take two establishments and make one out of it? that is not part of what you are suggesting. >> oh, no. it would just be in one storefront where there could be co- location of businesses. the idea you can think about his accessory use and what goes on in that kind of a situation. we are removing the square footage restriction because the accessory use will have no more than 30% of the square footage. so this one, we are letting you take over how much space you need. >> ultimately, we vote back to smaller scale if it needs to? >> you can always revert back to your one use, whatever that underlying use might be. >> it does not change. >> if there is a c.u. see you for a certain size of retail, this doesn't change that. >> not that i am aware of. everyone is nodding their head. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> if there is nothing further, there is a motion that has been

seconded to approve this matter with modifications. on that motion. [roll call] >> so moved. that motion passes unanimously 6 -0. that will place us in item ten a and b. for the street design advisory team, invite -- informational presentation. coupled with case number 2018- 008862 pca, better streets plan and curb cut restrictions and planning code amendment. >> good afternoon, commissioners thank you very much for having us here this afternoon. we are pleased to be here. we are showy. we have to watch what items. the first is an informational and it discusses the street design advisory team. while it has been up and running for approximately two years now, this is the first time we've had

the opportunity to come and brief you on it. it represents the initiative taking approach taken by the planning staff to create solutions to challenges with interagency coordination to allow improvements to our service to the public. our second item proposes changes to the planning code to improve the implementation of streetscapes improvements that stem from the city's better streets plan. planning is happy to support supervisor came in her office as they introduce these improvements. we have worked closely with her and her staff in preparing to propose legislation. at its most fundamental level, the planning code changes will address three goals. first, ensure the city has the necessary authority to require streetscape improvements when development is being proposed as well as rightsizing the triggers for such improvements. second cat we are bringing a clear understanding to the transit, bike and pedestrian networks to deal with proposed plan cuts.

and we are ensuring that you will have the tools and policy guidance to help you make an informed decision when one of these cases comes before you. i would like to introduce paul. staff who will then present on these two items. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, thank you for having me. while this is loading i wanted to introduce myself. my name is paul and i'm a senior urban designer at the department we thought it would be helpful to do an informational today because it is part of the department -- it is a key mechanism the department uses to implement the session which we

will be asking you to recommend amendments to. >> there is. >> ok. i am going to be talking about -- >> we need to change the microphone. this has gone awol. >> there we go. >> does that work? thank you, director.

john, if you would do me another favor and pass this packet out to the commissioners. >> there is a staff advisory body which is charged with guiding private developers as they make improvement to the public right-of-way. we don't deal with city projects we deal with projects that are driven by private sponsors and it's a body composed planning as well as a bunch of other agencies. we have public works, m.t.a., the p.u.c. and the fire department. as you can see, this multiple sub entity within these organizations. we will talk a little bit about what that is and talk about -- give you a sense of the achievements we have done in the past few years and then show you a few actual projects. our primary goals are to enhance the public role -- public realm

and improve the process by which these things are entitled. as you can see by the document john has handed to you, is a complicated process. and to augment organizational coordination and create a culture of shared responsibility to steward the city's public realm between city agencies. our primary bucket of work comes from 138.1. this part of the planning code that allows the city to acquire developments that meet a certain scale threshold to make public right-of-way improvements, widening sidewalks and building off shoots and so forth. we also work on public open spaces that are in the right-of-way. the general planner and curb line adjustments and projects that require transportation and past studies. really briefly, the way the street plan is set up is it sets up recommended sidewalks so we

can require developments to build the adjacent sidewalks and then it has a series of standard and nonstandard streetscape features which we can acquire the standard features and request or recommends that they build nonstandard features. s.f. -- of this came about and it comes from the passage of the better streets plan in 2010. as is typical with large bureaucratic systems, it took a while for the city to develop an infrastructure to implement the policy after it was created. i got created in 2011. and that is the design team which is our sister entity. can be created that and formally in about 2014, we started inviting in other departments. recently we welcome to the fire department which has been the holy grail, we now have all the

representative agencies that have jurisdiction over the public right-of-way. that has been wonderful. and then on the horizon for us, the department will update their website and there will be home for us on the new website. we will make this more information publicly available and we are working to refine a policy for the department of public works. we are going to present updates to the planning code that are relevant and we will also publish the letters that we publish online to make them publicly accessible and that will be available at the end of next week. moving forward you will be able to find all the public record on the pim. that might help you all as you weigh in on large projects. so we have a wonderful intern. they put this document together. this is -- this is the old

