>> 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?

>> not from our standpoint. both facades have their defining features and they are outlined very clearly about what they are. >> i think that's the crux of what i have a problem with that in a way you are saying two different things. so, it doesn't make sense to me. thank you. >> thank you, and with that we are going to hear from the project sponsor at this time. you will have up to 10 minutes to present. >> hi. the project sponsor has a couple of slides. >> i'm gloria duffy president of the common wealth club. the club was founded in 1903 by reference to the common good. the club's purpose to bring people from a different perspective for common goals.

today it has 150,000 members and hundreds of volunteers still seeking the solution for the common good. when the club decided to establish it's first permanent headquarters we sought the best design for the benefit. the design achieves three goals. 1, commemorating preservation and history for the building. two, using the only available at this sight for a viable building with a glass facade allowing the windows to be cooled without outside air. three, bringing vitality for over 600 civic forums every year. our attorney will describe how this design fulfills the obligation of the california environmental

quality act. >> good afternoon, president breed, members of the board. the only issue before you today is whether the m and d adequately disclosed and project limitations based on ceqa standards. i already heard the commission deny the appeal of course we are going to ask you to deny the md and hold it and with coninclusion and there is no fair argument towards mitigated impact in terms of the project. with that said, i want to turn to your discussion of the planning department which is the crux of this issue. i do want to start with the idea with what ms. jones said and miss tam as well. the events criteria is unusual. what also is unusual with regard to this project is we have a through

lot. there is not a lot of through lots in san francisco. when planning refers to the idea that we treat the front facade different from the back facade, typically in a historical preservation project, what the public see's is a front facade. here we have embarcadero and the street facade. that's what was in the evaluation and planning's follow up with the resource evaluation response. i think that's something to keepen mind. i want to also go to the direction of the.er and what are the facts that distinguish the stuart's street facade. those are clearly explained on page 59, the entire low down of what was happening uniquely. we listed that on our letters to you on page 4 and 5. there

was a wall between two buildings. there there was the ila union hall. the ila organized out of that facility. again, uniquely localized connected to the building not as a result of architecture or person, but as a result of events that took place in 1984. there is no whitewash to pretend the events didn't happen in embarcadero. the issues of ceqa, if the events caused the building to be historic and those events happened all around embarcadero. wouldn't those similar buildings be historic. i think that defeats the historian guidelines for the ceqa and historic determination. you have to show there are facts supporting that. here, the department concluded based

again and not just on their own evaluation but on the independent evaluation who also did the evaluation in 2009 and found the building was a historic resource based on the events. the difference between 2009 and today and why nobody thought about the embarcadero facade is the building was going to be demolished. that puts the entire category in another consideration. but today it formed the bases for historic preservation, that is being preserved when thinking in the more common situation if the basic historic preservation with contact with associations. i'm hoping that again, if you look at the facts and i can read them but they are in our letter and they are in the historic resource evaluation. but clearly indicate that the

most intensive activity or events that took place as part of the 1934 strikes leading up through the murders of the two dock workers and the proceedings that went from stuart street down market street down san francisco, those happened on the stuart street facade. those unique events didn't happen on embarcadero. they were very much localized on stuart street because the ila hall was there and there was in and out organizing for the strike and taking care of the wounded when they were injured and memorializing those. that's why this is different. again, while this maybe an uncommon set of facts. ceqa not always being intuitive, but ceqa knows about factual evidence. there are facts in the record and independently evaluated facts that say what happened

on stuart street based on evidence, there is 23-foot notes that cite to documents research elements and cultural that made clear going back in time that we can document for purposes of the evaluation and the preservation of the stuart street facade that this facade was differentiated from embarcadero facade first and foremost by the stuart street facade. i want to make it clear that the record does state this facade. i want to move to the connection from the preservation of the building for historical significance of the building and architect garren who submitted last week and supported. let me deal

with architect gairhan. nobody has heard of him and they can't provide proof that he was the architect for this building. if he was the architect in the bay area and contributed to the architecture style that the appellants claim, they would have found that. that would have been found when the project was looked at. going to bridges again no effort to try to separate hairy bridges from what he did for purposes of this labor triek and for labor rights after that. the strike led to changes in national and local law including the right to collective barking, union hiring halls and the national relations board. those are great contributions. but because ceqa isn't always intuitive, not common sense, but more finding connections.

