mitigation remains in place for many other components of the project, because we still want the hcp-required action on the certificate of the appropriateness. there are certain aspects of the building that are not protected under article 10 of the planning room, -- planning law, like the venetian room and the cirque room. the impact would be mitigated so we would not affect those interior resources. for the external portion only, after the draft the i r -- eir was published, they submitted a specification on how the work would proceed. that was enough information for the department to determine that the work would meet the secretary of the interior's standards and that mitigation was not required for those

exterior connections. commissioner sugaya: we are refering with respect to the exterior connections to which portions of the project? >> that lead from the historic claremont hotel to the new podium and tower -- fairmont hotel to the new podium in power structure. commissioner antoninipresident o continue since nobody is going to speak to this but me and commissioner antonini. will battle it out. i do not think it is adequate. somebody submitted a letter to the commission and did not get through it completely. there are a number of points in that letter i would like to make part of the record. i do not want to go through the whole thing. if the written copy can be given to the secretary, i think that

should be sufficient. i am also somewhat thinking that the testimony presented by the union representative with respect to employment issues does have some merit. i am not completely familiar with how eir's arrived at employment statistics and what they are used for, but it seemed to make a point that there are some discrepancies in how that was conducted. that is based on his experience of other hotels, what the reality of the situation is. i am somewhat in agreement with testimony given with respect to the cable cars, not so much because they are a landmark in the city, which they are, but i think the analysis fell short of looking at what the pedestrian activity levels are and how those may be impacted by

construction. i am also troubled by the noise analysis. it continued to say that the ideal place to measure noise is in the middle of the lot. i do not believe that for a minute. it is not only the machinery that is going to be making noise. it is going to be noise produced when they start to tear the building down. that was dismissed in the comments and responses as something that needn't be taken into consideration. i do not believe that is true. not true is the wrong word. i believe there should be further analysis of that particular potential impact. i cannot tell you whether it would be an impact or not, but at least it should be looked at. those are a few comments that i had where i feel it is not adequate at this point. commissioner antonini: commissioner moore, did you want to make some comments first?

commissioner moore: i would agree with some of the concerns about traffic, particularly where my own comments addressed cumulative traffic impact. i do not believe they have substantively been answered. i know you're forced to find an answer. however, the answer often is not substantial and additional facts. there is a construction project between mason and powel. it is a sewer line replacement parallel to the length of the building, which will be under construction for many years to come. i happened to walk up and down the street every day at least twice, if not four times. i observed throughout the day how impacting this very small,

well-orchestrated project is, which is only parallel to the building, a replacement of the sewer line. it literally takes up the whole street except for the line for the cable cars. during particular hours of the day, cars backed up all the way down to stockton street. they are going single file. they have to go through people getting off the cable car, changing from one line to another. it is an absolutely impossible imposition on anybody who wants to move with reasonable speed up and down the street. the other day, the same report had brinks security getting out of the bank, while the fire extinguisher had to look at every fire extinguisher of the hotel. you had the left lanes blocked, the right lanes blocked.

it was a total mess. this is a minor indication of what will happen, particularly with defense not being moved when rush-hour starts at 4:00. i venture to say that the traffic analysis is not properly done, and i urge that this be reconsidered. commissioner antonini: i move to certify the eir. >> second. >> commissioners, for the record let me state that the action on the certification of the final eir is the sole responsibility of the planning commission, and not the hpc. commissioners, there is a motion on the floor. commissioner sugaya: i would like to know if any historical

preservation commission member has a comment on the eir from their perspective. you do not have to say anything. as long as you are here, i don't care. >> thank you. commissioners, on the motion on the floor? commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner moore: no. commissioner sugaya: no. vice president olague: no. commissioner moore: aye. >> that motion fails, with commissioners more, so gaya, and -- moore, sugaya, and olague voting agains. this requires a four votes to survive. that has not happened. do you have directions to staff on clarifying the eir?

commissioner moore: move to continue. it is done. president miguel: could i have the project's sponsor please come up and give me an idea of what would be inappropriate time for the continuation? commissioner moore: it is not up to staff to make a motion. president miguel: we first have to be able to make the corrections that are necessary here. >> i think if you want to continue the item in the face of a deadlock of non-certification, you need to give a specific direction as to what is adequate. president miguel: i would assume the u.s. to answer those commissioners who commented on what they found to be inadequacies and try to answer

those inadequacies and bring back a document that would be satisfactory to the two commissioners who spoke to inadequacies. >> i think that is true. i think it would be helpful if there are any other concerns, if they articulate here so that we come back fully addressing whatever concerns they voiced today or have not articulated. i mean, if we are continuing, we should have a document come to you that speaks to the concerns as completely as we possibly can. president miguel: ok. well, i think we would also like to try to do this as expeditiously as possible. based on what you have heard so far for reasons of setting a continuance, what do you think would be a realistic period of time? >> you know, there are very few questions actually directed at ms. jane. commissioner moore and

