she found that claim insulting and she's right. it's insulting now and then. it's insulting to harry bridges and to the longshoremen and their families and supporters and to the men that gave their lives for the cause. we were a successful peamentant in the heinz project proposed for the same location and i reviewed the public testimony last weekend and 95% of the people who testify were not there to criticize the proposed building. they were testifying about preserving this building, the same building that is before you today. likewise you will find no one is opposed to the commonwealth club moving into the building. people are concerned about the unnecessary destruction of the embarcadero

facade and the lack of restoration of the steuart street facade. this appeal is about planning processes and not about the commonwealth club. ceqa issues -- they can be divided into people, [inaudible] and block. [inaudible] came to prominence while in this building. the wounded were cared for in this building. (inaudible) with the only committee which is ridiculous. the history and the role can not be denied. proposed modern glass facade is clearly inconsistent with the planning code which calls for conserving and protecting neighborhood character. we filed the original appeal on july 15 a few

hours before the deadline and it was asked that the submission be extended and submitted a letter "the proposed project would replace the facade with a glass curtain wall and noted that the character and integrity of the building and block facing of the embarcadero will largely be transformed. he then noted that the mitigating activities should be 11-foot 6-inch setback of a new third floor across the entire length of the steuart street elevation to clearly differentiate the facade of the third story. this mitigating activity has not been done. the project sponsor claims only the steuart street facade is historic because the address of the union hall was on steuart street and there was a hall on

the second floor. there's also the claim there is no direct link between strike activities and the embarcadero side of the building. well let me show you that direct link. policemen are firing teargas into 110 embarcadero. is there any evidence the police didn't know what they were firing at? if the union didn't occupy the embarcadero side of the building who did? there have been no answers provided to these questions. of course there were walls on the second floor, but there's no evidence that the union facilities did not stretch all the way to the embarcadero facade. like any commercial buildings walls are moved and based on tenant needs. the project sponsor claims the building is only historic if

it's associated with persons in the past or represents the work of an important creative individual. they wrote that in their brief and they're right on both counts. the building was harry bridges headquarters when he came to prominence and [inaudible] who has landmark buildings in san francisco and east bay. the project sponsor also claims that very few features of the building from 1934 are discernible. the board of supervisors found this claim to be especially absurd in 2009. supervisors stated they wouldn't have difficultly locating the building. it states in the brief that the embarcadero facade has been substantially altered over the years such that the few features that were present during mr. bridge's

occupancy are the [inaudible] but page nine points out that planning historic -- [inaudible] report did find a character defining features existed on the embarcadero facade. the law clearly calls for an eir in this case. you are required to uphold the appeal because there is fair argument among the informed individuals about the history of this building. preservation laws must be implemented fairly and equally. you must stop augmenting the argument that special people get special treatment. thank you. >> thank you very much. at this time we will open this item up to public comments for those that want to speak in support of the appeal. please come forwards. you will have two minutes. okay. are there any members of the public that would like to speak in favor of the

appeal? >> yes thank you supervisors. good afternoon. i am peter and i would like to read a later from jack heyman who is retired officer with local [inaudible] and integral for organizing protests from the san francisco antiapartheid boycott and actions have been motivated to the commitment of keeping alive san francisco san francisco bay area's legacy. dear services i am unable to attend the meeting and the preservation of the former headquarters at steuart street. arguably the city's most most seminole

event at the time and sparked changes in the living and working conditions of workers and all workers in the united states. needless to say that the history whose epicenter is on steuart street is a deep sense of pride for working people. i was a delegate at the local 10 to the 2009 convention in seattle when the resolution was passed unanimously calling for that building to be landmarked. the planning commission evaluation and documents for the current proposed changes for the 110 embarcadero, 113 steuart street do not meet the requirements and the intent of the unanimous convention resolution calling for the stringent landmark protection. please support the issues and concerns by the appeal and the environmental documents for the san francisco

planning commission and steuart street is necessary and keep alive rich history -- >> thank you sir. thank you. next speaker please. >> good afternoon president breed and supervisors. i am an architectural historian and supporter of the appeal. i would like to put up on the screen just to reiterate the fact -- the main argument among the many that the embarcadero side was not included was based on false reasoning based on [inaudible] maps. we have more proof that the gas was shot through the embarcadero side and that the hall actually stretches through. there is more proof that from the photo of the

the shooting the teargas across the embarcadero into the embarcadero side than no photographs of that event on steuart street. not that it didn't happen. the hall was attacked on both sides by the police department and the police had their information, their informants perhaps and you would be saying that the police were just shooting randomly into a buildinghalf of the embarcadero side and [inaudible] testified by the former owner and he testified tear bas bombs were shot into the facility as far as the other tenant and i believe aisle a3879 so there is more record. the other part that nk happened on the embarcadero and with your own eyes you can see here people right outside 110 the embarcadero. the thing is the belt line went right by and the

