objectives, and the way historic preservation in this city can be looked at by, you know, both the planning commission, i suppose, and the historic preservation commission. ultimately the board of supervisors. i think additional discussion on tweaking the ordinance will go nowhere. and would just result in delays that i think -- you know, will not be productive. that's why i voted against the continuance. i think if the commission really feels -- and i do, too, that there are matters of gentrification issues, equity issues, broadening, perhaps, the concept of historic preservation. it's a social and cultural preservation as well. and getting communities involved on that level, then i think the discussion appropriately surrounds the historic preservation element which is kicking around

somewhere. or maybe not. in the department. so. president miguel: commissioner damkroger? commissioner damkroger: charles and i were commencing on ways for the two bodies to work together on this. we could send delegates or two delegates to your meeting and then have a joint meeting again after that to discuss proposals. so we'd like to find ways in which we could help hasten this. president miguel: appreciate it. director chase: it is our intent to help as much as possible. what we want to accomplish is understood by you so that can you understand what our thought process was. and we're very happy to do that in the public forum at your hearing and again at a potential joint hearing if that would meet your needs.

president miguel: commissioner martinez? commissioner martinez: i would like to make a motion for my commission to amend the language in article 10 around the application of the secretary of interior standards to reflect the language that we came up with for article 11. in terms of it being mitigated by local interpretations or whatever that language was. president chase: thank you, commissioner. let's wait to see if we have -- >> [inaudible] >> i do believe that is correct. yes, you're allowed to have the discussion. but maybe you should at your next hearing, i will be there with article 11. and i will put 10 on for

discussion it sounds like there's going to be some tweaks to 10 anyway per city attorney and maybe incorporating some of your article 11 issues into 10. so we can just handle that at your next hearing and bring that back, if you would like. commissioner martinez: i just wanted to make sure that that's not overlooked. >> yeah. i had that in my head. and i will be working with linda to get a series of maybe informationals over the next month or so, as soon as possible. so they can start going through section by section article 10. so that's what i'll do. and we can fold any additional amendments into the discussions if you would like. president miguel: thank you. commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: i appreciate commissioner damkroger's suggestion in when we have a hearing maybe have some members of the h.p.c. present. i would suggest that staff work with the h.p.c. before our next hearing, planning, to try to consolidate some of the language that they feel is

appropriate into the revisions. and then i would hope that one hearing at the planning commission, maybe two at the most. because we're looking at particularly articles 10 and 11. a lot of the things that were brought up today were important, but they're more dealing with the preservation element. you know, housing, general concerns, which are important concerns. but they're not really what we're on. and i think we want to get these things cleaned up and get them finalized with the understanding that we'll always be concerned about those issues that were discussed today. president miguel: commissioner sugaya? commissioner sugaya: yes. i'd like to thank the h.p.c. for their volunteering some of their members to come to planning commission. ms. sullivan, i assume that h.p.c. will also be continuing deliberations on at least article 11 and perhaps, i don't know commissioner martinez brought up one amendment to 10, so those will be scheduled in

the future, i assume. >> i have an outstanding, longstanding permanent agenda item. also section 309 they would like to review because it relates to article 11 and the downtown review. commissioner martinez: if that's the case and if they're interested, commissioners, we might want to have some people go to the h.p.c. hearing as well. president miguel: commissioner moore? commissioner moore: is the planning commission prepared to summarize its comment in a concise way and forward them to the members of the historic preservation commission to help dialogue? and these comments would reflect the comments of the public from today? it would be shedding more light and really helping all of us to understand together what we need to do. president miguel: having been at a number of joint commission hearings of various commissions, i think this hearing this morning has been

the most fruitful of anything. and one in which there has been the most give and take, back and forth comments of any, very truthfully. i'm greatly appreciative of it. i have to comment on what was made earlier. regarding what has happened to san francisco that could have preserved historic structures and districts. unfortunately a combination of what was then redevelopment thinking and that then sitting board of supervisors prevented that. thankfully both bodies are much more cognizant of the city than they were at that time, at least i hope so. yes very, very much so. but we really appreciate it. and i think the suggestion that

