because of that, the hpc and now this body if it chooses to uphold the hpc's decision and deny the appeal would have to adopt ceqa finding. those ceqa findings include statement of overriding consideration side which means that you find the proposed benefits of the environmental harm. it's a contribution to a significant and unavoid ability cumulative impact: so part of the finding that the planning commission made when it an approved the sed and recommended approval. zoning map amendments that the zoning heights would no longer cause a shadow to recreation and open space were financially in feasible. that's when it comesen. so even when the board has certified an eir to not uphold the appeal, in some ways aspect of the eir open up again when you appeal the history category permit? >> no, it's not quite like that. it's a little bit characterize differently. >> cab you sprain why you make these considerations? >> sure. they held that certification on appeal. what that means is that what this body found is the eir written accurately and adequately described this project. at this point we ar

the removal for the hpc would be proper. with that i would close that you respectfully uphold the decision of the hpc and our team is here to answer any questions. thank you. >> colleagues, any questions to council? actually i had one question to ask you based on your comments in terms of fees ability and analysis. i do appreciate the fact that full sensitivity analysis is difficult because you can't predict the future. neither side can predict what economical barriers might affect you in the future. we are being asked to determine that. while you say we can't take that to a full extreme, we have to make an estimated decision. how do you reconcile in those two perspectives, you say it's rough to find the limits on the other hand we have to make a decision? >> certainly, as a lawyer and approaching that question which might not be exactly with the way the board might. i would refer to the ceqa statute. there has to be identified a range. the document does not have to look at every conceivable operation to a project. in this c

the hpc also showed its enthusiastic support for the j. chess which is also on your calendar. hpc reviewed the c-e-q-a amendments that are also on your calendar today and after presentations by staff, zviv and swedener's office and a good deal of public testimony, the hpc passed a recommendation 6 to 1 in support of supervisor kim and chiu's additional amendments. ~ i believe staff will go into more detail about the hpc's recommendation and comments on that item once it's called. and then finally, the hpc is considering to initiate landmark designation from marcus brooks for article 10 of the planning code. the hpc, though, continued the item to its august 21st hearing at the request of the current property owner. so, on august 21st, they will take up the matter at that time if they do choose to initiate designation on the marcus brooks building. it will then be forwarded to the board of supervisors for final consideration of that landmark designation. and that concludes my report to you unless you have any comments. >> i don't believe so. thank you. >> commissioners, if there

ordinances as it is a supplemental amendment that was not considered by either this commission nor the hpc. the case report before you describes supervisor kim's proposed trailing ordinance. this would provide for an appeal hearing before this commission of the planning department decision that an exempt projects modification does not require a new c-e-q-a document. therefore, also describes a similar proposal laid out in a letter from supervisor chiu. however, in chiu's proposal, appeal would have been before the environmental review officer and not the planning commission. today our task may have gotten a bit easier. yesterday we received and i believe you received today a new draft ordinance from supervisor kim's office. this new ordinance codifies the language that supervisor chiu had described in the letter that is in your packets. so, now supervisor chiu and supervisor kim are requesting the same process, and here is a summary of that joint proposal. their amendment provides for a process to appeal a decision by the environmental review officer that a change to an exempt project is n

different enough that the city attorney advised that we should come before the planning commission hpc to get your feedback which we want to do. and, so, we had originally one remaining piece of the community had brought forward to us was when there is a modification when a department has [speaker not understood] there may be modification, bring it to the attention of the ero and the ero makesed determination [speaker not understood] same c-e-q-a exemption determination, that there be an ability for the public to be able to appeal that decision in a public hearing. we had originally written it that it would come before the planning commission. through this negotiation process which you noe all of us at the board of supervisors regularly engage in, ~ know, we had come to a compromise what that would look like to get support from this board. and, so, the agreement was that instead of before the full planning commission, i know your meetings are long enough, that this would actually go before the ero herself or himself to have a hearing, after which there would be a written response once

the full hpc had a very short calendar. they reviewed the e-i-r for the ferry terminal expansion. i think most importantly they provided review and comment on a national register nomination for 6 30 sampson street. this is the u.s. appraiser stores and immigration station. national register nomination is being initiated by the gsa. the commission was very supportive of the nomination but felt the documentation could benefit from a little more information about san francisco's role as a gateway city to immigration, especially on the pacific. and at the prepare the nomination to expand that documentation. so, with that, that concludes my comments unless you have any questions. thank you. >> commissioner antonini. >> mr. frye, thank you for your report. this is kind of a general question, but i think it particularly is important when you deal with historic structures. permitting has to be gained for any kind of restoration work ~ obviously. and is there a time period for permits? it's often seen projects are begun and sit in limbo for years and they're eyesores. do we have any i don'

in public comment yesterday at the hpc as well as the [speaker not understood] from supervisor kim's office, it was clearly stated that the intent was that this hearing and appeal in this context would not delay a project. supervisor scott wiener wants to make that notion explicit. the second point is that after a decision is made at this appeal hearing, no further appeals to any other body on the matter of this determination as to whether a project has modified or not shall be allowed. in other words, that decision is absolutely final and there is not another appeal avenue available. and then lastly, consistent with chapter 31 which is the admin code is the chapter admin code that houses these procedures. we want to make it explicit that this hearing can be conducted by the ero or a designee of the ero. it doesn't necessarily need to be the ero that sits before the hearing. so, again, it would be some important amendments, supervisor wiener is willing to support the amended legislation and i look forward to hearing your comments. thank you. >> thank you. >> ann marie rodgers again w

