December 6, 2007Transportation Focus Group
Meeting Notes by Charles Rivasplata
Tom Radulovich chaired this meeting. He explained the planning process and the need to go over the items on the agenda, which are issues that were prioritized in past meetings. Some items a re for action, while others are informational.
The following points summarize the central topics and concerns discussed at the meeting:
· Tom addressed parking items and provided background on parking regulations in different areas.
· Marc Salomon presented the concept of having height limits depend on the amount of parking permitted at a site. He said that he didn't know the existing ratio of off-street parking spaces to residential units, but that a study could find this information. Toby Levy presented a different view, pointing out that everyone in the SOMA still needs a car. She argued in favor of eliminating required parking, but not all of it – maximums could be close to those of the DTR. She mentioned that it is difficult to live with the parking situation. Nevertheless, for commercial parking, she said that the focus should be on how not to impact the neighborhood.
· A local resident was concerned with permit zones in the Western SoMa and their enforcement by the Department of Parking and Traffic (DPT), a division of MTA. Why should there be permits if anyone can generally park anywhere. Tom agreed that the management of parking in the city is a mess.
· Paul mentioned that new parking standards (e.g., with maximum parking ratios) have been proposed for other neighborhoods:
- East SoMa
- Market and Octavia
He suggested that the Task Force take into account what is being proposed in nearby neighborhoods. He mentioned that cars are expensive and that carsharing should be further explored. Not everyone owns a car, so this presents travel options for some.
· Marc pointed out that in November, the voters had spoken – they decisively supported not having a parking ratio of more than 1:1.
· Tom pointed out that carsharing is now even successful in some suburban locations, such asArlington, Virginia. Coverage there is fairly good, further supporting the argument that carsharing can be applied to areas that are not as densely populated as the inner city.
· Toby asked if there is a break point after which commercial will need parking, otherwise it could present problems on the street. Tom responded that there is a requirement to put carsharing in larger developments. The question is where you fill the gaps (with smaller developments). Peter Cohen argued for criteria supporting the implementation of carsharing.
· Paul proposed that in the Western SoMa, residential parking ratios should be no more than 0.75 vehicles per dwelling unit, based on the following:
- proximity to transit
- proximity to parking
- location within specific zones.
He suggested that staff look into other areas.
· Tom pointed out that the action item is related to the minimum requirements for parking. He argued that eliminating minimums would not bring in a flow of niche condos. It would allow historical buildings to include residential without additional parking, i.e., without a variance. He stated that eliminating minimums makes sense and requested that this action be considered.
· Paul wondered if small commercial uses could be cut. Parking requirements kick in at the 5,000 square foot gross floor area level. He suggested removing Parking requirements in RED areas.
· Toby believes that not allowing parking will be detrimental to the area. She points out that some minimum requirements could be implemented, but most would be somewhat problematic.
· Marc asked for an estimate of the number of buildings in the Western SoMa with more that 5,000 s.f. at the ground floor. He suggested that the City could establish no minimum requirement for customer parking in the SLR, but keep SLI as it is.
· Toby asked that this sort of zoning be held off for the SLR.
· Paul pointed out that only some areas have horizontal standards:
- Ninth Street
- Tenth Street
- Folsom
- North of Harrison
· Paul asked that for next time, staff come in with a full spectrum of ideas for looking into possible options for considering parking regulation changes.
· Tom stated that the Focus Group considers itself in a position to resolve many of the questions related to parking in the Western SoMa.
· Toby stated that she advocates not bundling parking, but allowing for some off-site parking, by right.
· Marc asked for staff to present a case for eliminating parking in the SLR. He suggested looking at other areas and their experiences. He would like to take a vote, but also have staff look at arguments for upholding parking minimums (in table). Staff should specifically look at arguments for minimums. This item will stay in committee.
· Thus, a proposition was forwarded that the group recommend eliminating minimum parking requirements in SLR districts (everything north of Harrison). It was argued that consideration should be given to things that are not neighborhood-serving.
