so it's fundamentally confusing for this reading to say that and for the department to say the additional of 3 hundred and 50 feet they didn't say that they said it. there's a feasible measurable alternating to reduce shadow and it's up to the applicant in the eir to prove that it's not feasible financially or otherwise. there are court decisions that disagree with me and i think those are not - for the record i'll state my objection to the

eir for not putting in the feasibility to the shadow alternates. with respect to the shadow in jersey square if you look at the document it restates what the draft eir said. there was one day for that survey and it found up until 11 o'clock there were 3 hundred people and 345 people later. so what level where do you draw the line why is 65 people not significant and 3 had the and 65 people significant. that can't be arbitrarily to find that the square is not

significant speaker the cumulative amount is not correct and i believe - >> thank you any questions to this gentleman? >> he needs to finish the sentence. >> it was a miss speaking the shadow aspects were found to be insight cumulative and the department said that the impact was significant and that was not true i think she was thinking of union square it was less than significant but cumulative significant that was confusing. i want to make it clear >> no, thank you i wonder in planning could respond to that statement. that makes a little bit more sense to me why it would be less

than significant to a single project to cumulatively significant. planning department? >> supervisor kim the analysis discussed the conditions within each park or open space but the actual determination there's only one impact statement and it's in consideration of the overall shadowing that we made that determination. >> off all open space of public open space? so you didn't distinguish between the two squares? >> yeah, that's just not correct. we could get the document out but everybody has to look at the document that's not correct and a can i ask why you interpreted

that was the evaluation that planning had made? >> there's no statement that the cumulative shadows on jess square is significant. >> thank you. >> thank you. i too appreciated the clarity about the pedestrian safety and the eir that's clear the weekends were not looked at despite the characterized of this area including the senior population what we believe are major conference projects between 20 thousand convention folks on this area but before this board is the eir complete and adequate.

and when i have decisions made that trumpet the analysis in the eir you don't need that important standard there's no need to use rope analysis that doesn't fit the situation and as other specifies indicate we know their problems in this area that pedestrians have did the and it doesn't meet the rope analysis. i'm going to try to have a better answer than i did later. there is case law that says it's fine to use a plan and you look at the situation you can do a hybrid the whole idea so to analysis hybrids and to meet the statute you have to look at

cumulative impacts and mitigations. the guideline says that the eir is guided by practical and analysis. and here we don't have - but using this standard methodology that doesn't fit the area so the cumulative safety pedestrian traffic needs to be expanded. there are needs to be analysis of those special convention fences that are expected parts of the urban life and to ignore them does a disservice to the information that's before this board when it makes its decision about the project and the mitigations that are appropriate. you don't have the mitigation because the eir is not adequate

>> thank you colleagues any questions? let me ask again any questions to any of the members today? okay at this time this appeal has been heard and is now final that matter is in the hands of the board and one of the members want to speak before i make a motion >> so i do want tow appreciate everyone's time as i kind of devoted into eir position into the city. where we're going to continue and expect to see that development which i actually support i really hope we as a city consider what anna rofblt

analysis looks like. i have severe concerns about how we as a city study the impacts and it's not clear to one point our tipping point is which an idea is significant and when it's not. we as policymakers find it confusing and not able to get concrete numbers we saw this with the at at the light boxes that the response is highly subjective and that it's a judgment call. so why i worry about it because we're planning real neighborhood where real people live i get to experience that on a daily basis

but as a representative that has to have the e-mails and what are we doing to mitigate this dense neighborhood. i think the movement we're taking as a city we do patio need to grow as a city but i believe we're not being honest about the places we live and i know that shadow does matter because we live in a cold city. i don't want to use open space these that's notes where i'm going to be motivated to go out to a park if it's going to be shaded because of development. but we have to take the issues into consideration of the shadows and citizens >> so moving forward as we have

major plans whether it's moscone expansions and i hope we expand on that study it makes no sense while we look at only the quality and not the kwnltd matter. we have folks that are 65 and older some of the comments i saw were the folks who said they have time crossings the streets by the time allocated to them. but i think the eir is an opportunity to really delve into