schoolhouse rock. this is like how a bulb comes into existence. it shows the process that will go with the top bar from the planning department and then it goes to a streetscape permitting process and public works, m.t.a. , p.u.c. and the streetscape agency in the middle and then they go and actually build it. you can sort of see there is this weird thing that happens which is creating all sorts of frustration until it was created where the power to compel the project sponsor to do the thing, to build the thing, comes at the planning commission or entitlement at the department which is upstream from when our sister agencies really get a close look at the project. clive just prior to that, we had these things were staff would make recommendations to the commission and they would

approve something and then m.t.a. or public works would say , hey, you can't build this or our bus will not be able to make the turn. and then the developer is getting different information from different entities and gets caught in the middle. this would get picked up to the directors and the directors would get caught in the minutiae thinking it was a great source of frustration for all. you can see how this might map out. and an ideal process gets entitled. and then they go and build it. we know that is not how it often works. there was nine years after the last recession between things being titled and things moving through the approval processes. a developer may underestimate how much long -- how long it would take before they can get their occupancy. there's a lot of pressure to approve things they may not want to approve. and then, or they may have

misunderstandings of the requirements their requirements and be pushed beyond their constructions because they can't finish their streetscape. so the goal is to make sure there is clear transparency early on and we can daylight any conflicts between agencies early on and we have time to resolve them and to create a record so that as these things went through the entitlement process with staff changing and so forth that we can make sure that they are built as approved. i think one of the key benefits is asking the commission itself what -- what this does is help ensure that the streetscape plans that you approve are actually implementable. i think we saw before this existed the commission may have approved the plan may be through the downtown exemption or eastern neighborhood project off liberation where there is -- authorization where there is haggling involved and then we actually don't get them because they get suffocated by the bureaucracy downstream in the process. by doing this, we help ensure

your approvals will actually be built. this reduces conflict from the director's office and frees up some of their time. i think within for the sister agencies, this helps break down silos within the bureaucracy and helps create empathy for one another and constraints that we operate under can be really educational for staff. environmental planning has found that especially medium-size projects have been able to forgo this all together. sometimes there is one or two items that they need comment on. they can get feedback through this process, saving significant time and money for those projects. concurrent planning, we serve as an in-house consultancy similar. there's a lot of technical expertise and a lot of chasing around information from other agencies which a lot of times the planners may not have the technical know-how of how to do it or the bandwidth because they have so much work on their plate already. we have been able to take that

off their plates. we have finally seen the d.a.'s office and the enforcement team have been looked making use where there is enforcement issues related to the right-of-way and old planning commission -- old planning commissions. also, the sponsor's benefit, they like this process because it gives a more consistency from the city speaking with one voice and also, the benefits that come out are immediately adjacent to the project. instead of -- like this plan where they are paying a fee for transportation improvements and it might be built blocks away, we require them to build a build up and they do have to pay for it. and then the public benefit, because the city is saving money , because the private sector is building improvements otherwise a the city would have to improve. we are increasing pedestrian safety and adding to street life and beauty and urban design in the city.

so here is a quick view of some of the projects that we have seen in the past few years. that includes -- we have acquired 200 build off. raised crosswalks. many of these are on the vision zero network. we have a lot of development happening in district six and in the tenderloin. that has a tangible benefit on vision zero and pedestrian safety. so just a few projects to highlight the breath of the work that we do. this 300 grant project was a project that was required to build a post. they are struggling to fit it within the building envelope. so we worked with the project sponsor to build it in the alley and we -- you can sort of see in the plan there are tables and chairs over there in the alley but they have taken them out. we did not want them to go and get permission until we understood from the fire department that that would be viable. if the fire department would say note later on then we don't get a post and they get the thing

approved. we were able to get that. here is an example of the project. you can see on the top right and bottom left there are large build off that are tied to the retail spaces. they have benches and seating and this is one of our favourite tricks. we will often tie in large build off so we can get public life and activity adjacent to retail. here is a high school where they are building both a midblock, eight floating pedestrian island on geneva to help pedestrian safety and we got public works to accept that. and then this project, in the central soma plan, there was a public open space that they are supposed to build. when this came out, we realized it would be -- it will be hard to build as a park. the city had to put a vision together. we got all the agencies to stop a separate process to help

