Skip to main content

tv   Government Access Programming  SFGTV  February 8, 2018 2:00am-3:01am PST

2:00 am
oversize vehicle restriction and use it in a far corner of the bayview on an industrial street. rather, here's a school yard. you heard from supervisor tang's office say it's been an issue requeand we've done it t. if staff felt it was appropriate and the board felt it was appropriate to entertain proposals and put an over size vehicle restriction around school yards. we've heard complaints from neighbors about mclaren park being the set. we would use this tool in a very restrained way. that may be too much for you, and i appreciate that, but that's one of the things that the board might say yes, mr. thornily, and sustainable streets, we will use this in a very limited sense where the context has some purpose. >> chairman brinkman: all right. thank you, and i certainly did not mean to sound callous in my
2:01 am
choice of language about the problem. >> not at all brink bri. >> chairman brinkman: i do appreciate how we solve for one place and other people are affected. director borden? >> director borden: would think -- i would imagine because what they've described, does the program not apply to people that are already in the pipeline? a couple of months we approved for a reduction in fees for people to be able to pay -- that was for the parking tickets, but i'm just wanting to understand if that program is applicable. that gentleman is $600 behind in parking fees. i'm just wondering if the new regulation we enacted would be able to be applied. >> yes. at your january 6th meeting,
2:02 am
you did approve changes to the community service program for unpaid citations. that makes it very accessible. i think it's a very low requirement to get into that program if you have a backlog of citations. i was hoping we'd have james for the reco ford here. he was living in his bus and got about $1600 in citations and had his vehicle towed. i was on the phone with miss lu friday, talking about mr. hernandez' blight of being towed out of the yellow zone a couple of days before, and i think in that instance he was not able to present evidence of low income qualification because he was not in the food stamp program, he was not on some of these other programs that are the proxies to substantiate low income. there may be a
2:03 am
misunderstanding. it's certainly something to examine, and i'll stay on that case to find out if there was a gap, if there is a misunderstanding because it is the intent of the agency to make those fees less ownerous and have access to those programs. now if you get to the point where you have $1500 in citations and you are towed, it isn't enough to get you out of the 2 ow yard and you have those $1500 in citations. the next day, you could get towed again. you're going to have to pay that down below the threshold. one of the things as we work with the department of homelessness and supportive housing, it's obvious we need to connect with people sooner. the mta is not equipped to do this, approach every vehicle
2:04 am
that may have someone living in it and say, do you have a back seat full of citations because you're really going to get hit hard. we're working with outreach folks to find folks sooner so they don't have this sword of damocles hanging over your head, because once you have this backlog, it's very hard to get you out of jeopardy. >> i just wanted to -- i do think we can figure out a way to work with some of the social service agencies to identify. i know a lot of people who are homeless do not actually access services, which project homelessness does do. i do tend to favor some sort of
2:05 am
amnesty program, because as the gentleman said, people have drug issues and other things, and these things sort of pile up, and what sort of sets thicks ov things over the edge and puts them back on the streets. we see these people that are unhoused, and whether we want to acknowledge this is housing or not for people, it is. i'm a big supporter of looking how we can do a safe transition park concept, and i personally would not vote for a citywide ban without something like that. at the same time, we have a crisis on our street separate and independent of oversize vehicle issues, and to not acknowledge it and think that
2:06 am
we can just simply move it away is just not realistic, and we need to describe, also, the 72-hour kind of complication that you could just move your vehicle around every three days which is essentially the reason that we've had a much larger homeless problem more visible in our city, previously people nobody went to or weren't as busy, are now forced out of those places, are now just forced out. we see that in tent citys. so i don't think it's not realistic to believe that an outright ban would solve the problem. i just think it moves it around constantly like we see with our tents. so i really think if we can get to a point where we can figure out this pilot program and a park and reexamine the ban policies in that regard, that makes sense, but also in creating an amnesty for people who are homelessness so they
2:07 am
don't have to pay these tickets. honestly, they have to take care of other things in their lives. they shouldn't have to worry about parking tickets overtaking their live. >> i was going to ask you to maybe explore options within the problem of, you know, certifying that somebody is homeless. it seems like there might be -- might be some of the public speakers mentioned they have a certificate. certainly exploring a solution to that because it's frustrating if there are potential solutions that oh, this administrative bureaucracy is an impediment to that solution, so i would definitely be in favor of pursuing that and seeing if we can work something out on that front. i just think director border covered what i was going to say. >> chairman brinkman: thank you, director rubke.
