October 7, 2008

Transportation Focus Group
Meeting Notes by Charles Rivasplata

Tom Radulovich chaired the Transportation Focus Group meeting, noting that a quorum had not been reached (Calendar Item 1). Later in the meeting, two Task Force members arrived, bringing the total number of participants to eight and providing a quorum. For members of the public not familiar with the Focus Group, Tom again explained its role and relationship to the Western SoMa Task Force.

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

· No announcements were made at the outset of the meeting (Calendar Item 2).

· Charles Rivasplata went over the results of the transportation project surveys distributed to Focus Group and Task Force members on 13 and 27 August, respectively (Calendar Item 3). He reported that the projects given highest priority by respondents were:

– corner bulb-outs on Folsom Street at 7^th and 9^th Streets; and

– mid-block crossings on Folsom at Russ Alley, and between 7^th and 8^th Streets

· The projects given the lowest priority by respondents were:

– two-way traffic on Natoma and Minna Alleys; and

– reversal of traffic flow on Dore Alley.

· Tom commented that what should come out of the survey is the identification of high priority projects that can be analyzed in depth in the EIR, or another study. Tom requested that staff report back during the EIR process to let the Focus Group know precisely how the high priority projects will be addressed.

· Jim Meko pointed out that the high priority projects will need to be covered in one of the EIRs currently being developed (e.g., Western SoMa, Eastern Neighborhoods, TEP, Bicycle Plan).

· Chester Fung of the San Francisco County Transportation Authority (SFCTA) explained that he has been developing the scope for a Western SoMa study that the SFCTA will fund through a $100,000 grant (Calendar Item 5). His draft outline, which was handed out in the meeting, describes the study topics to be covered, as well as the project tasks. Chester focused on the first paragraph of the outline and described the various components of the proposed study. He identified some key projects, including two-way alleys, green street treatments, mid-block crossings, and gateway applications. He stated that the proposed study should avoid the two-way Folsom Street issue due to its complexity and possible study cost. With respect to the 12^th Street greenway issues, Chester identified two key issues:

– Should the Recreation and Park Department be involved in the project if the area is configured as a linear park?

– Would the lack of ground-level active uses near 12th Street work against the project?

· Jim pointed out that if the 12^th Street corridor is  greened, it will attract many people from nearby areas.

· Tom suggested that an area of the street could be closed off for festivals and markets. He suggested that the group think of future land uses.

· Paul observed that the 11^th Street mid-block crossings could be integrated into a larger scheme that would include the proposed two-way alleys at Natoma and Minna.

· Tom had to leave the meeting, but said that he liked the draft scope of work presented by Chester, and expressed interest in perhaps, bundling projects. He asked that the SFCTA think comprehensively about 11^th Street and the need to seek a complete solution for the streetscape. He suggested choosing areas away from Folsom Street, as this is a street where a great deal of study will be undertaken.

· Chester identified some small projects contained in the work scope. He mentioned that regional Lifeline funds (distributed by the MTC) could be used to fund a shuttle and fixed route transit project in the area, as well as on-street parking management.

· Paul said that he believes that the last two projects listed in the handout, namely the experimental shuttle and parking management should be given a higher priority than the other project.

· In the scope of work, Chester identified the need to develop an interagency technical advisory committee (TAC) that would be established in the early stages. As far as possible study components are concerned, he listed the following:

– community outreach;

– authority management;

– technical consultant; and

– contingency.

· Chester would like to receive another round of input from the Focus Group before going to the SFCTA Board. He would like to take the proposal to the CAC in December and the Board (as a funding request) by the beginning of 2009. He commented that the project will have to be very well defined when the contract goes out to bid (early 2009). Not as much detail will be required when it goes to the Board's Appropriation Committee.

· Jim asked that the item be run through the Complete Neighborhood Fabric Committee in the near future. He requested that at the October Task Force meeting, Chester briefly inform members that the proposed study scope will be discussed at the Complete Neighborhood Fabric Committee meeting in November. This will ensure that the proposal is brought to a Task Force committee meeting before it goes to the SFCTA's CAC meeting in December.

· Paul asked that the draft proposal include a short introduction that presents the principal goals and objectives of the study, along with a timeline. Chester responded that the SFCTA normally does this.

· Anthony Faber moved that Jim Meko represent the Task Force at the upcoming Municipal Transportation Agency (MTA) Board Meeting on 21 October, at which time the Transit Effectiveness Project (TEP) will be discussed (Calendar Item 6). Meeting participants concurred that the Task Force is in agreement with the most recent TEP proposal presented by the MTA in the summer.

· The final tally for this motion (to have Jim represent the Focus Group) was 3 in favor, 0 opposed and 1 abstention (3-0-1).

· The idea of folding the Transportation Focus Group into one of the other committees was discussed (Calendar Item 4). There was a consensus that issues from the Transportation Focus Group should gradually be folded into the work of the Western SoMa Business/Land Use, and Neighborhood Fabric Committees.

· Paul suggested that the Focus Group meet once more (in November) and that it subsequently be absorbed into another committee.

· Anthony expressed interest in seeing that all transportation issues are included in the agendas for the other committees.

· Due to the anticipated schedule conflict with the Presidential Election, it was decided that the November meeting should be rescheduled from 4 November to 11 November. In order to not conflict with the work commitments of Task Force members, the time of the meeting will remain the same.

· There was no new business to report (Calendar Item 7), nor was there public comment (Calendar Item 8).

This meeting addressed all of the items placed on the Focus Group meeting calendar. The next meeting of the Transportation Focus Group is currently being negotiated, and a final time and date will be released when it becomes available.