better streets plan and the amendments relating to the better streets plan. i am joined by aaron miller from the m.t.a. and rachel from the potc which is reflective of the interagen interagency cooperation we have had. i will give you a brief informational overview of the plan which you heard about a year ago, but i want to get you up to date on where we are and legislation on the general plan amendment and the actions we would be requesting you take. linda, could i have the overhead please? . >> my presentation is going to be brief about why we have undertaken this plan in the first place and what the plan contains and, as i mentioned, specifics about the legislation

and planning commission actions. the legislation itself would introduce at the board of supervisors by the mayor on september 21 and he introduced two pieces of legislation, one relating to municipal code amendments and one relating to general plan amendments and a resolution urging the planning commission to initiate the general planning amendment which is the subject of this item at this hearing today. the better streets plan we started about three years ago, 2007, in conjunction with the mayor's greening initiative. since that time we have developed and released several drafts and with the final draft this past july and as i mentioned, the legislation that would adopt that plan into the city's code was introduced just a couple of weeks ago. when we first started doing the better streets plan, it came out of a recognition that streets make up a very significant area of the city, about 25% of the city's overall land which is more than even in the city's open spaces and that the streets

could be fweter used to -- could be better used to meet reck national, social, public life and ecological needs as well. as well we were following city policies for the transit first policy which has been on the looks and promotes the use of pedestrian, bicycle, and transit use over private vehicle and the better streets policy which was passed in 2006 which tasks the different agencies in the city to work together to make streets coordinate the effort. and the better streets plan itself is a direct outgrowth of this policy. some of the major goals of the better streets plan is to use streets better for public space. some of the other initiatives such as the pavement to parks project are illustrating how this can be possible.

we have also had a link with the public health department and streets that are better for walking and biking can improve public health by encouraging physical activity and reducing social isolation. we have also been working with f.o.c. and their efforts to improve the storm water management and the role that our streets can play in managing the storm water collection and management and working as well with the m.t.a. and the transportation authority in terms of enhancing pedestrian safety and accessibility as one of the major goals of the plan. the plan was developed in from a significant public outreach program. we started in april 2007 and had a meeting in city hall with about 200 people in attendance and held over 100 public meetings about this plan at this point. a number of surveys and we also had a community advisory committee that met on a monthly basis to provide input into the plan and have received and

incorporated a number of comments on the draft plan and dots on the map show where we have held a meeting and for the pedestrian environment focussing on sidewalks and intersections and does get into bits of the roadway including creative uses of how to use the parking lane to improve pedestrian space as well as traffic features. the plan does not identify specific improvement projects. it is a set of guidelines meant to apply any time we embark upon a street improvement project and does not focus on the roadway. we are not talking about how to trade off road space and the

commission is requested to promote human needs for the use and enjoyment of public streets and prior advertising either walking and the use of streets for public spaces and have public spaces for social interaction and community life. the plan identifies a number of street types as sort of the basic frame work and we would do a different type of treatment on each of the streets with some commonalty with different levels on a neighborhood commercial street than an industrial street or downtown residential street and that is the basis for the recommendations and the plans for each of these street types. we identified appropriate sidewalk widths and how you divide up the different zones in the sidewalk so you keep a clear width for people to walk through but also get the amenities that you need to have. again, for each street type we identified a set of standard improvements and basic things we feel that are sort of the minimum that each type of street should have.

and then in addition to that, there is a set of case by case additions that would be a bit above and beyond when we had a funded streetscape project to go to neighborhoods and talk about which type of the improvements would be relevant and desirable on that type of street including traffic calling feature, medians and other creative uses of the street space. the result would be to serve a variety of land uses and prov e providing sunlight and access to different processes but in a ratder weak and uninviting wait and take a street into a much more strashs pedestrian environment and it is worth noting that the traffic and parking arrangements have not changed at all, but we have enhaensed it with different

