January 9, 2008

Transportation Focus Group

Meeting Notes by Charles Rivasplata

Marc Salomon chaired the meeting, placing emphasis on the need to make it through the entire agenda that evening.

The following points summarize the central topics and concerns discussed at the meeting:

· Marc stressed the distinction between community-serving and city-serving streets in Western SoMa. The first refers to two-way streets that encourage residential development and where speeds are normally 25 m.p.h. or less. City-serving streets are thoroughfares that normally carry a significant level of traffic.

· Tom Radulovich mentioned that he discussed the issue of street configurations in the Western SoMa with engineers at DPT (MTA). He expressed the need to make changes to the one-way scheme for some streets. This might include a phased-in approach from one way to two-way. Charles Rivasplata pointed out that he is working with Better Streets staff to develop conceptual designs for Folsom that could feature both one-way (first phase) and two-way (later phase).

· The transportation map for the Western SoMa was presented, however Charles said that no further changes had been made since early December, due to the absence of project and graphics staff from AND during the holidays. He said that comments from the December 2007 and present meetings would be incorporated into the map.

· Jim Meko questioned the need to take any action on the transportation map if the direction and configuration of some of the streets had not been determined. Under these conditions, he didn't see how anything could be adopted.

· Marc and Tom explained that the map would be improved, but that its major role was as a tool for conceptually understanding the principal proposals for transportation in the Western SoMa. They said that the details of the map are not as important.

· A member of the public suggested that the Sixth/Brannan intersection needs to be more clearly designated as a gateway. Toby Levy, Jim and others were of the opinion that the band used to represent the freeway needed to be toned down (e.g., removing the black borders). They also commented that bicycle lanes should be distinguished from bicycle routes and lanes should be included at Howard/Thirteenth, Polk and Tenth/Market.

· Marc introduced the issue of eliminating minimum residential parking requirements in the Western SoMa SUD (Item 3a.), stating that it had been done in other parts of the city, such as the Downtown. Charles discussed the staff recommendation in favor of eliminating minimum requirements (see handout), based on the need to generate benefits: unbunding of housing, less local traffic and greater demand for transit.

· The vote on eliminating residential minimums was taken, with the Task Force members voting as follows: 7 in favor, 0 against and 0 abstaining (7-0-0). The vote of public attendees was 1-0-0.

· Following the sequence of agenda items, Toby proposed that a vote be taken on maximum allowable parking ratios in the Western SoMa. She favored taking a stepped approach leading up to a maximum ratio of 0.75 (space/dwelling). She felt that this system should be based on the availability of parking, as well as the need to avoid interfering with transit, bicycles and pedestrians.

· While largely favoring the staff recommendation to establish a 0.5 ratio for residential (by right), Tom asked whether steps should be taken to effectively require a Section 309 (Planning Code) requirement for proposals above a certain level. He reminded the Group that any unit with two or more bathrooms would be allowed to have a 1.0 ratio (1:1).

· Toby argued that because transit service and pedestrian facilities in Western SoMa are not as good as they should be, more should be done to make sure that some parking is provided. Without minimums, developers can get away with not having to provide anything. She felt that the Task Force has to be realistic, providing some parking space.

· Tom again clarified that the proposal before the Focus Group was to allow ratios of

- 1.0 for units with two bedrooms or more;

- 0.5 by right; and

- 0.75, under a Sec. 309 (staff level) review, involving criteria for better parking.

· The vote on setting the above-mentioned maximum allowable parking ratios was taken, with the Task Force members voting 6-0-1. Public attendees voted 1-0-0.

· Charles presented the staff recommendation for permitting off-street parking for both residential and non-residential uses in the Western SoMa (Item 4), suggesting a maximum distance of 800 feet from building entrance to parking space in both cases.

· Toby did not see the need to approve this proposal, as there would no longer be residential minimums and therefore, little need for parking. What isn't clear is the level of parking that would actually be provided in residential areas.

· Tom made a distinction between accessory parking and parking as a principal use, the former referring to the requirement to provide parking for a specific use (e.g., 1:1 in most residential areas), and the latter being the amount of parking provided to the public. In concept, this item is referring more to the former than the latter, as there would have to be a need for off-site parking (by right).

· Staff was asked to explore the idea of placing limits on parking as a principal use, as well as other alternatives

· Toby posed the following question: if there were a limit on parking in a building (as a principal use), could incentives be established to allow accessory uses from multiple buildings to be shared in an off-site garage?