we, to some extent, attend and perhaps comment at each other's hearings, as much as it's a lot of work, could also be fruitful. so i really appreciate the cooperation. as i say, it's beyond what we've had before as far as a real exchange of information at joint hearings. staff, you've done a great job. i appreciate the fact we're giving you more work, but i think it's coming together. and to the members of the public, you've been very, very thoughtful in your comments. and they will be taken into consideration. >> thank you. commissioners, with that, that concludes this item. the joint bodies are in recess until 1:30. president miguel: i think 2:00 is more logical. >> ok.

your calendar says 1:30. the chair is now stating that they will not start the joint hearing again until 2:00 p.m. president miguel: to allow for some lunch. >> very good. president miguel: thank you. 's welcome back to the planning commission. the joint session is back in session from recess. let me remind all of you to turn off your phones, your pagers, and an electronic device that will sound off during the proceedings. they're setting up overflow. we will ask everyone who is standing to go to the overflow space. we will also ask you because this is a credit room and the

commission will hear testimonys it is given, if you feel that you need to discuss this, please take the discussion and outside. we will ask all of you standing to leave the room. i will call roll again. ouand we have president miguel, commissioner said dianne, commissioner olague, -- commissioner sugaya. before you is public comment on

matters which are closed. the opportunity to do so would only be -- this would only be on number two on your color certification of the environmental impact report been the ones is, a time closes and we call the item, we will have no more testimony on this item.

>> if you have looked at in the agenda, you will know that item 33 is also on the fairmont hotel. please speak to this specific agenda. please speak to the particular agenda item. there is public comment on the won closed item and that is a certification of the eir itself. >> let me announced that the north light cord is set up for

overflow. q. can hear the proceedings from the space. if we call your name, we will give you time to come up. >> after you have finished speaking, then you can finish and it go and then people will be will to come up. this will move the hearing along a little faster. i will call three or four names at a time. if you will line up on my left, your rate. -- your right.

>> president miguel, i should like to say something. i should have announced this earlier. this applies to this particular topic and also the following. we have to reveal her relationship with one of my partners. she lives across the street from the fairmont hotel. therefore, i should reveal that relationship. we have not discussed the

matter within the confines of the office. even except for some procedural issues, i am privy to these ahead of the public. unless the commission has comments which you are free to bring up, i feel that i can be fair and impartial. >> thank you. please. and >> -- occupies

this is located on the northeast corner directly opposite the fairmont. outhis is a nonprofit organizatn with 600 members. the club shares its facilities with many of the other non profits. individuals are eligible for membership regardless of race, religion, age, gender, sexual orientation. despite the fact that this is the most effective of the surrounding buildings, the developers waited until tuesday of this week to meet with the club to share their plans but. this included a photo montage. we were crusted properties -- copies of the planned --

we requested copies of the plan but we are not provided with them. although the fairmont is requesting the construction of a tower that is not allowable, we do not object to them grandfathering their existing envelope. we are prepared to support a new tower but a four-story, low- rise conforming to the fairmont's existing complex. but we strongly object to is the attempt to add a bulky 5 story addition on top of the current podium. considering that today's on slope -- envoelope, this walls f the beautiful east facade.

this edition is no thing of beauty. one thing that was correct was to mesh the height of the university club and other buildings that share this block and this principle should be maintained. we ask you to disallow the proposed five stories. in fact, our preference would be for the fairmont to do something positive by restoring the guardian of the original design. or the fairmont to make such a remedial gift, the immerse the club would work a greater tower -- the university club working greater tower of today.

>> of will be reading some comments. "the store cannot hill requests that the planning commission declined to certify the fairmont project. this fails to include adequate analysis of the impact of new construction on the integrity of the fairmont hotel landmark. as pointed out in the comments, the project analysis and 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 on let's step back a second. the addition would double