2:08 am
>> thank you, mr. thornily for your commitment to this work. i admire your compassion and dedication to this. this is an incredibly sensitive issue, and it takes a special person to accommodate all of the competing interests that you have so gracefully done, and you applaud yo and i encourage your efforts. i don't think we're going to find a silver bullet, so to speak. it's going to require a partnership of a number of different agencies as has been said. i think that what we're experiencing here is just the realities of an increasingly competitive economy in a place that is constrained geographically, and every square inch of this city is being sought out. this isn't detroit, this isn't utah, this is one of the best cities in the world to live in, and we've got a humming economy
2:09 am
that is driving so much competition in every corner of this city, and we've got to find a comprehensive solution that takes that into consideration. one of the things that i wish we could give more attention to, and maybe you'll be more able to do this, but i -- you know, i do not just look at all of the private lots that are empty at night, i look at stonestown mall at night, and i see a sea of empty parking, and he see a sea of empty parking around churches and schools and community colleges, and everywhere there are lots, and people aren't sleeping in those or parking their cars there, and i wonder why can't -- you know, why can't we do something to encourage partnerships to use those lots. and i think about the sfmta's parking lots, our own parking lot like the one we just talked about or the one in the mission. there is a number of lots that we own, and i'm wondering, how
2:10 am
hard would it be to simply designate the top floors of those lots and just distribute the complexity of the problem in a way that we might be able to accommodate more sustainablely. i know that it's going to come at a cost. we are not a social services division of this city. it would require an immense amount of resources that i'm confident we don't have the budget to be able to address just yet, but it's not something that i don't think we should look at and look into a comprehensive solution and maybe ask the supervisors to fund a program to -- to utilize that resource that we might have. but i -- i'm hopeful because as we can improve our transit and get more people out of cars and with less of a need for parking lots in the future with the coming of autonomous vehicles
2:11 am
and better infrastructure and better, safer streets to walk down, i think we'll come to a place where we have less of a demand of the parking than we have today. this idea of just like designating a spot in the city, i think -- i don't think that that's valid. i think that every square inch of this city has got designs on it, and we need to be thinking about what's already being used for parking and get more use out of it. thank you. >> chairman brinkman: thank you. >> as i've stated before, one of the concerns that motivates me here is the enforcement of the law to the benefit of the residents and the people in the city, and we as the enforcers of the curb are the agency that is responsible for that. so i've found director torres's comment at the beginning sort of informative and really helpful in shaping the
2:12 am
discussion. at the beginning of your presentation, you used the word irrelevant to describe the law that prohibits sleeping in vehicles. i understood you to say that it's somewhat irrelevant because it's hard to enforce, not that we're taking a position that the law is irrelevant. is that correct? >> that is true, and thank you for elevating that, i did not mean disrespect to the law, but rather, let me just tell you by example, i think last year, the sfpd wrote six citations for that particular issue. >> and yet we know it's an issue affecting people because we hear from residents all the time, and we certainly heard today from two neighborhoods, sunnyside and the bayview, one, sunnyside worker, and a bayview resident, purporting to represent thousands of residents there. my concern with approach to this issue, if we try to tackle the least very difficult problem of finding everybody in the city a home they can
2:13 am
afford, we sort of paralyze ourselves as far as enforcing our curbs, and we actually have an issue now sort of disproportionate enforcement because the neighborhoods that came to us first with the supervisors that came to us first bgot the bans that they want and now this man from sunnyside said this is a problem, he's identified specific problems that his family and children are facing, and we say we're not going to do more because we're waiting until this whole overall solution is reached. that just strikes me as unfair to that neighborhood and it paralyzes action for the jurisdiction that we do have. all of that said, i'm very sensitive to all of the itch will i indications thitch -- implications that these rules have, but none the less, it's the law, and we're the agency with the ability to make this law not irrelevant, but
2:14 am
enforceable. we could go down a path of targeted enforcement, we wait until someone from sunnyside say this is a new problem, but the vehicles sort of move around, and we're not solving the problem. at the same time that's a very inconsiderate solution for folks who want to live in their vehicles. you're just moving them around and not giving them any certainty or guidance as to how they should be shaping their lives. so to me, the notion of a citywide ban makes a lot of sense with some caveats. one of the things you mentioned as a detriment of a citywide ban would be that we would then hear from residents who have vehicles. well, we give permits all the time. i suppose we could have a system whereby if a resident, maybe with neighbor consent, maybe with not, wanted to keep an oversize vehicle near his or