streetscape improvements and that is the goal of the plan. the legislation that was introduced would make amendments to various city codes as well as the general plan including the administrative, the planning code, the public works code and the subdivision code and the goal is to incorporate the better streets plan into the code so when the city and private project sponsors make changes to a public right-of-way they will do so in a comment man we are the better streets plan guidelines. the planning code amendment, which we'll be bringing to you in the future but is not the subject of this hearing, would consolidate the requirements for street improvements existing in the planning code and official consistent requirements to put them into the planning code and are currently scattered in various different sections. when i come back for the adoption hearing, i'll prevent more on that. the general plan amendments are related to incorporating the better streets plan into the urban design and the

transportation element. and excuse me, and sort of making sure that they're reflective of the best practices in pedestrian and streetscape design that we have identified and updating primarily the transportation element to reflect these practices that are in the better streets plan. before you today we're with the initiation of the general plan amendment and setting a date for when we would have the adoption hearing which would be three weeks hence, october 28, and what we would be bringing to you on that day would be adoption of ceqa findings. we have conduct admit gaited negative declaration, approval of general plan amendments and consistency findings and approving of the better streets plan itself and administrative code and planning code amendments. and so staff recommendation would be to approve the resolution of intent to initiate the general plan amendment and to set the october 28 hearing

date to hear these adoption actions. thank you. . migu president miguel: thank you. is there any public comment on this item? . >> sue hester with an inquiry. last night i was driving with a friend through the mission district and commenting on the tree anarchy in the mission because in the 70's when we started planting trees it was really whatever you want to do. and as a result we have a lot of streets that have totally inappropriate trees and the mission district is particularly plagued with them because the trees are extraordinarily dense and they cut off all light on the sidewalk. it's not a mission district problem alone. it is a problem in various parts of the city. i don't know if it's in this plan because i haven't read it,

but i would hope that the staff and the city would think carefully about existing retrofit. when you don't have any light on the sidewalk, it's a safety hazard in the mission district. and we have a lot of problems, because it's dark. and we didn't have a whole lot of thought when the tree program started. now we have extremely mature trees that are extremely inappropriate and were never thinned when they started and how we get to the point of doing retrofit of lighting fixtures so you don't just have the bulb up

here, but the ability to get to the treat to move down the tree and there were problems around there as well. and all the stuff you get to draw and look at what we've got now and how can we get it better. the problem valely, really inappropriate, dense trees that take out the thoughts there. m president miguel: i was wondering if you could comment on this. >> it is a consideration we had and one of the reasons to have

this plan and to consider those there and you have different agencies working on different aspects and generally installed by the property owners. one of the overall guidelines is for having the different elements interact on the street environment and that is a consideration about spacing with the trees and lighting appropriately so you are not sort of planting trees in an overly dense fashion that it blocks the light iing. and sort of vice versa, so that is considered in the plan. president miguel: thank you. board vice president olague: and i was

going to ask if the different of disability has weighed in on this document. >> we have been working closely with the mayor's office of disability and gone to the mayor's disability council on a number of occasions to give informational presentations and an appendix in the back is the accessibility guidelines. >> i was going to move to initiate. >> i'll second. president miguel: commissioner borden? commissioner borden: to we have a policy to specify where trees should be planted or do we not have a policy on that? >> the d.p.w. has tree planting guidelines which isn't about specific guidelines and the various han handles and if you are required to plant a tree as is often the case, you will

require a street permit and they do have lists of trees that they would approve. >> it would be zes interesting to look at that with sidewalks throughout the city and are are breaking up. >> and my sense is they have to learn over time about which trees work better and were planting 20 years ago and to be not ideal and are learning from that. >> can you tell me about the survey that was in the survey and about the better streets plan and a limited number of options and they wanted to know about that survey. >> that is on a related project and we sent it out to the same

