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.

also, other examples that -- this is for bicycle parking. people, when there's not enough racks, they use parking meters, "street signs" to put their bikes ~ and that would create unsafety for pedestrians. also, it can damage street furniture and this also kind of creates an undignified image for bicyclists. and we need to present cycling as a dignified and reasonable main street choice of traveltion, we need to change the requirements. ~ traveling also longer term parking for schools, for residential, people use their, you know, living spaces, [speaker not

understood], their closets to store their bicycles. and this is also -- you need to change that to protect the bicycles from vandalism, from weather, from bike theft. and this all [speaker not understood] existing state of bicycle parking is far from we imagine our city wants to go in 2020, that sfmta has a set goal of 8 to 10% of [speaker not understood] city-wide for cycling. so, we need to -- we need a comprehensive change of bicycle parking requirements. especially at this time there is a development boom in the city and we need to change the

requirements before all the entitlements for all the new development that goes in. now i'm going to briefly talk about the requirements in the proposed legislation. ann marie mentioned about the process of outreach and starting august the planning commission passed this ordinance on may 16, we heard today, to move this legislation forward. so, the first -- the first part of this legislation is that we have different requirements for different types of parking class -- geared towards long-term bicycle parking for residents and employees. class 2 geared towards shorter term and visitors or different buildings. and then currently the way the

existing code is drafted, bicycle parking requirements can be provided long term or short term class 1, class 2. there is not much specified requirements for each type. we found that there are different uses, different types of bicycle trips. so, for example, for an office there would be more employees than visitors so there would be more [speaker not understood] bicycle parking requirements. but for retail, for a gym, there would be more visitors, more short-term needs, therefore, higher requirements for class 2 than class 1. we've also changed the triggers for bicycle parking requirements. currently the triggers are associated with other than new construction or alterations as associated with the cost of projects and that's -- we don't

really practice that anywhere else in the planning code. so, we made changes to align these triggers to other triggers in the planning code. briefly, it's when we add -- the new construction will be -- new bicycle requirements for [speaker not understood] increase in square footage more than 20%. so, change of use and the new use generates more -- 15% more bicycle parking. and also we also incorporated existing state law requirements for bicycle parking. and also for city-owned and leased buildings and garages since we want the city to be a model in providing bicycle parking, we require the existing city-owned and leased buildings and garages to comply with these new requirements within one year.

so, while these new requirements wouldn't apply to existing privately owned buildings, they will apply to existing city-owned and leased buildings. a little bit about requirements for different uses. so -- and how it will change. for residential use currently the requirement is one per two units. the proposed language, the proposed ordinance changes these requirements to one space per unit for buildings over three units. and also scale it had down for buildings over 100 units and it will be one space for each four units. 200-unit building, the requirements will be 125. also, the requirements would be different for different types of residential uses. it will be lower for senior housing, higher for student

housing. so, for commercial uses, the way the existing code is drafted, it's an overall definition of commercial. the proposed language changes -- breaks down commercial to different types of commercial because they're different -- different bicycle parking need generated based on different uses. for example, for retail sales, for a store they would be different volume of trips generated than compared to like a medical office or hospital. and we use, for example, from different cities, the high rider ship like vancouver and portland and new york and also we use national standards to evaluate the need for each types of categories of use.

another example of what the requirements would look like for different types of commercial, you can see that, for example, in office use currently 100,000 square foot office and a million square foot office will trigger the same requirements. 12 spaces [speaker not understood], but the new requirements will scale these based on the square footage and for a million square foot office will have 200 [speaker not understood] requirements [speaker not understood]. also, in the new ordinance they have specific location preferences, trying to plan the best location in the building for bicycle parking, prioritizing ground level, near lobby, with entrances from sidewalk, and then also

allowing for different locations when there is space limitation. another feature of this ordinance is that it allows a conversion of auto parking to bicycle parking. and we have specifications in terms of how many bicycle parking can fit within a parking -- parking spot in a garage and this, this provision even would allow an existing building who wants to voluntarily provide bicycle parking and doesn't have any space to convert their required car parking space to bicycle parking. and their specific measurement guidance requirements in the code and the associated documents to help regulate and guide the layout of bicycle

parking. there is another feature, the bicycle parking fund that will be a new fund established and administered by the sfmta. project sponsors can satisfy parts of their class 2 bicycle biking requirement by paying an in lieu fee, which is set at $400 per space and $800 per rack. and based on the in lieu fee goes to the bicycle parking fund and the sfmta can use this fund to provide bicycle racks on the sidewalks and neighborhoods that there are deficiencies. lastly, there is also allowances for exemptions, waivers, and variances for bicycle parking.