· Tom took the committee vote on recommending the elimination of minimums. It was: 3-2-2 (3 for, 2 against, and 2 abstentions).
· Next, Tom discussed curb cuts (Item 3c.). He recognized that there is a prioritized list of streets that should not have curb cuts, primarily in the downtown. Recently, there has been a tendency to avoid curb cuts on TPS streets, other major streets, but also, some alleyways. As far as the Western SoMa is concerned, he discussed allowing curb cuts on:
- Folsom Street
- Alleyways
· Again, a vote was taken on whether to prioritize streets that should not allow curb cuts. The Group voted 5-0-1, and the public at the meeting, 1-1-0 .
· Toby mentioned that she would like to see a pattern for frontage on significant streets where the criteria would depend on the surrounding development – discretionary review (DR). Streets would be categorized as one of the following: TPS, bicycle or pedestrian-oriented, or alleyways, none of these.
· Toby pointed out that there are blocks where there are both RED enclaves and TPS streets. Marc stated that these are so few, that such situations should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis (e.g., discretionary review by the Planning Department).
· Peter brought up the need to develop clear criteria for Planning Department action on DRs. Staff will have to be made fully aware of the implications of this.
· Tom mentioned that staff should review the following
- maximum streets widths
- percentage frontage
· NC Districts allow 65' heights with many parking spaces. Staff needs to look at whether an exit and entrance should be structured. It will give a recommendation. Should there be a maximum width for garages?
Maximum percentage of building frontage?
· Tom took the vote on this issue, which was: 5-0-1 for the group and 2-0-0 for the public in attendance.
· Tom presented a proposal to have all ground level parking hidden from view. He mentioned that in other areas, this is done, but in these cases, there is a requirement that the building have active uses. Clearly, this would be easier to implement in more economically active areas. Toby argued that it would be unrealistic to have this in the SLI due to the nature of the area.
· Tom requested that staff come in with recommendations that look at the possibility of concealing ground level parking. Marc brought up the issue of the size of the building. He doesn't want buildings to be compelled to have active uses.
· A motion was proposed asking whether the Group should require hidden parking in Western SoMa, and instruct staff to see if active uses should be required in some cases. The Group voted 5-0-1, while the public in attendance voted 2-0-0.
· Charles presented recent changes in the Western SoMa Major Streets Network Map designed by ASN, explaining specific legend designations for pedestrian-oriented and calmer/greener streets. A number of revisions were suggested by Group members.
· There were a number of suggested revisions to the map:
- Marc had some clarifications
«% an existing bike lane on Howard, Seventh Streets
«% a new bike lane on Eighth Street
«% mid-block crossings should be prioritized (e.g., primary, secondary importance)
He asked that all streets on the map be solid, but that we differentiate between different street uses.
- Toby suggested that we play down the freeway and play up streets and color designations
- Tom believes that colors should be used for streets rather than dashed lines. He also asked that alleyways and residential enclaves be brought in. He requested that bicycle routes be more clearly differentiated from bicycle routes.
· Tom described the most recent discussions with DPT to look at trade-offs with the configuration on Folsom. He commented that MTA does not want to step up transit frequency until they can be sure that commercial and/or residential development is there in the stages of being built.
· Tom stated that we should look at priority projects for bicycles. Marc proposed to make improvements not listed in the most recent list of projects in the Bicycle Plan (which recently cleared an injunction). Tom insisted that his understanding was that some changes could be made, but no huge modifications.. He mentioned that bicycle projects in the bicycle network could work in the Community Plan, but that they could not be cleared ahead of the Bicycle Plan
· Toby pointed out that there could be a conflict at Harrison and Ninth Streets, due to the fact that a pedestrian crossing is due to be located there, but regional traffic uses those streets.
· Chester Fung mentioned that the TA is in favor of good pedestrian crossings in the area. Toby mentioned that she would like to see a focus on safety/amenities, but also a better focus on specific areas.
The next Transportation Group meeting is scheduled to be held on Wednesday, January 9 at the same time and location. Tom announced that Agenda Item 3b. would be covered, along with other issues.
