received the electronic package, we have not received all the drawings. we only received 546 drawings, and they were very poor quality. and i would suggest that the documents, because there is a delay in this, he would give us a copy of these drawings. thank you. >> commissioner martinez? commissioner martinez: there were a number of questions about this, but the main one, this is about the height. the characterization of using the existing volume of the baseline is the normal way to do this. the objects that we are considering are inappropriate. this is inappropriate for the landmark. anything that is slightly larger than the baseline is

inappropriate. and basically, what they say is that this is only slightly larger, and this is only a slight change. there is only a slight impact. if the base line is inappropriate, anything that is larger is inappropriate. if this is undersequa -- under sequa, and then not have control over this, and this is something we will have questions about. from this point of view, to say that the only preservation alternative that you need to provide is what happens to the tonga room. there is only a slight change in the baseline.

this is nonsensical. there is no preservation alternative. there is no preservation alternative at all. the preservation alternative is going to look at repeating the frequency, and as it has been mentioned, the tower of the podium, and something else besides what has been prevented. thank you. >> commissioner buckley: i am not certain that we should talk about this because there is a difference in the historical planning and preservation commission. i think that this is there and has been taken into account. i would be prepared to approve of this project at this time. when we hear about this, we can

look at that. i am not trying to share these concerns. commissioner anthony: -- anthony -- commissioner antonini: i would like to have a report from the city attorney with the staff about what the scope of sequa should be. can i get an opinion about this? >> are you asking with respect to this issue on the project sponsors who have objected? that the question that you are asking about the scope of this, and the issues that you have raised? commissioner antonini: there

were some questions about how extensive that this analysis has to be, and do we need to analyze the historical preservation option that preserves the existing something and that is not necessary. this is the opinion that i need from you because of this is necessary, to continue to january is probably not going to be necessary. >> commissioner, you may want to hear more on this issue. it is up to them to determine if this may be certified. when we examine the

alternatives, we look at the projects that have all of the project's sponsors and objected. this is not a legal answer. this is the analytical answered that the staff has been dealing with, this task in determining whether or not to certify the eir. there may be more analytical information without those particular issues. and there is not a clear legal answer to these issues. this is the decision that the planning commission has to make. >> can you elaborate on this a little bit? >> i am from the planning department's staff. what want to begin with is that if you want to continue into next week, this would be based on the appropriate skilled for the official work. we are clearly not going to have any answers on these questions next week in terms of the substance or concerns about what was raised. the big questions about what is

being raised are narrowly interpreted issues as you look at the project and the alternatives that are not having a significant impact. if the commission is concerned that there is an additional impact and we did not identify this, that would be the basis for not certified, which is the basis for a recirculation. there is some little ground before this, and i have not heard any of the commissioners talking about these concerns that thought that this would change the conclusion. but they thought that there was the need for this in specific areas. you could not serve the document to broaden the strict legal scope of what this looks at, and i think that if you passed -- asked dufty, there is no unlimited discretion. and that is what she is -- that

is what he is speaking to. and if you are asking for more than is required by law, you start to limit the rights of people. i do not know whether this is. that may be the discussion next week. i would like for to be clear that the substance of concern is not any thing that we are going to be able to address next week. this is a procedure about what we can do, the risks and the limits, and perhaps we could clarify this. >> this seems to not be the will of the commission to have the item on the agenda next week. we could have this in the form of a memo, to clarify what they believe is a reasonable scope for the following work. and then, if you want you to have a discussion at a later

date. we kelly's to clarity about the scope of this. >> we agree with what the director has said, and given the most minimal additional alternatives that you need to analyze, we're looking at a day in january. >> there is the hearing with members of the commission -- as to exactly what is needed, and this was a lot more narrow. i suppose that this could be faster. i do not know about the other work that has been done. >> we will continue for the motion on january 27. the idea is that -- i believe that in the future if there is no information there is a chance for reconsideration and the

maker of the motion would have to ask for this. and i will move for the continuation to january 27, with the idea that we will receive a memo as to the appropriateness of the additional analysis, and then certainly we will be looking at this at a later date. >> and this has been seconded. >> the motion on the floor is for the continuing of this item until january 27, 2011. [reading roll] >> moore? commissioner moore: no. commissioner sugaya: my i ask what this means? >> the added condition is for an overriding consideration that would make this item come to you sooner. the maker of the motion could ask for that.

>> that's always the case. >> my understanding is if the item would come to you sooner -- >> if it was earlier. >> basically, you have to have this date. >> that is fine. >> aye. >> thank you. >> olague? >> aye. >no. >> aye. >> commissioners, the item is moved. and items 3, 4, nadnnd 5 cannot be heard before the certification of the eir. if it is moved up they can be considered at an earlier date. >> with that, the join hearing is concluded. >> the joint hearing is closed.

thank you, hbc commissioners. thank you. >> if i may have the attention of the public, we have another meeting scheduled for 5:00 and we will not begin until 5:30. >> everyone will keep this at 5:00. >> the commission will be starting at 5:00.

hey, yo, check out this chef, right? right? that's so gay. that's really gay. dude, look at those pants. please don't say that. what? don't say that something is gay when you mean that something is dumb or stupid. it's insulting. it's like if i thought this pepper shaker was stupid, and i said, "man, this pepper shaker is so 16-year-old boy with a cheesy mustache."

just saying.