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 one. let's step back a second. the addition would double the height of the podium from 50 feet to 105 ft. the new structure itself would be the tallest building except for the tower. it endorsed these opposite buildings. -- dwarfs these opposite buildings. it is a significant addition and it should be addressed. given the comments and responses for not taking into account the vista is if the height affects

private views only. it affects the streetscape. it affects private and public views. it is not disproportionate to the buildings on the eastern side between california and sacramento. as you have heard, the university club is four stories. this will be 10 stories plus. the francesca is 9 stories. the francesca is 20 feet below, it slopes downward. proportionate means in harmony and consistent with. greeks would say take the median. not an add-on.

[chime] president miguel: are irma or -- >> [inaudible] president miguel: you may not. >> i would like to thank the commissioners for allowing me to speak. i took the day off from my teaching day to -- linda stone. i'm the owner of a cinderella unit. my class is studying in civics, defining what it means to be a citizen and a member of the community.

i believe that this project would change my unit into a very dusty, dark hole that is unlivable and unsellable. i was able to save the money for this unit. to mr. -- is it wico? it is right on sacramento street. i have concerns regarding the impact of the fairmont hotel project. it is higher than most of the buildings in the neighborhood including the original structure of the fairmont. why should be a mistake be made a second time? i prefer a structure more modest with sensitivity to the

neighborhood. having seen the plans for the project, i was disturbed by the lack of even a nod to the historic buildings around the tower. i am also concerned about the traffic flow and the cable cars. i have spoken to all of the noise and the dust that will infiltrate my own little space. i am hoping the project can be scaled down with a more sincere attempt to reflect a neighborhood that surrounds the fairmont. president miguel: [reading names ]

>> thank you for letting me speak. >> we need you to speak into the microphone. >> my name is brenda osborn, and i am the president of 901 pal street. the eir had missed ongoing disputes with neighbors dating back to the 1950's, it refuses to a knowledge that the current project continues to provide an adequate loading. it does not take into consideration the increase in density and the change that will be grandfathered. i think it is inadequate because of the following seven items. it fails to consider voting

generated by convention activity which requires numerous large trucks to arrive simultaneously after hours. when this is taken into consideration, the proposed loading docks are too small. it includes kerbside loading which is prohibited in residential districts under ordinance 199-00. three loading docks are on the block of sacramento street. it includes as one of the four required living spaces, and an enclosed space. thus, this will not be used for general loading. it provides only one large loading dock which forces large trucks to block traffic.

it contains confusing explanations with no graphs to indicate sizes and locations. it places trash removal for a garbage truck, forcing the truck to block traffic as it travels the wrong way down a one-way street. it erroneously conclude that there are no loading impact. finally, a division floating is inconsistent. thank you. president miguel: thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am paul fisher. i am appearing as a california

architect. the developer has rejected the idea of the existing power because he says, without substantiation, it has too many columns and the ceilings are only 8 feet high. i was able to pick up a good friend of the existing floor plan and original architecture. i also got a supporting opinion as an ex -- from an experienced structural engineer. we looked during the construction period, and the engineer said, [unintelligible] that is the way they did things in those days. i personally measured 94 inches from the other side of the ceiling slab.

incomparable high end condos, this would be the ceiling. comparable project include the millennium, saint regis, and they are all about 9 feet or 10 feet. as for the dreaded columns, i did a layout. is that going through? a sample, it shows that the unit worked out very nicely. this is based on the programs shown earlier by the developer. i think it works out really well. i asked that it be successfully

reviewed and hope you will agree with me. president miguel: thank you. >> my name is maria collins, and i'm an owner at 850 powell street. this is a heartfelt, i am going to make. my feeling is, why are we tampering with historic landmarks? i was under the understanding that historic landmarks could not be changed from the outside. has anything changed along those lines? the tower was constructed in 1965 and was not a historic landmark.

now it is 100 years later, and the fairmont hotel is a historical landmark. those rules apply anymore? i don't see a cable car stopping to let tourists out. where does it stop? on mason street? why can't other people do the same? thank you. president miguel: thank you. courtney, mary, patricia, tom, will collins. come on up.

if i have called your name, someone, to the podium. -- come up to the podium. >> thank you, commissioners. i am here in connection with the historic association. i just want to make a couple of points addressed to the inadequacy of the eir. the first is that in the draft eir, when the developer was addressing the exteriors connections between the 1906 building and the proposed new tower and a podium, they said

there would be mitigating measures to preserve the historic nature of the building. it specifically provided that it would implement mitigation measure mcp1a. this is page 4.z.34 of the eir. it requires that the developer, with all of the work associated, and john meet the standards. that was a mitigating measure to make sure -- it shall meet the standards. that was a mitigating measure to make sure that it met with historic buildings. in the proposed final eir, it is eliminated. they have taken out that litigation measure. we did not know that it was not going to be there.

that has been eliminated. if you look at the comments and responses, they have eliminated the mitigation measures that would have required them to comply with the secretary standards. it means either they can't do it, they won't do it, or they are hiding something that they are not telling us about. that is the basis alone to not approve this document. the second point that i wanted to make, the eir objective number one is to demolish the tower. in the eir document, when the comments and responses came in, isn't there some alternative to demolishing the tower? can we look at some alternatives? the developer said, our objective is to demolish the power -- tower, to demolish the

podium. that cannot be objective under san francisco standards and regulations. so to say that was the objective simply does not do it. we would like to see some proposed alternative. the picture that i tried to put up here -- [chime] [cpresident miguel: thank you. >> my name is thomas, and i apologize for coming in a t- shirt. i came directly from there and i did not have a chance to go home. as i said, my name is thomas, i reside at 850 powell street

across from the fairmont tower. i am here to speak against decertification of the eir. the document is filled with omissions. it did not do its job. when my neighbors pointed out some of these problems, the responses were arrogant and uninformative, relying heavily on circular logic. they desire to proceed with his little caution and effort as possible. my short time here does not allow me to list of the long set of examples, but here is one. the developer says his objective is demolition. there can be no alternative. demolition or nothing, take-it- or-leave-it. that is some neighbor. and you.

-- thank you. president miguel: thank you. >> i reside at 850 powell for the last 20 years. one of the historic buildings. i wanted to bring up the eri is really inadequate as it was presented to this panel. at this point, you should evaluate it, reevaluate it, and decline acceptance of the document. we want to enjoy the life, the tax bill is always on time. and it gets paid on time as well. i can just envision the three years or four years of disaster

going on on sacramento st. and powell, to joyce, mason, and beyond. i ask that you evaluate the environmental impact that this will have on the community. it is not good. there is plenty of documented pieces to evaluate. i bless you. i don't know how you get the time. thank you very much. president miguel: [reading names] >> i am here on behalf of the san francisco architectural heritage.

we agree that the eir fails to 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