analyze the impact of the fairmont hotel landmark in the area that surrounds it. the new residential -- or the 1906 fairmont hotel. the proposed new construction must be evaluated based on standards, and the tower is permanently linked to and will expand and connect to the hotel, although the eir includes a mitigation measures pledging future compliance, the city seemingly has gone out of its way to exclude the commission from its review process. there can be new disputes the process falls within the purview of the hpc, the appointed panel of experts, charged with applying the secretary standards, and standards

themselves include specific criteria for evaluating specific criteria for exterior resources. the significant impact of the project cannot be mitigated by simply saying that the project will follow the standards without an evaluation of the proposed design against the standards. we feel that alternatives b1 and b2 meet most of the stated project objectives. both include the development of a mid-rise residential component and residential tower with up to 160 residential units integrated with the historic 1906 fairmont hotels. the project sponsor claims that alternative to of the will is infeasible because it requires engines to be moved, but no objective evidence has been proffered in the final eir to substantiate this decision. it remains unclear how we locating the infants would diminish the marketability and

feel of the proposed residential component. finally, with regard to the rooftop gardens, it does not include any additional information than the portfolio, despite heritage as a specific request for such information in our comments on the drug. after this research, the eir fails to justify its conclusion or conversely why it's unique departure from the portfolio does not warrant significance as a rare example. a comment submitted by associates suggested that the firm on design was influenced by the artists closeness with thomas church, thereby strengthening the historical significance. thank you. commissioner miguel: thank you. >> i'd be asked that i am allowed to speak out of turn. i believe you skipped over my name. good afternoon, commissioners. i am a member of historic nob

hill and a resident at 901 powell st.. i would like to thank the planning commission for its kind attention. many important issues regarding the advocacy of this eir were made today. the plan does not conform with the san francisco general plan. it fails to comply with policy, to respect the character of the existing neighborhood, and it fails to protect an extremely important and if unique area that defines san francisco. the project does not relate in any way to the historic 1906 fairmont's structure. it is overwhelming in its size and scale. the proposed townhouses are incompatible with the historic hotel and for the degree of the important easter in the view of the hotel. we have been talking about that a lot, and i wanted to show you a photograph i took of the eastern you from whole street. eir fails to adequately mitigate

construction related issues. it fails to adequately address loading issues and traffic construction into this or that -- already congested neighborhood. it fails to address newly increased traffic and the increase schedules of construction on unscheduled subway and cable car lines that will be coming in 2011. the most glaring failure, however, is the lack of credible alternatives. focusing on the tonga room is not appropriate. is the knob hill historic district even a greater cultural district not only to san francisco but to millions of visitors from around the world? the budget sponsor has an opportunity to correct the mistake made with the 1961 tower and restore the neighborhood to its original splendor. instead, we are given a project that does nothing to realize this goal with no substantive

alternatives. the sponsor has given no consideration to the people of nob hill, and we therefore request that this eir should not be certified. thank you. >> good afternoon. my name is michael barrett. i have been a resident for 35 years right at california and stockton streets. first thing that happened at our wonderful neighborhood was the ritz carlton. they are not a good neighbor. they are commercially oriented and have no concern for the citizens above san francisco who pay substantial rent in that area. the second disaster was city apartments, which finally hit the papers after 10 years of stealing and creating a card house of false financing and

going bankrupt, which they are now in receivership, as so many of our nice old buildings are now in receiverships. neighbors of the fairmont. we are at the fairmont now. i have been in this city 50 years, live in that area 35. they've ruined a classic beauty of a lobby, by dorothy draper, one of the world's finest designers, and now, the lobby of the family looks like any holiday inn, and that is what they are doing to the whole dam neighborhood. i have been an active member of the utility reform network for five years, and the last one and a half years, we have had three victories. one against at&t, and i'm talking about these because they

