July 9, 2008Transportation 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 roll call of the Task Force members present. During the meeting, a maximum of ten individuals were in attendance: six Task Force members, two City staff and two members of the public.
The following bullets summarize the principal issues raise by meeting participants:
· Jim Meko announced that the upcoming workshop (held in lieu of the July Task Force meeting) has been scheduled for Saturday, 2 August, between 10:00 and 2:00, at the Folsom/Dore Apartments Community Room, 1346 Folsom Street (between 9th and 10th Streets). Further details on the workshop will be distributed to members (Calendar Item 2).
· Charles Rivasplata and Paul Lord presented a summary of the recent meeting that they attended (along with Jim) on theSumner Street project. They gave a description of the proposed street vacation and pedestrian treatments discussed at that meeting, as well as the Sumner group's application for funding through a local source.
· Charles and Paul also summarized a meeting that they attended at the offices of the San Francisco County Transportation Authority (SFCTA). That meeting was held in response to a funding opportunity announced by Chester Fung at the June Focus Group meeting. Tilly Chang, Planning Director of the SFCTA, reviewed the general framework for applying for funding through the Community Based Transportation Plan (CBTP) Program, supported by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). She emphasized the need for technical analysis and a prioritization of the projects put forth. She also touched on the issue of project administration (who should lead the effort) and the creation of a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). Soon, she will provide the Planning Dept. with a formal letter of response to its inquiry into the funding program.
· Tom Radulovich expressed interest in inviting Zabe Bent of the SFCTA to give a presentation concerning the ongoing congestion pricing (MAPS) project to the Focus Group in August. He mentioned that the SFCTA recently presented alternative ideas for administering a congestion pricing scheme in the downtown, and suggested that Western SoMa present its viewpoints on these ideas. There was widespread support for inviting her.
· Paul pointed out that the Focus Group urgently needs to focus on priorities and specificities in the Community Plan. He stated that there were a number of items on the agenda that required Task Force input and action.
· For example, Paul said that the Focus Group needed to discuss the application of neighborhood gateways near freeway entrances leading into the Western SoMa (Calendar Item 3). He posed questions as to how they should be designed, where they should be located and with whom the Task Force should coordinate.
· Tom was of the opinion that the gateways should be solid state in nature, clearly indicating to the motorist that she/he is entering a neighborhood and needs to slow down. He believed that two principal treatments are to narrow lanes coming from the freeway and to change the crosswalk pavement texture. As previously explained, the principal aim of the gateway concept is to force the motorist to think about taking safety precautions when driving through the Western SoMa area.
· Marc suggested that rumble strips be located at freeway exits to initially alert motorists that they are entering a neighborhood. Upon exiting the freeway, they would next encounter speed limit signs and/or flashing vehicle speed indicators (e.g., solar-powered), prompting them to decrease speed.
· Paul posed a question to the Focus Group concerning how they might locate these gateway facilities. For example, at Fifth and Harrison Streets, what areas of the roadway should receive these treatments? Should there be treatments on Fifth, Harrison, or both streets?
· Tom mentioned that there needs to be a carefully designed set of facilities for slowing down the motorist leaving the freeway. He believed that signage and physical gateways are the best tools for achieving this objective. He suggested that a study look at the gateway treatments already considered by the Focus Group (rather than a whole new set of alternatives), based on a set of priorities. He theorized that this work would more effectively lead to the implementation of capital projects
· Tom cited gateway treatments already implemented in the Cayuga/Mission Terrace neighborhood, west of the Balboa Park Station. There, small gateway treatments have already been implemented along both San Jose and Alemany Boulevards. Paul suggested that staff take a field trip to this neighborhood to take pictures of these facilities, although some cautioned that it is easier to alter streets than it is to alter freeways, as the latter entails a lengthy process of approval from Caltrans.
· A member of the public called attention to treatments introduced in other parts of the city, such as bus bulbs at the corner of Eddy and Larkin Streets in the Tenderloin/ Little Saigon neighborhood.
· Marc announced that the next item to be discussed was the future of the Western SoMa Task Force and its committees and focus group (Calendar Item 4).
· Jim mentioned that there is some overlap between the Transportation and Complete Neighborhood Fabric committees, prompting the need to perhaps, collapse them into one committee. He said that this subject was already discussed at the last Task Force meeting. In addition to Jim's points, mention was made of creating separate planning and implementation committees once the Community Plan nears completion.
· Paul remarked that he believes that both planning and implementation have to be looked at together, as there needs to be coordination. He also mentioned that there are ties between Transportation and the Business/Land Use Committee (which he chairs), and that the committee could address transportation-related aspects.
· Marc said that the Focus Group should look at Plan deliverables when assessing future committee work programs and commitments. These deliverables should consider zoning, design controls and other relevant issues.
· Paul addressed the rigorous schedule that lies ahead for the Western SoMa citizen planners. There is much to do and as the Plan approaches its public comment phase, the Task Force has to be careful to avoid committee burnout.
· Sue Hagen-Contreras mentioned that there are ongoing problems in dealing with the MTA, and that the agency could prove to be an obstacle for the Focus Group and the Task Force.
· Marc cautioned combining committees, arguing that it could end up overwhelming committees with a large volume of work. Prior to collapsing committees, he believes that issues must be addressed in their initial committees.
· Tom said that he believes that the Focus Group needs to start establishing an implementation watchdog that could make sure that elements of the Plan are implemented. He argued that issues will soon be shifting from planning to implementation (e.g., the achievement of plan goals and objectives tied to the TEP).
