the project has a number of very significant issues which are not properly addressed are mitigated in the draft eir. i will only mention a few of them. for example, the draft eir addresses only the pm traffic in this area, the afternoon traffic. as we all know -- will you show this, miss? >> their it is. -- there it is. >> as we all know, this is third street. the traffic is worst in the a.m. hours, when all the office commuters are trying to get to the financial district. the shoppers are trying to get into union square. all the housewives are trying to do their shopping in chinatown.

it is not unusual to take 10 or 20 minutes to go the two blocks between howard and market street. for some curious reason, this eir does not address the a.m. traffic at all. the eir also contemplates the traffic created by the new 706 mission street. the first five conditions contemplate using this small half block 1-way, dead-and the street -- deadd end street for moving traffic into their garage. between the four seasons residences and the car park, there are over 1000 car parked there. this is the only way in, and most days, the only way out. it is not unusual to see trucks

parked there for loading and unloading. it becomes a one lane road. the people trying to get into the car park in the four seasons -- it is not unusual for them to take 10 or 20 minutes to get out. the owners are not here to stop the project, but we want this to be a good neighbor project which will encompass long-term solutions to traffic, which is environmentally friendly and as not create a major bottleneck and traffic nightmare, such as those we see so often in hong kong and other major cities. >> good afternoon. my name is bryan can't. we were hired by the 765 market

street residential owners association to look at the transportation aspects of the draft eir. we prepared a memo analyzing the impact, so i will focus on three of our findings that we made. this is one of the figures from the draft eir. one of the problems we found was that in the eir there was an improper analysis of what we will call intersection critical movements. those are vehicle movements that take the most time going through an intersection, taking up more green light time. according to the analysis -- it is difficult to see from this point of view. the eastbound through movement has been labeled as critical movement. that is movement going toward the ferry building.

in the absence of west turn movement, the traffic flows easily. the real critical movement is from market street, turning right onto fourth street. that is due to the high volume of pedestrians crossing the street there. if you were to take that into consideration, the proposed project would result in a significant impact. the 6 and 7 would result in less than significant impacts. that is the relationship of the vehicle impact. the second aspect is that the analysis is not consistent with the circulation patterns for current and future users. we have prepared another diagram. this is not from the draft eir, but our own. essentially, the distribution of trips predicted in the draft eir is not realistic.

in those variance, crisps are predicted to circle around and go up market street in order to access destinations east. this is not realistic because of the congestion on market street, the lack of available left turns on market street, and the fact that markets street has a dead end. there are other routes which are much quicker. once you take into account those aspects, it turns out to be less than significant impact. lastly, i would reiterate the previous comment about a.m. traffic levels. due to the high in bound volumes in the morning, there could be significant impacts to the project at third and stevenson as well as third and market street. thank you.

>> my name is paul said way. -- sedway. i am a resident of the neighboring area to the project. i want to commend the planning department, which is famous for its transparency. on the cover of the eir, you will note that the power behind the building has been made totally transparent, and the mexican museum has been made invisible. so much for covers. i would like to point out that under the eir, the project should not be approved. there is significant shuttling of union square, adding 20% net new shadow, which is considered a significant cumulative impact. the shuttle analysis suggests that the project will be made

except a ball under this constraint by lowering the building to 351 feet as a reduced shuttle alternative, or 195 feet under the existing zoning regulation. to our mind, even this is not acceptable, because of the impact on jesse square. it is a very important open space in the city. it has been largely ignored. the proposed building would impact jesse square in the morning hours. therefore, we have to consider that affect. yet another alternative exists which is not addressed in the eir. that is the very creative proposal designed in 2007. the eir says this option was

rejected by the planning department because it was disfavored by the planning staff based on impact aho on the air and sun -- on the ehrenson building and the acceptability of an elliptical tower. however, the power was shifted to the west to avoid shadowing under proposition k. we believe this was the case. we urge the commission to study this superior alternative, which was not addressed, to make modifications, and to accept the finding that the existing zoning alternatives at 400 feet and a 6.1 floor will

be made compatible. thank you. >> my name is jack. my wife and i are full-time residence at the four seasons residences. when we purchased our home, we were concerned about the difficulty of access, both as regards entering the four seasons as well as exiting and entering on two or crossing northbound third street. unfortunately, our concerns have become unpleasant and unsafe realities. it seems unthinkable to not only contemplate the traffic burden of the cars from the hundreds of additional residential units proposed in the tower project on stevenson valley and third street, but also the traffic

bottleneck that will be created from the loss of one or more lanes of traffic during the construction. in addition to this already difficult dangerous and situation, there will be additional traffic load created by the tower. the fact that they are proposing to have a one-to-one parking ratio, when what was previously considered was 0.27 -- for these reasons, considering the additional burdens of further decreased orderly traffic flow, emergency vehicle access, and shadowing, we feel the project in its present proposed footprint, with its height density, parking in excess of

code, the associated problems creating another curb cut and access driveway entry, it is ill-conceived, and would create multiple additional problems in an already gridlocked downtown area. we urge you to consider our many concerns when making your final determination regarding this project. thank you for your consideration. president fong: i will call a couple of mornings. -- couple more names. [names are called] >> members of the commission, my name is lynn sedway.