while mr. bridges may have been revolved at the ila union hall during the strikes and afterwards. he is not associated with the buildings. the ceqa guidelines that has the building be historic based on this, clearly says there is an association between this building and the person. that states that a person that lived and worked in the building for a long time. there is no evidence that mr. bridges was in there all the time and the more issue that the strike events were the historically remarkable issue that really determines this building historic resource designation. it is as we noted on papers and you have in the document we submitted, mr. bridges, the artifact building has a commemorative plaque that says harry was in this office building. he wasn't

even in. it doesn't matter. that's where he was. we don't believe this building should be an historic resource just because mr. harry has a relationship with it. we think based on the fact in the record, based on substantial evidence, not argument not speculation, not guesswork. the bases for this building to be historic resource in the events which were localized for you that are lawyers connect to the strike events of the july 1934 leading up to bloody thursday. we urge you to up hold the md. >>supervisor london breed: thank you very much. we now hold this item to public comment to those excuse me. before we do that, i would like to recognize supervisor

kim. >> thank you, i would like to ask the project sponsor to come back to the podium. i have a question. first i was wondering if you can state on the record if ilb stated a position on this project? >> yes and i believe there are several representative who will be speaking to that. >> would you like to answer the question? >> yes. they will state it themselves. yes i believe so. there are a number of i lu official leaders that are in support of this project. >> thank you. the second question is, actually is back to the issue of the urban forest ordinance if you can respond to that. i know that planning has stated that you are complying with this and it's normality -- not an issue with ceqa and how it .

>> sure. we have four trees within about 40 feet, on the 10 feet apart. they are over grown. the basement is half grade. half of the sidewalk is basement and cut in half. much of the trunks are dying and we have photo documentation of that in the project sponsor packet. the plan is to replace them for requirements which recommends more than a 10-foot spacing so we'll probably replace the four trees with three trees and subgrade trenching with new water and gas and electrical and that has clearance and that's probably why the three trees is all we can fit. >> with the replacement of the three trees can you do a fee out ? >> there is a penl -- penalty

we would pay for losing the fourth tree. >> thank you. >> thank you very much, supervisor campos? >>supervisor david campos: thank you very much. i want to ask if she would come back. i want to follow up on this issue of the connection to harry bridges. what the appellant says is that he worked at this building. is that true or not? >> sorry. i'm just grabbing my book. >> did he work at the building? >> we can both comment on this. the i lw historian is here and may also have comments on this. he was the leader at the i la at the time and a member of the strike committee that worked out of that building. >> again, i'm not looking for a presentation, simply looking for an answer to the question. wasd he work at the building.

>> he was a leader of the strike committee and did have a building although he had an office next door. >> that's in the record, there is both a footnote and hre, again for the time period -- >> i understand that but do you believe he worked in the building or not? >> i have no knowledge other than what was in the hre. that's the best answer. >> you agree that the union he headed was housed in that building? >> the ila and it became the i lu. >> let me ask you a question, from your perspective what kind of connection does mr. bridges need to have had with the building for your ability to reach a conclusion as to his tie to the building

creating historic goal significance here. >> typically as i understand the criteria under the ceqa guidelines for association with the building it means for example the founder of wells fargo lived in a house on broadway street for 5 years. i'm using that there is evidence both with longer term activity and somebody was there on a more continuous basis. >> so residence in the building required? >> it's present. i think if i might supervisors to go back the idea of historic resource is not the rule. >> i understand that. for you continuous presence, what's that to you from your perspective. >> again, first of all we need to make sure there is evidence in the record and what appellants have said is not based on evidence. there is no pointing to documents to reference that mr. bridges

was there everyday for 40 years. for example. >> from your perspective he needed to have been there everyday for 40 years? >> not 40 years. >> i'm trying to understand. >> i understand. starting with substantial evidence. i haven't seen any facts that the appellants have put in the record that mr. heir -- harris was there. that's the substantial of the records. if we are going to try to utilize the bases under ceqa historic records. the best i can give you is what was submitted as part of this appeal. >>supervisor london breed: okay. thank you. at this time we will open up to public

comment. each commenter will have up to 2 minutes to those who support the project sponsor only >> public speaker: good afternoon. i'm a supporter of preservation. there is nothing more that makes a difference to a city than to historical buildings. it's very tough to be able to get things done through city planning as far as preservation is concerned. it's not easy to do unless you have the evidence to support it. the common wealth is a great asset to all nabts -- neighborhoods in the city. two residents are alike. leaving vacant buildings like this

affects the businesses. by this community. also as a fellow australian i'm proud of what harry bridges has done. it provides a venue for free speech. i urge you not to support the appeal. thank you. breed supervisor london breed: thank you. next speaker. >> >> public speaker: >> good afternoon. i would like to read from the kevin star, san francisco librarian. wrote. by restoring to the 1934 appearance of the facade. and to place a plaque there to

commemorate the 1934 events and will bring the events to far greater focus and make the building much more publically accessible. for over 11 decades no institution is better equipped to draw attention to historic events than the common wealth club. the goal is to increase public awareness and understanding the different between public and social issues and hat -- has the authoritative reasoning to do so and will present the rich history of this location and more than it has ever been presented before. the club history will reach back to the 1890s when in the yard caused the antitrust enforces and the docks and labor action of the

