Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds Planning Commission on 340 Bryant conversion despite neighborhood safety concerns
Summary
The Board of Appeals denied an appeal of a Planning Commission approval allowing conversion of upper floors at 340 Bryant to office use, finding the project's voluntary streetscape work and planning findings sufficient despite neighbors' pedestrian-safety concerns and requests for conditions.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on April 8 denied an appeal by neighborhood residents seeking to block a planning decision that allows conversion of upper floors at 340 Bryant Street to offices. The board voted 4-0, with Commissioner Rick Swigg recused, to uphold the Planning Commission's environmental findings and office-allocation authorization.
Appellant counsel Sue Hester told the board the site is "the world's most unusual site" and pressed for clarification about new conditions approved by the Board of Supervisors the day before, arguing that pedestrian access at the Sterling/Bryant ramps is hazardous without guaranteed signalization or physical improvements (presentation, public comment). Hester said tenants and neighbors were not provided updated plans before the Supervisors' hearing.
Project counsel John Kevlin said the sponsor has engaged transportation consultant AECOM and the sponsor has executed a private agreement with neighborhood representatives to design and fund streetscape improvements, including a crosswalk at the building entrance and an illuminated three-color traffic signal. "Approving this project today and moving forward means that these real practical streetscape improvements are actually going to be pursued and fulfilled," Kevlin said, adding the improvements will still require Caltrans and city sign-off.
Zoning Administrator Scott Sanchez confirmed a planning-condition requires continued multi-agency work on pedestrian-safety measures and noted the sponsor's voluntary agreement is not technically a permit condition because the streetscape work would need its own environmental review.
Board members acknowledged the unusual multi-jurisdictional constraints — particularly Caltrans' authority — and debated timing and enforceability. Commissioner Fung moved to deny the appeal and adopt the Planning Commission's environmental findings (referencing Planning Commission motion 17661). The motion carried 4-0; Swigg recused for a conflict of interest.
The Board's decision leaves the Planning Commission's January authorization intact; city departments and the sponsor are expected to continue coordinating design and permitting for the streetscape improvements. The item was recorded as motion number 19,311.