that. the basis line again like what days we pick why we don't examine baselines i think we should have an answer for that or i think once we hit 20 days a year it's a typical event we should examine the baseline for. i look forward to working with planning as we move forward. i think the project in and of itself i agree is an impact of the overall things happening in the neighborhood. if this is kind of - i know often eirs are used for whether or not we like projects. i largely like the projects and am supportive of the mexican museum i get that it has less of

an impact than office but i think we should have done more with the eir. however, i think that sequa provides guidelines and i think we can establish more concrete ideas to help the folks understand. so i will motion is to move forward to approve item number 20 and cable 21 and 22. i also want to say that i understand we have a very lengthy process we're going to be moving to this has to go through 5 committees rec rec and park and historic preservation commission and planning commission. so i look forward to the moving of this project i think there

are some modifications that we can look at that you outside of the eir document. i think that the prop k concerns are very real and i'm sure that supervisor will talk about those and i think we should make the considerations and we can work with the vertical to mitigate shadows on the square. i think over ail jess square was the square i wanted to talk about if it's heavy shadows between 11 and 2:30 p.m. we have to mitigate the shadows we can workout this in the robust

movement and a thank you there's 5 people on the roster to speak. supervisor yee. supervisor kim pretty much stated my opinion of this which is that shadow issues are important we should - i mean i've grown up where everything is dense and i have such limited parking space and you're covering the park half the day is shade and there's only one park in the whole community it's a big issue. the pedestrian safety issue is important to me and we really, really need to look at this issue more seriously.

you know, i'm not real satisfied what the way we're approaching wants eir. i think it's adequate how the city planning commission is looking at it right now but i think two issues that supervisor kim brings up and i'm looking forward to seeing the developer address as we move forward. the shadow issue seems to be something that we could do something about certainly working with the city and not just the project itself but the city should take some responsibility about the pedestrian safety around the area but again may be one of the few that group here and saw third street when i was growing up when there was hardly anybody

walking you could say wow. what happened now. someone was joking that the only place in san francisco that has that type of density in terms of traffic and pedestrian and this was many years ago was probably on stockton street and chinatown. so we really need to look at those appropriations as we move forward and i'll be supporting the supervisors kim's recommendation. supervisor campos >> thank you, mr. chair i want to thank all the members of the public who have come out to speak on this item and phone calls on both sides of the issue. he also want to thank the district specify, specify kim has spent a lot of time working

with the departments on ail sides of the community on those issues. i also welcome the comments from president chiu. it was interesting to watch this proceeding. i want to say to the appellants that i appreciate the points that were made but it was interesting they kept referring 65 market which i assume there's something wrong with saying that doesn't mean we were not going to take our important issues into account. but at what point should the issues raised be dealt with through part of the sequa appeal and at what point should they be dealt with with the subsequent

approvals. even though there remains issues around the traffic and shadows the adequacy of the eir is there along the lines that was explained by supervisor kim. i also hope that in the course of this process as we're going through the remaining approval process that we use that opportunity for the project sponsor to have more communicationss with the appellants. i think it's important to have that dialog and i know there is an exception on the part of many of us that the issue around that i had safety and a traffic and around shadows that those issues be addressed. that's the expectation that many of us on this board have and i really hope the project sponsor takes this opportunity and

otherwise the appellants take the opportunity to sit down and have those meaningful discussions. the last thing i'd like to say and this is not relevant to the issue around the sequa appeal i really appreciate the comments in from the latino community to speak about this project. we're not talking about the merits of this project today but i think it's important to provide some that context as to why this project is so important to us in the latino community. and there's many in the latino project that have embraced this importance of this project for many of us this is the

vindication of the importance of latino culture in san francisco. it's very difficult for us to imagine a san francisco that has the full it potential when it comes to its culture richness not to have the mexican culture. it's so important as someone who recommendation district 9 it's especially important for us given the history of this city and this state. it's taken a long time to be here we can actually have consideration of this project. many, many years to even get to this point and not to take anything away from the appeal i think that's why people feel so strongly and passionate about

this. i hope he have an at any point to perhaps find more common ground as this most of forward and i'll be supporting the position by supervisor kim >> i also want to take a moment to thank all the members which the public who came in here today not only for your presentations but i know those appeals are not easy and i want to echo supervisor campos's ideas i don't think there's no one that doesn't support this mexican museum. that being said i think it's probably fair to say that some of us do not feel quiet as strongly on the rest of the project i have a problem with the shadows on parks.

