members of the board. [inaudible] environmental and transportation plainer. joining me is [inaudible] senior environmental planner. erica planner current planner. [inaudible] as previously stated the subject of the appeal hearing is the cpe prepared by the planning department for the project at 340 bryant street. the project includes conversion of the upper 3 storeies of a commercial build ing to office use. exterior features includes sign jtsage and roof deck. in the cpe the department found the project would be consistent with the development density established by the east soma community plan and not result in any significant environmental impacts beyond those aurmtd identified in the eastern

neighborhood rezooning and area plans final impact report >> could you speak close toor the microphone jss >> in such situations the guidelines a cpe is warranted ask no environmental review is required. we believe the cpe is prepared thmpt matter for the board is whether to uphold the departments decision and deny the appeal or overturn the departments decision and return the project to the department for additional review. we sent a package [inaudible] i should also note thatarve submitting our writtenen response we received e-mails from 3 neighbors that echoed the concerns raise. with regards

to the concern about pedestrian access tothe site. pedestrian exists from side walks and unmarked cross walks adjoining the existing building. it is paepted the pedestrians will use the same roots to reach the building as under the prior commercial use. though the existing [inaudible] existing condition that would not becretedory changed by the proposed project and therefore not a virenltal impact of the praublgect. in the eastern neighborhood, eir which is incorporated [inaudible] adverse pedestrian condition exist in east soma wathe project is located. the eir described higher vehicle speeds too and from ramps including

bryant street and observed the free way on and off ramps designed to facilitate multiple lanes create intersection that are inhospitble to pedestrians. the analysis applies to the transportation commissions at the project site as the site was one of the sites rezoned and existing condition consistent with those described in the eir. the existing pedestrian condition near the project site squeeffects of pedestrian activity and new development were studied in the environmentm review. [inaudible] would not cause new significant impacts under seek wuthat were not already

analyzed. with regard to the appellate kerns about the estimated number of office related jobs to be added, the addition of 165 office jobs reported in the cpe was calculated using the 276 square feet per employee ratio which is standard access for the guidelines. the appellate letters states the number of new office jobs is likely double that amount. even if the projenth did result in 330 new employees such employment growth doesn't exceed the magnitude identified in the eir and not change the fact that increased conflicts between pedestrians, bikes and cars are already covered by the analysis as previously discussed. the appellate also stated the site

map provided in the cpe is misleading and doesn't convey the complexity of the site or the nireb on and off ramps. the department believes the [inaudible] adequately convey the project site and the surrounding. the site plan figure on page 4 of the cpe check list includes location and directionalty of the free way ramp, side walk and [inaudible] the project location map on page 3 includes labeled streets and free way ramps. these graphics are to supplement on pages one and 2 that also described the free way ramps. other features missing from the figure such as the retaining wall and the [inaudible] are not relevant to the sliremental review of the proposed project and don't have baring on the conclusion

presented in the cea-the maps and graphics adequately convey the location and relevant features of the project site and the surroundings. the appellate also raised concerns about cal trans ord ination. as discussed in the cpe, cal trans, reviewed the proposed project and required the project sponsor to make modifications including relocation of the signage to avoid vehicle line of site and right of way encroachment issues. the appellates concern is addressed through cal trans review. with regards about people on the proposed roof deck being exposed to poor air quality. the cpe acknowledged

[inaudible] the cpe further explained that occupants of offices don't spend the majority of their lives in the building and not of the age or population group vulnerable from air pollution. it is also likely that office employees will spend more time inside the bimdsing than on the roof deck. the cpe concluded the proposed project-[inaudible] as i mention said thrk cross walk configuration is a underlying existing condition. for seek wupurposes we only consider the change between existing conditions and the effect of the pro posed project. the office conversion wouldn't change the cross walk configuration and the addition