i am a neighbor as well as an urban and real estate economist. you have heard a lot about traffic. i hope you will hear about the issues involving pedestrians in the area. i would like to focus on the fact that many cumulative impact were not adequately addressed. i will mention a couple. traffic and parking of the renovated facility, which will include target. we all love target, but many people drive to use target. also, the impact on union square. third street is the main route for many coming from the east bay and the peninsula. union square is a valuable resource for us, both from a city standpoint and a fiscal standpoint.

to make third street more of an obstacle will have a significant impact on the union square merchants and open space. the shadow impact on union square is significant. we understood that shadow impact on the transit center. it seemed a worthwhile trade-off with the increase transit service. that did not mean to open the door to this and other projects , which is caused by the height of the tower. i asked you to please send the environmental impact bat for further study. thank you. president fong: sir, did you have --

>> good afternoon. my name is howard wechsler. i and the council for the residential owners association. i believe you should have all received the comment letter and traffic report that we submitted on friday. i would just like to briefly highlight what i think are the critical items, because you have the full report to read and i only have three minutes. first, i think if you go through and staff goes through and consultants go through what we have produced, you will find that even using only the pm peak figures that variance 6 and 7 will turn out to be superior traffic areas. when one does what i believe has to be done, a.m. peak traffic

for a one-way street like third street, it will be quite clear that the project variance -- variants will likely have significant impact, particularly between mission and market. there will be no traffic or additional curb cuts that pedestrians will get involved with. in terms of shadows, the eir correctly points out that both alternatives b and e are far superior, because any project below 351 feet will cause no net new show, on union square. this project, which is proposed to be higher than the existing building, would generate 22% increase new show on union

square and the beyond the power of this commission and rec and park to grant, because it would generate 337,000 square feet of net new show, and the current allocation is only 322,000 feet. you'd have to increase the amount of show on union square that can be allowed, and then grant it all to this project blocks away, preventing any other project near union square from adding any net new show. -- new shadow. finally, in regard to jesse square, there hasn't not been an attempt to look at an alternative. -- there has not been an attempt to look at an alternative. there ought to be at least some shadow analysis. the should be consideration to

having a mexican museum of similar height with the jewish community museum in st. patrick's church. when i was present on the redevelopment commission in the 70's, it was my pleasure to help preserve the ehrenson building and the jesse street station. hopefully we can have a mexican museum that ties into the square with reduced shadow impacts. thank you. >> good afternoon. i am here to lend my support to the mexican museum and power. i have been down in yerba buena for over 20 years, and we have long waited this project. many of us see millennium as coming in to save the day. we are all very confident in millenium to work with the

community, as they have in the last 10 or 15 years they have been down here. also, i would like to point out that it has been my observation that the success of yerba buena has been the true mix of arts, cultural, retail, other businesses, and residential. these are the stakeholders' that have helped make yerba buena a success. president fong: thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is linda lou cerro -- lucero. i am the president of the arts festival in the yerba buena gardens. i fully support this project. it is one of san francisco's jewels, but yerba buena will not

be complete without the long- awaited mexican museum. i have full confidence that the issues raised in the eir can be worked out by the mexican museum and the millennium partnership, to everyone's satisfaction. thank you very much. president fong: is there any additional public comment? >> good afternoon. i am the president of the tonko group in yerba buena. i am the president of the neighborhood consortium. the 30 years that yerba buena and the gardens have been under development, the priority in environmental impacts for our community of 2000 elders and disabled persons, and the other residents, has been pedestrian safety. when i got this draft eir, i turned to look at the very important cumulative impact

assessment for pedestrians. there has not been one done in any eir for a decade, although there have been many projects built, and more coming. target opening will certainly have an impact. there is no assessment of cumulative pedestrian impacts in this eir. that is legally inadequate. more importantly, it does not give you the information you need to decide what this project should do by way of mitigation. you know certainly that the pedestrian traffic in the district is very substantial. it peaks during special events in the gardens and major conventions. it is overwhelming. it is a real problem. the original plan for the gardens has a second mid block pedestrian crossing that would go from the center of the arts to city square. that was done to have a good

