any case, again, shipo, planning department and preservation staff and page and turn bull and frederick napp all agree that the project is consistent with the stories. please recall that this is a rehabilitation project. and the rehabilitation standards, quote "acknowledge the need to alter or add to an historic building to meet continuing or new uses while retaining the building's historic character." the bottom line is that the appellant has failed to provide any real evidence that the removal of the conference room would cause the hearst building to no longer convey its historic significance. we think that the clear that the pmfd should be upheld to do otherwise would jeopardize the future of this building which desperately needs rehabilitation. recall that this commission and the historic preservation commission will have the opportunity to review the project on its merits at upcoming hearings. the only question before you today is whether the project could result in a significant impact under ceqa as argued by the appellant. we assure you that it would not. thank you for your time. >> t