project at 340 bryant street converts the 3 floors to office use. the project was approve bide the planning compligz on january 8. [inaudible] the project was issued a community planning exemption [inaudible] when a project consist wnt the zoning. a project consistent with zoning is [inaudible] the appellate failed to identify any new impact caused by the project. the eir [inaudible] the buildsing was rezooned to mished use office. the eir acknowledged conflict between automobile, pedestrians and

bisicalests [inaudible] which i think is what we have here. with respect to the number of workers that are considered on site, spe set a baseline of zero current employees even though the building was occupied by commercial and industrial tenets up to 2013 so the baseline was conservative. a significant impact must exist to require additional review. a mere increase in workers doesn't create a impact. [inaudible] as a result the appellate failed to identify any unsafe condition caused by the project and the exemption is valid. that being said rks everyone agrees the street scape conditions are not adequate in their current condition. in fact, the project sponsor reached out to sfmta regarding the situation

as early as 2012. they recognize there were issues in the area and want to get a early start on that. at the time they were encouraged to wait until the building lfsh occupied by the new tenets before analysis was done to determine what is the appropriate street scape measures. in hindsight we helped to get a different response than that. it shows that the project sponsor has been aware of the issue for quite a while now. the project sponsor aurmd engaged [inaudible] to design changes to improve safety of pedestrians. i'm happy to report to the board today that in working withnerics and supervisor kims office we came to a agreement to the neighborhoods and that is where they will pursue street scape [inaudible] and a traffic light

and including barriers across the entrance to the free way on ramp as supervisor yee mentioned. a cross walk and also other signage around the site. we are pleased to say we do feel like the project sponsor is taking on obligations that are not otherwise required of them that will take care of the situation and result in significant practical improverments to the health and safety of pedestrians and bisicalest. in the process requires approval from government agencies, planning, dpw, cal trans so it isn't as easy a frauss as typically would be, but the project sponsor is willing to take this on which will result in improved conditions in the areas. this is a engineering issue, not a seek wuissue. the palt is asking that you send this back to planning to think low the issue more. the

planners are not traffic engineers, they are do analysis in response to the projected filed. the single fastest way to achieve real improvement and increase public safety is get the project moving forward. i want to mention one other thing with respect to seek wuand eastern neighborhood vir, this type of appeal can have a number of unintended consequences. it does seem this may be about one project, but this is a very modest project t. is a conversion of a existing buildsing, no other work is done, they are just changing the use inside the building. we have a number of projects in eastern

neighborhoods where there is new construction andophorous and edwelling units and as the eastern neighborhood eir recognize there are poor traffic conditions throughout the neighborhoods so up holding the appeal on such a modest project opens the door for all these projects that are significant ely more impact ful than this project to a challenge of their cpe and those would have larger impacts. the upholds the cpe today can have a number of unintended consequences. i think our situation stands outside of that. denying todays appeal will have the effect of [inaudible] in coordination with the neighborhood that we will continue to communicate with over the coming months and we request the board deny the appeal and allow the project to move forward. thank you and we are here for questions

>> thank you var much. supervisor kim did you have question? at this time we'll open tupe the public comments for those here to support the project. you will have 2 minutes each. >> thank you supervisors. my name is jim heron and long time san francisco residents. i was a tenet at 34 bryant from 91 to 20s 12. i begame aware of bryant street when i ran into a art gallery. when i opened my own practice i was fortunate to find a space on the floor. the building seemed mostly empty but that changed in the 90

during the.com boom. there was [inaudible] graphic designs, public relation firms, photographerers, artist and architects. on the ground floor there was a shipping weir house and retail out let for distressed furniture. during my 20 years i saw businesses come and go. i feel the proposed occupancy is appropriate for the biledsing and neighborhoods and seems consist wnts the recent history mpt speaking as a architect with a strong personal connection it the buildsing i was optimistic the new design recognizes and preserves the special qualities that attracted to me originally. with the regard of street access, over the 21 years that i was there i probably crossed the street at least twice a day and i don't remember it being a

huge issues, but i will say that the proposal of adding a dedicated cross walk at brian street similar to the one that is on second street midblock toward south park seems like a good idea. thank you very much >> thank you very much. next speaker, please >> good afternoon supervisors i'm alice rogers and liver on south park and been there 20 year. i am here speaking as a neighbor. i applaud this appeal was filed. it created the space for the type of dialogue i think is very important and it encouraged out reach to the neighbors that hadn't happened before. my concern and i think all the neighbors concern is having a top quality, safe cross walk in

this area. to me pursuing further data points and study doesn't get us that cross walk. getting a cross walk is getting-having a agreement with the sponsor to provide a vision zeery supported quality cross walk and eliminating the cross walk alt sterling street on ramp. for me that is the really positive out come for this project and i am willing to support that side agreement so that all of the neighbors concerns that were raised in our neighborhood meeting would be addressed over the development process of the cross walk design. thank you >> thank you very much. next speaker, please