of more pedestrian trips and vehicle conflicts is already analyzed in the eastern neighborhood eir. as such no new impacts would acur. in conclusion, all the significant environmental impacts of the project were previous studied and disclosed in the eastern neighborhood eir. the apalt letter, remarks and e-mails from neighbors haven't provided evidence of new impacts not previous studied. further environmental review would not change the impact or mitigation measures found in the cae. the department therefore correctly concluded the proposed project fits in the criteria and recommend the board deny the appeal. this concluzs the planning department presentation. i should also mention [inaudible] are available to discuss the

departments implementation of vision zero policies if desired. thank you >> supervisor kim you had a question >> i have a couple questions for mr. [inaudible] you had mentioned a number of different issues, but i want to start with the office worker per square footage so i want to understand if it is correct that when studying the number of new office works, the general assumption is you look at 276 square feet per office worker when you study? the number of workers in a project >> we take the total square footage of office space to be created, divide by 2ceive 6 and that gives the estimate of the number of new employees >> this is a data point that comes up frequently in conversations not just directed

to this project. the appellate brought it up and community members brought it up and herds it in general when we talk about fees for commercial office space in san francisco. we now generally see in new office space particularly with technology comps is office works use less square footage than previously so the idea of the large cubicle is out dated and people share work spaces. a recent artcome in the new york times dropped from 25 square feet to 176 square feet in 2012. that is 3 years ago. i'm curious outside this appeal alone, when the planning department is thinking how to up date office working per square feet because i think is pornt to study this. we know

these new projects are doing smaller square fooltage for we want to make sure we are studying these projects. >> good afternoon supervisor. sarah joan virenltal review officer. the number of square feet per office workers is something that is spelled out in the transportation impact analysis guidelines, so as mr. [inaudible] mentioned we do our analysis consistent with those published guidelines. we are within the next year or so make a lot of changes in the transportation analysis including a update of the guidelines and we'll need to seek expertise on right sizing that number because we have to find the right balance between the immediate trend and something that will be able to be applied long term yrkss and

think is a important issue for us to look at. i think it is a issue that is frustrating to some of the community members as they talk about how many workers will be at the site. regardless i understand from mr. [inaudible] comment that even if it is 330 employees versus 134-was that the calculated number >> 165 >> 165, regardless there wouldn't be additional review needed because that additional number of workers isn't significant. but i do understand frustration from the residence when we study the impact of projects and we are not looking at what most people are seeing as realistic for square footage for the workers. i think that is important to update. >> i understand updating for current data on the matter. >> i want to point out another frustration i hear a lot from our residence and that

is the point that the eastern neighborhoods environmental impact review has already looked at the existing condition and we all acknowledge the existing condition is a problem. a unmarked cross walk doesn't favor pedestrian access as you pointed out, but yet there is no new impact because this already exists whether it is signalized orinate not. i guess the question is if not through all eir what tools does the planning department have to make sure [inaudible] zero is the priority? does that question make sense because i'm concerned about safe mu destren access. the realty is we will have hundreds of workers whether new or existing going to the site. it is a unique and puculiar site. the only

access is the unmarked cross walk and nink rightly so the residence are very concerned about their ability to cross safely on brimant street where cars are rushing to get on the bridge and often impatient traffic in the area. if not through the eir what is kind of the point at which the planning department can assert with the project sponsor that these types of condition need to be input into a project outside a wuappeal >> thank you supervisor kim. elizabeth [inaudible] director of planning. right now the planning department is implementing vision zero policy squz we fw gain doing it as a result of the commissions policy. we have done a bunch of inturnt efforts to make sure there are inturnt procedures in place so we can imp lnt. i think the degree we can mandate

varies on the size of the project. for large project we have a clear process it implementing vision zeeree policies and this is something we engage with the developers urmy in the process and work to move that point in time firthser to the beginning of the process. this is for projects that are subject to our street squaip plan requirements, the isis planning code 138.1, there is a requirement that those projects prepare a street scape plan, that plan is reviewed by internal team we created of urban design experts that are familiar with vision zero mauls squz they are focused on choosing for the high injury corridors making sure the right improvements are incorporated in that plab. the plan has to be in place before the planning commission approval of the project. i think that is a rock solid way we can implement this. even more so for those

