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 speaker: san

francisco trade council. several years ago in the historic preservation debate. one of the appellants came to me, you would never vote for the change of the golden gate bridge, would you? i have done it twice myself. those needs are a different order than the needs the common wealth club serves. but it serves very real needs, been debate and education. it is done so for as long as the building trades have existed in san francisco. the common wealth club proposed the projects that serves those needs as well. the club reached out to the ilw and presided at the very beginning in honor of the events of 1934. we believe they have fulfilled the conditions of ceqa and mitigated negative declaration and ask you to deny the appeal.

>>supervisor london breed: thank you. next speaker. >> public speaker: good afternoon, my name is carole flemming and board of governors in the common wealth club. i wish to put in the record a letter today. the appellants approach san francisco beautiful asking for their support in their cause. and i want to read the letter that san francisco beautiful wrote as a result of that meeting. dear supervisors, i'm writing to you in support of the common wealth club. their new headquarters at 110 embarcadero. san francisco beautiful supports the club's proposal to renovate the building that has long been neglected. with the design proposal sensitive to community needs and to preservation. the club has appropriately honored the historic events associated with this building by preserving and restoring the

historic stuart street facade. their careful attention to the historic prominence of the building is show cased by their effort to the building and the water front area, particularly of the labor history. the common wealth club's relocation to the neighborhood along with their extensive programs for all age groups will increase civic engagement and activation at the water front. san francisco beautiful request that you uphold the planning department and planning commission's preliminary mitigated negative declaration and advance this project. policy manager, san francisco beautiful. >> public speaker: madam

president, members of the board. my name is rod tirade senior. i apologize for my voice. i have an experience with a scalpel. i sat for 20 years as a physician in santa clara county. i have great respect for what you are doing today and the time you spend in serving the public. i'm here to also let you know that santa clara county and san jose are very very pleased to have an -- annex of our common wealth club. we are proud of that honor and thank you for spawning that opportunity for the rest of california. you have declared a desire for recertification and this

building has a great opportunity for accomplishing that for this wonderful character for 11 times by the simple labor council. i do strongly support labor. you have the ability to reach that certification while honoring labor while protecting the stuart street facade which is indeed historic. they have great access by transit. but the embarcadero street facade isn't the facade that was there 35 years ago in 1935. it's been changed several times. what would you have it rebuilt to. if it isn't rebuilt in this proposal, you can't reach certification. so

please see through that. >>supervisor london breed: thank you. next speaker, please. >> president breed, members of the board, my name is richard rubben. an attorney in this city for 35 years and also president of the common wealth club. this club has a distinguished history, a long history of service to the bay area, the community, to the state and indeed to the entire nation. by going ahead with plans to move into a permanent facility which will benefit the public and thousands of members, the common wealth club will remain true to its guiding principle. what is that ? it is to get the facts, find the truth and turn it loose in the world. we have employed that principle in my

opinion to the fullest in determining how to best apply the highest environmental standards and design features in consideration of this building's historic past and particularly to the contributions of labor. the labor movement like many others has contributed to the rich diversity of this community. and we pay thematic and continuing tribute to it in the renovation of this facility. we do not denigrate bad heritage, we set -- celebrate it in this building. the issue before you today is quite straight forward. will this building satisfy the city's rigorous environmental requirements and will it serve the best interest of this community. the answer to both questions as i submit, yes, i urge you to affirm the unanimous approval of the

final md and thank you for your time. >>supervisor london breed: thank you, are there any other members of the public? >> hello, my name is larry edmond. i will tell you why i like the common wealth club is because you get to alert about fighting, racism and sexism and homophobia. i bought ten tickets. i took five black men and five white men to see collins and his family there. also just recently cornell west spoke there at the common wealth. it was a sold outcast stroe theatre. i have seen many people there on common wealth on market street. i

think this building needs to be built because you know why? not only do you find in work but you need to be educated. the common wealth, speaking is good. the common wealth if you notice in the hall ways here, washington and lincoln, they have common wealth up there. most people think it's in london or england. i think you should know the common wealth is something we all benefit and need. you know e what, i want to go architect but public speaking is where i should be. it reminds people of who we are and what we can do and what you have been through. our lives and stories do matter and that's why the common wealth should be at stuart right there where the

turn around is. >>supervisor london breed: thank you, any other members of the public who would like to provide public comment at this time? is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. there will be three 3 minutes for the appellant to make a rebuttal. >> thank you, supervisors. i'm not sure where to start. i think you have hit on the ridiculousness of preserving one side over the other. can you imagine preserving one side of the white house. nothing more needs to be said about that. as far as lead certification cutting down four shade trees to cover their windows on the west side contradicts their efforts to be energy efficient. it makes no sense and that's been pointed out to the league organization already. we'll see what they have to say