are big corporations, just like the developer of the pheromone. when we won against at&t. they wanted us to allow live ones for the poor people that live in single room only. they pay $6 a month for the telephone bill. we pay the other. at&t won the two seats that profit. we beat them on that. the second thing, just to remind you that these people -- you must answer to the citizens of san francisco. they have made the ballot from pg&e to require 2/3 but that came out of the primary, was defeated by us turn because we called the public's attention to the fact that they spend $45 million of our ratepayer money to pass a law that would get them sanctioned to run public

utilities forever. the third is if we might remember, the fire in san bruno. we have been fighting pg&e for years for maps of their underground pipes. finally, a terrible disaster in which four lives and many homes were ruined, has caused pg&e problems. it also caused the public utility district to answer to the governing boards. thank you. commissioner miguel: [reading names] >> commissioners, thank you for the offer to teach his feet. i live at 1000 basin street -- thank you for the opportunity to speak. i live at 1000 mason st..

my bedroom is on the first floor. i'm going to be at ground zero, but i strongly favor this project because i'm not looking at the two or three or wherever years it will be in construction. i'm looking back as to what the hotel was 30 or 40 years ago. it was the prime meeting place for san franciscans. it was a place where people went to meet, to eat, and to enjoy themselves. i'm looking forward to the future. having been in the hotel business, i see a future where it is obvious to me these owners care about this project, and they are not allowed to do what they do, then they will sell the hotel for whenever they can get, to an owner who i would assume would have less care than they would have. the fairmont hotel is now about 500 rooms. it needs to get groups in theory

b.c. these buses every once in awhile, which makes driving on mason st. lots of fun. -- we need to get groups in. the cds buses every once in awhile. if that happens, that is not been for the neighborhood. the other thing is that these owners have been over backwards to make full presentations to us and to answer any questions that we have had. i think this is a terrific project for nob hill and for the city of san francisco, and i urge you to approve it. thank you. commissioner miguel: thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. in the current president of the nob hill association. the association has some 500

members, over 90% lived on nob hill, and it is the oldest neighborhood association in san francisco. i wish to read a resolution adopted as a special meeting of the board of directors on the association on september 14 of this year. pursuant to written notice dated august 17, 2010, i called a special meeting of directors for 6:00 p.m. on september 14, 2010, in the chapter room of raise cathedral, to consider the fairmont hotel's proposed project to see -- sorry, to remove the existing hotel tower at the corner of how will and sacramento streets and replace it with condominium residences and make other improvements to the facades and interiors of the eastern half of the fairmont hotel. following an open question and answer session with representatives of the fairmont including a slide show showing

the before and after appearances of the facade of the hotel facing upholstery, and upon a motion by the director and president and seconded by director and hast nha president, the following resolution was adopted with one director of sitting in two directors voting no, result that the novel association, a california non- profit association and in the colorado board of directors held on september 14, 2010 in which a quorum was president -- was present, supports a front to move the existing hotel tower on the corner of one dominium residences in make other improvements to the eastern half of the fairmont hotel in the manner shown to directors on september 14, 2010, subject to such further revisions as may be

required or permitted by governmental entities having jurisdiction over the proposed project and subject to the fairmont hotel taking reasonable and appropriate steps to minimize construction impacts of the proposed projects on residents nearest the proposed projects who reside on how will hand sacramento st. -- powell and sacramento streets. i also want to read a letter given to me by the union club. on behalf of the board of directors of the pacific union club, please accept this letter as the board pose a position on the planned redevelopment of the proposed redevelopment here they have apprise the club of its plans to redevelop the fairmont hotel. we understand the scope of the project will entail downsizing of the hotel and the development of the remainder of the property to include new residential tower conditions -- conditions.