overall, we will not allow a waiver or whelmtion when there is car parking in the building. in those cases they can use the car parking spaces to provide bicycle parking. and also variances will not be allowed for -- lower quantity of bicycle parking, but it will be allowed for design and feature requirements. this was a brief summary of the changes that this ordinance would bring. we're so excited to be here today and we appreciate supervisor avalos sponsoring this legislation and i'm here for any questions. thank you. >> supervisor, anything additional before we move to public comment? >> i'd like to go to public comment. but i have some amendments, i don't know i'd be able to make.

i'm trying to get the right page number for the amendment. so, we can go to public comment first. >> great. we have one public comment card, david elliott lewis. if there is anyone else who would like to make public comment on item 2 or 3, you can fill out a blue card in the front of the room. david elliott lewis. generally support the change to the general plan and the provisions for more bike parking street and in buildings. my only concern is the provision for paying in-lieu fees instead of providing services. that's only based on looking at what's happened with affordable housing when developers have paid in-lieu fees in exchange for not really providing housing, fees that were paid but not enough to provide for the missing housing. so, i'm just hoping if you do calculate in-lieu fees, that it really is enough to make up for

what's being lost for bicycle parking. that's all. otherwise i'm really supportive of the plan. thank you. >> thank you. ms. shem. thank you, supervisors. my name is [speaker not understood]. i want to thank supervisor avalos and your hard working staff. legislation that should have been easy, but like many things in san francisco take time. huge thanks to the planning department staff who really put a lot of energy and creativity and robust outreach really involving a lot of the stakeholders as you saw there. may i suggest this is the way of the future. we are seeing american cities across the nation. we are understanding how we need to help more people live and work in our urban environment. that is the way of the future and we need to think diversely how we're moving people. by supporting these changes today you are thinking ahead and translating our goals of economic development and growing our housing stock and helping keep san francisco diverse both economically and

in terms of families. we need to mae sure that people have great choices to get around. so, i encourage you to support today and set a high standard for other american cities. thank you. >> thank you. mr. paulson. ♪ [speaker not understood] we're going to have room for the bikes it will be great it will be swell because we're going to have a great transportation plan thank you, woman land use and man ♪ >> thank you. is there any additional public comment on items 2 and/or 3? seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel] >> supervisor avalos, you have some -- >> yes, i passed out an amendment that has been requested by the department of park and traffic and mta and would like to bring this

forward for consideration. it is in publicly owned garages and i'll read the language for you. part of it is amending the table [speaker not understood] page 32 that would amend in the words -- i don't have the pre-existing language. hang on just a second. let me get that page 32. where it's actually about in city-owned garages, the language would be in the middle column where it currently reads none are required, however, if class 1 spaces that can be rented on an hourly bases are provided, they may count towards the garage's requirement for class 2 spaces. essentially, it's regulated between class 1 and class 2 spaces in publicly owned garages. we want to change that

language, if class 1 spaces that can be rented on an hourly basis are provided then it counts towards garage's requirement for class 2 spaces. and with the department of parks and traffic we have to request a waiver from the zoning administrator who will be doing the enforcement on these policies moving forward. the second amendment would be on page 51 -- actually, page 52. and that will be roman numeral small ii, for requirement, the new language will read for the requirement required by parking, nonaccessible automobile or lots 500 spaces in order to obtain this exemption, the responsible city official shall provide to the zoning administrator in writing an analysis demonstrating that the demand for bicycle parking in that location is less than the amount required by section

155.3 of this code. this exemption may only be provided for any required bicycle parking above 50 class 2 spaces. the exemption for these garages may be issued for up to one year. responsible city official shall provide the required bicycle parking within one year of the issuance of such exemption or shall obtain a new exemption for each year until each bicycle parking is required. and then under that is new language where it describes a temporary exemption for class 2 bicycle parking shall be granted as allowed in subsection 1b above under the jurisdiction of the zoning administrator. i do believe as a member of the mta here who might know about these requested amendments. no? ~ and the rationale behind them, plea. >> good afternoon, supervisors. rob malone with the off-street parking group at sfmta. thank you, supervisor avalos.

