August 13, 2008

Transportation Focus Group
Meeting Notes by Charles Rivasplata

Marc Salomon chaired the Focus Group meeting, calling it to order (Calendar Item 1). During the meeting, a maximum of ten individuals were in attendance: seven Task Force members and three City staff.

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

· Under announcements (Calendar Item 2), Jim Meko brought up the recent revisions to the TEP plan released by the MTA last week. He praised the agency's efforts to incorporate the comments submitted by Western SoMa and specifically, its decision to provide bus service on Folsom and other key streets in the area (e.g., 7^th/8^th and Townsend Streets).

· Elizabeth (Zabe) Bent of the San Francisco County Transportation Authority (SFCTA) gave an update on the Mobility, Access and Pricing Study, or MAPS (Calendar Item 3). A major focal point of the effort is the implementation of a congestion pricing strategy near downtown. She said that the study will analyze packages that combine mobility pricing with transit improvements, traffic flow improvements and other projects. Congestion pricing is seen as a vehicle for achieving local goals (e.g., environmental).

· Based on past studies and the TA Model, Zabe described some of the existing commute patterns. For example, there were increases in congestion in some areas (e.g., inability of transit to serve). In addition, Zabe identified other problems with the existing transportation system:

- increased congestion in some areas

- declining performance

- inability on the part of transit to serve commuter needs

· Two major objectives of the MAPS are to set up a program that will allow the City to plan for future development in a responsible manner, and offer more sustainable mode choices for commuters. To this end, Zabe listed some committees that have been formed to adequately address the concerns of different groups (e.g., citizens, agency representatives). She pointed out that the negative impacts of transportation need to be mitigated for health and economic reasons, in order to achieve the level of sustainability targeted by the City.

· Zabe mentioned international examples of successful congestion pricing programs in London, Stockholm and Singapore. London's system is based on electronic charges within a specific area of the city during certain hours of the day. The other two systems are based on cordon area schemes.

· Two possible options were identified for San Francisco:

- a program focused on the most congested areas: Civic center, Downtown, SoMa

- a program focused on major gateways into/out of the City.

· Key pricing program concerns include equity issues for users, and outside impacts on the economy. Both low-income and high-income residents have expressed interest in this program. On the business side, the SFCTA is concerned that the economy is not adversely affected by the change in policy in the area.

· Anthony Faber mentioned that there will still be a significant proportion of the population that will tend to not come into the City due to chronic traffic problems.

· The SFCTA has systematically reached out to the city and the region to improve transit attractiveness across the study area. Presently, it is seeking to find what it is that the area wants in terms of services.

· Marc felt that it was important that people know when they are entering a congestion pricing area. He also addressed the need to apply the congestion pricing program where congestion is greatest, rather than areas where there is little congestion.

· Paul Lord asked whether local SoMa residents would be exempted from having to pay congestion tolls, would receive a discount, or would be expected to pay in full.

· Zabe mentioned that the SFCTA is considering many different options for offering exemptions and/or/discounts to special groups (e.g., local residents of the area, taxi drivers, emergency vehicle operators, transit operators).

· Tom Radulovich addressed the need to generate a set of benefits for not only the motorists and local residents, but everyone else.

· Marc recommended that citizen advisory committees (CACs) be included in the overall planning for the MAPS project.

· Chester Fung discussed the SFCTA's recent letter concerning funding opportunities (up to $100,000) for the community planning process in Western SoMa (Calendar Item 4). In the past, the agency has provided funding for community outreach (e.g., knowledge of the project); as well as technical assistance in analyzing conditions and alternatives. This focus generates the following questions:

1. Is there a group that the SFCTA can work with?

2. What is the scope of analysis for technical study?

· Paul asked that the SFCTA clearly indicate the guidelines for requesting funds. What does the Western SoMa Task Force need to do to be a recipient, i.e., what are the legal requirements for being considered?

· Zabe responded that recipient groups must be legally identified and have a fiscal agent. She mentioned that there are a variety of arrangements available to prospective groups. The Task Force must eventually identify what they want to do.

· Zabe said that the SFCTA would organize a competitive process for awarding work. She also mentioned that the specific arrangements surrounding the project do not have to be identified immediately.