about that. you have as far as the ilwu, my understanding is i'm not part of the union so i cannot vouch for this but i'm told most people here are speaking for themselves. there is no resolution and no formal finding, but you have a resolution from the internal ilw at their international conference where they voted on it, on saving this building. as far as the architect, we know the architect. our architectural historian has researched it and explained to you the record and has the landmark building in the city and landmarks around the bay area. so the architecture and that's a part of ceqa where there is an architecture involved in this. as far as the person, how about the

side of hairy bridges. the fact that he was no the in the building doesn't matter. what about the other people and heroic doctors who treated them. they are significant persons and they were in this building. they presented no evidence that the union was only on one side of this building. they have a map that shows no definite wall between the second floor. they are also showing maps of the first floor. so keep in mind the club is moving into temporary headquarters for the next 2

years. so there is time to send this back to planning make some sense of this. the club originally planned to have a more appropriate facade for the embarcadero side. bring that out and go back to that. thanks very much. i'm happy to answer any questions you may have. >>supervisor london breed: thank you. at this time this hearing has been held and is now closed. the item is in the hands of the board of supervisors. supervisor kim? >>supervisor jane kim: thank you, madam president. couple things i want to say. first of all the issue today was not the project sponsor in and of itself but i want to thank you for discussion and debate. i have attended many of your events and as well as the members of the pub who spoke

on your behalf. i appreciate the importance of the institution and i'm really excited about common wealth club finding a space that they will be able to grow in the city for. the issue before us today though is the appeal of the negative mitigated declaration and i think a number of different issues had come up today and i think while the bifurcation of the building appears to be unique and certainly not one that i have seen before nor am i familiar with, i do believe that both the planning department and the project sponsor were able to adequately argue the case on behalf of affirming the approval of the mitigated negative declaration. i also want to recognize because we have been meeting with the project sponsor and also the appellant over the course of the last year, my appreciation

in terms of project sponsor's work of reaching out to the neighborhood and community and also working very closely with ilw and labor council for getting their support but also working in partnership with them to recognize the historic significance of the building on the street side. i know there was a panel that occurred last month. there has been a lot of dialogue about not just how to preserve the facade but to continue to educate the public on the union's history and of course the significance of this really tragic event here in san francisco making sure that we remember what has occurred so that it does not occur again. also, wanted to note the issue of the trees was something that had been brought up by the neighborhood. i'm glad to hear that has been revolved and preserved as possible with

relationship to dpw and this approval of mitigated nag dag was approved boo i the commission and all members of the commission were present. i know we can have commissioners that are very particular about historic issues and seeing their support for this mitigated nag dag for this appeal. i would like to make a motion to affirm item 28 and table 29 and 30. >>supervisor london breed: supervisor kim has made a motion to table item 28, and 29 and 30. seconded by supervisor avalos and i would like to recognize supervisor christian son at this time. >> i would like to look at the goals that we stumble towards. i hear we want to honor labor, that we want to respect

history, that we want to be able to learn from that very black day in 1934. secondly, i hear that we want to preserve history in our city, historically significant blths and the district's that mean something to us historically and emotionally. thirdly, i know especially on our water front we've looked to encourage compatible and preferred uses. so as i look at this project and i ask, what's the best way to honor labor? if that's our goal, what can we do today that will help make sure that harry bridges and the unions and the events of that day are respected an remembered. it's something i struggle with a lot. i'm very interested in history, i have worked on historical preservation projects and i struggle with how to pass this knowledge on to those that come behind us.

i can't say that i'm convinced that a vacant unattractive building standing there mute on embarcadero is necessarily the best we can do to remember these people who gave their lives for a cause they believed in. in terms of preserving historical buildings i look at the building as it is now. i find it unsightly. i don't know that we are losing much in terms of a historical resource. but as somebody who believes in win win situations, the dual facade condition actually gives me e hope because it means we can address both the past and the future in the same project. in terms of compatible and preferred uses. what do we imagine this building is going to be? is it going to be a club or a restaurant a boutique hotel or another

office on embarcadero. i can't think for a use for the site better than the common wealth club for the city. i'm moved by kevin star, support of the planning commission and supervisor kim whose district this is, it's an impressive list of support. and i keep going back through all this testimony i was thinking what would harry bridges have us do. these guys that put it all on the line, some of whom gave everything would they really want to be evoked in an argument whether a facade is glass or brick. i think we can do better than that perhaps in discussion. no doubt they should be remembered and honored and i can't think of better groups in the common wealth club in position to pass that information on to future generations.