within this appeal, one of it's, i'm really considering hpc consideration around the erinson building and the major features of the conservation district. i believe hpc has done it's due diligence and will be making a motion to move forward item 48 and table item 49 and 50. >> we have a motion by supervisor kim, can we get a second? second by supervisor avalos. >> thank you, i want to thank all the members of the public that have been working on this issue for many many years. i want to take a moment to explain my own thinking about where things are. i happen to think that the issues involves in this appeal is quite a closed case. i know it's not a perspective from most of you. one of the charges that we are asked to make is whether there is a significant impact where we have analyzed all feasible mitigation. the height of which the building would not shadow union square is 350 feet. the building proposed is 480 feet. i think you have heard that there is not a huge amount of shadow that will cast for about a half hour during certain parts of the year. proposition k was passed in the 1

the full hpc had a very short calendar. they reviewed the e-i-r for the ferry terminal expansion. i think most importantly they provided review and comment on a national register nomination for 6 30 sampson street. this is the u.s. appraiser stores and immigration station. national register nomination is being initiated by the gsa. the commission was very supportive of the nomination but felt the documentation could benefit from a little more information about san francisco's role as a gateway

our goal is to come back in september for resolution of endorsement from this body, from the hpc and from the board of supervisors. it this has been a collaborative effort all along. we've been working super closely with the japantown community and economic work force development. i'll be joined later by [speaker not understood] and [speaker not understood] to speak on behalf of those groups. and just want to start a caveat, the course of any multi-year process, we can't convey everything that's been considered in a short presentation. so, if you'll bear with us, if there is something that is not clear or something you think we've missed, please ask. it is likely we've considered it. so, how the process began. it began in the late '90s, planning has been going on in japantown within the community and with the redevelopment agency. planning department engagement started in 2007 with the better neighborhoods plan. the bmp as it was called additional area plan looked at changes that can be made in neighborhoods -- in the neighborhoods to meet both local and city-wide goals. as many of y

therefore i highly recommend your denial of this appeal of the hpc findings of the project. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, my name is eric broaders, born in san francisco. one of the things that makes this city great is our historic buildings. i work in a building that had a historical upgrade 25 years ago. i feel that the upgrades for the erinson in the building does the same things which help reinvigorate. i support the appeal be denied. >>> good afternoon, board and san francisco. my name is benjamin. i'm a city college san francisco city instructor born and raised here in san francisco in the mission district and graduate of uc hastings college of the law. in anticipation of this great san francisco mexican human finally being approved, i would love to share a story with you that reflects san francisco's genius and growth. this past sunday here in san francisco in my cherry black 1966 lowrider. i cruised around a latino friend visiting from phoenix arizona. together we bumped salsa and oldies music while sharing these sounds. this man told me it w

not have had -- made the right decision because in the past, at least yesterday's hearing before the hpc, it was said that this was -- well, i don't remember exactly how that went. the other point about the board of appeals is that appeal can be made toward the end of the project. so, if you're saying this is an appeal mechanism that should be used instead of the one that's being proposed by supervisor kim and chiu, then we are into a delay situation, i think. and i don't know how supervisor wiener would feel about that, but in this case we're saying that, okay, there is an appeal mechanism. it's through the board of appeals. you can do it through the building permit. so, the building permit, the final building permit isn't issued until all the plans are done, until the complete project has been designed. it's months down the road. and then you have an appeal coming along which has to then be scheduled before the board of appeals, which has to then be heard by the board of appeals, which then can be, again, appealed prior to the board of appeals by saying there's possibly new information

next monday with a committee report out to the full board on tuesday so that it can catch up to the hpc appeal or likely going to have a long day at the board on tuesday. but i want to see if there is one last ditch attempt to get us to a better place because if we don't have that, even if the board approves this next tuesday, we're in for a long fight and i don't think that's good for anybody anyone. so, that's my suggestion, colleagues of the committee ~. love to hear your thoughts. >> supervisor kim. >> thank you. i just wanted to say that this project was definitely a difficult one for our office, given that, you know, many of the parties that support or oppose this project are, of course, within district 6. a couple of things that i will just say about the project itself. again, i think all of us support, including members of the four seasons hy also support the addition of this cultural institution in the yerba buena garden area south of market area. and that is the mexican museum. i think there is broad support for this institution coming and i'm happy to welcome that along with

don't want to go into much more detail now, but we would like to bring this back to you also to the hpc in the near future to talk about this work we've done around individual resources because we know a larger conversation of how this can be applied beyond japantown and the other neighborhoods. so, in addition to looking at what the resources were, we of course spent a lot of time thinking about what tools we could use to support those resources. we hired [speaker not understood] consulting who organized and analyzed a list of potential tools that were known. we reviewed this list with the community and oewd to make sure it was thorough and accurate. all that information is on our website. most of the tools went up into j chess, others did not. impact fees which are common in other neighborhoods, there is no up zoning proposed in this neighborhood. so, it is impractical to impose impact fees here which could be used elsewhere. so, what went into the j chess is a list of 19 recommendations that we think we can address all of the areas of concern and fulfill all the goals and objectives