develop a city vision and stay ahead of development and guide this development to get a high quality open space here. finally this little project is a humble project but i think i included it to help the commission imagine how you might use this tool. this was a project where you can see this vacant sliver of a vacant lot and the neighbors were opposing the project because they were afraid that cars coming around the corner would not be able to see and create a site line issues. the commission asked staff to go back and look at this. to be fair, is a weird thing for the commission to weigh in on as it is for staff because we not traffic engineers. so in this case, staff asked the traffic engineers and they could say definitively that this is not a safety issue and then write it up in an official looking letter and then they could move forward. i wanted to throw that out so you can think about that there might be other times like that

where it could be beneficial. so that concludes my presentation. there's a number of people i want to thank. i don't want to go through all these names but there are many people -- there are people that are staff and people that are alumni. this does not include our planning or staff. there are a lot of people who help us make informed decisions on this process. i will take questions now are we can launch right into that. >> let's go to the planning code and then we will ask questions. >> so moving onto the next presentation and the next item. before we start the planning code i want to introduce someone from supervisor kim's office who we have worked with before. before i do i want to thank her. she has been great to work with and it's been a bit of a frenetic process that she has handled it gracefully. thank you, very much.

>> thank you for the kind introduction. thank you to the commission. on behalf of supervisor kim for reviewing this legislation in front of you. our office had the pleasure of coordinating with the planning department as well as a bicycle coalition, walk s.f. and community members to help to. this legislation would allow for the planning department to acquire developers to implement street improvements such as extended bow belts, midblock bow belts, raised crosswalks and daylighting. this legislation would also restrict curb cuts which would reduce conflicts between pedestrians and bicyclists. i do want to note that our office and advocates feel strongly about the trigger for 138.1 remaining at 10,000 square feet which is currently in the legislation. i know that planning has a recommendation for the trigger to be a 35,000 square feet however, we feel because 10,000 square feet is the trigger for pta, and that a building of that

size would accommodate enough people to increase foot traffic in the area, that the street improvements would be in us is necessity -- necessity in that case. if there is a p.r. conversion, and also, a use conversion for a p.d.r. to something that is not p.d.r. my apologies. we really hope that you would support this legislation with your vote today and we thank you for your time. >> thank you. >> pay, hey, there. so this legislation is very tied into a large policy goals about the commission that has endorsed on the board have approved british -- going from the vision zero policy and transit first policy as well as numerous policies that grow out of our area plan and so forth.

how this came about, there are three streams that have led to the creation of this ordinance. the first is the building in the upper right. it is 340 bryant with a large p.d.r. office conversion which is literally inside a freeway ramp in selma. that josephine soma. the community was upset. it is a pretty hostile pedestrian environment. they reached out to the supervisor and reached out to planning. they responded in a letter that saying that one thing we might be able to do is require large p.d.r. changes to trigger 138.1. similarly, since by the time this is moving along, we have had a couple of years and many of the ideas before you were generated by staff who had a better idea of working of how to improve it. finally, around the time this was getting moving along, walk

s.f. had approached us with ideas of how to improve this. all of these are informing you of what you are seeing before you today. we will be looking at three sections of the code. 138.1 and pedestrian improvements. 155 are, we are protecting the streets and three '03 -- 303 which defines condition of approval. basically, 138.1 allows the city to compel developers or require developers to make streetscape improvements. it establishes the improvements they can make and establishes sidewalk improvements between their agencies pick today we will be asking you to endorse ideas that will help to simplify and clarify the code and enable the city to acquire new streetscape features that we can currently only request a bill -- developers build and find some of the triggers. we think it just think of it as

a right sizing the triggers. and allow time for interagency coordination. for 155 are, this section of the code prohibits curb cuts on protected frontages and those are walking biking transit seat treats. on some of the streets, there is an outright ban. you can never have a curb cut ban. it would allow some projects to seek a conditional use authorization to get a curb cut. currently that is in three zoning districts. we are also looking at a bunch of clarification simplifications in this section of the code. we are looking to eliminate minimum parking requirements for any project that triggers this code section. we feel if the city says you shouldn't have a curb cut here and is a minimum parking acquirement in a project does not want to include parking, we should reward them for that and not create extra process for them. there is a tiny curb cut ban, it is a cleanup. is a half block gap between