let me state that my interest in standing up foreshadows or not having shadows in parks is not just because people approved the as opposed to k to insures that we have the coming in our parks but really the neighborhoods we're talking about especially supervisor kim's and mine have the least amount of space in them and you say 16 million people come every year with those little open spaces. if those parks is so important to the quality of the life to the residents and once the corner of the park goes dark it goes dark forever so to be careful of the quality of the

life for the residents. i also am concerned about traffic congestion and the pedestrian impacts we already see sixth gridlock inors o those areas it's not okay to say traffic is already bad so what's the problem. i appreciate the city staff in their analysis and i want to make sure we're going everything we can to mitigate the impacts on our pedestrians and folks who ride their bicycles in those congested corridors. i plan to support the supervisor in this district but want to suggest that the project sponsor will be gaem with the community as well as those with us on the board as we move forward to the projects approval that's an

entirely different questions. i know that supervisor kim will continue to take the lead i look forward to working with her >> thank you supervisor wiener that you. >> i also want to thank everyone i'll be sporting the motion. i think the eir is complete and addresses all the issues it needs to address. i want to just briefly address on both here and on the board level the issues around pedestrian safety and traffic and congestion. i truly appreciate the importance of evaluating those thoroughly and appropriately as part of the eir as with any project. we also need to be very clear

that the eir at best just points to what the impacts are. ultimately when we talk about making pedestrian upgrades for pedestrian safety, traffic improvements, public transportation improvements that's it not really fundamentally a sequa issue that's a policy choice about how we collect fees impact fees where those impact fees go and what budget choices we make. we can study things there an eir null the cows come home but if we're unwillingly to devote the fees inform the traffic upgrades we're not supporting it, it's just a document. we know that for advertisement

there's a maximum load of fees that you can charge at some point the project becomes empty i think we're good in san francisco at testing the limits of those impact fees. but if you look at where the fees are going we're making policy choices about where the fees are going. for example, the eastern neighborhood impact fees relatively a small amount of fees go the transportation budget. when he look at the western sylmar we had the same thing. and we have made a policy choice that we're going to do put a lot of our impact fees into affordable housing. we all value affordable housing and a a critical need.

it's really important that we invest in that. we're not making a similar commitment. actually we're actually putting our money in the funding there it's just a study about what the pedestrian issues are. i think we all want those changes to happen but we want to make sure it's going to happen and that's by funding that. >> thank you, president chiu i want to thank the public for being here and your dialog on this issue and especially want to thank supervisor kim and it

was devil into subjects but the ones we really need to look at how we conduct the environmental review. i know that president chiu has problems with the shadows and i know there's still movements on this project to go forward. i expect we'll be engaged in that and the approval process moves forward. i also want to go some the comments on supervisor campos and i'll speak as an chicano american and someone whaets whose been a fan of the museum. i first came when i had the time i was often a visitor of the mexican museum and saw it as a

great culture that was looking for in my lay off at that time. i know that people need that resource. the fact that the museum for a long time has struggled with the space issue and looking for a greater home i was very excited there was a solution to that project. i wouldn't necessarily support this type of a building when i know it's monthly housing that's being built and housing that doesn't meet the needs of san franciscans i'm willing to over look that that somewhat knowing they're pretty high and low fees for affordable housing off-site especially the mexican museum is

part of this and i look forward to seeing the mexican museum being in a place where it trial can be in the middle of the jewish museum and the other museum i think it's a significant place for it to be. i look forward in the process it being approved. i i want to have that in my comments >> thank you i'll make some final comments. i think overall my comments were targeted at eirs. and when you look at the high-end of the neighborhood we have more eirs coming up i'll be looking