Photo: Myleen Hollero/Orange Photography

An unprecedented planning effort is currently underway to redesign Market Street, and transform it into a grand car-free thoroughfare in 2015, when it’s scheduled to be repaved. But why should we have to wait that long for a car-free Market Street? There is a growing momentum to do more aggressive trials that would inform the Better Market Street planning process, and divert more private automobiles off Market to improve conditions for people who ride transit, walk or bike.

“I do think that now is the time to accelerate our efforts to improve Market Street,” said Board of Supervisors President David Chiu.

The District 3 supervisor and mayoral candidate introduced a resolution [pdf] yesterday that calls on the SFMTA to implement more “near-term pilot projects, including increased private automobile diversions, to speed up transit along Market Street while improving the safety and comfort of people walking and biking, and supporting the local commercial and cultural function of the street.”

His comments at Tuesday’s Board of Supervisors meeting followed a q-and-a session with Mayor Ed Lee, who was asked by Chiu if he supports more trials to improve Market, and specifically what “on the ground pilot programs should happen soon while the long-term planning process goes on.”

Third Street and Kearny is often congested with private auto traffic during peak hours, delaying Muni and creating unsafe conditions for bicyclists and pedestrians. Drivers, fresh from the Bay Bridge, continue to drive like they're on a freeway, instead of an urban street. Photo: Bryan Goebel

A frustrated 30-Stockton driver gets stuck in the intersection at 3rd/Market behind private auto traffic. Photo: Bryan Goebel

Lee said he is “supportive of initial trials and projects” and that the SFMTA is working on more experiments, including allowing all-door boarding on surface transit vehicles from Van Ness to Market (50 percent of Muni delays on Market are due to slow boarding), “new and expanded bicycle treatments,” and “improved crosswalk conditions” for pedestrians, especially at 6th Street, which has been identified as one of the city’s most dangerous intersections for walking.

“The staff of the MTA is getting a real important message from both the leadership of City Hall and the leadership of MTA that it’s time to move forward more creatively and in a timely way,” said Leah Shahum, the executive director of the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition. “I think this is pretty significant.”

Further details and a timeline for more improvements were not released, but Lee said any new trials would have to involve “input from multiple stakeholders.” The talk concerning reducing more private autos centers mostly around preventing turns onto Market Street, and not the cross traffic, which accounts for 85 percent of the private auto traffic on Market. Calming the cross traffic is definitely another concern among advocates, though.

Since the SFMTA implemented the required right turns at 10th and 6th streets, which are now permanent, conditions for transit, pedestrians and bicyclists have improved. The green protected bike lanes along stretches of Market also provide bicyclists with some dignified space, but it certainly isn’t enough.

The initial trials have also helped lead to a shift in public opinion about Market Street. A majority of the top mayoral candidates now support a car-free Market Street, and many residents and merchants who were originally opposed to the trials have come around to supporting them.

“I’ve not heard a lot of negative feedback to date, so that’s a good sign,” said Ken Cleaveland of the Building Owners and Managers Association of San Francisco, who supports more trials on Market Street, as long as people are allowed “to get accustomed to it gradually.”

While the two required right turns “did reduce traffic a little bit, they haven’t fixed the problems that I see every day on Market Street,” said Tom Radulovich, the executive director of Livable City. “There is a fairly small number of autos, and especially autos trying to turn right on Market Street, that plug up that right lane for buses and bicyclists trying to move through.”

Fifth, 4th and 3rd Streets and New Montgomery are congested during peak hours and Radulovich suggested prohibiting turns at those intersections, or “just making them free of private cars.”

At Montgomery, frustrated afternoon drivers will often turn left, and get onto 2nd Street to cut over to the Bay Bridge. That often creates a line of cars stuck at the intersection, bringing Muni traffic to a halt in both directions (sometimes all the way to 6th Street), and making conditions difficult for bicyclists and pedestrians.

