Page 48 - Office Worker News Today : Breaking News, Live Updates & Top Stories | Vimarsana

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 ...

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...

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 I...

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 ...

[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 dont have baring on the conclusion presented in the ceathe 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...