2:15 am
her home, that's maybe something we could permit, and that permitting process would allow us to monitor it, make sure nothing, you know, illegal is going on with that vehicle, allow people to report things that are going on. so i just don't see enforcement as a barrier to a citywide ban. i think permitting could use it -- we could use permitting to allow residents to park vehicles if it was appropriate for them to do so. so then, that kind of creates, you know, the issue that we would have a citywide ban -- or excuse me, create sort of a starting point. you could then have, if there were areas where it made sense for r.v.'s or over side vehicles to be parked, you could have applications for exception. sort of looking at it the other way than what you described in targets enforcement. there are definitely political will on your staff and the teen
2:16 am
tire city -- the entire city to use those blocks. and then, you can approach the idea of a safe parking spot. i would be okay with that if they were true safe parking spots. have i to say, and i give director ramos for his bravery on this topic. i'm scared, too. i just think this city is so dense, and a lot of people are living, you're going to have a lot of not in my back yard, other than accepted curb sites in industrial areas. look. i realize this is a very sensitive issue. the folks who presented here today are moving, and i am so glad that they're engaging in the process, and i can assure them that their voices are being heerd. but i do think we have an obligation as the agency of parking laws, to enforce them, and i don't think it's fair for the resident of sunnyside to
2:17 am
tell them, we're going to wait until it's a problem and then enforce it. my solution would be a citywide ban, with exceptions, and looking at what we can do to provide safe spots for oversize vehicles to park. >> chairman brinkman: thank you. director torres. >> yes. i'd like to reiterate comments by my colleagues. the problem has be gone away, and it's not going to go away until you have a multifaceted approach. people that are suffering in neighborhoods because of these parkings, i've spoken to supervisor fewer and supervisor tang and others. at t it's a real problem. it's also a health problem.
2:18 am
we saw what happened at skid row in los angeles in my old district, san diego with hepatitis b. this is an absolutely catastrophe in the making, so i think what we've talked about so far is a citywide ban on parking, with additional parking lot, whether it's the cow palace parking lot, whether it's a community college parking lot. most of those malls are going to be converted to housing at some point because nobody's going there. even treasure island where people say all right, this is where you can park. what you do during the day is your business, but this is where you can park and sleep at night, and there'll be some kind of enforcement and protection as well as rest rooms and showers like they're doing already on my road to my office in oakland, as they're doing under 880 there, where
2:19 am
they're now providing showers. it's almost -- they're developing little condos in those bridges of the freeways. we spent over 275 million in this city on homeless issues, and we haven't seen a success. my argument is that many people will never move to homeless shelters. they want to stay on the streets or stay in their vehicles, which i think they have a right to do. and perhaps what we -- one of our colleagues says that perhaps we should have an amnesty on these tickets. that may not be an unreasonable approach if we give them an alternative as you said before, as to where you can go. well today, you can go here, here, here, here, and here. if not, you're going to get a ticket. but depriving them of their
2:20 am
cars, that's not going to work. i've talked to eric garcetti in los angeles. i've talked to mayors in other parts of the country. they are not coming up with solutions yet, and i think this is one issue where we can have an impact, although a small one, but it may be able to work in neighborhoods like sunnyside where they're dealing with many things. so that's my one cent. >> chairman brinkman: thank you very much, director torres. mr. thornly, i think what i'm hearing from my board -- and again, this was a discussion item. we don't have an action on this, so what i want to give you is feedback as this board has presented is there is appetite to look into a towing
2:21 am
fee amnesty when people have their homes, their vehicles towed. i have no idea what's going to be involved. it's going to definitely mean a bit more work for you and the team. we like the work that you're doing with the department of homelessness and supportive housing. absolutely want to commend you for the way that you've approached that and what you've done and encourage you to continue on that work. i am hearing that perhaps a citywide ban could be part of a solution, and it sounds like if we were able to identify then areas where people could park, you would buy some sort of permit, and in a neighborhood where somebody was occasionally parking their boat on the streets, occasionally parking their r.v. to load up in preparation for an up coming
2:22 am
