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. th 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. 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 make 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.