· Tom mentioned that the funding should get through environmental review to make it project ready. He identified the following prerequisites:

- prioritization;

- assurance that issues are studied through better coordination.

· Paul explained that in the past, there have been obstacles to interagency coordination, however, he pointed out that in the case of the Western SoMa work, the MTA and the MEA section of the Planning Department have been approached since the early stages. He asked how a CAC might be perpetuated so that it could work with consultants, etc.

· Chester mentioned that the money could be distributed

- to a few big ticket projects; or

- to a number of smaller, high priority projects.

This second strategy could effectively leave the largest projects for later.

· Paul requested that Chester assist Charles in bringing agenda items to the group (as part of a work program), for the purposes of developing and drafting a funding proposal by December.

· Tom suggested that project cost estimates be given some order of magnitude, so that some program place-holders could be established and projects could be prioritized systematically. This way, money could be used to leverage other grants, i.e., to get things going. He also remarked that better coordination is needed for master projects.

· Marc pointed out that the group needs to scope out projects to determine the costs involved in implementation (e.g., megaprojects, mid-block crossings).

· On the subject of parking maximums in the Western SoMa (Calendar Item 5), Charles Rivasplata reviewed the parking minimums and maximums discussed at the July meeting. At that meeting, the group proposed that there be no parking minimums, and that parking maximums take the form of 7% of gross square footage for commercial and .25 space per unit by right for residential. With a conditional use (CU) permit this could be increased to 0.75 in residential districts

· Sue Hagen-Contreras had concerns with the 0.25 ratio, based on the belief that it might be too difficult for households.

· Marc proposed modifying the maximum parking ratio in NCT districts, from 0.75 to 0.50, based on the fact that transit service is or will be plentiful there.

· Paul further elaborated on this alternative, proposing to pull out NCT from the other districts allowing a maximum of 0.75, and allowing it only a ratio of 0.50. It was also mentioned that while Eastern Neighborhoods (EN) allows up to 0.75 with a CU, the Transbay and Market Octavia projects only allow up to 0.50 with a CU in areas near transit. That is to say, the proposed 0.50 limit with a CU is consistent with other, surrounding plans.

· A vote was taken on the proposal to establish the parking minimums and maximums as described above. Task Force members voted 5-0-1 (for, against or abstained) to propose the 0.50 maximum in NCT.

· The Community Priorities Survey was distributed to meeting participants (Calendar Item 6). Charles asked everyone present to fill one out. He explained that the survey would provide the Task Force and Planning Department staff with a prioritized list of the projects proposed in the Draft Community Plan.

· Next, Charles explained the proposed meeting schedule changes for September, October and November (Calendar Item 7), which were requested in response to some conflicts that he had with attending Wednesday meetings in the fall. The new schedule proposed holding meetings on September 23, October 7 and November 4 (all Tuesdays), between 6:00 and 8:00 p.m. These modifications were accepted by the Focus Group.

· Under new business (Calendar Item 8), Tom brought up the benefits program and his concern that EN is collecting fees in its four component areas, and that revenues be shifted amongst them. He voiced concerns that these revenues from SoMa would not be spent in Western SoMa. He wondered how Western SoMa could coordinate with East SoMa and surrounding areas. He stated that once East SoMa gets to the Board of Supervisors in the next few weeks, the Task Force needs to clarify the role of the SUD in the larger EN realm.

· Paul assured the group that there is ongoing coordination between Western SoMa and EN in the Planning Department. He mentioned that Sarah Dennis of the Planning Department would attend the Neighborhood Fabric meeting on September 18 and give a presentation on the public benefits program. Paul believes that Western SoMa cannot be separated from the rest of SoMa, and that it needs to be integrated into the larger SoMa planning process.

· Tom expressed interest in inviting Jon Swae to the next Focus Group meeting (in September) to discuss the EN Trips project.

· Finally, Marc asked that Townsend Street (and MTA's recent projects there) be discussed (with MTA participation) at the next Focus Group meeting.

This meeting addressed all calendar items on the agenda. The next meeting of the Transportation Focus Group is scheduled for Tuesday, 23 September 2008 at the same time (6:00-8:00 p.m.), in Room 278 of City Hall.