trip, that's something of interest to look at. i think one question that hasn't been answered, and i'm going to ask my board to correct me on that, it sounds like if we want to look at oversize vehicle restrictions in certain targeted areas such as around playgrounds, somewhere where it seems quite inappropriate, right now, for us to have oversized vehicles due to the nature of the use of the street or the number of vehicles, it sounds like that's something the board would entertain in the near future short of a larger solution to the vehicular housing problem, and i'm seeing a few nods on that. okay. >> yeah. i'll repeat what i said. i remain concerned that a small fix would be the enemy of the right fix in that situation. and we'll see -- there are a lot of implications, but we
2:23 am
will see disproportionate enforcement. it will be incumbent upon the neighborhoods to come forward. i just -- i'm very concerned about that, and we've seen that play out already, that, you know, i suspect our friends at sunnyside had this problem for sometime, but we're hearing about it from him now because it's sort of become known that we're sort of the agency and he's a very dedicated citizen. but other neighborhoods got here first, and there's a moratorium. maybe i should have stuck with the first sentence. a small fix would be the enemy of the right one. >> chairman brinkman: so short of bringing us anymore oversize vehicle restriction areas, it sounds like the board is willing to entertain general curb side management without
2:24 am
targeting specifically the oversize vehicles. so similar to what was achieved around the design center which included time limits instead of a ban on certain types of vehicles. all right. again, thank you so much, and to everybody who came. and unless any of my directors has anything to add, i think we will hope that that was enough direction for you, mr. thornly. >> i think so, and i thank the board for indulging this extended conversation. we'll come back to this real soon. >> chairman brinkman: thank you for everybody coming to share your stories. we appreciate it, and we will all definitely feel empathy, feel, you know something different when we look out at the streets and we see people who are housed in their vehicles, so thank you all very much. all right. we'll move on. >> do you want to move back to
2:25 am
item 11. >> chairman brinkman: yes, i think we'll move back to item 11. >> presentation regarding the task force 2045 recommendations. >> thank you, and thank you for bearing with me. we could go -- now there is a presentation. >> chairman brinkman: excellent. >> let's go on the screen. good afternoon, directors. my name is sarah jones. i'm planning director here at sfmta, and i'm here today to talk about the results of a brood effort that took place between june and december last year to work towards developing recommendations around a local revenue measure to fund transportation, and that was the transportation 2045 task force. so led by a convening of city
2:26 am
leadership, this agency participated along with our partner agencies, primarily, the san francisco county transportation authority, and san francisco public works. there was also very close involvement of the mayor's budget office, and the process itself was managed by the controller's office. and i'd like to note that michelle boulier of the transportation authority is here today. she worked with maria lombardo. my colleagues, monique and ethan, but i want to call out the great and extensive work of our analysts, who worked in close partnership with miss boulier. so today's presentation is going to be brief, covering the key points of the task force process and its recommendations. you did receive in your packet
2:27 am
another presentation set of slides summarizing some polling that was done by the transportation authority that might be a little bit juicier than what i have to talk about today. it was done at the same time as the task force process but was not specifically part of that process itself, so it's not on the agenda today. if there's interest, we can bring the transportation authority in to talk about it in the future. so onto the task force. this task force had some very big goals, identifying what should be funded, transportation wise and considering what revenue source might -- might best get us there. it brought together a spectrum of people to make recommendations on this, including director torres, and this group of people was tackling something that fundamentally affects this city
2:28 am
which is how you can move around. this was coshared by the mayor's office and the board of supervisors, specifically represented by ta commission chair aaron peskin, and that join convening was really intrinzici intrinsically designed throughout this process. that was a very big part of how this process played out and the recommendations that ultimately came out. so we all know we've been talking about these very big issues for a long time. we didn't just start in june of last year, so there were a lot of good sources that gave a very salary i holid understande range of transportation needs that we could work from. also comes at no surprise that we do have very big needs that
2:29 am
we don't have funding identified for yet. there's no single effort that is going to capture all of those, so a big part of this process was prioritizing what might be funded, what might be appropriate to fund through a local revenue measure. you might remember proposition j in 2016. while the companion did not succeed, proposition k, proposition j got huge support.