central soma and transbay. there's already a curb cut ban. central soma, when it passes next week will have one and we want to close the gap and have a continuous core door with the design and bike lane. we want to prohibit new curb cuts and bus stops but existing ones would be grandfathered in. we want to expand where this section applies in the biking and transit networks and we want to -- we have come up with an idea of streamlining some of this. we want to expand the footprint footprints. we can streamline the process by having the downtown exemption in the eastern neighborhood and large project authorizations. instead of having two items at the planning commission, we would have only one item so the curb cut on 155 would be heard in the 329 hearing. however, the commission would be required to consider the curb cut as if it were acu. you would be constrained by

those findings. this would allow staff to write one case report instead of two which would actually be a significant time timesaving for staff. finally, three '03 -- 303 and staff conditions of approval for when there is a see you happening, if there is a hotel or a cannabis dispensary or a massage parlour, there are specific things the commission considers. buffer 155 art for the curb cuts , there is nothing in the code. we have come up with proposals to add those and give you criteria. [please stand by]

>> so here's two examples of buildings of the two different scales. the one at the top is a 10,000

square foot building and this is administrative cleanup and there's consensus of the text. it was put in the wrong part of the code and in doing so rendering it impotent and by moving it to another part of the code it will have effect and we want to slide it over and that's what the consensus means. we had all attempted to exempt the [indiscernible] and when it got to the city attorney it was dropped and the intention is not to acquire a single-family house or three family house to get a new code for the bike lane. we want to exempt those. this one is more complicated. the ncs direct is sort of large

like a lot of parking dependent districts. staff had initially felt when we looked through it more carefully we realized their pretty autodependent uses and we should exempt them and then we realized there was another error in thea dependent uses and we should exempt them and then we realized there was another error in the code where we think. >> at the bottom of 155 there is section 6 which is proposed to

be stricken and that section includes a definition of the development lot identical to the definition in 102. so we think what happened is when the city attorney that we wanted to clean it out and he went and made a new line at the top of 155r which sort of says development lot is defined in 102 and cleaned that up hour we think he accidentally deleteded a line of text which says that if you are on one of the protected frontages and have a curb cut and it's not a bike lane you do a 20% addition you need to bring your project up to conformity and update the curb code. our recommendation is that we add back the last line and we sort of protect all these curb

cuts because the way it is now any existing curb cut would be grand fathered in and we recommend exempting the mcs directs because our fear is they would do a 20% expansion and if that's the only curb cut they can't have it an it's an essential part of the business model and we would recommend not exempting the district. after speaking with the supervisor's office before the hearing they're sort of asking for your input. finally, here's the map of the ncs district. you can tell there's not that many of them. also, the draft before you, the existing code says if you are on the byte bike network you have to get a c.u. to put the curb cut in and it sets bike lanes and we'd like to expand that to

the network and the supervisors put that and then this is we'd also like to provide clarity in the other zones where this may be effective. there's other in article seven and 8 which may need a note saying look at the expectations. the other way to handle that is to exempt minimum parking requirement in the districts where they have. we have a weird bifurcated system and there was the creation of the nct districts which are better zoning districts. they don't have a minimum requirement or density controls. where we tried to roll it out city wide it was unfeasible at the time. now we have a few zoning

districts with less than half the city have parking requirements. we knows -- know it's a good policy and minimum parking requirements are not a good policy. we already allow -- the code already allows not to replace it with bike solutions to be honest about that and some may have seen the latest ipcc report calling for like traffic action because we're facing, their words, cataclysmic, climate change and the board can do away with them altogether and that concludes my presentation. i want to thank you from the supervisors office and my colleagues in planning and we

also have our colleague who has been a founding member here to answer any of your questions. >> thank you very much. >> commissioner: any public comment? mr. radulic? >> good afternoon, commissioners. we just wanted to thank supervisor kim and paul and james. the city staff who have been working with us, advocates on this. it's kind of a long-term transportation advocate i find myself in a quandary because i believe in sustainable transportation and development and it makes transportation problems in the city that were bad worse, i think the legislation will help resource -- reverse that. we told communities as the development process goes on your

neighborhood will get more walkable and safer and greener. the street scapes will improve. often the improvements never come, the development comes or the improvements are weak to feeble. we're keen on the ordinance for a few reasons. one is the 138.1 is a good measure. it closes loopholes in the existing code and there's some small projects required to do a lot. the smaller projects would be exempt, the larger products would be impactful and i believe the characterization is right-sizing it. the 155r is a crude piecemeal and we've added street after street. we think it captures every major bicycle and transit corridor and

