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 coming west-the carerize coming east and turn quickly on to second street. we have had several serious accidents, one of somebody that is down my hall who was bumped by a car and thousand up in the air, came down on her back and she is seriously injured. this is a area where sometimes it is not too bad, but many times the people that are going on this entrance in the late afternoon to evening and the giants games are worse, this is a very very dairns and confusing situation mpt there are no--let me just finish. there are no traffic parole people there. i'm just concerned because when i project like this goes through

without anyone in planning looking at what it may mean to the the people that live there, i think you are forgetting the taxpayers in the mix and the safety of your residence. thank you. >> thank you very much. any other member thofz public who would like to provide public comment in support of the appellate? seeing none, public comment is closed. and now we'll move on to presentation from the planning derchlt payou have 10 minutes >> good afternoon president breed and 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,