it has been an honor to work with this commission and the board of appeals, with hpc, and also with staff. that has been a tremendous experience for me and i am looking forward to it. thank you. president miguel: thank you. it is not the easiest position in the world, so we appreciate you coming at it -- coming into it with the experience to have had. sorry to disrupt. >> quite all right. first up, consideration of items proposed for continuance. there were no items proposed for continuance, although we have just received a request for an item under consideration, findings and final action, as well as the first item on the regular calendar for case number 2007, pacific avenue, the certification of the environmental impact report and the conditional use request. request from the product sponsor to continue until december 2, 2010. -- from the project sponsor. president miguel: is there any public comment on the item for continuance? if not, public comment is closed. commissioners? commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: i would be in favor -- i think we could take up that one continua

during the week, i have had occasion to interface with some of the members of the hpc, both sides of the pacific project that will be before us. i have had the pleasure of being on a panel monday that was chaired by john king frum "the

the hpc considered an ordinance on june 2nd and recommended approval and as we discussed on june 20th, you also recommended approval at that time. this week the land use committee did modify that piece, to add more, on the restrictions of when the spots could be used. and in response, they changed it to a requirement to an earlier marker in the process. the requirement will be tied to a point at which the property needs to declare a statement of eligibility until later at the sale of tdr's, this change will grandfather in existing properties that have already submitted their statement of eligibility to the department. our public testimony was in support of this revised version and is to be considered by the full board next week. the committee also continued without hearing an update to the planning code and administrative code that will update our control for inclusionary housing. planning staff is still working with the may year's housing staff to make sure the legislation is user friendly and uses consistent terminology. on tuesday, the board heard an ordinance that would create a s

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 ad

character-defining features to the specific shotwell street victorian that, before it gets adopted by hpc. those are, one, destaffed houses in open site and rear yards, two, to protect trees and vegetation, and, three, to protect retaining walls. matt weintraub agreed to these matt weintraub agreed to these features, and plans to include these revisions. since the proposed project next door do mine at 640-642 shotwell includes plans to eliminate many of these features, such as the open side yard and trees and detached nature of the property. we trust you will take this new information into account as you review plans for that project. thanks very much for your time. president miguel: thank you. is there additional general public comment? if not, general public comment is closed. vice president olague? vice president olague: i just wanted to mention that i think i am familiar with the site that miss hester is mentioning because i was contacted also by some of the neighbors about this lot in bernal heights several years ago. it is a really awkward location. at the time it appeared that some

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.