says you cannot do parking if you don't want to do parking and if you've ever parked down the sonic it's like a driveway and driveway. we told them, you can get rid of that driveway. it's required under our code and i agree minimum parking requirements are stupid and you can get rid of them but if you don't we'll tell folks you're on an important bicycle street. there's one element though that we think is kind of created a muddle. the design review versus c.u. design review developed the design of large projects and you're supposed to look at design questions. so c.u. are potential nuisances, the adult book store and liquor store and the driveway on a protected street. we think the c.u. process should stay the c.u. process for all the nuisances which are voluntary and they should be c.u

and necessary and desirability has to be approved. we think you mixed it up in the ordinance. we think by putting undesirable and desirable views we'll see more undesirable features in the large products which is contrary to the purpose of the legislation. we ask you reverse that and otherwise we think it's a go. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> thank you. my name is brian hogsman and work for walk san francisco. i want to express our strong street for the street design advisory team and it's an important group for the city's efforts to make walking safer and the street and city safer for walking as a whole and we appreciate all the staff that's been involved so far. we also want to express walk

san francis san francisco's effort and there's key developments that serve pedestrians. as paul mentioned, a few years ago a project fell through the trapped and approved for change and planning staff couldn't and didn't require the developer to ensure there was actually a safe way for building tenants to cross the highway onramp at bryant and sterling. the only reason it got installed was because of the tenacity of a single advocate. we know we can't rely on community advocate to make sure every development meets safety requirements. that's why we're pleased with the proposed amendment. we know it will ensure some projects don't fall through the cracks. we support the strong 131.38

threshold. we pose the staff requested threshold in square foot age and regarding the curb cut amendments we know they're desperately need to reduce cars and people walking and biking while we're not experts on this part of the amendment before you, we urge you to take heed to the concerns and walk s.f. asks for your support in the legislation today. >> commissioner: thank you, next speaker, please. >> i'm alice rodgers. good afternoon, commissioners. i'm that person on the 340 bryant street project that that'd pleasure of filling in

where we needed to fall short. so you may be glad to know that after two and a half years there will be a full signalized intersection installed at sterling street and it really only happened because of the support of supervisor kim's office. i don't have a lot of agency as a woman who lives up the street. but with the help of the supervisor we were able to convene all the necessary agencies, caltrans, planning, public works, everybody to go through a community process to properly design an intersection. so i want to thank and commend supervisor kim's office for that. now, three and a half years later it's time to really fix it. i strongly support this legislation as is put forward.

i strongly feel that the lower trigger 10,000 square foot should be maintained. i really, as a pedestrian advocate look to you as commissioners, to really embrace those values of safety and health under vision zero and to speak up and support them whenever you can even when your review purview doesn't necessarily empower you to change a land use. it's important that you flag these health and safety issues so that they travel with the project and can really stay front and center. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> any additional public comment on this item?

>> hello. nice to see you. i'm here to talk about another item on the agenda but i was inspired -- >> commissioner: you're going to speak on this item? >> yes. i ask that you not be making further amendments to the better street's plan and roll out restrictions so we have an opportunity to experience and observe how the completed street design projects to this point than the ones coming online very soon are working. this gives us the opportunity to evaluate if and where any modifications are needed for better solutions in regard to the stated goals by this team of people who have put this design together. i don't anticipate the cities have do-overs of design plan but doesn't function in the intended

manner once they're installed. i think we need more of a test drive or ride in how the complicated matrix of transit program actually function. while the intend of the creators of the city wide plan may be transit in safety first, in practice we may discover there are more effective solutions towards these goals as we get to discover how this is all working and the re-engineering streets come online. i think this say -- is a balanced concern and proposal. i also wanted to say that i have not heard this discussed. i think safety is a more complex thing than just getting cars off the road. cars do need access to businesses, health care facilities, the latter sometimes don't have a drive in access. there's times cars need to be able to get to sidewalks and there's a number of places around the city where there's

just not the opportunity anymore. safety is more complex than just creating bike lanes and i think we need to go slower to really discover what we actually have as the plan is being rolled out. thank you for your consideration. >> commissioner: thank you. any additional public comment? seeing none we'll close public comment and open it up to commissioners. commissioner johnson. >> thank you to supervisor kim's office and to all the staff that worked on the two presentations. i just want to say that getting schoolhouse rock view of the street design advisory team and its work was pretty awesome. and i'm so glad we have a team of experts and more tools in our toolbox to work in collaboration with our fellow city departments and really think about how we