1930s and collective bargaining rights. given the labor issues to the american west, it is not surprising that labor was a significance focus and 1934. i urge you to up hold the negative declaration and 110 eh embarcadero. >> public speaker: thank you. i'm greg dalton. i would like to read. the president writes that the club has been a leader for a long time, environmental leader and when it came to building. a way to cash -- it's foot prints and

the status by the legislature known for it's sustainable designs. the primary method of this building by using 79 operable windows and provides the primary ventilation and cooling for the building. cooling and ventilation is especially important for a building that will hold public assemblies to reduce energy use and pollution. to accommodate the manuality ity -- majority of these windows, the club must construct a three floor facade on embarcadero to its high performing glass. the windows will be on the embarcadero side of the building where the stuart street side would eliminate the building. the

fossil fuels on the shadow of it's doors. i urge you to reflect the corridor of the highest stainable design and uphold the planning commission decision ceo and cofounding of the energy foundation. >>supervisor london breed: thank you, next speaker, please. >> public speaker: hello supervisors. my name is phillip riley. i brought these catalogues that chronicle the 1934 strike. i hope i brought enough for everybody. so i will just set them here and you can help yourselves if you like. the president of my union sent me here today to speak in favor of this project. and the stuart street common

wealth club has welcomed our union and their input in this project. they work with our librarian, our historian, who are both here today. one of our members retired now is a member of the common wealth club. he is here to speak in favor of this as well. stuart street will represent retired longshoreman and active longshoreman and labor unions nationwide. we think it's important to the city of san francisco and the history and the two men who were shot and killed at this site. thank you very much for your consideration an i hope it moves forward. thank you. >>supervisor london breed: thank you, next speaker, please. >> public speaker: good evening president, supervisors, my name is ann bower as the san francisco labor council on behalf of

director tim paul's on. he's not here. he's in minnesota. we represent over 1,000 workers and unions and we are in support of this project. this site is in its pivotal role and it's history. the club works with the labor community to honor this great rich history. our interest in this is to see the vibrant part of our community once again. we feel the current project does that. thank you for your time. >>supervisor london breed: thank you very much, next speaker, please. >> my name is robbie schwartz. i have a 46-year relationship with the ilw. a couple books on the union. i think it's a misconception that should be cleared up that the cl ub is

against preserving the legacy of 1934, the legacy of the building in that triek t -- strike and the legacy of harry bridges. they consider this to be an asset and the club's purchasing. the building is an opportunity to get the unions history out there. the secretary of treasure of the international is also a member of the board of commissioners. he called me, he says, these people called us. they called us first. they want our input. we met with the club robin walker with the club, the club said, i'm going to put up a plaque. we want to put up an exhibit. we want to i am size the role of the union's past with this project. would you help us with the plaque. help us wroo it the plaque. the

club voted in favor of the plan. the club organized a panel of academics leading authority on -- harry bridges. the club has accepted every suggestion we have made all the way along the the line. they put it on the internet and radio and asked for the autograph of the stuart side of the building. this will be good not just for the union of the club but all of san francisco. this you for giving me a chance to speak. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors, my name is john fisher. i'm a third generation city city of san francisco and retired member of the ilu

and a trustee of the san francisco bay area ilu pensioners and also belong to the common wealth club and attended meetings and forums on the topics and created issues that affect our issues on our environment. the common wealth club has come forward with the intention to memorialize events with the 1934 long shore and general strike at it's home at 150 stuart street. the exhibit of the main lobby of the new building is being planned in remembrance as a meeting place of harry bridges the frame of the ilu. the union i'm proud to be a part of. the ilu pensioners are in agreement

with the common wealth club. i look forward to this. thank you. >>supervisor london breed:. thank you. next speaker. >> public speaker: this is not the same thing you voted upon last time with the hines building where you did the right thing because that was a demolition of the entire building, an historic resource. this project in fact will preserve an historic resource. with a we are talking about shows us a history of san francisco. a local organization which has become a national institution and everything that san francisco holds dear, the past and the future. my first memory of embarcadero was around 1957 shortly after the riots when i was riding in my grandfather truck while he

hold cargo up the pier. that is no longer happening. it is growing and changing in a good way. the stuart street facade and entrance will retain it's historic configuration and show homage to the authority. the embarcadero frontage envisions the future and highlights changes throughout history that thoroughfare has and continues to have. there has been no credible evidence put forward to support this appeal. i ask you to reject it and allow a fantastic project to move forward. this is exactly e the type of preservation that on this history will move our city forward. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> >> public