mr. bueller, can i ask you a question. i mean, you obviously -- you've been talking to the project sponsor over the last couple of weeks and i release ad -- realize advocating for the preservation of the building. but talk to us a little more about the alternate tiff you consider facade -- alternative you consider facadism versus the full demolition of the building and where you're aware -- i they we -- i think we talked last meeting about some projects, downtown and the one on pine street, which work okay. and this is facadism or kind of an urban design component and why you don't like this, the facadism component. >> well, many facadism projects have been approved in san francisco. as you and i discussed, there are some especially troubling aspects of this proposed design that in our view make it an egregious example of facadism and a mockery to the protections in this city. for one, not even the entire facade is being retained here, just the colonnade and the columns, the set back, the bblg behind the columns -- buildin

mr. bueller said there was survey work that was being done around this property. has anything appeared in terms of historic district. >> there was a district that was nearby that was looked at as part of this, and we determined the criteria for that district did not include this district. while there are, you know, a variety of residential properties that are along this stre street, there is, you know, different levels that are expressed, so it doesn't necessarily rise to that level of confusion that we would look for. so there's some nice examples of building, but that's true of many residential neighborhoods in san francisco. >> so in 1967 junior league, i happened to turn down this street, put a footnote in there about this building, would it be considered historic? >> that is the departments policy, yes. >> if somebody drove down the street, and the windshield survey, and they did one of those nice forms in pencil of which my house has one, would it be considered a resource or not? >> no. >> commissioner richards: office never adopted? okay. maybe we should co

mr. bueller and others to continue working together. those things can happen regardless of this, so i think, yeah, people should be encouraged to work together. hopefully, we resolve this, we can get housing built here. we're not putting an undue burden on this project, but let's try to kick this forward and try to get housing on this site. >> if i could make a recommendation, kristin jensen, city attorney, as one of the commissioners pointed out, this is a private agreement. it's not a condition of approval this they reach an agreement with heritage. while they can discuss findings, i would not recommend putting it as a condition. >> commissioner koppel: i would also make a condition to approval the final e.i.r., as well. >> clerk: we will take up those matters separately. >> president hillis: i'll second commissioner coppells's motion to approve the final e.i.r. >> clerk: very good. there's been a motion. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commission, that motion passes unanimously 7-0. there is a second motion for the