can make sure that the improvements that we have promised our communities are actually delivered on. one thing question i do have that's still puzzling me is the discrepancy from the trigger of 10,000 versus 25,000 square feet trigger between supervisor kim and the planning department. i know you shared examples of what the sizes would look like but i just would love to hear a little bit more of what the danger or challenge is if we went for 10,000 versus 25,000. >> to clarify that, the debate on 10,000 versus 25,000 is solely from p.d.r. to non-p.d.r. uses. i was told to keep my presentation brief but i have

many many more slides to help answer questions. >> commissioner: bring it. >> that's a fairly small universe of project. p.d.r. to non-p.d.r. between 10,000 and 25,000 square feet. >> here's the existing triggers for 138.1. you need one trigger in column a and one trigger in column two. either half an acre or 250 collectively in the building around the corner or it's going have an entire block base and on top of that it need to be new construction or 20% additionally. what we're proposing is the following triggers. the new triggers is we've added on column two a and b which would say it's got to be at

least 10 units or 10,000 square feet of new construction, non-residential. the idea is we wan -- can filter out small projects and this ties in nicely elsewhere in the code. the other one, member d is the one that's creating a disconnect between the supervisor's office and staff and we're reducing in on the west side we're reducing the frontage requirement from 250 feet to 150 feet. so the intent there is to be able to capture -- we've seen buildings with over 100 units we think could support subsidized build outs. that's basically the triggers. my sense on this is and it's basically just a judgment call about how much a 10,000 square

foot building would change and staff's concern is it may not seem so much individually but these thing tend to pile on and can overwhelm smaller projects. >> if i can weigh in here. the challenge is if you go back one slide, paul, it's either new construction or the second one additional of 20% or more. so that can result in a project of 12,000 or 13,000 square feet which is a fairly modest project and the conditions on the site can be expensive. that was the concern. it was a bit of a judgment call and maybe the difference is in 10,000 to 25,000, i don't know, but that's the call we were making whether it was too much of a burden on certain project are relatively modest in size. >> thank you.

>> you put the trigger on the additional 20,000 square feet of new construction project that's 15,000 square feet. >> sure, i guess. >> the way this is written a new construction project of 15,000 square feet would trigger b. and was on a lot with the trigger. it's the 10,000 use of the p.d.r. conversion which is where there's consternation. 10,000 feet is a p.p.a. trigger and 10,000 units say p.p.a. >> that's where you want it. >> and changing use is a new thing to mutt in the ordinance. if you think of an office conversion the entitlement office and construction process are really different. and you may put up walls and put

up a bathroom and you have an office. you may be looking at a shorter time line to build the projects which they would have to get a certificate of occupancy and build a sidewalk and just adds complexity . >> you don't have to require them. >> the city can choose -- i wanted to clarify. >> anybody else? commissioner moore? >> i'd like to ask him to ask the distinction in c.u. and why was the department seeing that only from your suggestion? >> thank you, commissioners. so currently, as mr. chassin

said, on the protected streets they're either not permitted or permitted with a c.u. the proposal in this instance is 329 the mixed use district subject to that and then 309 which is the c3 direct. they'd no longer have that a c.u. to get a curb test on a protected test bit instead be part of the design review process and proposing it be bundled in the 329. our concern is 309 is mandatory so every project has to go through that if it meets the flesh -- threshold in the planning code. why not request a curb cut. if it's a separate c.u., we feel it's a greater incentive to not

go through the process and put the curb cut in and the curb cutting and zoning is not requirement so it's optional. our concern is watching the large projects come forward through 309 and 329 and lots of features to consider and these will slip in more and more often if we make the change. that's why we oppose that particular change. >> thank you. could you give a counterpoint to his position? >> the counterpoint is in addition to there's a fair point to say -- i can talk through it.

for a project going anyway they might as well ask for it and maybe they'll get it. it's more incentive to get the curb cut. the flip side is in 303 we make it really easy. you make a compelling argument and you're feeling sympathetic and it makes the process capricious and the financing wants you to have more parking so you want the curb cut. >> what if you put in as c.u criteria. >> we did. if have you a 309 or 329 you can consider them at once which really makes it just one item on the commissioner agenda which means staff is writing one report.