>> good afternoon supervisors. my name is charles wither and i'm a active commercial real estate broker. our team works with a number of pdr users and it is hard to find adequate space. here soodeveloper who bought the building based on muo zoning and work with pdr. we work with a wine maker and maker for educational purposes as well as a electric car charging station maker and here is someone who welcomeed these tenants and wants to find a home for them and we can't do anything because the project is declay delayed. >> any other members of the public that would like to speak in support of the project

sponsor. seeing none public comment is closed. before we move forward we'll have a 3 minute rebutal for the appellate or appellate representative. >> sue ester. this is not about cumulative issues, it is about site. i'm all most embearessed for the department because they botched this one. they had to responsibility to identify the problems, work through had problems, create a discussion at planning, at the commission, i created the opportunity by filing this appeal, which is wrong. it

shouldn't happen this way. the planning department-the environmental review still sites the pages that i said in my brief. the eir pages that are cited in my brief had page numbers. the bryant street on ramps that are talked about are the on ramps of 5, 6, 7 and 8. they are there. i gave page numbers. there was an analysis in the eastern neighborhoodss eir about the free way ramp. they rin the stral part of the soma. they don't talk about second street on ramp. zero. so, eerfben when you put it in writing they don't go back is can read it. secondarily, not us it need to be mta works it out. what the hell is a reason we have a planning department

for? they are supposed to look at the building and look that context. they didn't scream bloody murd rb in the staff report. the staff report, general planning, you should be raising these issues. it should be environmental review at the first place. the second place is doing project analysis. you don't just put a cover on what you get from the developer, you actually analyze something. planning department shouldn't charge for this kind of work. vision zero is a planning department as well. you don't kick it down the road. if there is any site that is a dangerous site in the area, this is it. it didn't fall into the categories so therefore you don't [inaudible]

i'm embearessed for the planning departmentf you have shown you don't look at project sites. why do i have to be the person who looks at them? you look at a flat map. this is a big hill. [inaudible] you have to identify a problem and work through. your planners-you have that degree. i'm embarrassed for you >> thank you very much. okay at this time this hearing has been-item 22 is held and now closed. this item is in the hands of the board, item 23, 24 and 25 are before us today. supervisor kim >> thank you president breed. first just a couple things, i do want to thank you the project sponsor before us today for 340 bryant for voluntarily

committing through process to a signalized cross walk even though it isn't mandated via the eir seek wustudy. insureing the safety of the new tenets on the site and pedestrians in the neighborhood we'll work with sfmta to make sure the expedite the cross walk. we appreciate this commitment to the neighborhoods. the appeal has brought forward i think structural concerns that i have as to how-the planning department and addressing pedestrian safety issues that are already acknowledged that when existing projects or new projects that are smaller come before us that are on high injury corridors, i appreciate the dialogue between the planning department and myself today throughout the appeal and

i look forwards to working oen how to expands the tool box. vision zero is a a92 policy as of last year. this board put this forwards with supervisor avalos and supervisor yee led that initiative and i want to make sure we update or procedure tooz bring up the issues earlier. i think it eases the neighborhoods but think it is helpful for the project sponsor. it is helpful to [inaudible] in the planning phase than today. i would like to make sure we work on that. second, i brought up updating how we look at office worker per square footage. i know this will be a issue with the central soma plan as we look at potential job and linkage fees and other impact fees. we want to make sure we assess the number of office workers that

come in as we builds new space and rehabilitation ilitate space. i look forwards to the sate department and [inaudible] finally, i do want to thank the residence who brought the ishi before us and want to recognize them. alice rogers from south park improvement, andicatey hill [inaudible] mission bay neighborhoods association and nicol snideer [inaudible] for working with the office and [inaudible] to insure we get to this conclusion of the signalized cross walk. what i'll move forwards today is approval of item 23 and to table item 24 and 25 and i'll ask the board to support me on

that motion. >> okay, supervisor kim made a motion to approve itdm 23 and table item 24 and 25 and hat is second by supervisor ferrule without objection. roll call vote. >> supervisor yee. aye. supervisor avalos. aye. supervisor breed. aye. supervisor campus,i. supervise rb christensen,i. supervisor hohen,i. supervisor ferrule. aye. there are 11 eyes. >> the community plan exechbltion is affirmed unanimously. mad [inaudible] >> item 28-30 are [inaudible]

