revisions we have submitted, we still request the board to impose the lanes with those of recommended changes. thank you. president chiu: any additional discussion? this hearing has been heard and file. with regard to item 48, amended as stated by dbi management. we move the resolution as amended with the underlying -- with the report as amended. can we move that same house, same call? without objection, the resolution is adopted with the underlying report as amended. why do we move to our 4:00 p.m. special order? i would first like to call the second public hearing which is the conditional use appeal at 3901 24th street. could you please call items 53 through 56. >> a public hearing of persons introduce -- interested in a

conditional use permit. item 54 is the motion approving the decision to approve the conditional use authorization. 55, disapproves the planning commission decision to approve the conditional use authorization and 56 as a motion directing the preparation of findings. president chiu: supervisor wiener has an update for us. supervisor wiener: thank you. first republicbank which was the subject of this conditional use appeal has informed us and has officially withdrawn its application for a conditional use in a letter dated july 30, 2012 to the clerk of the board. as a result, i will be making a motion to table item 54 and a firm items 55 and 56. a -- affirm items 55 and 56.

president chiu: is there public comment on the motion or this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, can we take a roll- call vote on supervisor wiener's motion? >> supervisor avalos, aye, supervisor campos, aye, president chiu, aye. supervisor chu, aye, supervisor cohen, aye. supervisor elsbernd, aye. supervisor farrell, aye. supervisor kim, aye. supervisor mar, aye. supervisor blogging, aye. supervisor wiener com, aye. president chiu: approved. could you please call items 49 through 52. >> the hearing of persons interested -- to rehabilitate

woods hall annex. and 51 is the decision reversing the approval of certificate of appropriateness. 52 is in motion directing the preparation of findings. president chiu: we have the appeal for landmarks 257 richardson hall, 258 woods hall, and to 59 woods hall at next. a certificate of appropriateness is required for approval or designation -- demolition of a landmark. basic to the good of appropriateness was required for the work. in appraising a proposal for certificate of appropriateness, the historic preservation commission considered the factors of architectural style,

design, arrangement, texture materials, color, and other pertinent factors. section 1,006.7 of the planning code provides a relevant part as follows. the proposed work shall be appropriate for a consistent with the a fluctuation of the purposes of article 10 of the planning code. the proposed work shall be compatible with the historic structure in terms of designed materials, for, scale, and location. the project will not detract from the architectural character. for all the exterior and interior were proposed, reasonable efforts have been made to preserve and enhance or restore and not to damage or destroy the exterior architectural features of the subject property which contribute to its significance. as we typically do, for today's hearing, we will hear from the appellant to up -- have up to 10 moments in told to describe the grounds for appeal and we will take public comment. each speaker will have up to two minutes to present. we'll hear from planning who

will have up to 10 minutes to describe the grounds for the approval of the certificate of appropriateness. falling -- following that, we'll have the real party interests and then from persons speaking on behalf of the real party of interest. appellants will have to come up to three minutes for rebuttal. are there any questions or objections to proceeding in this way? let me ask the district supervisor, do you have any opening comments? supervisor wiener: thank you. i want to briefly note 55 laguna, i am sure that colleagues are somewhat familiar with the project. this is the former uc extension campus, it is a significant piece of real estate in district 8. this board did approve the 55 laguna will provide 440 units

of housing. of that, almost 40% is affordable, including 110 units of lgbt-focused senior housing. the project is well along in its entitlement process. today, we will be hearing the appeal of the certificate of appropriateness. i look forward to listening at the hearing. thank you, colleagues. president chiu: why don't we hear from the appellants? you have of to 10 minutes -- up to 10 minutes.

>> i would passed out copies to all 11 supervisors. additional background documents% to the board this morning. -- were sent to the board this morning. the issuance is premature because they have not commented on the process. specifically, but not limited to, the treatment of a wall between the richardson hall annex. the unnecessary demolition at the community theater and the art preservation mitigation.

this is one project and it impacts the entire national register historic district and it should be considered as aholt in addition -- as a whole in addition to the ape. the ea has not been issued yet. the project is analyzed in the 2008 eir. no project alternatives -- the reuse of building by the university of california retain the integrity of the national register district.

