groups and apparently all were stonewalled. as a quick example, one of our concern is for trees, there would be significant trees that would be removed. i got down to the point of will you save one tree and they said no. they had no interest in compromising on anything. again the main question is why would a hundred year old organization buy a hundred-year-old building and

obsess with making it brand new? it's totally illogical. obviously a 100-year-old organization for a 100-year-old building is a perfect match. it's amazing that so many people don't get that. the club cites in some of their information provided you that "the specific historic events that render the building a historic resource occurred only on its stuart street side and only the stuart street facade features are historic" that's incorrect. the role that stuart street facade placed in events proceeding the stride. what does this talk about the facade means? it seems to be nonsensical. it an appears to rewrite this

important labor history. people gave their lives to this great effort and they are accrediting a facade. i understand 30 people were shot by the police on that bloody thursday. that's not well-known. it wasn't a police riot. it was a police war on city of city of san franciscans. two people were killed on this mission and the body lay inside this building. this building is historic, not just it's western facade. we are not going to let the city rewrite the history to serve their own interest. this building is a landmark by default whether any bureaucrat has recognized it as such or not. it's important to understand if you

approve this measure, it will no longer be possible to landmark this building. i hope you give that full consideration. if it's a modern facade, it can't be landmarked as i understand the procedures. that would be a darn shame. if you approve this and it goes to the board of supervisors you can be sure that we will get the rank and file to the history of the building to take part in their proceeding. the historic events didn't just happen on the stuart street size. this building was headquarters for a union calling for the strike that took place down the embarcadero and destroying the embarcadero facade is like turning our back to those historic events. the two men were shot on mission street coming from embarcadero. and there are historic if

funeral procession may have begun on mission but this was not just on one 1 block of stuart. page two attorneys letter states the property, not the facade, the property is a historic resource because of it's direct relationship with historic events that occurred during the strike. the sponsor cites flimsy sources that there is some imaginary wall dividing the second floor yet they provide no documentation to this. on the contrary the entire second floor was accessed from one stairway. obviously the entire second floor had to be connected. there is no reason to separate the

different sides of the building. by the way, there is fundamental rule to argument. it was considered as a whole. there used to be good and bad sides but that's donna way with for a long time. you need to consider it as a whole. the ground floor had emerging to the stuart side. i'm surprised the projector project sponsor team isn't just using the whole floor. the facade would be destroyed if you vote for this. the attorney correctly states the board of supervisors entire building was an historic resource due to the 1934 events. the good attorney then makes those

labored arguments that the board of supervisors is legally irrelevant and has no bearing on this matter. who here is going to tell the board of supervisors that their finding is irrelevant? anyone? let the record show nobody raised their hand. probably a good decision. i have been told they can't confirm that their director makes over $200,000 a year. please feel free to correct me. they have the resources to maintain a dignified facade in the very visible embarcadero. this proposal which looks like gap store no. 3462 is an insult.

the historic building right neck -- next to the historic building in san francisco, the vast majority of businesses have not expressed support. i know they are somehow concerned. the club has 22,000 members if they generate prepackaged letters from supporters are only handful. there used to be a rule around here that buildings particularly in soma are to be in keeping with the area. in all fairness to the club it did indicate that the planning adviced them to go modern and a preliminary project assessment. you want to put a glass facade on an historic building of mostly

100-year-old buildings. none of which have modern glass facades. what in the world were you thinking? >vice-president cindy wu: opening for public comment. >> excuse me. the project sponsor team gets 10 minutes. >> good afternoon, i'm ana mock an chair of the board of the common wealth club one of many volunteers in san francisco who lead and support the club. as mentioned the club has 22,000 members and a 50 member board. our membership and prap is completely open to the public. we would all those attended in support of the common wealth club please stand.

we have worked hard to design a building that serves the communities interest as a public gathering place. while being environmentally sound also paying tribute to the history of our site and the san francisco water front. to combat global warming is essential today that buildings are designed fore lower consumption. because of the glass facade on the embarcadero there are multiple windows that open. this allows the building to be cooled without outside air and carbon emissions. the club asks you to uphold emissions of the planning department. thank you for your consideration. now welcome the club architect. >> good afternoon, my name is marsha maden. with architects.

thank you for the commission and staff for the opportunity to provide an overview of the design for the new common wealth club. i'm sorry i'm having technical difficulties. as mentioned the site is a two two 2-block site and there are three images on the left hand side which show the existing conditions. the embarcadero side the level one is demolished and level two the door and windows have been removed. the second image on the street side of the building which is the place of the

historically significant events. level one on the stuart street side is also been demolished and level 2 is intact with non-historic windows. the bottom image is of the interior of the building which is completely gutted and demolished and the building has been abandoned for over 10 years. the stuart street side has been mentioned is the location of the historic and significant event. this side will be historic according to the requirements of the planning department. a plastic bag will be located plaque -- in addition the club will have additional documents and digital displays on the club's library and the lobby space.

the design on embarcadero will transform the common wealth club one that meets the requirements and environmental stewardship. i'm quickly going through the plan. the basement is used for storage. level one contains the main entry off embarcadero and large lobby public lobby area. behind that is the club's library and flexible meeting space for over 100 people. the next floor, level two, on the upper side of the screen contains a large prefunction area which is a size large enough to accommodate the flow of the audience from the main auditorium space you can see on the center of the plan which

accommodates 300 people in the auditorium. >> on level3 which shows a slide is a digital meeting space which faces the embarcadero and above the prefunction area on level two and behind that is the offices and you can see on the plan how the third floor is setback from stuart street approximately 11 -foot. on the upper level of the roof deck on top of the slide is planting area, garden, grief roof and a large gathering space overlooking embarcadero into the bay. this section shows the vertical requirements of the program space. you can see in level two the large vertical volume required for the ought -- auditorium space as well

as the function space and level three from the stuart street side approximately 11 foot six inches. -foot six inches.6 inches. our design approach to the embarcadero side is a contemporary reinterpretation of the historic building structure. the diagrams on the republic national committee -- right hand side of the slight of the original facade of the adjacent buildings to create a strong design with a base, middle and top and in keeping with the proportion building of it's vertical dimension along embarcadero. this rendering shows the building within the context of the

neighborhood which is a very diverse mix of new contemporary as well as historic structures. the high performance building which integrates natural ventilation and 70 opera windows is designed to propose environmental p stewardship and resource efficiency. in the building that is targeted for a platinum or gold rating. this is an interior view of the prefunction space at level two that serves the large auditorium area and you can see the operable windows and sealing fans to promote natural ventilation. finally, the main auditorium space at level two which will be the heart of the club and the place for the future dynamic programs of the common wealth club. >> thank you.

marsha, i ilene on behalf of the common wealth club. i will try to address the main issues raised in terms of the analysis. i want to be clear we all know what is before you today whether the pmd analysis potential impacts from ceqa standards. they have done so and we ask that you uphold staff recommendation. staff has addressed an rejected based on sun substantial evidence with historic evaluation which has significant documentation and third party and multiple source information regarding the labor strike events that took place on this facade which is a basis why only that facade is being preserved because only that facade is a historic resources under criterion one under the guidelines.

marsha walked you through design. embarcadero is a unique design and there is no clear record that embarcadero side has the relationship with the events that occurred during the 1934 strikes as stuart street did. in fact in the historic resource evaluation there were facts that page highlights and adopted that really make this a distinction unusual kind of building where only one building is a historic resource. the first is the building is a lot and there was a divider lot between the building and that is based on evidence from history of the family ownership at the time. there is clear evidence that he submitted along with his appeal that the long-term association was located on stuart street