a single roll call vote may enact these items. a member objects [inaudible] >> colleagues is fl anyone here is in 29. anyone >> can you please call the roll on 28 and 30 >> supervisor yee,i. supervisor avalos,i. supervisor breed,i. supervisor camp os, aye. have visor christensen,i. supervisor cohen. aye. ferrule aye. supervisor kim, aye. supervise rb mar, aye. supervisor tang, aye. supervisor wiener. aye. there are 11 aye [inaudible] coauthored by centers cruise

snideer and [inaudible] under the guides of religious freedom >> spl visor wiener >> giverthen changes in the particular bill turning it from extremely toxic to at least less problematic but not great, i would like to-supervisor compose would like to continue this in one week so we can figure how to amonday the resolution taconform with the inge chas we have seen over the past week >> supervisor wiener mades motion to continue this item one week to the meeting of april 14, second by supervisor campose. can we take this colleagues without objection. this items is continued to the meeting of april 14. madam clerk is there any other memoriam >> yes, todays meeting will be adjourned in memory of the individuals on behalf of

supervisor christensen for the late [inaudible] >> thank you madam clerk are there any other items before us today >> that concludes the business for today >> we are journed. thank you everyone. .

>> my name is jan an wong a regional paralyzing in the bureau i did not see might have as at management in the beginning which my career i have a master in civil engineering i thought i'll follow a technical career path i scombrie being able to create a comprehensive plan implement and shape it into realty love the champs of working through cost quality schedule political and environmental structuring and finding the satisfaction of seeing the project come into

fruition i've also take advantage of the sfpuc training program yunt my certification i see the flow from the pipeline into the tunnel one by one and i also had several opportunities to attend and make presentations at conferences also as a tape recording san francisco resident authenticity rewarding to know the work i do contribute to the quality of life my life and those around me

>> i will call this meeting on thursday april 9, 2015 to order, the transbay joint powers authority.

[inaudible]. i want to thank sf gov tv staff, jennifer and jessie for the broadcasting of this. >> thank you. >> i'll go ahead and note for the record, director [inaudible] has a scheduling conflict and will not, with that, director kim? >> here. >> director lee? >> here. >> director riz kin? >> here. >> (roll call). . you do have a quorum. >> thank you. next item, please. >> item 3 is communications and i'm not aware of any. >> okay. and we'll move on to item 4. >> item 4, board of director's new and old business. >> director lee? >> thank you for a few minutes. i wanted to report out from the jpb on an item that's up i think several months ago, cal

train is continuing to move forward with this lek ri fi kaition project, and one of the challenges we are working on was whether or not it made sense to have compatible boarding heights, similar to that of high speed rail, so that we could have shared platforms at shared stations along our corridor, and the technical team has been hard at work, the technical team being a combination of cal train and high speed rail staffing consultant and is the team reported out to the jpb at last week's meeting and it's part 1 of part 2, it's literally a technical analysis on what is feasible and what is not. the message at the board meeting was cautious optimism. the team has completed interviewing several vehicle makers who have stated that

they are able to modify vehicles that they have previously made to allow for double sets of doors that could accommodate the lower boarding heights which can be compatible with our existing platform heights as well as the higher boarding heights which would be compatible with that of the high speed rail is planning for their vehicles. the other good news was that the vehicle makers also said they could do this in a timeframe that meeting our targeted goal of having electrified service by 2020, so this was good news and it was a little bit of a surprise, we thought our schedule would be impacted and we weren't sure if it would require complete customization which would be a pretty intense effort, so we found information that was actually counter to that. we will have a second

information item at our next jpb board meeting and that one will focus on, okay, if we were to operate these double sets of doors at different boarding heights, what are the operational assumptions and parameters that our cal train operators would deal with and how would that work with our customers would would be interfacing with those vehicles, so that information will be presented next month, and so i wanted to take this time to report out because this was a topic of interest to this board and i had also wanted to ask with the jpb's goal of taking action on the vehicle procurement in july, that it would be timely for the technical team to come and present to this board either in may or june and so i wanted to make -- ask for that as an agenda item.

>> thank you, we will agendize it. >> that's cautiously good news. okay. excellent. any other old or new business? seeing none, next item. >> alright, item 5 is the executive director's report. >> good morning, everyone. i understood today was walk to work day, so that's why we started our meeting a little late today and a number of our board members, supervisor and chairperson kim and directors nuru and reiskin were walk to work today, today's another special day because today's nasal american transportation stand up for transportation today, today at 1:00 at the temporary terminal, we'll be hosting an event with all of our raoen nam partners to reauthorize map 21, we need public infrahave you beening khur and projects like the transbay center to provide access and jobs that are sorrow