>> good afternoon and welcome to the san francisco board of supervisors land use and economic development committee. i'm scott wiener, the chairman of the committee. to my right is supervisor jane kim, and to my left is supervisor david chiu, a member of the committee. our clerk today is alisa miller and i want to thank sfgtv, specifically jennifer low and jesse larsen for broadcasting today's hearing. madam clerk, are there any announcements? >> yes. please make sure to silence all cell phones and electronic devices. completed speaker cards and copies of any documents to be included as part of the file should be submitted to the clerk. items acted upon today will appear on the july 23rd board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. >> thank you. will you please call item number 1? >> item number 1 is an ordinance amending the police code to prohibit the use of aircraft, self-propelled, or buoyant objects to display any sign or advertising device in the airspace over the 34th america's cup course area; and making environmental findings. ~ area

>> and mr. martin is here to speak. >> good afternoon, supervisors. mike martin, office of economic can work force development. the item before you is a piece of my office's work in coordinating approvals for the america's cup. as noted in the recitals, the host agreement calls for the city to pursue with relevant governmental authorities a number of different authorizations for things like, for example, the use of the course area. so, we work with the coast guard on that. also pursuing permits to use the various spectator venues along the waterfront. the agreement also calls for appropriate flight restrictions over the race area. as noted in the ordinance itself, we have been working with the federal aviation administration on whether a temporary flight restriction could be put in place that would sort of fully de-conflict

the race course congestion as the race courses increase over the summer. thus far the federal agencies we've been working with have been cooperative, but they say that type of instrument is not available. in doing further research, we noted that the city of honolulu had banned all advertising aircraft from its air space and that was upheld by the 9th circuit. so, in consultation with the event authority, we -- america's cup event authority, we proposed this ordinance as a way to at least de-conflict some measure of potential congestion over the race air i can't tellv we tried to keep it narrowly tailored to the course area so that it's not overly restrictive and it specifically references the potential for the faa to issue a temporary flight restriction later. so, our goal would be to continue our dialogue with them. and if safety concerns due to spectators or for other sort of intelligence information indicates a safety or security

risk, if a temporary flight restriction was due at that time, then this ordinance by its terms would expire. so, again, we're trying to do this in sort of -- in keeping with the host agreement and sort of fostering safety over the race course. >> okay, thank you. supervisor kim. >> thank you, mr. martin. and i do actually appreciate this coming to us. we actually -- our office fields a number of complaints regarding aerial commercial planes that fly over the neighborhood, particularly around the giants game. and it's actually great to hear that honolulu has already done an overall ban that's been upheld by the 9th circuit but because i think this is something of incredible interest to the large r community and city. so, i'm curious if you've done any more work in terms whatv that ban would look like city-wide. >> we haven't. we've really tried to keep our focus on the events. i would say, though, that the case itself for the honolulu case, i have reviewed that. and while i'm not a practicing

lawyer in this field, i think it was pretty clear that the compelling interest of honolulu in safeguardingits natural views for its tourism industry was something that was sufficient to justify a content neutral ban, so, one that doesn't favor one content over another, but says no types of advertising being pulled behind aircraft. so, clearly that would be, i think, a direction to sort of research further with the relevant experts before we pursue the city-wide ban, but it does seem like something worthy of discussion. >> is it possible that we could make this a city-wide ban until september 30th? so, not just aerial -- i mean, america's cup is one event, but we have multiple events here in the city. it would seem [speaker not understood] too kind of uphold one event over many others. so for me, i would be interested in a city-wide ban. >> the item is in your hands, supervisors. certainly, if that were something you wish to pursue, i think you could. i think you'd want to consult

with your attorneys as well. certainly for our limited purposes it seems like something that would be upheld in the court and it seems worthy of further investigation if that is of interest. >> thank you. and i do want to thank supervisor john avalos's office because he was actually thinking the same thing over the weekend as well, and, so, they did actually give copies of an amended ordinance to our office to pass out. and i just would be interested in that consideration at the committee meeting. it would be a city-wide ban on aircraft, self-propelled objects to display any signs or advertising in the city and county of san francisco. so, i will just -- i'm giving copies to our community members. i will give one to our city attorney and to mr. martin, and maybe during that time we can open up for public comment. >> thank you. as i read the amendment supervisor avalos produced, it eliminates the september 30th sunset date. am i right, supervisor kim? >> yes.

