us here today starting with the issues today and i'll discuss the details and how we refined our proposal based on the concerns we heard from the community. i also want to acknowledge our colleague if you have any questio questions. so first, the general plans. it was adopted in 2009. this related to the bike plan was prauft in 2009. to the downtown area plan as well as the land use index. on january 14, 2003, the city and counties san francisco the

supreme court upheld and found out that the sequa venthsdz adopted in general connection with the plans were not adequate they didn't lay out the plans the court said the sequa doesn't accurately talk about the plans that were need and new sequa plans had been to established. the planning commission initiated the adoption and later on may 7th san francisco mta readopted the 2009 bike plan with the new sequa finding.

and the action before you today is to adopt the action plans but to be modified environmental finding. the san francisco bike plan dedicated an entire goal to assure bicycle parking for enhancing the significant use of bicycle parking over the last 5 years. and that's why i focus the rest of my presentation on bike parking our new proposal. we're excited to be here today. this come a long way since august of last year where this commission approved the planning

code and to comprehensively update those requirement. since the hearing the department has reached it out out to many starmdz. we have reached out to the union square and he san francisco real estate department and the san francisco mta. we have received any meetings with the stakeholders. also, we arraigned on best practices in the comparable cities with are for example, vancouver and it's standards are laid out. based on the comment we received

and the research we're here to print our final proposal for your recommendation. so the proposal would include requirements based on two classes. class one bicycle parking is secured indoor parking. it can come in forms of lockers or by bicycle rooms. class two bike targets short term use for visitors and can be located indoor or outdoor. the proposal, however, would customize the requirements based on the two types of bicycle partnering. this would allow the

bike park for example, office use will have more employees therefore they need more class one bicycle parking while a personal service like a gym they need more class two bicycle parking. the proposal also defined really clear triggers for secure bicycle parking. their inxhevent with other triggers you are about to give the planning code requirement for commercial use that triggers associated with coastal project that doesn't exist anywhere else our our proposal would use any triggers like new construction and increase in square footage by 20 percent and changes in use if the use would require bicycle parking of 15 percent.

and also alteration is incorporated in the department of building inspection code. also additional auto parking capacity and lastly, the existing city he owned buildings and garages. the city believes we should be a leader and therefore we believe that all buildings will be needed to update their parking on the proposed requirement. it will offer all increase parking requirement for example, one per 23 unit for residential. and this is comparable cities and contrary green standards. the legislation scales the requirement to run for buildings

over 4 units. for large buildings over 1 hundred units it will be per scale. for example, a 2 hundred unit building will require about one-hundred and 25 class one parking space and then there will believe class 2 for 20 units are more. the remittance are will be different for other residential use higher for students housing or lower for people with disabilities. the parole also will that tolerate the bike parking by existing types. their categorized for retail and

professional services. the youth categories will be aligned in other categories like car parking. different uses generate different parking needs. overall we sought to get the parking. again, this is equal to the lead minimum standards and it's just a little bit over the crowd city rate of bicycle use which percent. this is the city has a as josh mentioned the city has an ambition role to adding 20 percent by 20/20. our proposal would not meet the

requirements there. staff look at other comparable cities like portland and vancouver to calculate those proposals by modern standards. so the new proposed categories will be like professional offices and let's look at some examples. for example, for a grocery store with whole foods the existing requirement are 3 class one for employees 3 class one for employees or shoppers. they will have 12 class 2 for shoppers. for restaurants a 25 hundred

square feet restaurants no bicycle parking. for medical clinic of about 10 thousand square feet it calls for 3 class requirement we change that to 2 class for employees and 4 class spaces for visitors inform the clinic. right now the current total for biking spaces regardless of how big the building is. the typical large office building downtown is about 3 hundred thousand square feet. the new proposed remit would be a simple proposition without a

cap. so the tower will only require i class 1 or 2 spaces for 6,000 workers that will put that at 2.10 percent for bicycling for employees but the new proposal more than 22 class spaces required for visitors. the proposal also guides location of bible parking especially for indoor spaces. the location are the riot for locating the bicycle facility first near the lobby with a separate entrance near the

sidewalk. so the bicycle yourselves have more convenient to use their bikes for trips during the day. if it's not possible to put it near the lobby it can go near the garage. it also simplest biking parking the provision closely working with our architect dedicating the project for high bonus in certain district. by we've heard from small developers had this percentage is hard to meet so we're going proposing to add bicycling parking to help fulfill that

percentage reminded. bicycle parking on the ground floor would be counted as a particular use when there's an entrance from the sidewalk or visibility through the window. that will create a visibility like other bike friendly cities in the world. the percent is you still the same the lobbies toward active use but no more than 20 feet should be dedicated to lobby and our proposal keeps that. additionally our proposal include a new zoning administrator bulletin that will provide fur

bicycle requirement. we work closely with mta to create diagrams that predict those requirement and we can adjust for their concerns. the virginia before you is not for action but as an phenomenal item as it's under the administration for the final ordinance. the proposal also provided another incentive inform bike parking. this conversion from class one bike parking the code doesn't specify any details >> the proposal would provided