functional connection between the institutions, of course. but it was also to accommodate the very large crowds that come through the gardens. because all the convention traffic and much of the rest defaults to fourth street, fourth street is badly overwhelmed. we need an updated assessment of the situation at fourth and mission, as well as third and mission. the eir should have done that. it did not do that. although i know redevelopment is gone, this is the final project that builds the last undeveloped site in yerba buena, going back almost 50 years. it is our last chance to finish the job the right way. the second mid block crossing was always planned. it was always needed. the first one, to the west, did not get built until about eight years ago, due to opposition from various bureaucrats and

lack of funding. this development needs to fund its construction. there are congestion and pedestrian safety impacts. it is a safety issue. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am the lead curator and the dollar coordinator, and i support this project. -- in thand the gallery coordin, and i support this project. i think this will bring tourism, art tourism, into the city.

we need more tourism, and this will help with that. thank you. president fong: thank you. is there any additional public comment? >> hello. my name is terry. i work for a resident who lives at the four seasons. he is in a wheelchair. i wanted to follow up on the comments about pedestrian traffic. with him being in a wheelchair, it is very hard for him to cross at in the intersection, because the lights are not long enough for him to get across the street. with the increase in traffic, it is almost going to be impossible. if they need to get more traffic, the lights are going to be even shorter. i would like to see the study investigate pedestrians and people in wheelchairs' for further study. thank you.

>> my name is roberta hernandez, and i cannot tell you how excited i am. as some of you know, i was involved with the mexican museum as a kid, growing up in the mission district, when it was on folsom st.. i have been involved in different aspects throughout the years. it has been a dream. the dream is coming alive to finally get the mexican museum built. we know there are some challenges, but i do not think there is anything that cannot be worked out. i think we all come together in a circle and the other. this is the last piece, the very last piece. they say we come last, but we come as the best. we look forward to working with everybody in san francisco to

make this last piece the best in that area. gracias. president fong: any additional public comment? seeing none, commissioners? commissioner moore: the public has voiced concerns about the eir which i fully support. one, which is obvious, is the increase in congestion, and cumulative effects of traffic impairment in the project area. i would like to mention that there is no mention in the draft eir regarding five years traffic chaos while they build the central subway, which has to be taken into consideration, regardless of the timeline of the project, which is uncertain when we do 1 eir. i do not see reference to the

large museum of modern art, which will increase pedestrian impact in the area. we are also planning to expand the convention center. i think will not have only significantly larger conventions, but traffic impacts, which nobody ever wants to talk about. if we want to make san francisco say for pedestrians, a comprehensive pedestrian movement plan has to be completed in tandem with this eir, and answer all the questions which were raised. the issues are larger and further reaching. if you reactivate three or four theaters all at once, you will have people wandering from one activity to another, including doing some shopping at a target on the way. as we are trying to add

restaurants, as we are trying to add other attractions to the area, this whole district will transform in a manner we do not understand quite yet. i would like to remind all of you, and i struggle with it often, when i come down kern the street, -- kearny street, people are overwhelming the bus stop, which forces me to walk on the roadway, because there is no way of getting through. with children strollers and elderly people with walkers, it is impossible to get through. add the number of residents proposed for the tower and the visitors coming to the museums and the population who wants to go to target. we need to force ourselves to look ahead and see the transformation of the district in a much more comprehensive and

cumulative way. one thing the eir unfortunately does not do, and it is important to me personally, is a visual analysis of new buildings that have already been approved, such as the museum tower, which will change the skyline in this area. it will change the view coming from the south of third street. what does it look like with the new museum tower and this call proposed building? i would also like to request that we reflect on skyline goals, which we all looked at in the early 70's. we never wanted to block our view it just by tall buildings creating a funnel, where we do not see the jagged edge of the sky in between. some of those visual analysis principles are not observed any more, and i am disturbed by that.

i believe the increase of shadow on union square which is further reaching, and i am glad that people eloquently spoke about that this particular project needs to address it in a more serious manner than casually noting that there will be shadow. we have a shuttle ordinance. we need to figure -- a shadow ordinance. on the cake. i want to be very clear about that. i do believe that this e.i.r. needs to address a project which performs within the limitations that the code and the rules as they exist pose for us, and then we can talk about everything else. i just need to put that to record, because that is personally important to me, and i think i believe that's one of the reasons why