2:30 am
[ inaudible ] that's reflected in a lot of ways in the needs as they were identified and discussed, but one of those is that the top category there is transit service and affordablity. so in that category and in others, a specific area that we really looked at was funding of operations and service to support people's needs. and that whole issue was very much on the table in part of the discussion in addition to capital. on the revenue side with the next recommendation, the task force was united behind the idea that there is a need to actively to pursue revenue to meet these needs, and it's not
2:31 am
just to rely on taking one step or measure, but rather identify multiple actions that could be pursued over a period of time to meet these needs. so next recommendation, number three was probably one of the most contentious issues that was discussed, and that was what a major revenue source for 2018 might be. there were in the final vote, four measures that came out on top culled from a list of over 30, and probably the biggest debate was about looking to sales tax as a key revenue measure versus looking to some form of gross receipts tax. this wasn't a huge amount of disagreement between which form of gross receipts tax, you know, looking at certain types of taxes on businesses rather than on sales to consumers, but there were very strong opinions around both sides of those
2:32 am
issues. but those broad types of revenue measures were what came out on top. so recommendation number four from the group, you know, this group was not just thinking about what we've pursued in the past. they were thinking about when steps we should dive into the future, specifically suggestion pricing and looking at some sort of fees or taxes on transportation network companies. and then finally, looking ahead, one specific recommendation that came out was down the road in 2024, the task force thought that a general obligation bond was transportation was something that should be part of an overall package for transportation revenues. so we are now in the process, as i'm here for presenting -- presenting these
2:33 am
recommendations and summarizing the report that has come out from this group. this is a key part of this process. we are in a time in this city where we have big decisions that we're making about our leadership, about our future. it's absolutely key and important that we have the sound direction around what to seek for funding. that's a key part of this effort that a lot of people really put into this. so thank you very much. that concludes the presentation, and i am happy to take any questions. >> chairman brinkman: thank you so much, ms. jones. i will remind everybody, this is working off as you noted,
2:34 am
the work of the previous transportation task force, so we already had sort of a leg up as we moved into this one, so thank you to drorirector torre and everybody else who was in the transportation task force. director rubke, did you have anything you'd like to add? director torres, anything you'd like to add? any questions? no? please don't think the lack of questions th questions is that we're not appreciating the effort -- wait, director rowen? >> i just want to reiterate, at least speaking for myself, i fully trust how challenging this task is, and i feel like you're onto a good thing. i wish that i could add something, but the only thing that i would add is just a sense of urgency. you know how important that this stuff is. it was really disappointing to see the jk couple t, the propsj
2:35 am
and k not work out. i'm hoping whatever challenged us the last time works out this time, but it sounds like you're on the right track. >> thank you. >> chairman brinkman: thank you very much, director. we appreciate it. this was a discussion item, and we will move on. >> there is no public comment. we'll move onto item 13. any public comment on this item? seeing none, we'll close public comment and move on. >> item 13, making consent to the mission rock project and seeking consent between the city developer of the mission rock project and seeking the consent of the interagency agreement. >> carly payne. happy to bring the mission rock
2:36 am
proposal forward to you for your consideration of transportation related components. mission rock is a 28 acre mixed use project proposed for seawall lot 337 and pier 48. you might know that location as lot a. this is port property just south of mission creek and china basin. so the city have developed an agreement with the giants to develop a project and before our actions related to the transportation of the project, i'm going to provide a broad context of the transportation negotiations and then invite fran weld who's the senior vice president of development for the giants to come up and share with us an overview of the development project as a whole in the various community benefits, and then i'll come back and discuss the particular transportation components that are before you for actions.
