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. just one particular technical. for those of us on the historic preservation commission that 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.