in short, they like it and approve it. -- new residential tower additions. >> thank you for the opportunity to speak. i'm a resident of 1000 mason st.. i overlooked the tower directly from my apartment where i have lived for seven years. i also served as the volunteer treasurer of grace cathedral and member of the executive trustees. in my volunteer capacity, i was asked to come to you today to speak about grace cathedral close support of the project, which i also support as a neighbor. the cathedral takes the long view. our building is for your years younger, and we are still not finished with it today. we have another 20 or 30 years of work to build to from fleet the cathedral. we understand that the maintenance of aging structures

is very expensive, and it requires that the use of the building be such that it receives enough economic support to maintain it. we have that problem that braze cathedral. we face it every day. you very much support the project across huntington's where from power structure because we take the long view and what the fairmont to be there for another 100 years. clearly, in its current use, it is not going to make it. we support the project. we do not want to have too much dust. we would like to have a tonga room somewhere, but we very much understand the view that the fairmont hotel must be economically viable in order to be there for the next 100 years. thank you. commissioner miguel: thank you. [reading names]

>> i live right across from the fairmont hotel, and i have lived there almost 20 years. in looking at these plans, rather than bringing a folder, i can only say that i have been told looking those over that it calls for 300 new parking spaces, and that will increase the traffic and interfere with each of the occupants who live close or nearby. also, there will be three years when this addition can change to the fairmont will take place, and the question is -- how is that going to affect the residents of this area? that will be a sacrifice of

there, so to speak, sanctity and ability to live there. we also know that the fairmont is one of the hotels, and i'm told by one of the big four that their business is such that they only have one meal a day, and that is a a la carte breakfast. from a strictly pragmatic situation, there is no need for this condition at the cost and expense of the privacy, the reality of just living there. the fairmont is just putting up another tower and the last thing we need in san francisco, since

our building is all tourists, is another piece of steel eating the sky. i oppose this because i do not see that it is doing much for the area for four san francisco. need to preserve the historic arts of san francisco, of which nottinghill is certainly a part. carl would certainly say -- of which nob hill is certainly a part. i would say that this project will not serve any use, but you consider it. thank you, gentlemen. commissioner miguel: thank you. [reading names]

m of commissioners, thank you. local hotel workers union. i want to highlight the inadequacy and eir. the proposed condo's should not be treated like common housing stock. they will be occupied just a small fraction of the year. they will not support the same kind of employment as typical residences would. we raised this during the comment time. the staff responded dismissively, saying that the common does not raise issues regarding the accuracy of this eir. they went on to restate that the demand for employees services by hotel guests would be reduced, but a similar number of police currently providing guest services would be expected to provide similar services to new residents.

this defies common sense and it defies our of the -- experience as comparable structures in san francisco. these hotel-branded condominiums are not designed as primary residences. at the four seasons, less than 1/3 of the condos are registered as primary residences. the number is even fewer at the st. regis, and that is the figure that has been stable since he property opened nine years ago. many of the rest of the residences sit and be a lot of the year. they are owned by people do not come here more than a few weeks out of the year. beyond that, we have looked at the employment out of these four seasons condos. you look at a couple of months recently, the 143 residences at the four seasons generated on average 3.1 hours of housekeeping work for we over

this couple of months. by comparison, 143 luxury hotel rooms would generate 457 hours of housekeeping were during that week, so just by common sense and by the fact eir is flat out wrong on the employment issues, these condos have very different employment patterns from other condos, and by extension, they have very different land use consequences from the people who actually live there, so at this point, among others, i urge you to reject this eir as incomplete and inaccurate. thank you. >> i want to follow up on some comments i made that were rather unkindly handled.

