that san francisco is famous for. >> the wood you see in the board of supervisor's chambers is oak and all hand carved on site. interesting thing about the oak is there isn't anymore in the entire world. the floors in china was cleard and never replanted. if you look up at the seceiling you would believe that's hand kof carved out of wood and it is a cast plaster sealing and the only spanish design in an arts building. there are no records about how many people worked on this

building. the workman who worked on this building did not all speak the same language. and what happened was the person working next to the other person respected a skill a skill that was so wonderful that we have this masterpiece to show the world today. supervisor maxwell: welcome to land use. our member and president of the board, a supervisor david chiu, will be joining us any moment. madam clerk, you have some announcements to make, and i want to thank the folks from channel 26 for bringing us to the public life. >> please submit copies of any

documents to be submitted for the file. supervisor maxwell: we do have a committee report, item two will possibly go out as a committee report today. item one, please. >> item 1, ordinance amendment the building code. supervisor maxwell: staff, this is building code legislation. >> good afternoon, board members. office of economic workforce development. pleased to be here today. what we have before you are some technical cleanups to these very large development fee reform package that this committee reviewed and the board approved -- i believe now over six months ago. be specific technical amendments -- the specific

technical amendments, if you look at the draft legislation on page four, at the request of the mayor's office of housing and the treasurer's office, these changes were offered. the first was to clarify that this program applied to all projects that have not paid impact fees prior to july 1, its effective date. there was some confusion because of the way the planning entitlements are handled as conditions of approval to, let's say, a conditional use permit. often -- they often reference fees and referred to older projects that had not received building permits or had not paid fees, had conditions of approval on their entitlements that reference the old law and specifically said that those fees were due at site permit. under the new law, as you know, there is the option of a deferral, so what this language

does is it clarifies projects again who have not paid their fees are allowed to use the program. projects that have paid their fees can obviously use the program. if you go down further on page four, you will see another set of underlines. this clarification was made at the request of the mayor's office of housing. what happened is at least one project sponsor have allowed their permit to expire and then sought refunds and then sought to reapply and have the deferral program apply to their project. that was not the intent of the legislation. the intent was if you paid your fees, you pay your fees. if you have not, you could enroll in the program. this clarification ensures we do not have project sponsors willingly allowed their permits to expire so they can get a refund only to seek a deferral after. finally, there are technical

amendments on page 6 of the ordinance that relate to the treasurer's office issuing an annual cost of funds. if you remember, under the deferral program, the city has an interest rate that we charge project sponsors who seek to differ fees. the average of the actual cost of inflation for infrastructure and the city's actual cost of funds. we had originally worked out a formula with the treasurer's office that was arguably a little too technical. at the treasury's request, this language that borrows from an existing rate that they already published monthly, the monthly current income rate, we are using that interest rate as opposed to the formula that was in the original legislation. david augustine from the treasurer's office is also here today. i'm available if you have any

questions about the specific change. that essentially sums up the substance of these cleanup amendments, and i'm available for questions, of course, if you have any. supervisor maxwell: thank you. colleagues, any other questions or comments? public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, without objection, so moved. madam clerk, i would like to go out of order here and here items three and four -- hear items 3 and 4. i think they will be quicker than item two. >> item 3, ordinance amending general plan amendments consistent with the better streets plan. item four, ordinance adopting

the better streets plan. supervisor maxwell: we have heard this before, but this is the first time we have had legislation to look at. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i just want to remind us all that this is the result of extensive public comment, and a lot of interagency cooperation and discussion about how it is that we might improve the way -- supervisor maxwell: how long have you been working on this? a number of years. >> several years, and i know we have brought it to some of you before, so there is a lot of excitement about this project. we are delighted to be here today. i would like adam to give you a quick overview, and we will go forward from there. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i have at powerpoint -- a

powerpoint. i'm going to give a brief overview of the better streets plan itself and the legislation before you. as you mentioned, we have come to this body before and presented the plan, so i will try to keep it brief. i think we were here november about a year ago. the purpose of the plan, what is included in the plan, and then with the board actions are before you. as david mentioned, it had been the collaboration of a number of different agencies. we have about seven city agencies task with the management and regulation of city streets and the standards that apply. we have also done a significant public outreach program. we had a monthly meeting with the community advisory committee

that helped us develop the plan as well. as you mentioned, it has been a long process. we first started in april 2007, so i guess that is three and a half years ago. we released the final draft in july and introduced this legislation, which would incorporate the draft into the city's code. streets make up more than a quarter of the city's land, and they could be retrofitted to serve a wider function of uses and really serve the people, and they are currently an underutilized city resourced. as i'm sure you know, there are policies that call on the city to provide priorities for pedestrians and other street users. think of the role that could play.