that's the benefit to the department -- it's an efficiency thing and because we're expanding the geography it will come after the counterto staff counter to staff and we'll have more c.u. but the team was not able to treat it as a review or haggling process. the commission has to consider the same findings as if it were a c.u. it's the same body. all of you and using the same process you would the only difference is they're going anyway so they might as well ask for it. you all take your work seriously and weigh it carefully and you can't just choose give the money to who you feel like it. >> director william any comment? >> i think paul captured our position on this. it's an efficiency thing and

the criteria paul showed you'd use in any scenario. the question is whether there's more incentive if there's a separate c.u. it's simply a staff efficiency thing than write whole different report on the use. that's the advantage. >> well, those items would come to us just not as a c.u. >> yes, they'd be bundled in. i have no problem with the criteria, in fact i wrote them. the question is process. if you make the process a lot easier but with the same criteria, we feel like more and more you'll have sob stories and they'll slip through. >> is the process they would be come here and part of the approval is curb cut just not a

see-you item. >> they'd be in the staff report for the 309. because it's one process and not an additional process it's an incentive one, and two they'll be approved. this is downtown where we feel pedestrian safety is at the greatest risk right now if you look at the vision zero map and these are the areas where our streets are getting the most clocked with -- clogged with traffic and the two areas where we feel the curb cuts will have the greatest impact.

>> it is not like the good old days when people are doing curb cuts everywhere. i would take him up on his notion to get rid of the minimums. because i think we will try to figure out how to work around them anyway. just through the bike parking or

whatnot. we never use them to actually encourage a developer who wants to boost up their parking. so i support the staff recommendations in that change to abolish the minimum requirements. >> i would like to make a motion we approve the better streets plan and curb cut restrictions and i will also underscore that we get rid of the minimum parking requirement. i don't know if that can be added to the motion. >> we can make a recommendation. >> second. >> the motion will include the 25,000 or the 10,000? minimum. >> is the 10,000 minimum. >> staff recommendation of 25,000. >> ok.

>> staff's recommendation except adding -- getting rid of the minimum parking requirements, citywide. >> there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this planning code amendment with staff modifications including the 25,000 square-foot minimum and adding the removal of parking minimum citywide. on that motion. [roll call] >> so moved. that motion passes unanimously 5 -0. commissioners, that places us on item 11. 611 jones street. this is a conditional use authorization. >> good afternoon, commissioners andrew perry from department staff. the project before you is

located at 611 jones street on the west side of jones between post and geary street. the project site is transnationally located between the downtown civic centre neighborhood to the south and nob hill to the north. the project site is adjacent to but not within the two historic districts. the lower nob hill apartment hotel historic district and the uptown tenderloin historic district. the proposed project would demolish existing single-family dwelling which has been vacant since the property was purchased by the current owner in august of 2015 and would construct a new eight story building with seven dwelling units each with two bedrooms in approximately 1,156 square feet in each with exposure to the front and rear packed characteristic of the residential flats policy. the project does not propose any offstreet vehicle parking. in order for the project to proceed, the condition must be met for the demolition of the existing single-family dwelling pursuant to section 317 and 249.5. and conditional use authorization for the

construction of a building in excess of 50 feet within an rc district. the department has not received any public comment and support or opposition to the proposal. the general inquiry was received as the livability of the proposed units on the types of residential amenities that would be included, followed up with a comment that these units should indeed be intended for long-term occupancy and not short term rental use. the units would have all standard appliances in the kitchen including washer and dryer. the department finds that the addition of dwelling units at the site is consistent with the purposes of the r.c. zoning district in the north of market residential area. the resulting building form a similarly compatible with the characteristics of the surrounding neighborhood and adjacent historic districts. the proposed units with two bedrooms each and exhibiting the residential flats policy appear suitable for a family occupancy. a goal of this commission and the city. as discussed in report, while the project is not fully maximize the permitted density on site,, there are unique site and contextual characteristics

that constrain the overall unit count that is possible on the given site. the department finds this project on balance to be consistent with the objectives and policies of the general plan and necessary and desirable for and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. that concludes my presentation but i am available for any questions that you may have. thank you. >> thank you. project sponsor? >> good evening, commissioners. i am with workshop one, the project sponsor and the architect. we are here on behalf of the property owner. i'm pleased to be here to walk you through our proposal for residential development at 611 jones. the project site located on jones street near the corner of buri street, has a central location within walking distance to the heart of the city including the financial district , union ar