One solution being talked about is to deploy a team of traffic control officers to the intersection to prevent cars from blocking the box, or to just ban the turn entirely, and make the last block of 2nd Street at Market open to northbound cars only.

Aside from reducing more private auto traffic, other ideas for speeding Muni include painting the transit lanes red, and extending the transit-only lane eastbound beyond 5th Street.

“Given these opportunities, we need more pilots now,” said Chiu. “I believe a viable vision for the future of Market Street is a world class avenue that draws its success from the huge number of people it attracts through transit and taxis, on foot and on bicycle, and without private automobiles except for delivery vehicles.”

The current Cala Foods on Hyde Street is fronted by a parking lot. Photo: Bryan Goebel

Trader Joe’s announced last week that it is moving into a new location on Nob Hill, at the southwest corner of California and Hyde streets, where the lease for Cala Foods expires in late December. It’s a dense, transit-rich neighborhood that sits along the California cable car line. Given the popularity of TJ’s four other San Francisco locations, which cater largely to motoring shoppers, will it bring more cars and congestion to the neighborhood?

“The plan is to keep the parking configured exactly as it is right now. There will be about 80 spaces total after we’ve re-striped the garage and complete the work,” said Dan Safier, the president of the Prado Group, the developer. “Plus, you have a lot of people who live in the area who just don’t live with cars, so shoppers will be using public transportation or arriving on foot.”

Trader Joe’s recently abandoned plans for a Castro location because neighborhood groups courageously pushed for no parking. The chain ultimately pulled out, according to Supervisor Scott Wiener, because “the location was not going to work for its business model, one that is fairly reliant on automobile visits.”

Safier said Trader Joe’s plans to occupy a little over half of the 25,000 square foot building on Hyde and will begin construction in early 2012. Because the change in tenancy doesn’t require a change of use, it doesn’t trigger a Planning Department review, similar to the process for the Whole Foods that recently replaced another Cala Foods location in the Haight. (Update: According to the SF Planning Department, because Trader Joe’s is formula retail, it will actually require a conditional use permit. It’s possible the Planning Department could require that Trader Joe’s take measures to prevent a vehicle queue and address pedestrian circulation at this location).

The traffic queue on Masonic Avenue. Photo: SF Citizen

It’s hard to tell what the demand for parking might be at TJ’s Nob Hill location, but the Planning Department has begun to require that large new stores prevent traffic queues like the long line of cars frequently spotted at TJ’s Masonic Avenue location.

For the planned Whole Foods/condo project at Market and Dolores streets, also being developed by the Prado Group, the Planning Department requires implicit measures “to ensure that vehicle queuing does not occur.” However, some advocates doubt that Whole Foods will be able to prevent a traffic queue without charging for parking to properly manage the supply, and are frustrated that there’s really no mechanism in place to enforce the measures.

“Right now the MTA (Municipal Transportation Agency) isn’t required to do planning code enforcement, nor is Planning empowered to do traffic enforcement, so it could very easily fall through the bureaucratic cracks,” said Tom Radulovich, the executive director of Livable City.

At TJ’s Nob Hill location, one concern about making it more attractive to people on foot is the parking lot that fronts the store. The entrance has a substantial setback from the sidewalk, notes resident Michael Jacinto, who lives nearby.

“You kind of have to dodge cars sometime,” said Jacinto. “I think there will be more cars than there are now.” He hopes, however, that the new store will lead some neighbors who might normally drive to the other TJ locations to walk instead.

The Yerba Buena parking garage. Flickr photo: mlinksva

As developers bring more residents and employees to the South of Market (SoMa) district, the number of parking lots and garages they build for automobiles will largely determine how much the new tenants and commuters will drive.

But even in a downtown area like SoMa, developers are bound by antiquated planning codes to provide a minimum number of off-street parking spots.

Transit advocates are looking to reverse those restrictions with a piece of legislation [pdf] approved by the SF Board of Supervisors Land Use and Economic Development Committee yesterday. The ordinance would shed the city’s planning code of car parking minimums in SoMa and replace them with parking maximums in some areas. It’s expected to be confirmed by the full Board of Supervisors in the next few weeks.