· Jim remarked that it would be healthy to restructure the committees at the end of 2008. Anthony Faber suggested picking a time to effectively shut things down on the committees.
· Paul mentioned that work done by the San Francisco State University (SFSU) students is worth looking over. In their report, the students provided a set of suggestions for dealing with post-adoption issues.
· Marc suggested embracing a requirement that was proposed as part of the Better Neighborhood Plus effort. City agencies would be required to work together and carefully monitor plan progress on different levels. He pointed out that this could avoid the independent decision making that often characterizes interagency relations.
· On a related issue, Tom mentioned that he spoke with Bridget Smith, Acting Deputy Director for Planning at the MTA, concerning the idea of organizing transportation work at the agency along geographic lines, rather than according to mode. Bridget said that the agency had recently undergone numerous reorganizations and that it wasn't likely that they would do any in the near future. Nevertheless, Tom and other Focus Group members would like to see the MTA designate a SoMa planner at some point to work with the Task Force.
· In closing the discussion on committee reorganization, Jim entertained the idea of exploring a whole new framework for organizing Western SoMa committees, according to the needs of the Task Force. Tom suggested that each committee assess what needs to be done and that the Task Force go from there.
· Charles presented meeting participants with a table describing the existing and proposed residential and non-residential parking requirements for Western SoMa, along with a table containing the corresponding parking requirements proposed under the Eastern Neighborhoods projects (Calendar Item 5).
· Focus Group participants were largely in agreement that residential minimums be eliminated and that maximums be set. Tom suggested that the Focus Group consider alternatives for dealing with nonresidential maximums:
- make the existing minimums maximums
- north of Harrison , allocate a maximum of 7% of gross floor area to parking
He had a third alternative, but later decided to remove it from consideration.
· Paul suggested that unless the Focus group had major objections, he recommended that the existing minimum parking requirements become maximum requirements.
· Tom asked where the SALI should fits into the table. Paul answered that the SALI is the same as PDR-1 in the Eastern Neighborhoods. He also pointed out that in the new MUO zoning district, many uses would be allowed.
· Tom suggested setting non-residential maximums in terms of percentage of gross floor area, particularly for areas north of Harrison. South of Harrison, he suggested using maximum ratios, i.e., parking spaces per square foot of a specific use. In essence, he recommended the following:
- new maximums = 100% of previous minimums;
- new maximums = 150% of previous minimums with conditional use approval.
He recommended that Focus Group participants look at the table in Section 151 of the Planning Code, and to note if there are figures that seem inconsistent.
· There was a discussion concerning mid-box developments in Western SoMa. Tom suggested that the Focus Group look at these developments and calculate the amount of parking normally required.
· Marc expressed interest in the residential maximums assumed under the Eastern Neighborhoods proposal; however, he argued that in the case of units with two or more bedrooms, one space per unit should only be allowed for affordable housing.
· Megan Wier asked if many areas were zoned MUG in East SoMa. Paul responded that yes, along the Townsend Street Corridor.
· Tom reiterated his point that Commission approval of higher maximums should only be permitted through a conditional use process.
· For residential areas north of Harrison in the Western SoMa, Paul and Marc discussed the possibility of requiring parking maximums of 0.25 (1:4) as of right and 0.75 (3:4) with conditional use approval.
· Tom remarked that he wants the Western SoMa parking requirements to be consistent with the proposed Eastern Neighborhood requirements, but doesn't want to accept everything, particularly if some Task Force members do not agree with provisions.
· Paul announced that a new table would be presented at next month's meeting, based on revised parking requirements agreed upon at this meeting. It will include proposed maximums and minimums for residential and nonresidential in Western SoMa.
· Paul went over the list of possible Western SoMa projects that the Planning Dept. plans to discuss with the MTA (Calendar Item 6). He requested that the Focus Group think of what they would like to have studied in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), i.e., it should include items that are not being studied in some other environmental document.
· Tom and Marc identified the highest priority projects for study:
- gateway treatments (all locations identified);
- mid-block crossings, primarily those on Folsom; and
- one-way to two-way street conversions, essentially, 7th /8th and Folsom/Howard
· Tom remarked that he wants to ensure that all first level priority mid-block crossings be brought forth for review. For example, he pointed out that the crossing near Folsom and 11th Street should be cleared in the EIR.
· Marc suggested that the crossing near 9th and Ringold Streets also be included in the first level priority crossings.
· Paul said that in addition to the MTA, he would like Task Force members to weigh-in on the list, prioritizing each project relative to:
- environmental clearance
- implementation schedule
· Paul explained that the discussion with Jerry Robbins of the MTA would be held next Monday. Staff will be especially anxious to see what projects the MTA feels are easiest to implement from an agency standpoint.
· In addition, Paul informed the Focus Group that a separate meeting would be scheduled with Bill Wycko, the Planning Department's Environmental Review Officer (ERO), to see which of these projects require environmental review.
· Under new business, Jim announced that a meeting would be held next Wednesday (16 July) at 6:00 to discuss alleyway projects (Calendar Item 7).
· On another subject, Tom suggested that, similar to the Year 2000 goals established in the Downtown Plan of the 1980s, the Community Plan set specific goals for the Western SoMa. These goals would be based on performance and broader transportation goals. At the next meeting, staff will discuss potential ways of establishing targets for the neighborhood.
This meeting addressed all of the items placed on the Transportation Focus Group's meeting calendar. The next meeting of the Transportation Focus Group is scheduled for Wednesday, 13 August 2008, at the same time and location.
