in math, science and technology i don't see why the board is ignoring it. (change of captioners).3

>> it isn't in the documents. you never looked at the cumulative impact of all indevelopment on the neighborhood. so, you logically when you look at this from a case by case perspective conclude there is no unusual circumstances or cumulative impact. i think this project would really benefit from a little more process. a deeper understandic of what is happening to our neighborhood.

i think that the interim measures are substantial evidence of unusual circumstances. i also want to remark a condo across from us just sold 3 million dollars. a condo the same size proposed by the project sponsors. if a 3 million condo will give relief for middle class flight than we live in a much more proper city i thought we did. i also want to say exercising my right doesn'tant make me hostile and hat is how we are painted here today. because we exercise our procedural rights are hostile.

i have no problem with within of any character becomes my neighbor so i'm very disappointed those allegations are made here today >> just to comment on impact, what is happening on [inaudible] is what is happened on market streetd. there is high density, it worked out well and there is more happening. we see this branching off in state street and that is sth concern we have. we saw all these project line up. i see all the people that are the owners of the property are llc t. is all speculative and has a impact on the neighborhood and thatd is what we are kerned about. >> -i did

watch the planning commission, they stugaled with this decision. i think that from

their first hearing they were unhappy with the project and thought it was too big and 5 stories, it had 4 garages. they felt it was a monster homes and think after that hearing a sear ease of 10 changes were made and glad the project sponsors made the changes, however they were not particular to seek awith. in any case i'm glad they nade changes. inl listening to the planning commissions thaif strugual the balance between sticking with the chairktistic of the neighborhood and affordability issues but it at the end of the day they supported it because it is code compliance project. did nlt have variances and it is a sichblgal family home. i think that just hearing from both sides i think it is offensive

to talk more in jeneraltys to say that everyone is a speculator. as we have seen the project sponsorerize trying to live here. they lived in the neighborhood and tried to live with the multijen racialal issue. at the oned thf day i haven't evidence in terms of the determination and exemption issued today. i think that for the purpose of our decision again in terms of the environment review, i would be willing to support and uphold the planning departments decision to issue a categorical exemption so i would like to hear from colleague squz make a motion to approve item 19 and table item twunt and 21 >> supervisor made a motion to approve item 19 and table 20

and 21 second by supervisor co00. seeing no other names on the roster can you call the role >> supervisor yee rr aye. avalos, eyei, breed,i. supervisor co00, aye. supervisor ferrule. i. supervisor kim. aye. supervisor stang. aye. supervisor wiener is absent. >> this categorical exemption is finally confirmed. >> i would like to correct supervisor wiener is excused not absent >> at this time we will hear the speckd-we have the appeal of the seek wuplanning commission for the project at

350 brieant street. madam clerk please call 22-25 >> item 22-twoivl cument prize persons issued in the community plan exemption by the planning department for the proposed [inaudible] under the california environmental quality act. item 23 motion to affirm the planning detarmt [inaudible] thauls state street project from environmental review. item 22 is a motion to reverse the determination in 25 [inaudible] >> okay, and supervisor kim, you have opening remarks for this item. >> thank you. again president breed. the appeal that is before us today is brought by an appellate that brought up numerous concerns about pedestrian safety on 340 briants and thauls citys

[inaudible] in approving a project in a pewculiar on site condition. it is at the base of the bay bridge. this project is a unique site. i had to go and cout scout it because i didn't realize there was a biltding here, but it is a site surrounded by all 4 sides by cal trans property. its location is at the base of the 180 entrance on bryant between second and beel street and many probably passed by it as you dr. on to bridge. there has been very productive conver sesation outside the hear that address the specific pedestrian issues that were raised among neighbors, the project sponsor and sfmta and our office and the developing agreed to the cross work with a traffic

signal as well as other improvements. they are a independent mou with neighborhood reptdatives. i want to be clear this is outside sth scope of the seek wuappeal but i want to point it out because a number of pedestrian concerns have come up and i know members heard from the residence concerned for pedestrians walk aaround the site mpt the question is there adequacy department determination for this project and look forward to hearing both from the appellate, projict sponsor and planning department on this appeal >> for this hearing we'll consider the adequacy [inaudible] and sufficient and completeness of the planning detarmt determination that the proposed project at 340 bryant street falls within the seek wucommunesty plan. without objection we'll proceed as follows. up to 10 minutes preez nchitation by the

appellate or appellate representition. up to 2 ments in support of the appeal. up to 10 minutes from the planning department. up to 10 plnts for the project sponsor or representatives and 2 ments in opposition of the appeal and finally 3 minutes for the paept or appellate relateatives. any ubjeckdss? seeing none we'll move forward and open up for 10 minutes with the presentation of the appellate or appellate representative. mam can you please identify yourself >> my [inaudible] in 2 days you are going to be leading troupes to walk to work. this is walk to work week. thurbz day is walk to work day and this board and the planning commissionophilus adopted [inaudible] about pedestrian accidents. will you turn on the overhead? the site is

here. it is a unusual site-this isn't a comyulative impact analysis, this is site specific. there is a building, there is a free way merger to get on the bay bridge and dollar is the hov lanes down bryant street that are [inaudible] the merger happens on sterling street. traffic merges from the west and from the east and that is an important factor in this case. the building was changed into [inaudible] by the decision which had this environmental decision. it is a [inaudible] based in the neighborhoods ear which studied for traffic 10 years ago. today it is a dangerous site, tomorrow it is