“This is the next step in comprehensive parking reform in San Francisco,” said Tom Radulovich, the executive director of Livable City, who drafted the legislation along with former D6 Supervisor Chris Daly when he was in office last year. Daly’s successor, Supervisor Jane Kim, took over the legislation as its sponsor.

Among a host of progressive parking reforms, the proposal would bring consistent maximums to the SoMa district, which planning ordinances passed over the years have set differently within individual sections. It would also prohibit office parking garages closest to the downtown job center from structuring parking prices in a way that lures driving commuters.

Other measures would provide a range of options for citywide developers and property owners to sidestep minimum car parking requirements that are still in place. New parking that would impact historic trees or buildings, seismic safety, a street’s character, and traffic may be exempt from the requirements. Tougher restrictions would also be put in place along designated pedestrian, bicycle, and transit corridors as well as in other dense neighborhoods like Chinatown.

Citywide parking minimums vary across different types of buildings. The default requirement for residential dwellings in areas where ordinances haven’t been put in place is one off-street parking spot per unit. Larger hotels are required to provide a spot for every 16 bedrooms, while motels need one for every room.

Mayor Ed Lee with (left to right) Livable City Program Manager Susan King, Supervisor David Chiu, and SFMTA Sustainable Streets Director Bond Yee. Photo: Aaron Bialick

Chinatown and North Beach, the “densest neighborhoods west of the Mississippi,” are set to be graced by Sunday Streets for the first time this year, Mayor Ed Lee announced today. City leaders and advocates said they’re eager for the opportunity to let residents experience Grant Avenue and California Street free of car traffic.

“Sunday Streets will be different from a street fair. It will allow residents to explore all uses of the streets,” said Mayor Lee. “This is about working with all of the elements of the community and breaking down bureaucratic walls to make things happen.”

The growing demand from neighborhood and merchants associations had initially put Sunday Streets on the horizon for next year, but a 2011 date is being chosen at the insistence of Mayor Lee, said Livable City Director Tom Radulovich.

Dwellers of the city’s urban core, including City Lights publisher and poet Lawrence Ferlinghetti, have long dreamed of pedestrianizing streets like the crowded Grant Avenue, he noted. Last year, a parklet made some headway by expanding the public realm in front of a Columbus Avenue restaurant. The area’s compact character will foster a slower, more pedestrian and play-focused environment than Sunday Streets held elsewhere, but it will not be like the vendor-oriented street fairs familiar to the area, said Radulovich.

“People living in Chinatown don’t have front porches or backyards to use,” said Supervisor David Chiu, highlighting the packed neighborhood’s long-stifled need for open public spaces. Sunday Streets will provide breathing room on the streets mostly reserved for storing and moving motor vehicles, despite the fact that it has one of the lowest car ownership rates in the country.

“It’s really great that there’s recognition that walking is the primary way of getting around Chinatown,” said Deland Chan, senior planner at the Chinatown Community Development Center. “We want to see the programming done in the most community-serving way, particularly for the elderly population.”

Advocates applauded the benefits Sunday Streets has brought to the city that go beyond encouraging healthy physical activity. Events in the past three years have provided an easy way for neighbors to meet one another and more intimately explore the streets around them when not subject to the impacts of car traffic.

“What greater way is there to connect neighborhoods and appreciate our city?” said Leah Shahum, executive director of the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, who was excited at the opportunity to visit neighborhoods “not as a tourist, but as a local.”

Although the time frame is yet to be determined, SFMTA Sustainable Streets Director Bond Yee said the agency is working on squeezing the ninth Sunday Streets into the current calendar without conflicting with other events.

This year’s street parties will be held an hour later, from 11:00 am to 4:00 pm, to better accommodate church-going families, said Livable City Program Manager Susan King.

The first Sunday Streets of the season kicks off this weekend along the Embarcadero from Fisherman’s Wharf to Terry Francois Street:

Visual simulation of the proposed Cathedral Hill hospital. Images: CPMC.