and actually this is where i want to get guidance from our city attorney. i'm open to making it just a trial through september 30th since this is what it's been suggested by the port and the mayor's office of economic development while we pursue a longer term. ~ policy. but yes, in the version that supervisor avalos has given to our office, it does take out the sunset clause. >> [speaker not understood]. >> deputy city attorney jon givner. i'm just seeing this, but one quick thought is timing wise, if the committee were to make this amendment today, the ordinance would require an additional public hearing. i understand that the ordinance as currently proposed by oewd needs to be adopted by the

board on july 30th in order to be signed by the mayor and go into effect by the end of august in time for the event. and, so, if you made this amendment today and kicked it over for another week at land use -- >> one, i want to respond to that. an option we would have would be to amend to continue it for a week and we could agendize it as a committee report next monday so we wouldn't lose any time. president chiu? >> first i'd like to suggest something similar to that. obviously [speaker not understood] this to the entire city is a new concept i started thinking about 30 seconds ago. i'm potentially open to thinking about this, but i don't think we've had an opportunity to really hear from the public. so, one possibility if we want to get this america's cup piece up fast is we could duplicate the file, pass out the america's cup version, make the amendments of supervisor kim and supervisor avalos have suggested to have that come

back in a week or a few weeks so that the public can comment and tell us if there is any reason why we wouldn't want to do this city-wide because i do agree with supervisor kim as a city we have had i think a good buy as and favor of trying to minimize disruptive advertising and that can be another way to do it. ~ good bias i'd like to hear from public comment first, then we can figure it out from there. >> my initial reaction is to agree, to put out the current version to be heard next tuesday, to amend -- duplicate and amend and continue the other one potentially as a committee report. i would say certainly i'm not a fan of airplane advertising. i would want to know more and make sure that we're not missing anything. and i also don't know what contracts have been entered into in reliance on the part of people who think they can do it and so forth.

so -- but -- colleagues, any other comments? okay, so, we will open this up for public comment. public comment will be two minutes. i have one public comment card for item number 1, david elliott lewis. if there is anyone else who would like to make public comment on item 1, please fill out a blue card. mr. lewis. supervisors, david elliott lewis. i think you might have -- throw out the baby with the bath water situation here also an issue of free speech. i'm not a fan of aerial public advertising, but if this is -- by banning this you're also going to be banning opportunity for advocacy speech, for political speech, for free speech, then it becomes more troubling. you know, that speech tends to get crowded out by other media and when i say throw out the baby with the bath water, the dirty bath water is maybe

garish commercial advertising you don't want to see, but just throwing out the baby, which is public advocacy free speech. i hope you can see that, have a decent sense of provision. if this does become a free speech issue, we should have sunset provision in it. thank you for your time. >> thank you very much. is there any additional public comment on item number 1? seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel] >> okay. so, colleagues, perhaps -- president chiu, are you requesting that the file be duplicated? >> i'm happy to do that unless supervisor kim would like to. so, i suggest we duplicate the file and then i'm happy to support an amendment on this, although i will say i'm going to support that before we've heard from the public around this reaction just as an opportunity to have a public discussion about it. not entirely sure yet if i'm prepared to support it, but i'm

open to the idea. >> supervisor kim. >> so, i think actually it's a great idea to duplicate the file. and i will support the measure -- the ordinance as it is originally written to go out with positive recommendation out of this committee. i do think that this is an issue worth exploring, particularly around the giants game. it is a huge source of both air and noise pollution for our neighborhoods in the south beach, rincon hill, mission bay area, and our office gets a ton of complaints around this very issue. i'm sure our district is not the only one that deals with it. i'm sure in other districts where there are big city-wide events, that the same occurs. and i think that the city has been headed towards a direction that has been limiting advertising in our city, understanding that our residents -- tourists really benefit from the preservation of our city's character, architecture, so i think this is certainly a policy worth exploring.

