September 23, 2008

Transportation Focus Group
Meeting Notes by Charles Rivasplata

Tom Radulovich chaired the Focus Group meeting, held in Room 278 of City Hall. Without a quorum, he called the meeting to order (Calendar Item 1). At the outset, there were eight attendees; however, Marc Salomon arrived later, bringing the total attendance to nine and providing a quorum, i.e., a minimum of four Task Force members.

There were a number of new faces in the meeting, so Tom again explained the structure of the Transportation Focus Group and how it not only encourages comments from Western SoMa Task Force members, but also from city agency representatives and members of the general public.

Given the widespread interest of many neighborhood groups in the Western SoMa Plan, Jim Meko emphasized the need to leave enough time towards the end of the meeting for new business and public comment.

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

· Under announcements (Calendar Item 2), Jim mentioned that at the 24 September Task Force meeting, action items will include a review of the calendar for the last two months of 2008, and definition of what constitutes a minority report.

· Paul Lord announced that at the 18 September meeting, the Planning Commission advanced the Western SoMa project to the environmental analysis (EIR) stage.

· Jim said that he'll separate out issues for individual votes at next month's Planning Commission meeting. He mentioned that he had been told by Planning Director John Rahaim that the full build-out scenario will be defined in the EIR.

· Tom reported that the MTA Board will be considering all comments on the Transit Effectiveness Project (TEP) at a 21 October meeting. He requested that the TEP be placed on the calendar for the 7 October Focus Group meeting, and that participants bring any final comments that they have on the project.

· Next, Jon Swae discussed the components of the community benefits program for Eastern Neighborhoods, or EN (Calendar Item 3). He described the development impact fee as the cornerstone of funding and distributed a one-page handout with tables indicating the proposed fees and what they cover. He further described components of the fee structure:

- residential development fees of $8-16 per sq. ft., based on height increase;

- non-residential development fees ranging from$16-24 per sq. ft.

· Paul remarked that in the Western SoMa, all development will be within the $8-12 range for residential, and $16-20 range for non-residential development.

· Jon explained that for non-residential, buildings are assessed a rate of $10.00 per sq. ft. through the Transit Impact Development Fee (TIDF). Under Tier 1, EN building developers would only pay an additional $4.40, bringing the grand total to $14.40 per sq.ft. That is to say, the $10.00 per sq. ft. rate would cover transit and the additional $4.40 would cover all other transport costs.

· Amit Ghosh pointed out that there are many overlapping components to deal with in the funding of transportation projects. It is important to identify and sort each of them out.

· Tom mentioned that the local neighborhood should be given the opportunity to clearly see the benefits stemming from fees paid (e.g., parking management schemes proposed by SF Park). This will give them confidence that these revenues are efficiently going toward transportation improvements.

· According to Jon, all fees would probably yield anywhere from $100-$150 million over a period of twenty years, between now and about 2030. Of that amount, approximately, $50–75 million is expected to go toward transportation projects.

· In terms of investing the fee revenues collected, Tom asked if there is anything to prevent allocating the fees stemming from Western SoMa projects to projects in the Western SoMa.

· In response, Paul mentioned that during the EIR process, Supervisor Chris Daly could legislate the collection of these fees for local allocation in the Western SoMa area.

· Along the lines of new sources of revenue, Paul brought up the idea of having parking meters installed on Folsom Street (e.g., between Seventh and Tenth Streets) to generate funding for local projects.

· Tom pointed out that some of the money coming out of pots of money can currently be made available to the neighborhoods, as long as it is MTA that implements it. Perhaps, legislation could be passed to allow other city agencies to use a specific percentage of the money. He mentioned that Western SoMa has already identified specific projects that it wants funded through the Plan. He asked where EN would propose projects.

· Jon said that the nexus study identified the linkages between what is needed for transportation and what can be raised in revenue. He also mentioned that the nexus study for EN is now available for review on the EN website.

· Tom expressed confidence that fees could be collected locally and spent in the nexus study area, but was concerned that the Western SoMa neighborhood is represented on a future EN Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC). It is essential that Western SoMa has a voice.