project, all those project requires a ppa or preliminary project assessment. this is before day one of filing applications and this is the opportunity to give advice and road map and a opportunity to include the recommendations. i do think it is important to note for smaller project where the code requirement isn't required >> what is considered a large project? >> it is defined in the planning code so it is wonky and detailed, but there are 2 components, one is certain property feature squz coupled with project features. the property needs to be great r than half a acre, contain 250 feet of lot frontage or contain frontage encompassing the entire block face. the property has it look like that and the development proposal sitting on the property needs to be a proposal for new construction or addition of twnt percent of the existing

structure. all that has to come into place for the street scape plan to be required and once it is required we as staff look to see if it is in a high injury corridor and if it is we have a process in place to pick and choose the elements of bike and ped safety. if the project doesn't fall within that world and it is a smaller project we really do have fewer tools in the tool kit we can use. we can't mandatedential improvements if we don't have a nexus or a code derivative to mandate the requirement. we can talk to sponsors, encourage them and that sort of thing, but we are limited to the tool kits that really more so apply to the larger projects >> i want to appreciate your response to the question mrs. [inaudible] i understand that

we need to focus-there has to be a threshold we look at pudustren safety and vision zero concern and it makes sense to look at large projects or look at any project on a high injury corridor. does it include existing praublg oket? there may have been project built around critical corridors we didn't have this layer of analysis for or it wasn't a policy priority before, but now it is so how do you respond to the changing policy priorities? >> these can't be ret row active to projects already approved >> when a existing project is coming back to the board like this one >> i think the key for this project is it doesn't fall into the large project so we do have much fewer tools to implement bike and ped improval: for the other projects in the

department pipe line that is considered a large project it is love the day. if there is a new policy that is implementing vision zero policy we will absolutely require those projects moving forward that haven't received their approvals will be required to incorporate the policies into the the plans. >> okay. i get the tools don't exist in the tool box today for the planning department, i would love to explore how to expand your tool box. this project clearly calls for pedestrian safety impluvment. it is a dangerous corridor with cars moving quickly or slowly because of traffic congestion in the area. unmarked cross walk, everyone acknowledges that dozen favor pedestrian access. i would like to create something where we catch projects such as these earlier because i believe the project sponsor is committed to pedestrian safety for the new

tenets on site and it exempifyed by the fact that the project sponsor agreed to put in a signalized cross walk prior to todays appeal. i guess it would be great to do this earlier in the proswithout a appeal taking place and our offices negotiating days and hours before the appeal takes place. i feel we can have a better system for this. i don't know what the answer is, but there has to be a way to catch projects like these that need a pedestrian safety look and analysis >> sarah jones [inaudible] i said the words to mrs. hester that i never thought i would say and that is glad she filed the appeal. but i do agree with you that as we develop procedures there are always

situations that arise that were not what we expected when they are developed. this type of situation brings projects libe this to light and i will be bringing these comments back to the planning department and looking that procedures to address this >> thank you, i appreciate that. i would like to find a answer on project like this so we look at the highest safety standard for the pedestrians. l as existing projects come back or there are new projects that don't fit in the neat projects of being a large project. my last question really is just-was addressed in the comment and want to ask again because it comes up a lot, are there environmental effects that are puculiar to the projects that are not analyzed in the eir and was the location of the site at the

base of the bay bridge analyzed specifically in the eastern neighborhood planning commission? >> with regard to the question of whether the projects result in puculiar impacts, the definition of a puculiar impact is a site specific impact that wasn't analyzed in the eir. as discussed in the comments, the eir pointed out there are adverse pedestrian conditions in east soma, higher vehicle speeds on streets that serve as conductions to and from the free way ramps, briants street was called out specifically. the eir also indicated there are pedestrian unfrndly conditions at the on ramp intersections that are designed to accommodate multiple laejotches turning traffic such