to that end, we thought about all the number of topics that streets could play, the role they could play from providing a place for social gathering and public interaction to providing a critical public health link in terms of encouraging and facilitating physical activity. the plan itself is a set of policies and guidelines for the design of the pedestrian environment. notably, it does not identify specific capital projects but rather is a guide to inform any capital street improvement project that the city is doing. the focus is on a pedestrian and streetscape facilities at crosswalks, sidewalks, pedestrian safety and comfort. the vision, similar to the better streets policy itself, identifies the different role that each should play, that they should result in a system

designed to promote human needs for the use and enjoyment of human streets. in order to do that, we first began by identifying a number of different street types under the recognition that not all streets should play the same mold. you would not necessarily design a neighborhood commercial street as you with an industrial or residential street, said the plan builds off of these to identify the design strategies for each of these. for each street type, we identify appropriate sidewalk widths, standard streetscape improvements, and then, a set of case-by-case additions for each one way if we were designing a particular street in a neighborhood and had a particular budget, the items could be brought in as allowed.

the network serves a variety of land uses but does so in a somewhat bleak way and it become much more multi functional and pleasing environment. supervisor maxwell: how about if we look at puc and storm water -- do better streets consider those kinds of functions? >> absolutely. there is an entire chapter devoted to the different types of design strategies you could use, such as permeable paving systems, in the street environment to manage storm water. there are two ordinances. the first one regards general plan amendments relating to the better streets plan. it would amend the bourbon street designed to incorporate the better street plan and incorporate the best practices and ideas from that plan in terms of pedestrian and

streetscape design. the second ordinance would amend the administrative code, planning code, public works code, and subdivision code, and in so doing, reference the better street plan. the main changes would be in the administrative code. it would amend the better streets policy, which is section 98.1, to require when people are making changes to the street environment, that they follow these guidelines and policies on the better street plan, and the planning code, which would establish requirements for streetscape improvements, which are currently required in various places in the planning code. this would consolidate those into a single section. for larger projects, this would also add a requirement for project sponsors to submit a plan, and the department would be able to require the standard streetscape elements that i showed before.

those are the highlights of what the legislation does. this last slide is just to show that this is not the end. the adoption of this legislation would be a big step forward in terms of promoting a complete street design in the city, but there's a lot more we have to do to implement it, and we are working with all those agencies that i showed you before to forward with some of the implementation strategies for the better streets plan. thank you. if you have any questions, i would be happy to answer them. supervisor mar: thank you for the hard work to david and adam, for years, for these important changes. i did want to just ask the question because i think the audience will raise this as it comes up, but there is a last- minute suggestion for the general plan part of this about high speeds as a necessity on the transportation corridors. i think the question was some

changes in language, but i know it is a last-minute request. >> i forgot to mention that. it did come up. there was a text in -- there was text in one of the urban policy and design elements that discussed that traffic speeds and volumes are by necessity, and we did agree that that was inaccurate language and should not be in there. we did point out that we would be happy to follow up to make that change. we would rather not hold up the entire package, although we would be happy to make that change. supervisor maxwell: what i'm hearing from you is that you agree with him, and you will be making those changes with trailing legislation. >> that is correct. supervisor chiu: i was going to ask exactly the same thing. supervisor maxwell: all right, thank you. why don't we open this up to any further presentations?

director of planning? thank you. public comment on this item -- i have a card. lucy john. >> thank you, supervisors. i was not here to comment on this, but since you address this matter before the item i'm here to comment on, i cannot help popping up to say i am a north beach resident. i have seen the effects on columbus avenue, and i would like to urge perhaps the trailing legislation, that ambient noise become a factor in adding to the livability of our streets. in north beach, as you probably know, on columbus avenue, virtually every eating establishment has outdoor and the invoice -- outdoor ambient

noise. whether they have permits or not i cannot possibly answer, but the possibility of using their speakers to convey ambient noise is definitely there. at least some residents would not appreciate having this type of noise, especially when each entity has its own noise. somehow, if ambient noise from loudspeakers could be addressed, that would be great. thank you. supervisor maxwell: next speaker? anybody else? all right, seeing -- all right. >> good afternoon. executive director of livable cities. thank you all for raising the point.

the thing that concerns us so much is that this language is talking about the necessity of high speed on these major streets. it is not in the general plan now, so we are talking about amending it in, which we think is about 180 degrees difference to the way we should be going. for chilly will years, in our earliest,, livable city has been saying that traffic speed is perhaps the biggest single thing that san francisco can do to prevent injuries and fatalities. you probably all know the statistic that your chance of surviving as a pedestrian or cyclist with a collision with a car is less than 95%. at 40 miles per hour, which is a common speed on many major streets in san francisco, your chance of surviving goes down 20% or less. traffic speed is the biggest single thing we can do.