2:37 am
and i'll also note that adam van der water from the office of workforce and development, and he'll be available for questions at the end. >> great. thank you, miss payne. >> last summer, you may recall, i came and gave you a presentation about the southern bay front negotiation framework, and just as a refresher, this is a coordinated negotiation framework to leverage investments from a series of very large scale development projects on the southern portion of san francisco's bay front to provide greater value in a coordinated set of community benefits than we might see if the city negotiated each one of these as a one-off deal. and mission rock is the second of this -- the series of projects that is coming forward to you negotiated under this framework. the first you saw a few months ago was pier 70.
2:38 am
there are many projects developing, and this is in addition to the very focused improvements that sfmta has undertaken and is continuing to work on that look at bicycle and pedestrian safety skm connections and intersection improvements, and so this is really the network that we feel we need and is the backbone for this area. and so the southern bay front framework really looks to
2:39 am
support this transportation in four ways. first through site design that supports transit, walking and biking biking as primary modes, not to mention how sites relate and connect to their surrounding neighborhoods. second is robust transportation demand management programs focused on meeting targets to support future site users in getting to where they need to go. the third is something we expect from every project, which is to mitigate the impact on the transportation system, and the fourth is investment of transportation fees to support the surrounding -- that growth and the surrounding neighborhoods that already exist, so now i'm going to invite fran weld from the giants to give you an overview of the project. thanks, fran. >> chairman brinkman: thank you. miss weld. >> thank you, carly.
2:40 am
we've been working with the port community leaders and many different city agencies for close to ten years on envisioning what the future of this part of the central waterfront will be. as you know, it's a surface parking lot today, located in an area of the city which carly well described as being an investment in area transportation planning. we hope to built on that investment and create a really robust transit oriented development with a wide mix of uses along this part of the
2:41 am
waterfront. we have 28 acres total so i'll talk you a little bit of what the different uses of that are. eight acres are parks and open space. that's a very important component to the port and our neighborhood, which has some of the lowest percapita ratio of parks to the city, so we're contributing to our neighborhoods, park needs, in addition to the entire southern bay front's park needs by actually over delivering with those eight acres of open space. the scale of the project has been broken-down substantially from what you see in the mission bay neighborhood, so our blocks are much smaller. about a third to half the size of a typical mission bay block, which creates a much more welcoming pedestrians environment with narrower streets, wider sidewalks, and a more vibrant street scene than you see in mission bay overall.
2:42 am
the mix of uses of residential, office, and retail on the ground floor of all of the components -- of all of the buildings will again contribute to that vibrant neighborhood feel. 40% of the housing will not affordable to families from a low income range of 45% of area median income, all the way up to 150% of area median income. i think we want to acknowledge that transportation has a lot to do with affordablity, as well, and so by delivering affordable units in this very well connected part of our region, we are actually collectively looking atloer coatloer -- at lower cost of living for those components, and that's an important part of affordablity in mission rock. the retail that we are delivering and envisiontion as a vibrant community serving
2:43 am
retail will also impact the transportation story, too. we'll have markets on-site, child care on-site, services that the mission bay neighborhood currently lacks, which are creating many more trips throughout the city than what you have in a mixed use environment and neighborhoods where you can walk to a lot of different services, so we see that the transportation and the land use mix as being very complimentary overall and having housing, parks and recreation goes to the overall goal of reducing [ inaudible ] throughout the city. i think we've been proud to sort of pave the way of establishing sort of some of the most robust commitments on a number of these community benefits level. i touched on the affordable housing at 40%, the
2:44 am
transportation fees, we are paying into that pot at a higher rate, and we've taken this holistic approach for a number of the different community benefits on-site. we are pushing at mission rock to reduce our trips and have committed to a reduction of 20% overall. that leads into very robust sustainablity goals as well, both with water sharing between residential and office buildings, energy, loads, we're sharing between daytime uses with office buildings and nighttime with residential, so looking at the project and the district scale, we're able to
2:45 am
