June 11, 2008

Transportation Focus Group
Meeting Notes by Charles Rivasplata

Marc Salomon served as chair of the Focus Group meeting and called the meeting to order (Calendar Item 1). He started by asking for a count of the Task Force members present. A quorum was reached with four members present. During the meeting, a maximum of eight individuals were in attendance.

The following bullets summarize the principal topics discussed at the meeting:

· Jim Meko reported that Mayor Gavin Newsome had included the $200,000 request for the Western SoMa EIR in the City's proposed FY 2008-09 budget. While this may not be enough to fully analyze the Plan, at least it reflects what was previously agreed upon by the City (Calendar Item 2).

· Jim also announced that a Draft Plan had been released to Task Force members at the 25 May meeting, and that in order to incorporate input from the various committee meetings, committee reports would be submitted prior to release of the final Draft Community Plan in July. He mentioned that between June and October, the Draft Plan will go through modifications as it passes through the review process.

· Marc called attention to the Western SoMa Streets Network Map, included as part of the Western SoMa Community Plan (Calendar Item 3). Charles Rivasplata explained that the only modification requested by the Focus Group in May was the removal of arrows on the bicycle route and bicycle lane symbols. He reminded members that in May, the Focus Group unanimously approved the map, with the understanding that the symbols would be modified.

· Andy Harris, a Western SoMa resident, raised the need for a mid-block crossing across7^th Street at Minna. His principal reason for requesting this addition is to ensure that that there is a smoother flow of pedestrians.

· As far as making additional changes to the Plan or map is concerned, Tom Radulovich suggested that the Task Force look at two levels of modification:

- EIR improvements made as part of the plan; and

- further changes made through new policies in the Plan (require longer wait).

· Marc mentioned that most likely, the addition of mid-block crossings with signals may generate changes in level of service (LOS) on the affected streets. He suggested that they be placed on equal footing with other LOS changes in the area.

· Tom remarked that the Municipal Transportation Authority (MTA) has claimed that it is easier to install mid-block crossings on one-way streets, as opposed to two-way streets. This argument supports the case for one-way streets.

· Jim mentioned that a representative of SOMPAC hesitated supporting the application of mid-block crossings on 7^th Street, claiming that  people in cars simply don't stop and that the crossings put people at risk. Focus Group members expressed some concern with this viewpoint.

· Tom believes that all crossings should be clearly designated, employing bulb-outs and other physical treatments where necessary. He suggested listing five priority mid-block crossings for the Community Plan and the EIR, and including the next level of crossings (e.g., on 10^th Street, Ringold) afterwards. He pointed out that the Draft Plan could show exactly what the community wants. Later, somewhat flexible language could be used, much like in the Market-Octavia planning process. Tom pointed out that the Task Force should consider adding the new crosswalks for study. This list of additional crosswalks could then appear on a separate sheet.

· Megan Wier suggested that the map distinguish between crossings that are signalized and those that are not. This distinction would give the user a better idea of the pedestrian resources available.

· Andy Harris called attention to the fact that alleys often have another meaning in other cities, where there is a distinction between these and small streets. Tom and Jim suggested that the Community Plan reflect this, perhaps referring to them as  small streets and alleys.

· Tom announced that the appointed Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) of the Transit Effectiveness Project (TEP) would be presented with suggested changes to the TEP at a future meeting, and that meetings on the capital budget for the changes would be discussed soon, perhaps by the end of June (Calendar Item 4).

· Marc said that the MTA is currently holding off comment on the suggested changes presented by the Focus Group at the May TEP meeting in SoMa. Despite widespread community support for the Task Force's four suggested changes, it is not yet clear that the MTA will make those changes.

· Tom reported that the MTA had not yet identified the capital cost estimates for their proposed service changes, but that when they are released, these will reveal the costs of many of the projects. At its board meeting on 20 June, the MTA will report on these estimates for the first time and funding will need to be identified.

· Tom reminded the Focus Group that the TEP is intended to be a medium-term plan that will be phased in over seven years, beginning in 2009. As a result, we should not expect all projects to be implemented immediately.

· Jim emphasized the need to stay ahead of the MTA on the principal TEP issues and the recommendations presented by the Task Force.

· According to Tom, Judson True of the MTA told him that the recommendations developed by the Western SoMa Task Force were the clearest of any presented to them at the community meetings. He suggested discussing changes with the MTA Commissioners, although a meeting may actually be difficult to set up.

· Focus Group members expressed concern for the way that the MTA has failed to open an ongoing dialogue with the community, as evidenced through the proposals to remove transit service on Folsom street west of 8^th Street. He suggested asking the MTA how it is spending Transit Impact Development Fees (TIDF) to serve the residents of Western SoMa. Non-residential buildings currently pay these fees and have a right to know how revenues are being spent. MTA should be accountable to the community.

· Marc suggested developing a process whereby Muni expenditures (under TIDF) could effectively be rationalized.

· Charles pointed out that Draft Community Plan Objective 4.30 actually supports the concept of developing a  public benefit package that will generate revenues for financing transit, bicycle and pedestrian improvements.

· Andy Harris stated that it is important to have transit service options. These should include not only alternatives along parallel streets, but also good transit connections at key points).

· Jim went over the tentative schedule of Western SoMa planning process milestones targeted for completion over the coming months (Calendar Item 5).

– A special workshop will be held in July (in place of the monthly meeting) to inform members of the draft document and the process of review and adoption.

– A series of Community Plan presentations will be made at the Planning Commission in early August.

– Public comment on the Draft Plan will be taken at the August Task Force meeting, i.e., each remark duly recorded, categorized and a response given.

– The Task Force will hold open office hours with the community between July and October, with Jim and Paul Lord serving as primary contacts.

– Some Task Force members will make themselves available to speak on the Draft Plan at community meetings during this period.

– The final draft of Community Plan will be presented at the October Task Force meeting, and the environmental review process will be initiated.

· Marc and other meeting participants reviewed a list of possible agenda items for future Focus Group meetings (Calendar Item 6). The two items identified for future meetings were a.) the question surrounding parking minimums and maximums for commercial and residential development; and b.) a status report on nexus fee studies and impact development fees in place.

· Tom mentioned that based on his conversations with traffic engineers, a Valencia Street-style street reconfiguration could be implemented on streets with less than 20,000 average daily vehicles. This modification would involve transitioning a four-lane street (two lanes in each direction) to a three-lane street with one lane in each direction and a left-turn lane in the middle. Others expressed interest in this concept.

· Jim announced new business (Calendar Item 7), which centered on a discussion on the future of the Task Force and its corresponding committees. He called for this topic to be included in the agenda for the next meeting. Should some committees be merged? Should schedules be changed? Should committees be added?

· Tom suggested that the Transportation Focus Group might consider merging with the Complete Neighborhood group, since they both share common interests.

· Chester Fung announced that a grant for $60,000 might be available to partly fund implementation work in Western SoMa once the Plan has been finished. Jim, Marc, Tom and others expressed interest in this prospect.

All items on the Transportation Focus Group's calendar were covered. The next meeting of the Transportation Focus Group is scheduled for Wednesday, 9 July 2008, at the same time and location.