· Tom mentioned that the entire SoMa area actually consists of a number of plans, including Western SoMa, East SoMa, Redevelopment efforts, Rincon Hill, and Transbay, and that more needs to be done for the entire SoMa area. He likes the idea of organizing a group that can get together to discuss transportation issues at length.

· Amit argued that there will need to be a marriage of CAC actions with city agency staff coordination and Western SoMa Task Force review and approval.

· Suzanne Chen-Harding mentioned that the EN Trips project has received a sizeable grant for working on specific projects with the assistance of staff and consultants. It will move forward in the short-term with data collection, but is looking for additional funding through other grants. This would provide transportation funding above the $50–75 million already anticipated from impact fees.

· Paul and Charles Rivasplata briefly went over recent discussions that they have had with Chester Fung of the San Francisco County Transportation Authority (SFCTA) concerning the use of $100,000 in funding for planning improvements in the Western SoMa. Chester mentioned two options: use of the funds on numerous projects; or focus on a few large projects. Staff will continue to discuss options with Chester, as he and Charles further develop a work program proposal. Chester is scheduled to give an update on this work at the next Focus Group meeting on October 7.

· In response, Marc brought up the need to identify how a few major projects could be implemented through the funding available from the TA. He also argued that at this point, the Task Force should avoid derailing the Bicycle Plan EIR by attempting to add new projects to the mix.

· Amit stated that he believed that in another month, Suzanne would be able to report back to the Focus Group on a work plan for EN Trips (that it can then consider). Suzanne and Jerry Robbins agreed to give a status report on EN Trips at the 4 November Focus Group meeting.

· Charles introduced the next item: the review of Townsend Street improvements by the MTA (Calendar Item 4). He briefly summarized the discussion that he and Paul had at a recent meeting with Jerry. He restated the concern that Marc had expressed that greater emphasis be placed on providing modal safety along this deficient travel corridor.

· Marc voiced concern that there be some sort of on-street segregation between pedestrians, bicycles, etc. In particular, he mentioned the need to introduce a small median near the Caltrain Station to resolve the issue of illegal U-turns (taken by taxis).

· Tom was concerned that all modes be accommodated on Townsend Street in an efficient manner, in order to ensure an acceptable level of safety for all modes using the corridor.

· Jerry described some of the temporary measures undertaken by the MTA to improve safety on Townsend and to better manage parking, particularly on the south side of the street. These include a white line that demarcates how far out in the street people can park and the width of the lane. He said that the MTA considered the installation of sidewalks, but that this was abandoned given the fact that there are drainage problems in the area and that the street could be ripped up in another five years to accommodate construction of the Downtown Caltrain Extension underground. In another 5–10 years, he believes that the street will be improved in a comprehensive way, with new sidewalks and landscaping that make it aesthetically attractive.

· Marc pointed out that the upcoming election in November could determine whether or not changes will be made to Townsend in the near future, as the proposed Caltrain Extension will be up for consideration.

· Jim identified a long list of population segments (using the Townsend corridor) that need to be served in the short-term, including

- pedestrians;

- bicyclists;

- taxis;

- transit users (proposed); and

- local institutions.

· Paul asked Jerry when the MTA could begin to draw plans for Townsend Street. Paul suggested that this is the time to be studying new street designs and configurations. If the street is to be torn up in five years, why can't some of that design and planning go on right now,

· Jerry said that through a stationary grant offered by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), the MTA could look at new improvements to Muni. He would like to see cost estimates for possible changes to Townsend.

· Marc presented a formal motion requesting that the MTA proceed to explore the transformation of Townsend into a more user-friendly thoroughfare. In particular, this includes the following points:

- long-term changes to the street design and configuration ;

- short-term changes, including sidewalks on north side of Townsend, and a comprehensive study of permanent solutions to the street

· The motion passed by a vote of 3–0, in favor of the examples, with one member of the Task Force abstaining. No one else voted, as all of the other participants were representatives of city agencies

· Due to time constraints, Calendar Items 5 and 6 were not covered. Before closing the meeting, Tom checked to see if there was any new business (Calendar Item 7) or public comment (Calendar Item 8). Seeing none, he adjourned the meeting.

The next meeting of the Transportation Focus Group is scheduled for Tuesday, 7 October 2008 at the same time, in Room 408 of City Hall.