in response to the public comment, it would have to be content mutual, the prohibition. ~ so that we wouldn't skirt first amendment issues. but i am interested to hear how many advocates actually use aerial signs as a form of first amendment issues. so, so happy to duplicate this file and support the original ordinance with recommendation. >> okay. so, why don't we -- the file has been duplicated. is there a motion to forward the original version with recommendation? >> is so moved. >> okay. can we take that motion without objection? ~ that will be the order. [gavel] >> and then we have the remaining duplicated file and, supervisor kim, would you like to make a motion to take the amendments supervisor avalos has proposed? and if you would qualify with or without the sunset provision? >> so, i will make a motion to amend the duplicated file with the amendments that i have

distributed via supervisor john avalos' office. thank you for joining us. i will be keeping the deletion of the sunset clause at least just for the sake of the public. and if we choose to take it out next week, we can take the sunset -- we insert the sunset clause if that is appropriate and kind of the recommendation of folks that we interface with over the next week. >> and that through city attorney, if we make the amendment as is right now and then insert a sunset next week, is that substantive such that it would require further continuance? >> deputy city attorney jon givner. no, you could add the sunset clause in next week and pass it out. >> okay. so, the motion is to amend the duplicated file with the amendments as proposed by supervisor avalos who has joined us. is that the motion? >> yes, that is the motion. >> and can we take that without objection? that will be the order. [gavel] >> and is there a motion to continue this item one week? >> i will make that motion to

continue one week. >> okay. without objection, the item is continued one week. [gavel] >> okay. madam clerk, can you please call item number 2? >> do you want to call 2 and 3 together? >> correct, 2 and 3 together. thank you. >> item number 2 is ordinance re-adopting the 2009 san francisco bicycle transportation plan; rescinding ordinance no. 0109-05 in its entirety; amending the general plan in connection with the san francisco bicycle plan; adopting modified environmental findings, and findings that the general plan amendment is consistent with the general plan and the eight priority policies of planning code, section 101.1; and authorizing official acts in connection thereto. ~ requirements. >> and supervisor avalos is the author of items 2 and 3. supervisor? >> thank you, chair wiener. thank you for hearing these items in land use. these are items that have been perhaps years, maybe decades in the making and i think they're really worth consideration, especially in light of our goals around ensuring that we are increasing cycling in san francisco for 20% by the year 2020. these are measures that we hope will help get us in that direction.

the general plan amendment come out of the litigation that had gone on around ceqa, between [speaker not understood] and the city and county of san francisco, they went to the california court of appeals that recommended we make general plan amendments consistent to the findings of the court and making sure their findings are consistent with that. that's what is before us today. there are no other amendments being made to the general plan outside the scope of the court of appeals recommendations and decisions. the other measure is much, much more substantive and i'm very proud to be sponsoring this with great help of many, many organizations within the city and outside the city. first of all, i want to thank the planning department for coming forward with amendments to how we could cite new bicycle parking spaces in the private sector buildings, newly renovate and had newly constructed private buildings,

commercial and various buildings across san francisco. ~ siting i want to thank bowman for also weighing in, building management association for weighing in and input into the process. for the most part there is great agreement how we might hear forward. we might hear from boma about remaining concerns. i know residential builders association has played a large role in coming together with new amendments to how we look at new buildings and oren vaedth buildings from rec/parking. of course, the bike coalition has been part of this process for many months, perhaps years moving forward. as we know, bikeling has been a -- growing in san francisco recently and this legislation will help provide a secure place where people can store their bike at home and at work. since sfmta began bicycle count in 2006, there has been a 71% increase in rider ship. ~ many of these people are riding to work where a safe secure place to their bicycle during