>>supervisor london breed: supervisor wiener in >>supervisor scott weiner: i will be supporting the motion and i won't repeat the rational by supervisors kim and christian son. i would like to take a moment to welcome supervisor deerden and i look forward to a day that we can take high speed rail and bart to san jose. >> thank you, supervisors campos. >>supervisor david campos: thank you, madam president. i also wanted to welcome former supervisor and thank him for his service to the bay area and you know, it's not very many of us have a station named after us. so it's quite an honor to meet you in

person. let me just make a couple of points. first of all let me say that i wasn't still totally clear about the explanation provided by planning. i think that the way that it was presented at least to me, just came across as convoluted. i actually though you the council for the project sponsor, you know, made a better point in terms of identifying the factual differences than planning did. i still have concerns about the path of going down these analysis and future projects that come before us where that kind of distinction that there would be more priority in the way the distinction is presented. that said for me,

i think that a lot of different tasks have to be given to the supervisor in this case supervisor kim has i think articulated a very solid reason to move this item forward. more importantly, though, for me is the fact that even though the explanation in planning wasn't very clear, i am confident that the historic significance of this building is being protected and i know that not because of anything other than the fact that you had members of labor coming in here and talking about that and i know that if anyone would be concerned about that they would be concerned about that. so, i appreciate it and i want to thank the appellants for raising these issues. but i think that the fact that not

just the specific union but the labor council came and spoke on that issue is important and it also seems like the common wealth club which i think all of us are big supporters of and fans of what they do. it seems you just found yourself a spokesperson with mr. edmond's here, but with that i will be supporting the motion. >> thank you. supervisor mar? >>supervisor eric mar: thank you. i want to thank you for working with the appellant and project sponsor. i don't know how long this effort has been. i want to thank president miguel. this project is different when i and a couple of my colleagues were addressing the issues of historic significance of the building, i think the common

wealth club seems to have a good place for involving labor and i thank mark for being here as well and ilw reps also. while i personally feel the embarcadero side, the character of the fine features are really important, it seems unbalanced. this project does significantly retain the historic significance of the building especially the stuart side. i want the common wealth club to have a building as well for future and educational opportunities as supervisor mentioned. i will support the project. >>supervisor london breed: thank you. there is a motion to approve item no. 28 and table item no. 29 and 30. mr. clerk, i think it was already

seconded by supervisor avalos. thank you for your eagerness, supervisor farrell. with that, >>clerk, please call the roll. >> supervisors breed, campos, aye, crist stan son, aye, cohen aye, farrell, aye, kim aye, mar aye, supervisor tang aye, wiener aye, supervisor yee, aye, supervisor avalos. eleven ayes. >>supervisor london breed: okay. the plans for negative mitigation is approved. [ applause ] . if you can take your business outside quietly thank you very much. mr. clerk call

item 22. city clerk: item 22 has already been called. >>supervisor john avalos: we have before us the administrative code establishing the children's youth oversight and advisory committee working group. this would replace the citizens advisory committee. the charter amendment approved by the voters in november replaced the advisory committee with this body. this legislation is clarifying going deeper to what this declaration body is going to be and what role it's going to play. one of the biggest changes that this body will be involved in will be looking at budgetary matters over the department of children using their families and advising the body for when it comes to developing the needs and the allocation plans that will be part of the efforts to

provide services for young people every 5 years being renewed with an rfp for the next 20 years. so this amendment as a whole you have a copy on your desk. this has a prethorough discussion and the rules committee and some clarifying language we have here for the make of the committee. i believe it's language that everyone would should be able to support the first changes throughout the ordinance any reference to parent or youth is now going to include guardian as well. so that was an oversight that i'm glad we caught because all of us know that there are many configurations of families and people who are taking care of kids in san francisco. so that will be changed throughout where we have parent view that

will include guardians as well. we also have language on page 5 that you will see it highlighted line seven. it reads, in addition to the state of qualifications of eat seat current city and san francisco unified school district and current members or boards of directors of organizations where the decision maker for funding. this language is ensuring that there are members who work in the unified school district, either teachers or principals or even people who might work in the administrative oftsz -- offices could can be in the office committee who have worked for the allocation of the plan or needs assessment

or decision making that would guide the department at the highest level. so we want to make sure there are school district employees who can also take part in the oversight body. there is also some language that i want to check with mr. gibner, deputy city attorney job gibner to make sure that i don't want to, i want to make sure that city employees are able to take part in the city as well. in the language it's not clear enough to ensure that someone who is a public health nurse can serve but we want to make sure that people who are the same level of unified school district employees who would make sense for people within the city government who have been part of the decision making process or highest working with dcys to work on the body. if you have language to provide to us would help

ensure there are members of the city workser who can serve on the body. but just not the highest level workers. >> deputy city attorney john gibner, i don't have language saying that but i understand the goal of this amendment is to exclude city employees who are at the director level of departments or deputy director level and we can certainly draft that and prepare it for the clerk following this meeting if the board adopts the amendment. >> great. that will be an additional amendment to this section between on page 5 between line 7 and 12 that we would like to make sure gets included. thank you. those are my, it's an amendment as a whole and includes this language. i believe this is language that was requested by dcy who had concerns about these exclusions. i don't think the exclusion made a lot