consideration of(3 were skewed from the outset as the project objectives. the eir failed to analyze a reasonable range of project alternatives. additional project alternatives must be considered to be potentially significant historic resource impact. president miguel: thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i live with my family in a historic building near the fairmont. i am here to summarize some of the public comments you are about to hear on the inadequacy of the project.

we can't believe the lack of project alternatives. we understand that at minimum, there should be a two-code alternative, in no-demolition alternative, and a power alternatives. it gives the public no imperative or choice, and this a mission -- omission is fundamentally mistaken. clearly, demolishing a 23-story building with an 48-ft -- within 40 feet of another building is too great for litigation. it was determined to be less than significant. we are talking about the largest demolition and new construction

project since the great fire and earthquake. this fails to analyze in detail the loading dock deficiency and would not believe -- or relieve disruptions. this fails to seriously consider impact on the fairmont, cable cars, and the historic district. this project conforms to the general plan -- or does not conform to the general plan. it contends that the project will not impact the eastern view of the fairmont. we stand with the historic preservation commission in saying that the entire as the exception is flawed -- aesthetic section is flawed. it is totally unsatisfactory and

contradictory. we request that this eir not be certified. thank you. president miguel: following this, linda stone, irma, jim -- >> i am a resident and property owner in san francisco. it is my understanding that the draft will be certified today under the condition that if it is deemed adequate with completeenss. -- completeness. we don't believe that an attempt was made for the advocacy of the public community. it is unbelievable, and one has to ask, what plan are they on?

there are over 700 pages with the proposed project costing millions of dollars and identify only one significant unavoidable impact, how can that be? that's incredible. it defies all reasonable logic and corrupt the true intent. mainly finding a viable way to utilize the existing power. the magnitude of this development defined by its massive size, time duration of demolition and construction, the ongoing severe disruption of daily life for over three years for those who live and visit the district of san francisco. it begs the question if the applicant is providing a gross,

overriding accommodation and flexibility to jam the project down the community's throat. it will be one of the most gigantic demolition and constructions in city history. evaluating the environmental impact, i and others have heard with breakneck speed, they have put this document together quickly so as to not create a public media debate and have the 2005 temporary 18-month moratorium reinstituted by the board of supervisors as a permanent ban on hotel-condo conversion. you will be putting your finger prints on an l-conceived project -- ill-conceived project. how can you verify without

further analysis and public advocacy of your position's mandate of making sure that their play and a true environmental impact upon the community is truly mitigated without lingering doubt. i am not against the development. we don't want her an unfair eir that places [chime] -- >> thank you for your time. i live across the street from the fairmont hotel. i am a participant in the historic group. we formed the organization in the hope of being able to put together a group of people that could work with fairmont to create this project. it would serve the city, the

neighborhood, and the interest of the fairmont hotel. we have been frustrated throughout the year that -the hotel has not been willing to sit down and talk to us. we are concerned that the approach they have taken, it is our interest we are interested in and we don't care about your interest, your concerns, or the city concerns. that leads us here. it leads us to take the positions we are taking. it is one supreme example of what i think to be a high level of corporate arrogance on the part of the fairmont owners. i have worked over 40 years as a lawyer. my clients typically try to behave and are socially

responsible with the public. i have not observed that here. the eir is a supremely good example of refusal to acknowledge an opposing point of view. as an example, somebody proposed may be considering using an existing skeletons of the building and keeping the project closer to scale. was that met with a cooperative response? no. they said that is not consistent with our objective. our objective is to destroy the existing power. -- tower. that is not a cooperative response. the approach to the aesthetic is

very deficient, it does not acknowledge what is obvious to everybody. it is bulky, blue glass, and it stands out like a sore thumb in this neighborhood. it is not consistent with neighborhood as that -- aesthetics. having concluded there is no significant impact, they don't have to deal with it. that is their answer to everything they have to deal with. [chime] for that reason, the environmental statement is deficient. >> i am chairman of the homeowners' association right across the street.

we have written letters on behalf of the eir and urge that you review those. given the limited time i have, the addition of the five-story at-on -- add-on isn't significant. we object to that conclusion. it is stated that from various vistas, the addition of the five stories were not adversely affecting the views. they are all the wrong ones.

they want a review that is not addressed in the eir. the most obvious one. let's step back a second. the addition would double the height of the podium from 50 feet to 105 ft. the new structure itself would be the tallest building except for the tower. it endorsed these opposite buildings. -- dwarfs these opposite buildings. it is a significant addition and it should be addressed. given the comments and responses for not taking into account the vista is if the height affects private views only.

it affects the streetscape. it affects private and public views. it is not disproportionate to the buildings on the eastern side between california and sacramento. as you have heard, the university club is four stories. this will be 10 stories plus. the francesca is 9 stories. the francesca is 20 feet below, it slopes downward. proportionate means in harmony and consistent with. greeks would say take the median. not an add-on. [chime] president miguel: are irma or --

