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 1930s which is consistent with it coming orphthe bring construction. As far as the second part it is an interesting situation. I would say it isthe 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 doesnt appear to be a safe location for crossing, however apparently it is considered a cross walk. I think one of the conditions applied by the Planning Commission inch the hearing on this was for the project sponsor to work with mta around Pedestrian Crossing thmpt agreement reached by providing a more explis lt cross walk at bryant street does provide a better path than exists now, but i think looking at what can be done to prevent people from trying to use that sterling street on ramp to cross the street might be something that would be worth while for the users of the site. Is that i just want to say we did discuss with sfmta can you identify yourself [inaudible] Planning Department staff. We talked to sfmtastuff and public work staff about the possibilities of what can be done on the poregz of the ramp as well. Not all the decision were made, but we brought it up as something that needs to be looked into. Okay, supervisor christensen is that all . Supervisor kim iment to reiform there are meetings that took place where public works and sfmta on a cross walk and well work with them to expudt the process so the project sponsor can put in place a signalized traffic cross walk and that they are responsible for designing that which will help with the timeline. I just want to reask supervisor yees question because we did have a question that the project sponsor brought up which is how the design of the entrance has a pathway that doesnt lead to where the cross walk is proposed to be built and believe his question is can planning require or change that design outside of the seek wuappeal process. I think is something that we would need to work with mrk ta and cal trans given it is cal trans right of way in that location, but i think the project sponsor will also provide some further information around the proposed changes perhaps that can be answered in the project sponsor presentation definitely is there any other line of questioning we may have . Seeing none add this time well move forward with the project sponsors presentation. You will have 10 minutes thank you president breed and good afternoon supervisors. [inaudible] on behalf sthof project sponsor. Before i get into my comments [inaudible] all is no door entrance leading towards the southwest in the project. Previously it was a loading dock. The only door is the door facing bryant street that links dectly to the cross walk. I have other things that will increase the comfort with the board. Let me get into the seek wuasspect. The 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 doesnt 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. Im 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 isnt 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 well 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 dont 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 im 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 hadnt 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 doesnt get us that cross walk. Getting a cross walk is gettinghaving 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 im 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 cant 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 well have a 3 minute rebutal for the appellate or appellate representative. Sue ester. This is not about cumulative issues, it is about site. Im 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 shouldnt happen this way. The Planning Departmentthe 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 dont talk about Second Street on ramp. Zero. So, eerfben when you put it in writing they dont 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 didnt 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 dont just put a cover on what you get from the developer, you actually analyze something. Planning department shouldnt charge for this kind of work. Vision zero is a Planning Department as well. You dont kick it down the road. If there is any site that is a dangerous site in the area, this is it. It didnt fall into the categories so therefore you dont [inaudible] im embearessed for the Planning Departmentf you have shown you dont 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 plannersyou have that degree. Im embarrassed for you thank you very much. Okay at this time this hearing has beenitem 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 isnt mandated via the eir seek wustudy. Insureing the safety of the new tenets on the site and pedestrians in the neighborhood well 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 howthe 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 ill move forwards today is approval of item 23 and to table item 24 and 25 and ill 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 2830 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 tosupervisor 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
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.