mailing list that the better street plan goes, but the project is to develop a sort of centralized city web portal for people who want to make street improvements and the point of the survey is to try and understand what types of improvements that people are trying to make. the concern that the member of the public had is we had a number of different selections and that was in terms of how we organized the survey. it is hard to sort of follow up on each of those and that long list and not to say that people can't make more than five street improvements, but just that for the purposes of the survey, we were only going to limit it to five. >> in the future when we do multiple choice, that we have a box that says "other" and people can write in a choice. just a way and i know survey monkey and all those have the option to do multiple choice and the open box. >> right. vice president olague: to people feel like they have a place to put it and i don't know the survey and maybe we could get a

link to the survey. it would be just interesting to know. >> we are trying to get people to fill it out. thanks. >> thanks. president miguel: commissioner moore? commissioner moore: i think it is a landmark plan. i have read it probably three times from beginning to end and discover something new each time from a physical point of view which is quite remarkable and i think in a city as beautiful as this one is and there is always a real absence about understanding the coordinated street design. and i think this for the first time addressing in it a comprehensive and artistic way. i personally would appreciate and i am not sure if i'm stepping on your toes right now, that you would mention that they have been advising on this project, is that correct? >> they are part of the team. commissioner moore: i do see his handwriting in developing the citywide artistic and comprehensive ideas and i would

appreciate if we acknowledge that. he is basically the person who has been holding city planning up at its highest and he's again and his handwriter is clearly readable. thank you, alan. president miguel: commission ee sugaya? commissioner sugaya: yes, this will make me extremely unpopular, i'm sure, but i'm not exactly a tree person to the extent that i hope the better streets plan try to make improvements that go beyond trees and showing us pretty pictures of streets with lots of trees. it appeals to a lot of people, but i think it should go beyond street tree program because i cut my teeth on the street tree programs on board of appeals and it is no fun listening to people argue about street trees in front of their house whether it's going in or coming out or forcing them to replace one. it is just not something the

planning commission wants to get involved there n, at least at that level. going beyond the plan a little bit into more the d.p.w. and implementation part, but along those lines, maintenance, ongoing maintenance and replacement, there are existing regulations along the lines that generally end up being the responsibility of the property owner. are those kinds of things, can we address some of the maintenance issues? here. i don't know if they aren't specifically or whether it's the proper place to do it. but maybe some thinking along those lines or a policy or two or a statement would be good. >> excuse me, i should mention we did have a companion piece that was developed by the controller's office which is a set of recommendations and how to improve the process and arrangement for how we deliver and maintain street improvement

and they will be coming out shortly with their report about recommendations for how we approve our maintenance practices. it is difficultly blanked in if we want to make the improvements, we have to maintain them as well. >> i think it's always in my experience a big surprise to certain property owners that the trees sitting out in front of the sidewalk is really their responsibility in many inthe answers, maybe not all. >> thank you. just a couple of thoughts but i most wanted to thank adam and our colleagues at p.c. and m.t.a. and the other departments. this is an unprecedented multidepartment effort, seven, eight agencies involved and this, i think, with the beauty of the plan is it does cover 25% of the city which is pretty amazing when you think of it. but i also think that it is, in fact, a lot more than just grand ideas and pretty picture.

it is very detailed in what it talks about and how it talks about treatments and different conditions and storm water issues and plantings issues and if there are many places where trees are not appropriate. and especially if there. and the plan is comprehensive and i actually think it's the best of its kind that i have seen in the country and i really do commend staff and departments for pulling together. it is a great feather in the cap for the planning department. president miguel: commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: thank you. a couple of things, i guess. first of all, in terms of trees, i think we probably have fewer trees than most sfi cities but probably for a good reason. we have a lot of hills that will sometimes create shade and fog certain times of the year, so we don't need as much protection from the sun as some places do

but ornamentally they add a lot to the street and i am very much in favor of doing that. the other condition i didn't see addressed in here, although it may be in here somewhere, is they reference the corners and we have to look at those carefully because a lot of times there may not be appropriate places where there are a lot of right turns being made and especially if there is a bike lane there, too, you can get your cars into the right turn lane and the bikes will be streetward of the cars making the right turn. and if you have the bulb out there, the bikes and cars are competing for the same space. so i'm not speaking against it, but saying we have to look at these judiciously and hopefully the buses aren't stopping anywhere near there because we have an extraordinary problem with buses in the street because we have really narrow streets and a lot of streets that have

