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 are 10 ayes. president chiu: the certificate of appropriateness is affirmed. colleagues, why don't we go to our committee reports? items 57 did not come out of committee. >> items 58 was considered by the government audits and oversight committee. it was supported as a committee report. is the resolution authorizing the director of the mayor's office of housing to execute a

local operating subsidy program grant agreement with the mercy housing to provide operating subsidieeless single adults at the arlington hotel in an amount not to exceed $9.3 million. president chiu: this resolution is adopted. i understand item 59 is going to be coming out of committee in september september 4. >> item 68 -- item 60 was considered at a regular meeting on monday, july 30. our resolution authorizing the recreation and park department to accept an expensive gift from the baker street foundation for $100,000 for the salary of a gardener at the polo fields in golden gate park for at least a year. president chiu: without objection, this resolution is adopted.

supervisor mar: this past friday, the budget office released an import report on the possible impacts of formula retail stores on our fresh food businesses and smaller businesses. this is an important study. my commission did it as a result of a hearing i help with a coalition of small businesses. that was last year on the impacts of the growing presence of large scale corporate for miller retail. -- for formulary retail. among the issues raised was the fact that large before miller retailers are selling fresh food as a way of making inroads into

urban areas as part of their business models. the report analyze the potential impacts at the opening of a large part of a retail store on san francisco on the city's current food retail establishment and the structure. if another -- and the structure. if another large store opens in a central location, an estimated 195 small existing businesses would be closed after one year. if a large a formula retail store opens in a central location, 200 existing small businesses would close after one year. the closing of an estimated would result in a loss of between 208 hundred jobs. that is within the first year. -- 200 and 800 jobs.

that is when the first year. the closure of an estimated 321 small businesses and about 300- 1300 jobs and that is within the second year. these numbers are alarming and they raised concerns for many of the small businesses in our neighborhoods. i am calling for a hearing to look at the data and analysis and to allow the small businesses and others to testify and give their input. i am also working with community stakeholders and the city attorney's office to draft legislation to help protect and level the playing field for our smaller businesses as well. i want to alert my colleagues have died on friday, it will mark the 35th anniversary of an important historic event in san francisco, the fall of the international hotel.

of massive displaced eviction of low-income people. it happens august 3, 19707. there is a great potluck at the international hotel site. bring some food to share with people. many of the organizations and groups in the filipino community should be there. there should be spirited dialogue and performances. a ceremony to honor the fight that sparked our local and national movement for housing justice and against housing -- land speculation and gentrification. i urge you to support the 35th anniversary of the fault of the international hotel.

-- the fall of the international hotel. president chiu: i am introducing an ordinance to amend our campaign governmental conduct code to eliminate paper filings with the ethics commission. several times a year, a candidate to file campaign finance disclosure documents with the ethics commission. these are quite voluminous involving a lot of paper. until recently, the commission did not have the authority to eliminate the requirement to file duplicative paper filings. earlier this month, at our state legislature approved an assembly bill 2452, which was sponsored by our assemblymen, which authorizes local jurisdictions to require candace and commitments to forgo paper filings and to file statements electronically.

i think we should take advantage of this recent change in state law so that the public can better access information. electronic filing allows the public to run searches and compile information more easily by moving to an electronic filing system. rx commission will no longer need to expand staff time and limited resources to store copious campaign statements as paper copies. i want to thank the ethics commission for supporting these changes. stating they will bring into the code -- our code into compliance with state law and shift more filings to the cheaper electronic format. supervisor olague: i would like

to also co-sponsor the hearing that supervisor mar mentioned about small businesses. i am submitted legislation that would amend the rent ordinance by providing hearings on tenant harassment. i want to set up a process who may feel intimidated about the courts to file their grievances with the rent board with the support of advocates. i am introducing an ordinance that provides families relocated due to redevelopments to the right to return to the revitalize housing, creating a right to return will simplify the reoccupied process. displacement of people as a result of redevelopment has had an irreparable impact on the western addition in san francisco's african-american community.

the rest i will submit. [applause] president chiu: if i could just remind folks again, if we could please ask folks to be silent. timber rules to not permit a clause -- chamber rules do not permit applause. supervisor elsbernd: last week, i may be mentioned about the concern that i had about the future of the discussion around retiree health care. no way do i think we can fix that problem any time soon. in my experience with the work on proposition c, one of the lessons i learned is that you will not get anywhere until there is a common agreement on what the problem is. i am introducing an ordinance that will require the controller

to document -- to also include the annual estimates for what the annual retiree requirement is. i hope will become a first ain illuminating the biggest threat to the city's finances. it can be a small piece, maybe a bigger piece of future budget discussions. might be one of the first domino's to begin to fall to really address the issue. i look forward to the discussion me get back from recess. supervisor campos: thank you very much. i have a couple of items i would like to speak to you.

i speak today as an openly gay man and i also speak as someone who grew up in a catholic family. we heard the news in the last few days about the appointment of the new archbishop in the city in san francisco. for many of us, who grew up catholic and happen to be members of the lgbt community, seeing disappointment has been a very difficult thing. i am mindful that each and every one of us has the right to our own opinions and not when it comes to how different religions to view the rights of the lgbt community, there are

reasons why people have a certain perspective. what was troubling about this appointment, though, is that it is not so much you have a catholic archbishop that was against same-sex marriage. that is not anything new. what you have here is an individual who beyond just being against same-sex marriage, took the view and participated in the political process and organized religious leaders throughout the state of california to put proposition 8 that was put on the ballot to deny an entire community of the right that many of us believe is basic. this is an individual that personally donated $6,000 to that campaign