achieve much higher goals than if you try and solve everything just on a building by building basis. in terms of sea level rise being on the waterfront, we are taking quite a conserveative estimate with a sea level rise. even in a storm surge, the finished floors will be above that level. carly mentioned the interagency design team that we've had over the years, and i thought before i turn it back over to her, i would just mention something that was really a guiding philosophy or principle with the years that we spent with the neighborhood, with the port, mta, dpw, puc on
2:46 am
establishing the design, the streets, the scale, and that was really creating this hierarchy of pedestrian and human centered design, so pedestrians and bicycles and the walkablity of the site came before automobile sorts of priorities. we were able to use that philosophy to guide us towards making a decision which we believe has had really wonderful out come on the site plan itself and what we think the design of what this wonderful neighborhood will be. >> okay. so going back to the southern bay front framework for the negotiated components for transportation, as fran
2:47 am
describ described, the site design really is focused on a modal hierarchy where it's creating a segment of the bay trail that doesn't exist right now as well as biking and walking connections to strernl parts of the neighborhood. i'll note that the curbs are all designated for loading. there's no on street parking so it's really responding to sort of the very new trends that we're seeing in demands for the curb that we talk about all the time. so two things, one, the site design and the kind of approach that fran described is really documented in the transportation plan, which is one of the documents that's attached to the transportation exhibit of the disposition and development agreement which is before you. and also, it's part of an infrastructure plan which the interagency collaboration agreement really identifies as
2:48 am
the -- what shall be built and mta has a role in continuing to review and provide input as designs get more refined and so that's another of the documents before you, so i just wanted to tie those two documents to some of the actions ahead of you. the project also has robust reporting and compliance requirements and there's details of what happens if you're not achieving it, and to
2:49 am
go back to the city to adjust the measures. so this slide just really gives an overview of the various measures and strategies that the project tends to implement, and you'll see that there are amenities targeting various populations, residents, visitors, employees of the site and that the measures address all of the different types of trip types that people might make to incentivize transit or biking. there's communications measures and as fran mentioned also land use components to help internalize some of the trips that otherwise might be needed to be made externally and by car. the environmental review process identified some transportation related impacts associated with the project and one of your other actions today is to approve the transportation related ceqa findings, so these are them, as well as to approve the mitigations related to those,
2:50 am
and so the mitigation, monitoring and reporting plan identifies how those impacts will be mitigated, what the implementation is reporting requirements are, and that also is before you today. sfmta will be playing a monitoring role for all of those transportation related measures. we also have an implementation role for the capital measures that are funded by the project. through the negotiated terms of the project, they will be paying the full equivalent of the transportation
2:51 am
sustainablity fee. this means about $40 million in transportation fees over the build out of the project. so we've approached the use of the fee revenue using the southern bay front framework, which is really to identify opportunities to leverage these funds with other development fees and sfmta resources to really invest in a way that's meaningful, and so you may recall that when i brought pier 70 before you, we had come up with an approach where because of the geographic proximity and the overlap in build out timeline, it really makes sense to look at the pot of fees between these two projects together and so we've identified a list of projects that the transportation fees from these two projects would invest in, and they focus on projects that expand reliablity and capacity and maintenance on area bus and rail lines, that close gaps in that active transportation networks, and
2:52 am
that contribute to the expansion of the water transit network, and all of that is outlined in the transportation exhibit to the disposition and development agreement before you. i want to note that the fees will be coming to the city over the course of the many years of build out because they come when building permits are drawn. so mta has committed to the extent possible we will be seeking other funding sources to advance these projects so that we can really deliver transportation benefits to the neighborhood before the projects are fully built out. and the project includes a parking garage that's for site users as well as for patrons of
2:53 am
at&t ballpark. given the high cost of parking the robust tdm program at this site, and the robust tdm that will be released at the ballpark, all parties agreed that it made sense to really look at what the needs are for parking and what the appropriate operational approach is. there is a commitment not only to invest management for the final build out of the project