commissioner sugaya made statements about a difference of opinion about what we said. i did not hear a lot of prescription about what we could do differently that would cause you to feel that this would not be a significant impact. commissioner moore: i will defer to them if they want -- president miguel: i will defer to them if they want to elaborate on that. commissioner sugaya: this is strictly a planning commission motion at this point. >> everything in susan's letter, everything sue hester said, testimony from the employee at the hotel union, transportation issues commissioner morrore raised. commissioner moore: i would

expect to be proper addressed a proper structural the violation statement which is conclusive to all partisans that this building is not reusable. there are very clear discussions that -- between numbers of professionals in the city to of looked at the structure. the letter which is included in the back of the response document is not sufficient professionally to substantiate a finding on the structure. >> that can be cleared. i think commissioner sugaya was very clear. that is very helpful. was a concern about the existing structure, that you feel that reducing the structure would take away some significant impact associated with the demolition as a historic structure, or because of the impact of the demolition? i am trying to understand the context. commissioner moore: all of the above. commissioner sugaya: i guess the

question is was there -- i mean, if the project sponsor's goal is demolition, as one of the audience members said, there are no alternatives, right? so that is a catch-22. how can you have an objective that is demolition of the building? that is questioning very -- >> those are objectives, but you can certify a document. you can either support the project or not support the project and not embrace all of their objectives. commissioner sugaya: true. i think commissioner more is trying to get to one of the arguments for demolition is that the building cannot be used. the ceilings are too low. the column spacings interfere. we had one architect testified that he thought quite the opposite. it would seem as though the eir

should take a look at whether or not the project sponsors supposed substantiation of demolition holds water or not. >> would you like that to be done not only from a feasibility, but as a variant or alternative? is that what you're saying? commissioner sugaya: i think as a variant or alternative would be preferable. president miguel: earlier, i alluded to the fact that i do not believe you need to do all these analyses for the project. if that is the wish of certain commissioners to believe that has to be done, then i suppose it has to be done, but if an alternative is not deemed to be economically feasible, does it need to be analyzed? >> i think your statement

earlier was very much on the marked in turn -- in terms of what a reasonable alternative is. there are no alternatives that speak to an identified significant impact. that said, it is totally in the discretion of the planning commission to look at alternatives that are broader than that. it is an unlimited universe. that is why i was probing with commissioner moore in terms of the purchase of this. if you feel there are issues that would come out of a reassessment of the structural viability that speaks to a ceqa, whether it is historic for demolition. i think that is a useful direction. in terms of whether something is in need -- the eir as an alternative, its economic feasibility, that is a consideration, but that is really at the finding stage.

you can have an alternative the commission wanted to see that was not a strictly ceqa alternative that spoke to an issue of concern that the sponsors said was not economically feasible. you could adopt that even with the knowledge it would likely not happen. this is more at the finding stage. it is a consideration. they obviously want the consideration of what we have looked at in this eir, but it is not included in terms of financial feasibility. commissioner antonini: thank you. i understand that, and i understand the discretion commissioners are allowed. however, these seem to be objections to the project as formulated, and maybe might be more properly taken up when the project is before us as whether you favor it or not. but certainly i yield to the discretion of other commissioners, and if that is what they need to see we will

have to go through another hearing on the environmental impact report. do you think these things could be done in 30 days? >> i do not think this can be done in 30 days. i think the secretary and director can speak to your calendars for the rest of this year. it is going to be difficult to calendar. i think speaking to each of the concerns that were addressed, we are looking not only from a technical feasibility but also looking at the use of the structure for a ceqa analysis. that is at least several months. president miguel: can you remind me what the notification procedures would be? >> i think i would defer to the attorney on that. it is not a recirculation, as i understand it, unless we identify new significant impact. if we identify new significant

impact, we would have to provide a new circulation. finding additional significant information is itself a trigger for recirculation just as a matter of basic courtesy. i think we would try to distribute revised comments and responses that would incorporate changes to reflect additional information, unless that leads to a significant impact. i do not think there has to be a circulation. commissioner antonini: are we looking at 60 to 90 days assuming the calendar permits it? >> i would like for the attorney to correct what i have said. i think that what i have said is accurate. i think several months sounds like the best we could do. president miguel: with the city attorney care to comment? >> i am from the city attorneys, -- city attorney's office. it is hard to address now

whether recirculation would need to be required. we would have to look at what revisions and additional information would come out of this direction. >> i was not thinking recirculation. president miguel: assuming there does not have to be recirculation, is there additional public notification that is required? i am thinking in terms of the time limit if there is public notification required beyond just the continuation to a particular date. >> case space again. we would have to look at the requirements of chapter 31. there is some public notice. when additional documents or the amended eir or expanded sections of the eir are completed, there is some public notice, and the public would certainly have some time to review those changes.

again, there are set time frames under ceqa if it does trigger a recirculation issue that we would have to look at once the changes are complete. president miguel: ok. so if we can just -- i guess we can possibly shoot a date out there and see where we are once we have got the revisions made. linda, secretary avery, can we will get something that sounds reasonable here? >> commissioners, i have your calendars through december. the only calendars that are available for this project -- a project of this magnitude would be the ninth or the 16th of december. president miguel: that is too soon, i am hearing. >> according to staff, they do not believe they can get those changes in that amount of time. you are looking at january or february. so take your pick.