the achp would require amendments to ensure consistency. the may 8, 2012, ceqa addendum does not address changes to the project and does not satisfy the requirements when combined with 2008 eir. their discretionary decisions, entitlements. the project cannot be found compatible with the national registered district will adversely impact it causing the district and a longer be eligible because the will lose its integrity. number 10, last-minute changes

to the drawings and specifications were distributed at the approval hearing that the public did not have the opportunity to review in advance. finally, the friends of 1800 and mission ended the nomination of the san francisco teachers college historic district to the national register in 2006. a california nonprofits took over the nomination process and raised the remaining funds to pay historians to complete the work. there resulted in a listing january 2008. the former advisory board voted in favor of lifting the district and a national register and over 800 signatures were collected supporting preservation and

adaptive reuse of the district in compliance with the secretary of interior standards. that is all. president chiu: thank you very much. [applause] any questions to the appellant? ok. why don't we move to public comment on behalf of members of the public who wish to support the project appellant. [applause] if i could remind members of the public, we have a rule that prohibits applause or other statements of support or opposition so we can keep the proceedings flowing smoothly. if we could hear from our speaker at the podium, please. >> ♪ i have seen landmark fire and rain ♪

♪ you know you would be sad they're going away ♪ landmark fire and rain ♪ you have seen the landmark times when you thought you had fixed this plan ♪ ♪ but you knew you would not want to see the landmark anend ♪ ♪ you have seen in times when you want to fix this plan ♪ and you are so glad you will fix it one more time again ♪ ♪ landmark fire and a landmark rain ♪ president chiu: thank you.

next speaker, please. >> this is about 55 laguna, correct? i live that 55 mason. the historic ambassador hotel. i hope you all can uphold -- you can hold up things that have been landmarks in the city. landmarks are not just -- there are landmarks that have been here. you have to protect laguna. 55 lacing, a 55 laguna, all addresses in the city would 55 are very important. just like yesterday, a guy who called me a faggot, he tackled

me. police came with 13 tons. i protected myself. is -- came up with 13 guns. i protected myself. we want them to be safe. it does not make safe -- since to keep giving landmarks and not protecting our city. i hope when you make landmarks, it is more than just an ancient symbol. it is about san francisco. it is here in this city and things are out of control. we get a new archbishop who is against gay marriage. we know what a chicken is. we should go there and kiss in front of them. make sure you are protecting

everything, not just the name. thank you during much. -- very much. president chiu: thank you. why don't we go to the planning department? you have up to 10 minutes. >> good afternoon, supervisors. at the may 16 hearing, the hpc a prue the -- approved a c of a. there is a larger national register district. there are only three buildings at that site that are protected and regulated under article 10. those are the three buildings that are under the jurisdiction of this body and historic preservation commission. a certificate of appropriateness is the entitlement required before the issuance of the

building permits. the hpc reviewed the proposal to rehabilitate richardson hall, landmark 257, for senior housing and senior services. when issuing a certificate of appropriateness, they must find that the proposed work is compatible with the structure and will protect the character defining features associated with the landmark building. in this case, the landmark designation includes the exterior of the to the buildings and also select interior features. there are two very significant murals on the interior of two of the buildings. after reviewing all the documents on file with planning

department, hearing public testimony, and reviewing the final eir, the hpc approved a certificate for the proposed project, determining that it was in general conformance with the secretary of interior standards. in reference to the appellant first issue that the fact that the entire 55 mixed unit project -- 55 laguna mixed project was not fully considered under the cof a, only the three buildings that are landmark under plant -- article 10 or under the hpc's jurisdiction. under the conditional -- condition of approval, they folded and all of the mitigation that was all lines under the

final eir report, which was adopted by the board of supervisors and the planning commission. the second issue raised by the appellant is that the certificate of appropriateness did not incorporate or was issued prematurely because it was not taking into consideration any mitigation that could be applied subject to the project review. it is required because the proposed project may receive federal funding. therefore, under section 106, the review would be required prior -- is considered a federal undertaking. however, c of a is not a federal undertaking and it is under this body's jurisdiction

whether to issue a if a certificate of appropriateness. the federal undertaking will have been concurrently, but it bears no weight on the decisions made by the historic preservation commission or this body. in fact, the national historic preservation act states there are no prohibitions on the approval processes, planning identification of mitigation. this concludes my report. i do want to point out that we did receive a letter early this morning from -- raising some additional concerns that the project proposes to "gut and destroy" the landmarks buildings and destroying the entire historic district.

