and in response the question to the eir have been answered although not answered sufficiently. i think we're way, way behind in a study which indeed is to be compared and overlaid with the pedestrian traffic as the development project has tried to create for the last thirty years is incomplete. there is no circulation why people are coming and going and until that is done and do we understand how to mitigate and

approve padded safety. it's about understanding the new shift when it comes to a strong pro transit city and a push for an enable network of bikes in the city. all of these things need to be looked at together. i don't believe the comments were fully answered. i don't think that the answers given to the public were sufficiently answered. i do believe the error - i see a simulation of the tower i also

ask that the visual effect of the new museum onto the new experience as i look at beuna in totally in a dive way and for that reason the error is very thorough it is still not complete >> so the purpose of the eir is to give us the tool so we can evaluate the report. certainly there's issues around the pedestrian safety and the error gives us the tools but i don't necessarily think looking at the proposals their totally interrelated to the project but

that doesn't mean they're not. i think it would be great to have the planning staff report to us and when the target opened i don't think it went through the staff but this is happening and it's an issue that's going become more acute as to what's happening. as far as the document its complete and sufficient for us to make a (call >> yeah, the document does conclude that the project is not

a considerable kim active to increase pedestrian problems it will distinguish them particularly in regards to the museum. there will be multiple exits and extraneous and that will keep the traffic flowing. because this project is now designed with very broad for plates to put the museum on fewer floors there will be less kooug up of people and the impact will be mitigating. and people will be able to pass through theplasia as even non-museumgoers will be able to get around the densely populated

areas. and so i think that's a big part of it. and in regards to views and, of course, how things appear we have some excellent reverend of the tower that is extremely well designed by a world renowned architect. and it's very typical for the neighborhood because almost many of the buildings in this neighborhood are equal in height and i think it's very sensitively built and i think the report is very complete. i think the analysis of its impacts on pedestrian and

automotive traffic is extremely well promoted and it goes into some of the cumulative impacts but it's not expected to nor can it solve those long-standing impacts those are things for another day. i'm happy to certain if i this document >> on shadows i'm like pleased with the emission of the statement that the proposed project does not meet the criteria for increasing the shadowing. and i think the project sponsor and the commission should feengs this statement when the commission and the rec park commission have a joint hearing to decide whether or not it's shadow impact is egregious or

not. secondly there's more than one statement with respect to the alternatives and it's more than one alternative would not result in a financialable endowment for the mexican museum that would fund the capital costs and on going costs of the mexican parcel. it seems like a strange to me anyway statement to be making in an environmental impact report. you know, i don't know whether it's legitimate or not leg emit to took into consideration but it seems like a strange thing to

be in the alternative analysis. i'm not for or against the mime commissioner moore in terms of saying that i think we're fully supportive but in this case, the report is addressing environmental concerns not so much the museum is a good or bad project which will come in the future which it is scheduled. that said that's not going to dissway my vote and the third question very is to staff. in terms of the kinds of things that have been raised and others with with respect to pedestrian traffic safety can be handled through did project approval process by introducing additional conditions i assume

to the project. how far awe field can those issues address the traffic concerns. for example, i can see we might be able - sorry this relates to whether or not i'm going to vote for this thing. in the process of approval we tissue conditions that address traffic concerns. i can see that one particular mitigation is for a mid block crosswalks it never got built. i can see that condition as being a legitimate one. however, there are other

mitigations that are blocks away and i'm not sure in those are within our power to then legitimately say because of this project we want some improvements two blocks away. i don't know if staff can address that question or not >> good evening. so the idea of the mid block crossing my understanding is that that mid walk crossing was approved many years ago. those are both part of the original plans on the western one was implemented and the eastern 101 north one was not

because the epa didn't approve of two mid walk crossings on one block. there are no blocks in san francisco south of marketing where there are two crossings. and as part of this project that we would build that crosswalk but mta wouldn't support that crosswalk that's why it wouldn't move forward >> that's not my question. >> i think with your potentially getting is a next us question and as you know for

mitigation to address the environmental impact or whether it's through the project if you're going to approve the project both in kind and degree so if the project is going to rise to the level of the impact i can still impose conditions of approve. however, you have to show the project is causing pedestrian effects and it addresses pedestrian effects so if the project is only be contributing x number of effect i couldn't make them pay for the whole total. and so many

