. >> what the eir states in the context of the 351' alternative, skykomish, excuse me, it would obtain the project objectives and that the sponsor has indicated that the project as it is now envisioned would not be feasible, but under ceqa it does. mitigation of the shadow impact, this is sort of a ceqa technicality, what the eir concluded was that mitigating the shadow impact would not be something feasible and therefore, it was appropriate to address a reduced-height building in the context of an alternative. when you change the project description it's something that is an alternative, rather than a mitigation measure. >> could you talk about that a little bit more? why planning determined that mitigating is not feasible on all open space? was the statement in reference to all open space or just union square? >> the specific statement being discussed was about the shadow impact on union square, particularly. but a shadow impact is something that is very difficult to mitigate in that the impact that you are recognizing that you are creating a shadow that is impairing the use or enjoy