-- a lot of cities have transportation below ground or in their own right-of-way so part of the congestion comes from the buses which is not what you are dealing with but we always have to take those into consideration. thanks. >> i would say in response to that that the plan does include detailed guidelines including what you mentioned about where there are heavy right-turn movements to err on the side of not doing that. so that is addressed. commissioner antonini: thank you. president miguel: commissioner moore? commissioner moore: i appreciate you summarizing the overall importance of the plan. i personally don't see it as much about trees but just establishing consistent infrastructure of public realm. that also addresses many individual homeowners and many individual large-scale developer who is want to do their own but bring them into a comfortable, highly-designed framework which is notable already in the neighborhoods and it's noticeable in other competing

cities where large downtowns, for example, have been completely transformed based on commonalty about the public realm. we don't really have that. president miguel: thank you. secretary avery: there is a motion on the floor to initiate. on that motion, commissioner antonini. >> commissioner borden. >> aye. >> commission irmoore. >> aye. >> commissioner miguel. >> aye. secretary avery: thank you, commissioners. you are now on item 9. case 2010.0054u, the personal wireless service facility site permit. >> good afternoon, commissioners. welcome back, commissioner borden. and the legislation before you

moves the public works code with modifications to improve the process. since the initial adoption in 2007, the department of public works has been accepting personal wireless services applications to be placed in the public right-of-way and under certain circumstances referred them to the planning department for an administrative review and recommendation or two the recreation and parks department depending on the protected area it resides in. the planning department would get referrals when the installation would be on a street important to urban design and views identified in the general plan. or a street determined with

quality views to be good or excellent. it should be noted that the current process doesn't require any kind of notification. these are examples of some of the installations that have been most recently approved. this is an example of an antenna and another example. this is an example of the single antenna and this is the antenna and these are the equipment boxes that get installed about 15 feet above grade. the extension pole which is required for any kind of electrical conduits or things, pg&e equipment, extends the pole

and then the antenna itself. and another example of a dual panel antenna installation. after many public workshops, the supervisors and the various departments have crafted language to provide for public notification and a streamline review process for distributed antenna system providers and individual wireless telecommunication providers equally. the legislation focuses on the aesthetic impact to the public right of view within reason to enable providers to implement their infrastructure. the major changes to the

modified or existing legislation is that it adds residential and neighborhood commercial zoning districts to the protected areas that would be referred to the planning department. it authorizes the recreation and parks department to require an applicant for wireless permit to plant a street tree next to the existing utility pole and this would be to buffer the equipment incentral population. -- to buffer the equipment installation. and it requires public notice for all final determinations once the permit has been issued and under the tier three system before the determination has been issued. again, public notification and the tier system it jumps into.

tier one is something that would be approved administratively by the department of public works without any recommendation or referral to other agencies. we have determined that certain sizes of the antenna and the equipment when designed appropriately, there would be no circumstance for us to recommend denial of these types of installations. tier two's would be forwarded to the planning department as well as tier three's. we have a representative from the supervisor's office and public works department and possibly the carriers and possibly the constituency. with that, we recommend you adopt recommendation for approval. president miguel: you mentioned public note. could you elaborate on that an it will? >> currently there is no public notification and someone leaves work in the morning and comes

back after work and there is an antenna and equipment boxes in front of their home. now the process will include once the determination is made for tier one and tier two projects for a notification to be sent out i believe 350 feet to neighborhood associations within that area. and that would provide people with the opportunity to appeal to the board of appeals. under the tier three situation, there would be notification prior to any final determination to allow people to comment before the review. president miguel: do you know the timing of the notices offhand? >> i believe they are standard with similar to building permit applications. 15 days -- up to 15 day after the issuance and prior, i'm not certain. president miguel: thank you.