president miguel: i would say if you agree we can try for a january date at this point. if we are not ready, we can always move it further back. >> that is subject to whatever qualifications from the city attorney. president miguel: of course. >> whatever the official rules are, there is a time and we can see what we produced, and whether we are ready in the amount of time. president miguel: i would suggest it be at the end of january. >> january 27. president miguel: that would be my motion would be to continue to january 27. project sponsor, could i ask your opinion on that? >> thank you, commissioners. i am procedurally at see here a little bit. -- at sea here a little bit. the issue at that you are considering out -- what it raises is a substantial legal problem for the city, because

you were suggesting that something be developed that on its face is flatly inconsistent with the project sponsor objectives which are articulated, and the reasons for them are articulated in the record and the environmental documents. i also remind you that the entity that pays for these additional analyses is the project sponsor. the reason ceqa limits the requirement of the consideration material in an environmental document is so the environmental documents have a conclusion. so i would suggest to you that requiring additional consideration of the material that is flatly inconsistent with project sponsor objectives, which are reasonable and appropriate during the california environmental quality act, is not an appropriate tack for the commission to take. the environmental document yourself that is before you is an adequate environmental document. i would with all due respect

suggest that you are confusing whether or not you thought the response to comments dealt with substantive matters relating to the merits of the project with whether or not the environmental document is adequate. i would suggest to you that perhaps a better approach than picking out a date in january, which undoubtedly will still be available next week, is that we postpone your determination on this matter one week, so that you have an opportunity -- the city attorney has an opportunity and your staff has an opportunity to determine what would be the appropriate process in light of this myriad of concerns. i would suggest a continuance for one week to allow your highly professional staff to respond to these questions and point out where -- president miguel: i agree with that. is that a possibility? commissioner moore: this is in negotiation. there is a motion on the floor.

it seems to me if anybody is to advise this commission, i think it is the city attorney. if the city attorney would advise us, i would appreciate that. president miguel: mr. stacy, could you give us some advice on that? >> the planning commission has determined not to certify the eir. whatever the shortcomings on m the eir, the commission is going to address those. i think at this point, going through the list of issues, getting ready to prepare those changes to the eir, it could certainly continue this item,

but at this point it seems that the failure of decertification is that the eir -- the commission has found that by not certifying that the eir need some additional information and corrections, it is attempting to address that. >> if i could, i think i and understand what ms. stacey just said, but what ms. duffy was saying was not to reconsider the eir in a week, but to reconsider the postponement in a week, not to put the eir up to a new vote but to be able to answer some of the legal questions about how to proceed. president miguel: if i might, the city attorney has already applied on the issue. i do not know what we need to have another week to have the attorneys.

>> let me say something. i never said that i opposed this project. i never said i did not like it. i never said that i opposed the tower. i never said i opposed the historic preservation aspects of it. i did not say the tonga room should be relocated or whatever. my purpose in opposing it is to get more information out to the public. i think one of the purposes of ceqa is as a public disclosure document. there are issues that have been raised in my mind, raised in people who testified. therefore, i think the staff is perfectly equipped to go ahead and provide the answers to those questions. that is the reason why i did not certify the eir. president miguel: finish up. commissioner sugaya, what i am

hearing from you is you want the staff to answer the questions you have raised in whatever time they feel they can do it in. is that what you're saying? commissioner sugaya: i do not know procedurally how they're going to approach it, but there are issues on the floor. i would also like to ask whether or not the historic preservation commission has any issues that they would like to direct staff at this time. or you can direct them to me, since it is our hearing, and i can ask them if there is anything that would like to have me enter into the record. president miguel: if i can ask a question of the city attorney, i am sorry. i am having a problem knowing

how or who to recognize on this. at the moment, this is a discussion of the planning commission regarding a motion. i did not believe in my interpretation of the rules of order that i could recognize anyone outside of the commission. am i correct or not. >> city attorney's office. this is still a joint hearing between the historic preservation commission and the planning commission. it seems appropriate that the planning commission could ask for some input from the historic commission. president miguel: i just wanted clarity on that. thank you. vice president damkroger? >> is actually me.

she has more hair than i do. the issues before you i know are tough ones. let me just say from the preservation commission's point of view in assessing this, there have been a number of concerns brought up, i think primarily in terms of the historic resources and how the changes to the project or the physical changes would take place. i think that -- and i cannot speak for all of my commissioners, they can apply in on their own position on this, but there has been issued at what is within the historic preservation commission's jurisdiction and what is not. the landmark designation for this property clearly identifies what physical features are in the landmark designation. what clouds this is whether the new construction would have an impact on the historic resources. i think you have heard from the community today about how they

feel about the impact on their resources and the resources of the surrounding historic district. that being said, i think as a given that the project would have a certain height, bulk, and mass which included the tower, and that was part of the reality we dealt with. i believe, if i am not mistaken, during the presentation about this, we offered opportunities for our commission to provide comment for the new construction. construction. just one particular technical.