clear diagrams fro class one to class 2 biking parking. we are trying to accommodate this option in small buildings. we have consulted with sfmta and we actually lowered the requirement from the current code from the 4 feet or the bikes to undo obstruction. this could voluntarily update their bicycle parking in the building. this proposal simply allows the developers to convert and it's

not a mandated position. this is a new bike parking fund. there will be an option to satisfy the class 23 bike parking the mta will administer this fund and allow bicycle 2 parking where there's a deficiency in this type of bicycle parking. finally the zoning administrator would be able to motorist bicycle parking under certain circumstances. alternative oxygen's within the building can be approved to satisfy the class one bicycle parking requirement. overall no variance would be gi for the number of spaces

required for the car spaces in the building. that's why we provided that provision important laughing to convert car parking to bicycle parking. but we heard concerns and we made sure it will be possible to apply for a variance for the design lay out requirement. also i wanted to note that there's another existing law it recollects bicycle parking. there was another part that was passed that allow the tenant to bring their bikes to their workspace alternatively if they don't want to let their

employees bring their likes bikes to their work environment they a have to provide alternative means. but we heard from the department and there are concerns that those requirements are stringent for commercial uses. and after having multiple meeting with the department of environment we moved our proposals for that remedies and as it's proposed new the commercial use is subject to the tenant assess law will not be subject to our proposal. theirs folks from the department of environment if you have questions >> to conclude we're proud of

this claufb effort. this ordinance will help the city to satisfy the increasing needs for the bible infrastructure. it will make bicycling a easy choice for get to work and around. this will assure our infrastructure is ready. since last week we've received letters of support from several commercial places. there's a lot of excitement we think it's the right time for a significant change with all the developing that's happening in the city. and one of the letters that i submitted to you stated that the presence of high quality will bike parking is an important factor for companies and they're

looking for space in the city. this will put san francisco at the forefront of the bicycling needs for transportation. we ask that you recommend approval to make this happen. thank you >> any public comment on those two items? >> hello, i'm with the bicycle coalition. so i'm going to read the letter. to on behalf of i'm willing to express our support to the related bike parking. bike parking continues to grow in san francisco and this will allow a secure place for folks

in the city and since the mta has gone their bicycle planning it's gone up by 71 percent that people are riding their bikes. and many building owners are continuing to retrofit their places assessable for bikes. we want to make sure that the bikes are finding places in the city and this legislation will help to make that happen. the current you bike parking regulations were adopted a decade ago and they're only to accommodate 2 percent and now

the data says they're a 5 percent ridership around the city but we have bike transportation 15 percent and up arrest it's not only at the dog patch we know theirs a lot of riding in other areas. this helps reduce capacity restraints for muni. this is really role important. the developers and building owners already want to build more biking requirement. there's a letter of support from

develops and there's a new facilitated in the dog patch that will be exceeding the bicycle reminded. this eliminates the required car parking and he converting it into bike parking. we spent a lot of time

enough of the situation that have department in regards to some of those areas that are controversial. >> absolutely commissioner, in fact, this action before you say being considered because of the recent court action. in the the general plan that was adopted by city. the only thing that neat to change fromhe decision

was adding a few findings. and what's before you is some additional sequa findings. >> i guess what my certain is there's flexibility in those plans to get them modified to meet the overwhelming demand of the public. >> it's adopted by mta board. your action is limited. so we'll approve those but they'll be separate acts >> the mta board did pass the readoption of the same bicycle

plan they adopted previously. so the city is not intended to change any of the new finding >> i guess where would the recourse be for those who have questioned who have been spoken to in in plan. >> we can certainly talk about this if you don't take action today that wouldn't be an issue. our tint is to quickly comply with the court order when was to beef up our finding >> and then at some time we'll have that addressed? >> yes. >> i haven't read every single

one of those but i want that's you've got a lot of competing progresses there. but there are some streets that are issues. we need to satisfy the environmental part of this >> yeah, the intent was to get the clear finding that the court requested but there's no part of our resolution - you want it to include part of suggestion. >> yeah. i would be comfortable to say that those

varies sightings should are reexamined by the senate mount and that they still have support. just a general statement. then i have a lot of questions on the second part. the bike parking. it so you would you're saying it would be existing if you have fortune 3 units you don't need to provide bike parking >> you don't need bike racks only the space. so the single-family residence don't have to do this? >> it needs to have enough space for one bike in their garage. >> if they have a garage. >> yeah. if they have a

garage. >> this is not even requiring for existing buildings. >> so i'm saying exist is fine and if you add a unit then you'd have to add beyond 3 units. then they talked about the medical units there's a certain square footage you wouldn't have to provided bike parking >> it triggered over a certain square footage for medical it's 75 hundred. >> and anything below that would be contempt. >> correct. >> and i guess the other questions q question is in regards to has anybody done any studies to find out as we're

requiring those large bike spaces if anyone did a survey on any of the existing ridership. i think of the ross building or 5 or 560 mission which is a newer session. i think the policy is fine but it should be grounded in reality and there maybe some commercial uses where there's going to be a lot less demand >> they have sent you a letter of support. >> and then conversion of auto street parking is there that i process that has