tv [untitled] January 30, 2015 5:30am-6:01am PST
trial maybe follow three months after that but they could probably speak best to the exact timing. >> okay. supervisor campos. >> so my inclination would be to continue this item and in light of the uncertainty of the schedule perhaps to do that for three months and see where the case is at that point, so that would be my suggestion in terms how we should approach this case. i want to of course give the parties an opportunity to comment on that. >> okay. so supervisor campos you're asking that we continue this item, and until that time a three month time period. do you want to specify a specific date? so it would be -- i don't know
if there is a specific date for three months from today, and april that could work mr. clerk. >> april 28. >> april 28. >> okay. >> that would be my motion. >> okay. supervisor campos has made a motion to continue this hearing until april 28. is there a second? there's a second by supervisor yee. with that i think we need to hold public comment on the continuance so this item is open to public comment to provide public comment about the specific continuance of this hearing so if there are any members of the public that would like to speak please move forward to the podium at this time for two minutes. >> thank you supervisor -- president breed. congratulations on that and honorable supervisors. i
support dr. bradley, the appellant and we thank you for that continuance and i think it provides ample time to get to the case management conversation, find out what the court can do with scheduling. >> >> and continue with the efforts to find a way to settle this case. >> thank you. is there any members of the public to provide public comment at this time? >> yes, i am david myers and from the law firm [inaudible] and my pleasure to represent the applicant in this matter and this needs to be adjudicated in the court before the board has enough time to pass on the resolution one way or another so it's my recommendation that the board support the motion of supervisor campos. >> thank you. are there any other members of the public that would like to pride public comment at this time? seeing
none. public comment is now closed. [gavel] . and. mr. gibner. >> deputy city attorney john gibner. the board it continue it but you have to keep it open to continue for three months so take the motion to continue the hearing open per a subsequent hearing at the continued date. >> okay. thank you. and supervisor campos. >> to clarify that that in fact the motion is predicated on the understanding that the hearing remains open to a later date. >> okay. with that mr. clerk can you please call the roll on the motion to continue. >> open to april 28, 2015. supervisor breed. >> aye. >> supervisor campos. >> aye. >> supervisor christensen. >> aye. >> supervisor cohen. >> aye.
>> supervisor farrell. >> aye. >> supervisor kim. >> aye. >> supervisor mar. >> aye. >> supervisor tang. >> aye. >> supervisor wiener. >> aye. >> supervisor yee. >> aye. >> supervisor avalos. >> aye. >> there are 11 aye's. >> okay the continuance passes unanimously. thank you very much. and we also have our second 3:00 p.m. special order. and mr. clerk can you please call the items item 28, 29, 30. >> 27-30 comprise a public hearing for persons interested in the 2014 mitigated negative declaration for the embarcadero also known as steuart street. and other items are reversing the mitigated negative
declaration and findings. >> okay. we have a mitigated negative declaration appeal at the 110 embarcadero and 115 steuart street and constains the analysis and sufficiency and completeness of the neg55 declaration and we will proceed as follows. up to 10 minutes for the appellant to speak and up to two minutes for supporters to speak in support of the appeal and 10 minutes for the planning department to certify the mitigated negative declaration and 10 minutes for the real party and interest to present their case for certification of the negative declaration. up to two minutes for public comment for support of the negative declaration will have three minutes for rebuttal
argument and at this time i would like to recognize supervisor kim for any opening remarks in regards to this item. >> thank you . we have before us a think other -- building with long interest and on the waterfront with historical nature regarding the project before us. i look forward to hearing both sides of this project and i will reserve the rest of the comments after the arguments. >> thank you and at this time can the appellant please come forward with their presentation. you will have up to 10 minutes.
>> good afternoon supervisors. i am david [inaudible]. once again san francisco's heart and soul are under attack and for no important reason. i hope you found the letters and emails expressing support for this appeal in your packets. unfortunately they don't begin the 476 page but they begin on packet page number 17 22. numerous involves include r members of the [inaudible] and organizations expressed concerns about destruction of this building. they include the richmond community organization, san francisco tomorrow, the preservation consortium, the victorian alliance and the coalition for san francisco neighborhoods which voted 22-one to preserve the embarcadero facade of this building.
supervisor christensen might be interested to know the votes include the telegraph dwellers and the barbary coast association. [inaudible] unanimously called for landmarking this building out of the convention in seattle and can read the resolution in your packets. there is widespread support all across san francisco for preserving this historic building. after prop b8 washington, the warriors arena and the rejected hiens proposal six years ago for the same location. >> >> and should be clear that they want it developed in the best way practices -- violating practices and ceqa requirements and destroying historic facades
and introducing a modern glass wall represent the worse planning practices. today an historic facade maybe destroyed because [inaudible] they want windows opened. i lived near this site for years and they're -- [inaudible] -- by opening the windows. many people don't remember this but 32 people were shot by the police on bloody thursday 80 years ago. 32. 100 people were wounded. can you imagine what would happen today if the sfpd shot 32 people in one bloody day? it was a massacre. the day was july 5,
1934 and the location of mission street between the embarcadero and steuart street. charles [inaudible] wrote just around the corner the union headquarters took first aid station as the wounded were carried to the second floor hall of this building where they were laid in rows on the floor. a doctor was found who was willing to treat them and if you moved among the wounded a teargas shell came crashing through a window dispersing sickening smoke in the room. supervisors that is part of the history of this building. the strikers who are headquartered in the
building persevered and the strike was settled. however the planning department say none of the owptdants made a contribution to local state and national history. nonsense nonsense. boiler plate statement was made in 2009 as well. the attorney representing the appellants back then said 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 did