a dangerous site. we applaud the fact they are installing the lighting. we have here-i can't reach this-a plan by a com. a comwas hired by the project sponsor and they dropped us something dated march 5. march 5 was 2 months after the planning commission decision and 2 month after the planning commission evaluation and it shows a cros walk, but it also doesn't show the other buildsing entrance. it was one of those things that you-i looked at and puzzleds thoerfb plans and i was trying to understand it. put this plan back here. there is a entrance right here. how would you know that is a building entrance? that is just a un[inaudible]

space and then i looked at the rendering in the a comanalysis which we got monday afternoon at 3 o'clock-4 o'clock last monday. here is a rendering that i saw and i was looking at this to understand how the traffic approach ing from the east was queued for that, but i caept understand why the people-they are all men in the photographer, tall men. and here zee men walking awaw from the cross walk. the entrance isn't sthon plan. why are they walking there? i was puzzled by that and i started looking at this and figured out what it is. there is a building

entrance that isn't shown on any of the plans. there is just peers. i have been trying to get plans from the planning department and and i talked to the administrator a hour ago. there is a entrance right here and there is a walk way right here and where does that walk way hit? there are 2 places of impact for pedestrians. one we vasolution for. i think we have a deesants solution for the cross walk here. the only building entrance shows up on the plans here. what about this? where does this head? it heads into the attractive nuisance of sturl sterling

street merger. it gets right toon the the bridge. you don't have queue, you get a fast lane. where the traffic is merging is really dangerous. there is a currentry a cross walk here and here and they have bumps. so, if you have people going out of this exist going down the sidewalk, they head straight for the 7th street. pardon me, they head straight for sterling and [inaudible] street. i gave people my questions yesterday afternoon and the questions includes, why does the 340 bryant street lead southwest for the merger point for bridge traffic going on to the bridge. instead of directing people to

the other entrance. i don't understand it. we had a meeting, the first meeting of the committee was a week ago yesterday at 4 o'clock. a comcame in, gave the plans and said we want your response right on the spot. i missed something, i missed the direction the pedestrians are walking. i take that on myself. i'm missed something. there is a enormous safety issue here. the planning department didn't analyze this exist. i talked to the zoning administrator and pleaded with him to look that plans with me because i didn't understand it. environmental review didn't do it, planning department didn't do it. we right now have a failure in 3 areas of the planning department, environmental review, planning department staff, planning

commission. what [inaudible] do you real acare only about the existing places that there are accidents or do you care about heading them off at the pass by a really thorough evaluation. this evaluation should have happened before the project was approved by staff at both levels. actually we have another [inaudible] long term planning which did the zoning for easter neighborhoods also didn't look at this. planning department, 3 levels, planning commission level looked at how-the solution to this and i'll give the rest of my time to someone else. >> thank you. now i will open it up-are you continuing with the presentation? okay. >> bob [inaudible] highly exappearanceed and knowledgeable in pudustren

safety. i want to address adequacyxerachyeracy consistency. no its-you here this is surrounded by cal trans property. i'm in contact with deputy directs and pealm in district 4. cal tran never got a copy of the dir. icality trans said they never file frd the permit they were supposed to. cal trans said where the cross walk is located is under neath a ramp and that isn't something they will allow or permit. there are problems right away that a major agency on whos right of way this is is saying there are problems, but you don't hear it because they were not communicated with. i'll go further. i believe they are using outdated and not

current standards in their analysis. the acting editor for the california manual of uniform traffic control devices and scaerth of traffic control said beginning with the 2012 traffic collision there was a change in methodology to include collisions that occur within a cross walk. cal trans chaimpged and expanded the definition of cross walk last year. it includes much of what now the city says is its own. suddenly you are ignoring a agency from a superior jurisdiction. the new methodology captures 33 percent of pedestrian injuries rather than onet 13 percent. federal highway administration updatedm their definition of a intersection to include cross walks. cal trans said the plans they are given show a

cross walk, but no curb ramp. you may think that is a kanldsered or given, i complain wuns or twice a munt to [inaudible] about miss match curb ramps in construction. i said cal trans pointed out to me with my conversation up the line, there are many kficiency. that is why it does want meet the standard of adquaesh and accuracy. you ought to say now >> thank you very much. is that the conclusion of the presentation? thank you. at this time we'll open up for public comment for members that are interested in providing public comment and support for the appellate >> good afternoon. my name is charles [inaudible] rez dent of district 6 and a fellow

members of our south beach district 6 democratic club alerted me. [inaudible] i thinkf othe strange case of 340 bryant. i went on line and looked at google earth last night and explored the site. it is absolute lee amazing there is no pedestrian access what so ever. i can't think of knhae other location in the? tire 49 square miles there is no formal cross walk or any type of pedestrian acsays. i believe that should have been a flashing red light in the approval process. i suggest to you that the approval process was insufficient and that the project that had appeal should be accepted on that ground. my overall concern is that pedestrian safety seems to be a after thought and it should be a priority so i urge you to

support had appeal >> thank you very much. any other member thofz public that would like to provide public comment? please come forward. >> good afternoon. my name is dorathy dana. i live on second and bryant street about half a block from where this site is. my concern is--over a year at different situations and different sites for instance, the proposed vecd street improvement overhaul, i have been talking about the dangerous situation for people on bryant street and nothing happens. right now there is a very dangerous situation on second as cars are comi