2:54 am
but as phases proceed so there will be event management plans submitted to the city and sfmta will be key contributor and reviewer of those plans with the giant development team to make sure that the area still works and is still safe, both during construction and at the end of each of those phases. the project will also be reem fursing us at mta for any new management costs associated with the project. we have a storage space on lot a rielth now where our parking kroel officers store project management equipment. the project is recreating that for the meat in the build out of the site. and then finally, i just want to mention that mta for all large development projects, our work does not stop when the project is entitled, and we have a team that follows a --
2:55 am
each of those projects to make sure that mta is still engaged in the design and engineering review, that we are following through with our commitments, and also monitoring to make sure the project is following through with their transportation commitments, and so that will be in place for this project, as well. and so with that, i'll just remind you of the various actions before you. so to consent to the development agreement, to approve the transportation exhibit to the disposition and development agreement which includes the transportation plan and the tdm plan, to approve the transportation related ceqa findings and the transportation related mitigation measures and the transportation and monitoring reporting plan and to consent to the interagency cooperation agreement. so i'm available for questions, fran, adam and phil from oewd and the port. >> chairman brinkman: thank you. do we have public comment on
2:56 am
this? >> yes. >> chairman brinkman: why don't we go to public comment and then we'll have questions. thank you. >> charles debarge. >> chairman brinkman: yes. mr. debarge. >> thank you, chair brinkman. i'm a community organizer on staff at the san francisco bicycle coalition. i'm here to speak in support of the bicycle project on behalf of our 10,000 members. [ inaudible ] when it comes to bicycle network which will be developed as a part of this project, this means protected, class four directions from left street bridge to fourth street. this when paired with class 2 connectors will be a really meaningful addition to our bicycle network. the mission rock open space network will also serve as the starting point for the blue greenway, our city's network of 13 miles of parks, open trails
2:57 am
along the southern waterfront. this is an incredibly important resource for parks and recreation and needs to be accessible for people riding bikes. i do want to also recognize and thank the giants for their hard work thus far in creating a great public planning process for this project. over the years, their outreach continues to be robust and extensive, and their staff continues to make themselves available to myself and higher ups. thank you. >> chairman brinkman: thank you, mr. debarge. any other comments? yes, mr. dilberti.
2:58 am
>> what are we expecting in the -- i believe there's 1600 apartments, but there's development for 11,000 jobs in the towers. so what are we expecting -- we're hoping for 20% car rux reduction, but what is the total of cars that we're expecting in the area? and back to the sidewalks and retail. outdoor cafes, tables and chairs, i hope that becomes amenable, and the sidewalks are wide enough for that. and i'm not sure, are we providing sidewalk -- on the street parking or is that not -- we're not playing that one? and i would prefer n non on-street parking to make it a better neighborhood. thank you. >> chairman brinkman: thank
2:59 am
you, mr. dilberti. do i have any other public comment? seeing none, we'll go ahead and close public comment. miss payne, my understanding was there would be no on street parking, that all curbs would be managed to address loading only. >> correct. >> chairman brinkman: that's good. excellent. the 20% reduction in driving trip through transportation demand management, to mr. dilberti's point, that is the 20% reduction in what an average san franciscan drive shed or neighborhood would look like -- or is it calculated differently? >> so it's not just average in san francisco. the way that our environmental analysis is done is that based on particular land uses and particular geographies, there are what's called trip generation rates, and so that trip generation rate is applied
3:00 am
to that land use, so the mission rock project with its mix of land uses and the total square footage for each was calculated and it came up with a certain number of total trips, and this comes from the planning department's methodologies. there's also a methodology for attributing those trips to particular modes, and to the 20% reduction in auto trips says let's do that exercise. the total number of trips for this site and what number of those would go to autos in a san francisco mission rock area location, and then, let's takeoff 20% of those and achieve that through transportation and demand management. so it is an exercise in modelling and assumptions, but all of those assumptions are based on our best knowledge of how people actually travel and what


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on