unfortunately, the plan really did not take up the issue of speed on a policy level. if there is going to be further amendments to the code, we would like to really look at that. it is in many ways an important step forward, but it is still the better sidewalk plan. in order to make it the better streets plan and really address traffic danger, i think we need to address the issue of speed had on, as it were, in this ordinance. we objected to this being carried forward. the question is -- when will that happen? we would love to see not just the offending language removed but language added address and the importance of setting speeds. finally, moving forward on a policy that is almost 30 years old now, transportation for

america did a study and found that in the cities they were looking at, over half the fatalities were on those major arterials. they represent the majority of danger to the pedestrians because they are so heavily used. we would love to see this language removed. we would love to see appropriate language that speaks to appropriate speeds added, but with that, i think this does represent generally a big step forward. we're talking about two steps forward and one step back. if you can take out the one step back, it is always a better policy. supervisor maxwell: thank you for bringing that to our attention. any further public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. planning, i would like somebody

to come up. i think we have a couple questions. the time line for the trailing legislation, and i think tom mentioned a good point, that we should not only just removed it, but also make mentioned about streets and speed and what that means. >> to the first question, it has just recently come to our attention, so we are looking at the hackles to put the changes in and follow through with legislation going to the commission in the next week or two. we hope to get the revision so the language is struck in the trailing legislation. the other issue, while we certainly agree with it, the importance of how we configure our streets, the debate about arterial and non-arterial and how one classifies streets is a very broad issue. i would agree that it is one we really ought to address in the city.

i think it is outside the discussion we are having today. we would want to lead a discussion of how we think about our streets in the area between the curve -- curb as well as on the sidewalk. there is literature that suggests this or that, but i will guarantee you when we start talking about defining our streets and whether they are arterial or not, there will be many people who have differing points of view, and you can play that out in a public discussion. supervisor maxwell: was that the real discussion, or was the discussion about speed and the amount of accidents that happen on those materials -- those arterials? i think there is a broader discussion, but at some point, just taking away, we could add

something that talks about looking into it. >> the idea of looking into, to try to incorporate that from the changes. supervisor maxwell: all right, colleagues. public comment is closed. do we have any comments or questions? supervisor chiu: i would like to move the recommendation with a positive recommendation. supervisor maxwell: ok, then, so moved. madam clerk, we would like to go back to item two. >> item two, ordinance amends the planning code, requiring preparation of a health care services master plan. supervisor maxwell: ok. i believe supervisor campos will be joining us any moment.

maybe while we're waiting, let me just say that item six will be continued until december 6. however, if there is anyone here who would like to speak to items 6, you can. is there anyone here who came for item 6? yes, there is. madam clerk, why don't we read items six and take public comment, and then -- >> item 6, ordinance amending the administrative code regarding the appeals process under the california environmental quality act to clarify procedures and notice. supervisor maxwell: we will continue item 6 until december 6, and at that time, you are also welcome to have public comment, but if there is anyone here who wishes to speak on items six, please come up at this time.

-- wishes to speak on item six, please come up at this time. >> i live in north beach. it is so noisy back there, i can hardly hear what you are saying. i heard you say public comment for item 6, but i thought i also heard you say it was postponed. supervisor maxwell: it will be continued, so you may speak today, or you could wait until december 6. >> i think i can wait. supervisor maxwell: thank you very much. public comment is closed on this item, and we will hear it again december 6. item two has been read. supervisor campos? we are hearing this item for the second time, and we do have amendments as a whole, and we will except those at some point and this item is the item that

will be continued -- i'm sorry, that will go forward as a committee report. supervisor campos: thank you. good afternoon, everyone. thank you for inviting me to be here. welcome to this hearing on what we believe is legislation that is badly needed in the city and county of san francisco. i know that the item was continued at the last meeting of this committee, and that provided us additional opportunity to have discussions with a number of stakeholders about this issue. as i indicated, the last time that this matter was heard here at the land use committee, we have them working on the legislation for the last seven months. during that time, we have had numerous meetings with many stakeholders, including the

hospital council, the clinic consortium, the medical society, the health department, which has played a key role in helping us draft this legislation, as well as the planning department. again, i want to thank the planning department and director ram for the contribution his department has made for making this legislation better. i also want to thank the health department and the outgoing health director and also the incoming health director and to all of the respective staff members for their work, and my legislative aide, who has been working on this for a very long time. in addition to the folks i mentioned, there are many individuals in the health care industry that have been working with us in crafting this legislation and amending it along the way.

we have in the course of the last seven months made changes to this legislation in response to a lot of feedback we have gotten from a number of the stakeholders. if i may briefly summarize some of the things we have done, to address the specific concern race around the impact that this legislation could have on small renovation projects or small medical service providers, we, in consultation with the planning department, created a trigger of 10,000 square feet for new projects and 5000 square feet for the expansion of existing facilities. we also wanted to make sure this legislation did not get in the way of some of these projects we created, a process to obtain a consistency determination for those projects that are clearly consistent with the health care

needs of the city's -- city. we removed a proposed fee we first talked about that would have required that medical institutions pay for the creation and completion of the master plan. we addressed the concern that the plan, to the extent that the plan was a comprehensive plan, that it would not be dynamic or not be able to address the changing needs of a very fast- paced, changing industry by explicitly allowing the planning department for the health department to update the master plan at any time. we created room for the planning and health departments to decide not to include certain elements in the master plan if it is not feasible to do so. it is not feasible to do so. we changed the definition of