till we will of them have to deal with the interface between the cable car in the fairmont. you do not really have good visuals that show how people see this from the cable cars, which is a land war. the cable cars are in their own land war. it is the intersection, as we all know, of the two systems. -- the cable cars are their own landmark. the visuals of the project are really nonexistent, but more importantly, the construction impact, and this is on page 156 and 157, where, basically, the response is to open a " trust us -- the response is open " trust us -- "trust us." the issue is people get off the

cable cars, and they wait for the other cable car there. anyone who knows san francisco knows that people get off of them to take photographs, but often to transfer. and there is really no discussion of the construction impacts on people waiting on what often is a cold and windy corner for a cable car, even if they are not transferring but are coming from an even. so i look here and i said, what kind of response is this? it is not about trust, it is about people, pedestrians, transit users -- very unique transit users, cable car riders. they are just looking at the moving of goods. they are not looking at the issue of moving of people next to a construction site, and it is rather shocking because i think the impact and the

relationship of cable cars during construction is a huge one, and i still do not quite understand all the issues they have set out in terms of the construction of a cable car lines. the position is that california will be all done before the construction starts, and, of course, there will be no impact on construction of the reconstructed california line. the other thing you heard from one of the previous comment is is the sacramento st. loading issues are huge, and the department as a physician and the eir position is that is ancient history -- the department's position and the eir position. there needs to be a really good analysis because the sacramento st. loathing also serves the hotels uses as well as the residences. thank you.

>> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is pamela duffy. the reason i'm so late in turning in my heart is because i do not ordinarily speak at a certification hearing. i figured this is the city's eir, but there has been such a panoply of commentary that relates to the actual substance of the project that i thought i might take a moment and try to characterize this in a little more leveling sort of way. i think there has been considerable confusion in the testimony so far between the advocates -- adequacy of the document and whether or not people think the project itself is meritorious. the document is extensive. it is rather remarkable. i meant to carry it up here with me, but i have a bad shoulder. the document for what we're dealing with, which is the replacement of an existing tower and whether or not it relates well, and constructively to what

is there and what has been there since 1961, is being characterized as some radical new undertaking, and i think the environmental document speaks very well to what is actually, for whether or not anyone likes the project, whether they think it is a good idea, whether they think it should be bigger, skinnier, different is further down on the calendar, but it is not the subject now. eir analyzes not only the rational alternatives, but the alternatives that are reasonably consistent with the project sponsor's objectives, which are also detail in some length, which is making sure that the hotel can be thoroughly renovated in the way it needs to in order to reflect its great grandeur, and the great things that occurred there. there will be some conversation about what should or should not happen with the conference room, but the point is that the analysis of these things is

extensive and thorough. it is adequate, accurate, and objective, and the response to comments, including the most recent supplemental response you received, is very thorough, and near the ignoring them because you do not like the answers, does not might be in final document -- does not meet the environmental doctorate inadequate. the ceqa analysis of the project is exhausted can extensive. the one thing that might resonate with you be on the that i would like to call your attention to for two quick things -- one is the suggestion that the construction contract of this project have not been adequately in -- analyst in the environments of document. the response to the construction impact of this relatively modest change our kind of phenomenal. there is also a fully grown construction management program and a detailed response to the late submission about construction impacts. the construction impacts of this

project are the overwhelmingly responded to, and if you wait before you make judgment until you see presentation of the project, new will see the extraordinary things they have undertaken in order to respond to potential construction impacts. it is really quite remarkable, including building and interior room. lastly, the suggestion that the project may not in the internment of document -- in the environmental document have analyzed the historic status i did not believe is accurate. the environmental document is beyond question of adequate, accurate, and objective. thank you. commissioner miguel: thank you. >> 9 ray brown -- i'm ray brown,

and i speak to you as a resident of bronco lake erie we are right across the street from the fairmont. we are going to get all the noise, all the construction dust. i'm here as a very strong advocate for the fairmont. they have been a wonderful neighbor since we moved here in 2006. i'm going to spare you -- i know you did not have eyes good enough to see this, but this is a picture of my grandson. he is two years old. he literally has his nose pressed against the window with the fairmont has this miniature train running around a track. the holiday season, they go out of their way to make a really warm and wonderful setting. are also speak to you from the bottom of my heart that they have answered all our concerns. they have had multiple meetings with the