>> [inaudible] president miguel: you may not. >> i would like to thank the commissioners for allowing me to speak. i took the day off from my teaching day to -- linda stone. i'm the owner of a cinderella unit. my class is studying in civics, defining what it means to be a citizen and a member of the community. i believe that this project would change my unit into a very

dusty, dark hole that is unlivable and unsellable. i was able to save the money for this unit. to mr. -- is it wico? it is right on sacramento street. i have concerns regarding the impact of the fairmont hotel project. it is higher than most of the buildings in the neighborhood including the original structure of the fairmont. why should be a mistake be made a second time? i prefer a structure more modest with sensitivity to the neighborhood. having seen the plans for the

project, i was disturbed by the lack of even a nod to the historic buildings around the tower. i am also concerned about the traffic flow and the cable cars. i have spoken to all of the noise and the dust that will infiltrate my own little space. i am hoping the project can be scaled down with a more sincere attempt to reflect a neighborhood that surrounds the fairmont. president miguel: [reading names ] >> thank you for letting me

speak. >> we need you to speak into the microphone. >> my name is brenda osborn, and i am the president of 901 pal street. the eir had missed ongoing disputes with neighbors dating back to the 1950's, it refuses to a knowledge that the current project continues to provide an adequate loading. it does not take into consideration the increase in density and the change that will be grandfathered. i think it is inadequate because of the following seven items. it fails to consider voting generated by convention activity which requires numerous large

trucks to arrive simultaneously after hours. when this is taken into consideration, the proposed loading docks are too small. it includes kerbside loading which is prohibited in residential districts under ordinance 199-00. three loading docks are on the block of sacramento street. it includes as one of the four required living spaces, and an enclosed space. thus, this will not be used for general loading. it provides only one large loading dock which forces large trucks to block traffic. it contains confusing explanations with no graphs to

indicate sizes and locations. it places trash removal for a garbage truck, forcing the truck to block traffic as it travels the wrong way down a one-way street. it erroneously conclude that there are no loading impact. finally, a division floating is inconsistent. thank you. president miguel: thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am paul fisher. i am appearing as a california architect.

the developer has rejected the idea of the existing power because he says, without substantiation, it has too many columns and the ceilings are only 8 feet high. i was able to pick up a good friend of the existing floor plan and original architecture. i also got a supporting opinion as an ex -- from an experienced structural engineer. we looked during the construction period, and the engineer said, [unintelligible] that is the way they did things in those days. i personally measured 94 inches from the other side of the ceiling slab. incomparable high end condos,

this would be the ceiling. comparable project include the millennium, saint regis, and they are all about 9 feet or 10 feet. as for the dreaded columns, i did a layout. is that going through? a sample, it shows that the unit worked out very nicely. this is based on the programs shown earlier by the developer. i think it works out really well. i asked that it be successfully reviewed and hope you will agree

with me. president miguel: thank you. >> my name is maria collins, and i'm an owner at 850 powell street. this is a heartfelt, i am going to make. my feeling is, why are we tampering with historic landmarks? i was under the understanding that historic landmarks could not be changed from the outside. has anything changed along those lines? the tower was constructed in 1965 and was not a historic landmark. now it is 100 years later, and the fairmont hotel is a

historical landmark. those rules apply anymore? i don't see a cable car stopping to let tourists out. where does it stop? on mason street? why can't other people do the same? thank you. president miguel: thank you. courtney, mary, patricia, tom, will collins. come on up.

if i have called your name, someone, to the podium. -- come up to the podium. >> thank you, commissioners. i am here in connection with the historic association. i just want to make a couple of points addressed to the inadequacy of the eir. the first is that in the draft eir, when the developer was addressing the exteriors connections between the 1906 building and the proposed new tower and a podium, they said there would be mitigating measures to preserve the

historic nature of the building. it specifically provided that it would implement mitigation measure mcp1a. this is page 4.z.34 of the eir. it requires that the developer, with all of the work associated, and john meet the standards. that was a mitigating measure to make sure -- it shall meet the standards. that was a mitigating measure to make sure that it met with historic buildings. in the proposed final eir, it is eliminated. they have taken out that litigation measure. we did not know that it was not going to be there. that has been eliminated. if you look at the comments and

responses, they have eliminated the mitigation measures that would have required them to comply with the secretary standards. it means either they can't do it, they won't do it, or they are hiding something that they are not telling us about. that is the basis alone to not approve this document. the second point that i wanted to make, the eir objective number one is to demolish the tower. in the eir document, when the comments and responses came in, isn't there some alternative to demolishing the tower? can we look at some alternatives? the developer said, our objective is to demolish the power -- tower, to demolish the podium.

that cannot be objective under san francisco standards and regulations. so to say that was the objective simply does not do it. we would like to see some proposed alternative. the picture that i tried to put up here -- [chime] [cpresident miguel: thank you. >> my name is thomas, and i apologize for coming in a t- shirt. i came directly from there and i did not have a chance to go home. as i said, my name is thomas, i reside at 850 powell street

across from the fairmont tower. i am here to speak against decertification of the eir. the document is filled with omissions. it did not do its job. when my neighbors pointed out some of these problems, the responses were arrogant and uninformative, relying heavily on circular logic. they desire to proceed with his little caution and effort as possible. my short time here does not allow me to list of the long set of examples, but here is one. the developer says his objective is demolition. there can be no alternative. demolition or nothing, take-it- or-leave-it. that is some neighbor. and you. -- thank you. president miguel: thank you.

>> i reside at 850 powell for the last 20 years. one of the historic buildings. i wanted to bring up the eri is really inadequate as it was presented to this panel. at this point, you should evaluate it, reevaluate it, and decline acceptance of the document. we want to enjoy the life, the tax bill is always on time. and it gets paid on time as well. i can just envision the three years or four years of disaster going on on sacramento st. and

powell, to joyce, mason, and beyond. i ask that you evaluate the environmental impact that this will have on the community. it is not good. there is plenty of documented pieces to evaluate. i bless you. i don't know how you get the time. thank you very much. president miguel: [reading names] >> i am here on behalf of the san francisco architectural heritage. we agree that the eir