nice reading of those. be happy to answer any questions you have. >> could you just explain the concern that the mta had about current spaces and genesis of -- >> absolutely. so, for the item 1 request about the class 1 space, at the moment the language reads no class 1 spaces are required. however, the mta and my group that oversees the garages as well as folks who work as bicycle planers in the planning section of mta have been working on some next generation bicycle locker plans. there is some grant funding coming in. we have new ones coming in, plan for additional ones coming in. rather than the old style walkers rented on the annual basis and the key is turned over to the person usinging them, there is new generation of lockers that will be accessed by something equivalent to a corporate card where folks would sign up, have an account, it would be available for a short term in addition to long-term use while

still providing the same fully secure environment. so, we're excited about supporting this kind of next generation of lockers and see them as providing both short-term and kind of medium-term use. they're not going to be rented long term any more. and we just were suggesting the language change just because we want to continue to support that and not have this kind of new next generation marker not be counted toward the overall plan -- >> where do we currently have such lockers -- >> the new lockers? >> at caltrain station, do we have places like [speaker not understood] jurisdiction, but other places in san francisco? >> i actually don't work with these on a daily basis. i can't tell you. i just know they're intended to come to three of our garageses that have the most lockers right now and are intended to go [speaker not understood]. i don't know how many are already installed. >> which three garages are these? >> where the new lockers are going to go in, it is the

sutter stockton garage, it's a mission garage. >> mission. >> and i believe the golden gate way garage. >> golden gateway? ~ okay. and the next amendment? >> and then in terms of the overall, the overall requirement, our general take on this is we are absolutely obviously as an agency fully supportive of all the bicycle improvements that are going on. we have a little more fine grain knowledge of our specific demand at our specific garages. in certain cases we're already exceeding what the new requirement would be, such as at our golden gateway garage. at some of the other garages, the demand is maybe lagging a little where it might be city-wide. and we're also just trying to manage quite a few what we have called sort of transit first friendly improvements in our garage portfolio over the next few years. our mta board is scheduled to hear and act tomorrow on a

significant increase in car share space allocation in our garage supportive of a good price point to really expand car sharing. we have also in the last six or nine months added the scoot, scooter sharing, little red skooters folks may have seen around, a new alternative transit mode coming to our city. i think we have eight locations. we have also been in partnership with a few other city agencies, department of environment, airport, dpw, electric vehicle chargers in many of our facilities. i believe there's around 50 electric vehicle chargers. some of that all of these sharers, they like to be in as prominent space as possible. we try to manage all of those demands. so, in certain instances there's lots of competing demands. we would like to be on the first level. we would like to be where people -- we're doing our very

best to support all of these, the growth of all these at the same time, trying to balance them. in certain cases we feel like all of a sudden throwing x number of spaces. we might be eating into some of those [speaker not understood]. only in specific instances request the type of advantage the supervisor outlined on a year-to-year basis where in certain instances we feel like maybe we'd like to request permission to gradually get up to the new requirement. >> of course the requirements are in place and you would be requesting a waiver on being the parking spaces that would be under the jurisdiction of the zoning administrator. so, there is that backstop to make sure that we're consistent with the overall, the rest of this ordinance to make sure we're maximizing parking spaces -- >> certainly. and we appreciate supervisor avalos's office and staff working through these questions with us until the end of last week and leading up to this meeting. so, thank you very much. >> supervisor chiu. >> thank you. first of all, i have one

clarification question. i foresee somehow suggesting this legislation applies to all existing buildings. my understanding is that it only applies to new developments and existing city buildings. is that correct? >> that's correct. we have someone to confirm that? it's in terms of added requirements for existing buildings are only for city buildings. >> that's right, it would only be for city buildings. the only other instance where it might apply to existing buildings is if they were doing a significant expansion or hitting one of those other triggers, 5 triggers we went over earlier. >> i think it's appropriate. i have one last comment, which is as the person who championed our city's 20% by 2020 bike share goal, we actually need to think about parking. this is great legislation. want to thank supervisor avalos and boma and of course the bike coalition and others for their work on this and i'm happy to co-sponsor the legislation. >> fantastic, thank you. >> supervisor kim.

>> also want to say the same, want to thank supervisor avalos's office and all the parties that worked on ensuring these amendments and also the additional environmental findings so that we can finally put this plan as part of our general planning code. so happy to see this move forward. i also agree with supervisor chiu. being a new biker now in the city, i find that one of the considerations i make are whether there are bike lanes and safe bike lanes for me to ride on to get to the destination i need to get to. the second consideration i always make is whether there is a place for me to park my very nice bike, public bike that i got as a gift and so that i can actually go into the location that i thaw i'm either trying to dine or shop or visit. so, i think this is an incredibly important part of the legislation. so, thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. colleagues, any additional comments? okay. then, first, supervisor avalos has proposed amendments. can we take those amendments