i want to point out again that the hpc did have the final environmental review documents in front of them when making their decision and they found there had been no substantial changes to the project that would result in any further environmental review. they also believed that to -- they also believe that the minor changes that were made to the project for the issuance of the first certificate did not cause any substantial increase in the severity of the proposed project previously identified or any of the impacts previously identified under the final eir. that concludes my presentation. president chiu: any questions to the planning department? ok. why don't we hear from the real party in interest? >> good afternoon, supervisors.

on behalf of the three project sponsors, i will try to be brief. i want to go back in time and reminded that those issues were first raised at the board in 2007. there was a proposal for the sport to landmark the entire site. -- this board to landmark the entire site. the board chose to land mark these three individual buildings. the eir reflected that decision and also reflected the fact that independently, the site was placed on the national register of historic resources, but not in a san francisco landmark. the eir determined that the alterations proposed to the site would make the site ineligible for the national register, but the eir did

disclose that impact. this board did make overriding findings indicating that the benefits overrode those impacts. these issues go back three or four or five years. the board did decide the alterations to the rest of the site were justified because of the benefits of the project. the landmarks board, in this case, have jurisdiction only to review the alterations to the three buildings. you'll notice in the appeal, there is absolutely no disagreement with the alterations that were approved by the hpc. the c of a approve the adaptive reuse, minimal and exterior alterations are proposed, unanimous in its approval of these alterations.

the alterations were also blessed by -- supported by our program. all were consistent with the secretary of interior standards. the real argument is that the process, which the mayor's office of housing is undertaking, before i can release the federal funds, that process must be completed before any local actions can be taken. that is a misstatement of the law. it only regulates federal undertakings. local land-use decisions are not federal undertakings. the process will be completed by the mayor's office of housing before they take any federal undertaking. the mayor's office of housing is

here and can answer any questions you have about the process and how that is not regulate federal land-use decision, but regulates the subsequent federal funding decisions. i would submit that the actions were not premature and the process was not required to be completed before this decision was made. only the three landmark buildings -- only the three buildings are landmarks. the land use permit for the rest of the site were issued by the planning commission in 2008. they were upheld by you in 2008. they're going back to the planning commission on august 16 for some -- august 16.

just two weeks ago, on july 18, the hpc did hold another hearing and did look at the entire site. their task of looking at the design of the new building to assess the compatibility with the three landmarks. they did that on july 18. they adopted our resolution of bring back the new buildings will be compatible with the landmarks. the commission will look at those modifications in a couple of weeks. on july 18, they did look at the mayor's office of housing documents and approved and recommended approval of the need for process -- the process. there is nothing in regular that occurred here. this was a small step in a project that has been in the pipeline for close to 10 years

that has received unanimous votes by this board, the planning commission, and the hpc. we would request that you would deny this appeal. thank you. president chiu: colleagues, any questions? ok. why don't we hear from public comments from members of the public who wish to speak in support of the real party of interest in his appeal? please step up if you'd like to speak. ok. at this time, the appellant have three minutes for rebuttal. is the appellant representative still here? ok.

colleagues, any questions to any of the parties? at this time, at this hearing has been held and closed. items 50-52 are in hands of the board. supervisor wiener: thank you, mr. president. i am looking at the papers. as they came in, i paid close attention and really struggled to find a legitimate basis for this appeal and could find nine. this appeal is completely frivolous. it is abusive. none of the arguments, in my view, hold any water. it reminds me of a recent appeal of the booker t. washington project. i also want to -- notes my disappointment in a way that the

appellants have treated this board processes. the appeal was filed. the briefing was late. not submitted in a timely matter. i considered all the submissions anyway. she did not even bother to show up to date or to least alert the board as to why she was not going to be here. if there was a rationale. we got a comment from mary miles. she did not come today either. despite all of that, we will, of course, considered the full merits of the appeal. i believe the analysis of the planning department's is correct. this certificate of appropriateness was correctly

issued and considered by the historic preservation commission. as a result, i will move to a firm the certificate of appropriateness. i will move item 50, to table items 51 and 52. president chiu: is there a second? colleagues, roll-call vote on the motion. >> [roll-call vote] there