the workday and at home is essential. while many building owners continue to retrofit their buildings with secure bike rooms tend to bring bicycles inside their rental space. new buildings are already including some bike parking. this legislation will help these projects keep up with the growing numbers of tenants who need bike parking. the current bike parking regulations were adopted nearly a decade ago and are intend today provide parking for only about 2% of tenants. today bicycle rider ship is much higher. the most recent american community survey showed a city-wide mode share of 3.5% for work trips. but other neighborhoods like the mission and hayes valley show commute mode share as high as 15%. in the past i've been bicycling for about maybe 13 years from the excelsior and i see excelsior resident in the back who actually cycles from excessier every day.

we've seen a great increase from the excelsior as well for the great infrastructure we're putting in place. so, we know these efforts work towards increasing rider ship. this new legislation will bring the numbers of required bike parking and new buildings up to a level more consistent with san francisco's growing bike rider ship. the legislation provides more clarity on types of building uses than previous legislation and more guidance on designs and types of bike parking. these changes will help allow developers to more effectively plan for quality of bike parking and provide the necessary facilities for their future tenants. and i believe we have member from the planning department who is here to -- ms. ann marie rogers to give a summary on the changes to both the general plan amendment and the legislation before us today. and i could summarize them or perhaps ms. rogers, you could summarize them yourself or -- >> yes, i could. i'm here today with [speaker

not understood] and josh witsky. we have a 7 minute presentation. we can give a good summary as well. >> that sounds great. please do. >> so, i can discuss a little more of the process as the supervisor described, this effort was initiated by the planning commission last summer and enhances biking requirements that has not been done to this point. this effort will keep san francisco as a leader in bicycle parking and to do so we really needy valuate the hodgepodge controls that we have in place right now. as the supervisor avalos described, we contacted many different stakeholders and have incorporated their advice which we felt would achieve the best city policy. the commission has endorsed this ordinance that is before you today and that is, again, the main planning code ordinance. the second ordinance was not initially part of the proposal, but has grown out of that court case.

the amendments before you to the general plan are exactly the same as the board adopted in 2009. they would amend transportation element downtown plan and land use index. the findings have been update today reflect the court case. so, we at the department and commission would like to convey our gratitude to supervisor for leadership in sponsoring this and shepherd the process. i'd like to introduce [speaker not understood] to go over the concept. >> good afternoon, chair wiener, president chiu, supervisor kim. if i can get the presentation back. thank you. i'm here today to present legislation to make an over haul of existing biking requirements and the planning code. we need a comprehensive change of these bicycle parking

requirements as supervisor avalos mentioned because of the significant increase in bike rider ship in the past decade. this is just a graph speaking to what supervisor avalos mentioned, the number of bike rider ship increasing significantly, and this map shows how it's different, different neighborhoods. the up to 15% of shared bike rider ship. and it's in a couple of neighborhoods. and again, speaking to what was already mentioned, existing requirements have been put in the code incrementally and that has resulted in different standards for different uses. and it's been consistent in the code is really hard to implement so that, for example, in 2012 when we were adopting the transit center district plan, a new set of requirements

were put into the code to address the deficiencies that are in that -- other parts of the planning code regarding bicycle parking. and also this type of requirement is put up here with a great deficiency in bicycle parking. we have 75,000 daily bike trips, but only 3,000 racks on the sidewalks. and this lack of accessibility of bike parking is one of the major obstacles that people mention when they answer the question of why they choose not to use your bicycle. >> is that photo shopped or -- >> no. this is a picture -- >> this is my house actually. [laughter] >> i got this from the bicycle [speaker not understood]. i'm not sure where it wayv from.