without objection? >> so moved. >> okay. [gavel] >> city attorney, does this require a continuance? no? okay, so, is there a motion to forward -- those amendments were to item number 3, correct? >> item number 3, correct. >> okay. so, do we have a motion to forward items 2 and 3 to the full board with recommendation? >> i'll make the motion. >> okay. and for the general plan amendment that would also be forward with recommendation? >> correct. >> and can we take that motion without objection? okay, that will be the order. [gavel] >> thank you. >> before we call the next item, is the mayor's office of housing here for item number 5? no, they are not here. okay. i was going to call them first because they're a shorter item, but they're not here, so, i will call item number 4, please. >> item number 4 is an ordinance amending the planning code and zoning map, by adding section 249.71, to create the yerba buena center mixed use special use district located at 706 mission street, assessor's block no. 3706, lot no. 093 and portions of lot no. 277, to facilitate the development of

the 706 mission street, the mexican museum and residential tower project, by modifying specific planning code regulations related to permitted uses, the provision of a cultural/museum use within the sud, floor area ratio limitations, dwelling unit exposure, height of rooftop equipment, bulk limitations, and curb cut locations; amending the zoning map to add the sud and increase the height of property in the sud from 400 feet to 480 feet; and making environmental findings and findings of consistency with the general plan. ~ tower project. >> okay. we're going to start with the planning department. is mr. ram coming or -- >> [speaker not understood]. >> okay. so, with presentation from the planning department. >> good afternoon, chair wiener and members of the committee. my name is kevin guy with planning staff. i will be presenting an overview of the entitlement actionses that occurred at the project of 706 mission street as well as the legislation before you for consideration today. the project would rehabilitate the historic aronson building and construct a new adjacent 43 story tower reaching a maximum roof height of 490 feet with tall mechanical penthouse. [speaker not understood] and contain up to 190 dwelling units. a core and shell museum space approximately 250,000 square feet that will house the permanent home of mexican

museum. the building would also contain 4800 square feet of retail space, with reconfigured portions of the existing jessie square garage, increase the number of parking spaces, add loading and service vehicle spaces, and allocate one parking space per dwelling unit within the residential building. the [speaker not understood] prepared for the project was certified by the planning commission on march 21st of this year and these appeals for the e-i-r certification were rejected by the board of supervisors on may 7th. various entitlement actions for the project were considered by the planning commission, recreation and park commission on may 23rd of this year. both commissions adopted findings under the environmental quality act and associated actions with planning code section 295. the commission also adopted findings related to general plan consistency, approved a downtown project authorization under section 309, and recommended that the board of

supervisors approve the legislation that is being -- excuse me -- being considered today. specifically, the legislation would reclassify the height limit from the existing 400 foot height limit to a 480 foot height limit and would adopt the yerba buena center mixed use special use district. this sud has modified [speaker not understood] regulations as follows. the sud specifies that the development must contain cultural, museum or other public serving institutional use measuring at least 35,000 square feet and minimum of [speaker not understood]. the sud would also remove limitations with respect to floor area ratio and dwelling unit exposure, additional height based on the roof height limitation above 30 feet for mechanical screening. the bulk limitations within the sud would reflect the dimensionses of the project. the sud would allow curb cuts

on third and mission streets with the exemption under planning code section 309. no conditional use authorization will be required for dwelling unit and city exceeding principally permitted amount. and as prepared, the sud would sunset five years after the initial effective date unless the project receives first construction document or unless the board extends or reenacts the sud prior to expiration. as mentioned previously the commission recommended that the board approve the proposed legislation forming the height of the project was generally compatible with scale and development in the vicinity and height classification and sud were appropriate given public benefits of the project. i should note that there are several pending appeals associated with the project. for july 23rd at the board, an appeal of the historic preservation commission action and on july 31st the board of appeals will consider an appeal of the planning code section 309 approval from the planning commission. this concludes my presentation and i'm available for questions. i'd also like to note that there is staff in the successor

agency to the redevelopment agency here as well. thank you. >> thank you very much, mr. guy. is there anything additional from the planning department, ms. rogers? oh, mr. adams, here, i didn't see you. director ram. >> thank you, john ram. kevin really covered it. i think you know the history of this project. the planning commission approved it with a slightly lower height than what was originally proposed and we're available for any questions. i'm happy to stay here to answer any questions. thank you. >> thank you very much. okay. colleagues, if there are no initial comments at this point, we'll open item number 4 up for public comments. i'm sorry, ms. bohee, from the successor agency. my apologies. >> thank you so much, chair wiener, for the opportunity to speak, vice-chair kim, and president chiu. i think as supervisor avalos indicated the two previous