police and the [inaudible] was across the street and firing. that's why they look so calm there. there are pictures of the building in the background with the police arresting and attacking so clearly events on embarcadero. >> thank you very much. next speaker please. >> good afternoon supervisors. i have a letter from former supervisor -- >> that was a mistake. we will start over. >> i have a letter from former supervisor chris daily dated january 26. dr. president breed and supervisors i am writing to you regarding items 27-30 on the calendar appeal of a mitigated negative declaration for 110 the embarcadero, 1015 steuart street. i ask that you reverse planning approval for many of the same reasons that the board

did at this site in march 2009. for those of you not present at that time the board held a detailed hearing and there was some issues like shadows and called for a full eir for the project and the historical significance of the building and questioned by the previous project sponsor and the consultants during the planning process by the time the appeal made it to the board there was no debate. the site was the most important around the strike, a strike that defines san francisco and sent shock waves across the entire country and the discussion focused on whether the structure was

compromised. it was not. i understand they're trying -- [inaudible] from steuart street and the listed address of the longshoremen's union. the board does this in 2009. the frontage on the embarcadero side has great historical significance. with the legislative record on this site i believe that the document in front of you is a slight to the institution to the board of supervisors. please reverse planning decision once again. thank you chris daily". >> thank you very much. next speaker please. >> supervisors thank you for taking this appeal. my name is mya shown and i shown with others to urge you at this moment in history when labor working people are under assault in the united states in san francisco and throughout the world i urge you to ensure the

full restoration, the land marking of 113 steuart street and embarcadero facade to reflect their appearance in 1934 when the building was at the center of the great long shore strike that transformed the situation for change for the workers who were chattelled and made them responsible for the decision making and the general strike that ensued, a general strike which harry bridges stated an injury to one is an injury to all. you're at a significant point in history where you can state which side you're on and that should be the side of the working people the historic legacy of san francisco that reverberated throughout the united states at the time. there were other general strikes in the united states and throughout the world. it's not to be relegated to a audio piece or side line in history. this

is a significant point. the restoration is important with the very room we are today city hall. it could have been torn down. it could have been mornernized. instead it was restored to its glory. place does matter to the people in san francisco and i join with others to urge you to support this appeal. thank you. >> thank you. >> do not let us miss this opportunity. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> supervisors i am jim and here to represent san francisco victorian alliance and chair the historic preservation committee for that group. we vote michelle obama to support mr. os. >> >> good's effort for the building and the content embarcadero in particular. it's important to preserve

neighborhood character. this is a whole building. it's not two buildings. trying to separate it is a deception that the 2009 ruling clearly would not have allowed. even the report says this is a violation of the secretary of standards for historic preservation. here we have an historic site and location to say that we can do something for the back of a building on a more secondary street where one of the main arteries that really commands the attention will be stripped and replaced with rather unattractive modern facade is completely inappropriate. please reaffirm your 2009 decision to respect the historic importance of this whole building. thank you so much.

>> thank you. next speaker please. >> members of the board of supervisors i am ralph. i was the communications director of the [inaudible] march as organized by local 10 and deeply involved in the resolution that was passed by unanimity and proclamation and convention of the reigning body of the organization whereas it stated police and armed goons fired shotguns and teargas and bombs and explosives into the hall killing untold numbers of working people. that happened from the embarcadero side, no less from 110. this event was culminating with the police on each side killing countless people and that's the legacy being desguised and landmarked.

landmark as the convention called and demanded. i want to point out to you members of the board that on september in 2014 the ceo of the commonwealth club stated "i'm a daughter of a [inaudible] and in san francisco in the 1930's. the father was born then and had a part-time job. it wasn't in the docks and you had to be 18 years of age to be in either. let's see where the half truths lie brothers and sisters. we need to be cognizant fact they're under siege right now and imposed with a contract and lock out in disguise and mediation to do that and the legacy has never been more relevant and not the

secretary of defense or the pentagon or the speculatorringses in silicon valley that can do the landmark of legacy of 1934. not -- >> thank you sir. >> [inaudible] >> thank you. next speaker please. >> [inaudible] >> thank you sir. your time sup. thank you. next speaker please. >> yes. hello supervisors. i am joan wood and i lived in san francisco almost all of my life and born here as my mother. she lived here most of her life. my father has been in california since the 1860's. this is part of my history and many others but we're getting older and dying off and it seems that san francisco is more and more being run by people who want to change things who want to modernize it that want to make money by

buying and selling buildings. nothing against the commonwealth club except i don't think they have the seal of conservation preserving history. it's part of my history and i'm not the only person. it should be parts of yours too but somehow when you haven't lived here most of your life or the parents talked 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.