· On Item 5c., Tom explained that the Western SoMa Task Force wishes to have this SUD removed from the parking belt described in the General Plan. He provided a brief history of the parking belt and gave a number of reasons for excluding it in the Western SoMa (e.g., Rincon Hill was excluded)

· The vote on removing Western SoMa from the General Plan's parking belt was taken, with the Task Force members voting 7-0-0. Public attendees voted 1-0-0.

· In response to a question from Susan Hagen Contreras, both Tom and Marc reiterated that these votes (on the part of the Focus Group) are only advisory in nature.

· Charles went over staff recommendations for non-residential minimum parking requirements for certain areas of the Western SoMa (Item 5). Staff recommends that north of Harrison, the RSD, RED, and SLR districts not have minimum requirements due to their proximity to transit service (as one alternative to the car). South of Harrison, the SLI and SSO districts should retain their minimums, in most cases, a flat 1:1000 square foot ratio.

· Toby said that the area needs commercially viable areas, and that regulations should not be punishing related uses. She was in favor of having minimums north of Harrison, but she said that she could see loosening things up. Her principal concern is for cases where developers are not required to provide enough parking. The Trader Joe example near Geary was mentioned – very little parking is provided, but traffic congestion in the areas has gotten worse.

· Toby brought up the case of a 50,000 square foot company going into the SLI. It would certainly need parking for many of its employees. Tom countered that this would not happen in SLI, but more likely in areas north ofHarrison.

· Tom suggested that an onerous process be put in place south of Harrison. He argued that in most cases, it is better to not provide any parking than to provide only a little, based on the contention that motorists often queue for only a few spaces (often, with the false hopes that they will move into one of them).

· Tom moved that the Focus Group vote on the following proposal: accept staff recommendation with two exceptions:

1.) that non-residential minimum parking requirements for the SSO be eliminated (as with the RED, RSD, and SLR districts north of Harrison), based on the proximity of these areas along Townsend to transit (e.g., Caltrain, Muni); and

2.) that the SLI district have an appeal process for developers, i.e., for reuse projects, projects of up to 10,000 square feet, and historic buildings.

· Tom noted that the Group needs to look at criteria for requiring parking in the SLI. Staff should bring back the following: SLI criteria developed with special approval – one could go below the minimum with a c.u. and special conditions.

· The vote on removing non-residential minimum parking requirements was taken, with the Task Force members voting 6-1-0. Public attendees voted 1-0-0.

· Tom next presented street sections for Folsom and Howard that he discussed with the MTA (Item 6). They discussed the inclusion of mid block crossings and transit in both directions. The following dimensions are existing and proposed street widths (in feet):

Existing street 10 - 8 - 11 - 10 - 10 - 5 - 8 - 10

Alternative 1 15 - 8 - 10 - 10 - 10 - 8 - 8 - 15

Alternative 2 15 - 8 - 10 - 10 - 10 - 8 - 8 - 15

· In looking at how to configure the 82-foot street, Tom said that some problems did arise. Marc floated the idea of introducing angled parking on Folsom and entertained ways that it could be done.

· Tom said that the Task Force could insist on a specific street design if it so desires, however, he pointed out that it would probably have to fight the MTA on this. A probable result is that that the EIR process would take a long time to complete.

· In response to this, Tobi called for developing Valencia-like designs for Folsom and Howard Streets. She pointed out that the problem is not so much volumes on Folsom, as it is speeds. Megan Wier pointed out that there is a correlation between two-way streets, speeds and the number of deaths.

· There was then a motion to introduce Valencia-like street design on Folsom and Howard. On this issue, the Task Force members voted 7-0-0. No Public attendees voted on this issue.

· Tom and others then discussed the need to provide 10-minute headways on Folsom. He referred to a 13-minute headway threshold above which users are far less inclined to take transit. He argued that if intervals are set at 10 minutes or below, almost all potential riders will be attracted to transit because they will not need to consult a service timetable.

· The vote on making 10-minute headways a service requirement (for Folsom) was taken, with the Task Force members voting 7-0-1. No public attendees were present.

· Marc called for items of new business. It was agreed that for the next meeting, the Focus Group would discuss the possibility of recommending that Seventh, Eleventh and Twelfth Streets also be redesigned along the Valencia model.

The next Transportation Group meeting is scheduled to be held on Wednesday, February 13, at the same time and location. The only piece not totally covered in the agenda was Item 7. It is anticipated that this and other issues will be held over for next time.