as the one ajais chbt to the project site and it also said that conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles could increase as a result of new development and increased density. this projecktd site is covered by that because it was among the sites rezoned. it fsh rezoned from sso which is service secondsary office primarily commercial industrial use to mixed use office. a land use designation that favors a higher density office use jrfxz so it is already called that in the eir there are concerns about pedestrian safety that we already know that this is not a safe site and there are problems with the existing conditions, why does it not lead to a form of proposed mitigation in the eir preerfbiously >> the eastern neighborhood

eir does contain a number of street scape improvements. all of those are under the responsibility of sfmta to implement and largely because virj projects site are just one site on a block and it really does require a more city response to make impluchbments to these streets so it doesn't fall neatly on one project sponsor to undertake. there are also fees assessed to projects within the eastern neighborhoods plan area that help pay for these improvement >> if the expected mitigation-what is in the plan for the city to develop partially fundsed by the fees generated in the praublgect area plan >> that is correct >> i know sfmta isn't here, but look forward to working with them to insure the city is

putting in >> student ground already called for safety improvement as we have new workers and residence coming to the area >> thank you supervisor kim. supervisor yee >> thank you president breed. thank you supervisor kim for your line of questioning in regards to the pedestrian safety issues that [inaudible] pointed out pretty clearly. i guess i have gone into the bridge through that ramp quite a few times and i don't think i have ever seen a person cross the street right there. if someone were to cross there i would be surprised if i never see the person. before i go for a solution here, there is-the developers are willing to put a signal cross-across

bryant >> if supervisor kim asked to do a study to get rid of any possibility to cross where everyone is go nothing to the freeway and people cross by and go down the street, it isn't unique-we have streets where there are places that corners where you can't cross, you have to cross one way and go all the way around. for me one of the things-the question i have, if we can get mta to let's say make it block that usage of people crossing there, that would be to me the solution to this. it is still dangerous regardless, but it will cut the

danger by a lot. the question is once we get mta to block it, it seems like city planning or planning commission or maybe just a developer can do it on their own, the walk way that the appellate was pointing out coming from the building that seems to lead to where the dangerous unmarked cross walk would be, can we ask that they get rid of that and-regardless of where the doors are, make everything-the pathway won't go into the cross walk where bryant street is. could city planning require that? >> if i may to the chair, deputy city attorney [inaudible] the only reason i'm jumping to answer this is because through the seek wuappeal process the board

actually specifically to this process just has a up our down vote on whether to uphold the planning department environmental review. there may be other mechanisms the board can use to work these issues out >> and i'm not saying that-i understand voting up and down, but we are talking about this issue now and i'm suggesting outside of the appeal process there are probably mechanisms where we can come up to better solution pedestrian safety issues and taking this opportunity to say here is a probability >> thank you supervisor u. supervisor christensen >> i wonder if anyone in planning knew the site? when the bay bridge was built they leveled everything and there is a lot of soil added. my

recollection nob nub the state police facility added to the west, those were added to what were open areas, so how did a building land up nestaled in the middle of a coiled free way ramp because that must have been state land. how did a building land there and how long has it been uperating? the building was put in 80 years. at what point was the building added and why. secondly, if the increasing density and concern about safety prohibit crossing the free way on ramps then do we essentially condemn this property and what recourse would the property owner have in that case? any idea? does anyone and where the building came from >> i can try at the first part of the question. we are

looking for the date, but believe the building was constructed in the 1930's which is consistent with it coming orphthe bring construction. as far as the second part- >> it is an interesting situation. i would say it is-the building was previously occupied. we did our analysis for conservative purposes as if it were not, but it is a change of use. it had been pied in the past. there is a ada ramp crossing the hov lanes going straight on to the free way which doesn't appear to be a safe location for crossing, however apparently it is considered a cross walk. i

thin