>> so any evaluation of the nexus is it has sort of been done as part of the eir because they've already analyzed it for causing transportation and other impacts so therefore some of the nexus question is contained in the document itself. if we were then to move beyond this and is it was certified and move into project approval then can we rely been on the project like requiring a pedestrian crosswalk somewhere in >> well, the commission does this where you have a less than - and the commission will

approve the improvement measures or have been identified through staff to address the effects of the proposed project. i still need to have a next us so you will rely on the information that the staff has given you to show that the conditions your imposing has addressed them and so it's not a question per say but there are a number of pedestrian improvements we're looking at and with the expansion with moscone. and we're all in all the time that the pedestrian conditions need to be improved in f that district

>> commissioner. >> i think it is totally appropriate that there is mentioned in the economical feasibility because for an environmental document you're not expelled to produce an eir or analysis of something that is not economically feasible. and there's more than just obviously we're renovating and restoring the building and removing some of the non-historical annexs and then the eir carefully goes through the analysis with all the optioned to show what height the tower could be that would remove the shadow impacts and the other

impacts and some of them get as small as 20 feet and others higher. while those are presented as variants they are are not a preferred option because it's been that pointed out out quite clearly and also still has effects that, you know, some of which will unionism have some overriding circumstances but by and large greatly minimize the effects where it was destroyed or ruin some of the buildings one side would have even more if a shadow impact >> yes unless i missed it i don't see any figures in here

from the developer saying why it's not feasible. >> i know you mentioned mta said they'll prefer not to have it here because of the muni and investigating with e having two crosses there. would it mitigate help eliminate some of the pedestrian safety. it seems like it's not going anywhere. but would it be helpful? you might not have an answer for it now and it could be part of the report >> so as part of the eir we looked at the pedestrian conditions like we do for every project and we did not identify any predator expedia impacts

such as third and mission there was no book so therefore the new crosswalk would not be a mitigation. but as an improvement measure certainly installing a second crosswalk would go help. but some pedestrians will be going from jessie square to south. that's why it could be an improvement measure but again mta was not in support of m that measure >> commissioner moore. >> dorky have to ask i a question. few minutes you mentioned that the moss - moscone project this

eir couldn't take a larger look at the conference and one because the movements of people in those two locations are one and the same. as it's effecting all the seniors with senior apartments there and are partial people are concerned about is conventional attend - why does that we areer take the same measures >> if i may maybe staff can help me. it does look at the pedestrian impacts and the cumulative impacts when we know when the description was created at a

point. but it does take cumulative analysis >> i don't think so. for all our development projects to this scale we don't do a cumulative project analysis for a large land use plan as the director mentioned the central corridor plan will look at conditions on moscone and that project will be proposing sidewalk widening and pedestrian conditions. before the standards stand alone it is not our practice to do

cumulative projects. >> commissioner. >> my understanding particularly for individual projects the staff has pointed out that the analysis for what exists or what has been approved has it's on eir or own environmental study that can reasonably predict this project but we can't know what the impact is going to be an kim active study would have to analyze you'll that's been approved and that's not in this particular report. i'd like to move to certain if i >> second. >> i'd like to remind people

that in the discussion of the eir i raised the same question of why moscone center the mexican museum and would not be considered. the parties were known at that time when the project was created so i'm having a difficult time the details have been known for longtime. and i don't understand why it has to be more expensive to - >> i'd like to clarify that the motion did clarify the motions readful into the record by staff. >> in that case on the motion to certain .

so move commissioners that passes 4 to 2. >> the commissioner is going to take a short 10 or 15 minute break. (on break for 10 or