Transit advocates have joined a broad coalition of opponents mounting a fight against California Pacific Medical Center’s (CPMC) long range development plan for its San Francisco facilities, decrying the significant increase in parking being proposed, and the attendant impact that will have on traffic, transit and pedestrian safety. They argue the increase in parking supply will induce more driving to already crowded streets and will deteriorate Muni service and cause conflicts with pedestrians and bicycle riders.

They also say the DEIR fails to adequately address those concerns, in no small part because the Planning Department’s guidelines still don’t explicitly correlate parking supply with driving demand, the same argument brought against the City Place mall project on Market Street. Whether the advocates who appealed and are considering a lawsuit against City Place will do the same with CPMC is uncertain, though more will likely be known after the first Planning Commission public hearing on the project today.

Of the five CPMC locations studied in the DEIR, the most significant net increase in parking will also be at the facility located in one of the most transit-rich and congested parts of the city. The enormous new Cathedral Hill complex will occupy two blocks of Geary Boulevard on either side of Van Ness Avenue, the future crossing point for the city’s two planned bus rapid transit (BRT) corridors. During the first phase of construction between 2011 and 2015, when Cathedral Hill will open, CPMC plans to build a 555 bed hospital and a large medical office building (MOB) to complement an existing MOB it owns at 1375 Sutter.

The combined facilities will have over 1200 parking spaces, with a net increase of 650 from current conditions. While the 513 spaces at the hospital are significantly more than code would allow (95 spaces), the 542 spaces at the new MOB are less than half the quantity that the planning code for MOBs mandates, so the MOB will “borrow” from the hospital spaces to make the entire facility compliant within a range that’s allowed in code.

The increase in vehicle traffic accessing this facility, advocates argue, will have a tremendous negative impact on those two streets and the transit they carry, as well as numerous other streets and transit lines in the area. The additional parking will increase driving demand, according to Tom Radulovich, Executive Director of the transit non-profit Livable City and one of those who brought the appeal against City Place.

“It’s troubling,” said Radulovich.  “On the heels of City Place, once again we have the SFMTA and Planning Department not sticking up or enforcing the Transit First policy. If you’re going to maximize damage to Muni’s network, that’s where you would do it.”

Radulovich argues the worsening of traffic due to the increase of parking is unacceptable. He particularly chastised the Planning Department and argued the Major Environmental Analysis (MEA) division had abrogated its duty to plan for the health of San Francisco’s neighborhoods. Instead it was exacerbating traffic delays, inhibiting Muni and failing to adequately mitigate harm to pedestrians and cyclists around the facility.

The DEIR acknowledges traffic will get much worse (see Volume 3, Part 4, Transportation and Circulation) , but CPMC staff argue the only way to construct such a sizable hospital and reasonably expect to accommodate patients, medical staff, support staff and visitors is to build the proposed parking.

Geoffrey Nelson, CPMC’s Director of Enterprise Development, said not only were the proposed parking spaces permitted squarely within the Planning Code, if CPMC were building as many spaces it projected it would actually need, the total would more than double. Nelson argued CPMC wasn’t basing these numbers on suburban Institute for Transportation Engineers (ITE) estimates, but on extensive data collection of mode choice and trip generation at its other four facilities, which were then projected onto Cathedral Hill.

Click to enlarge CPMC parking supply and demand chart.

“We don’t wake up and go, I need this much parking. Our calculus that we use is, I have a hospital with 555 beds that has a certain patient volume and has a mix of cases and those patients are seen by a suite of physicians and specialists,” said Nelson. “If you look at our existing campuses, we typically have a ratio of twice as much non-hospital space to support hospital space than we have on this campus. This is about as lean as you can go in terms of physicians and specialty clinics and still have a rational availability of specialists to the hospital.”

Where Nelson and Radulovich agreed was that the Planning Department’s guidelines didn’t correlate parking supply with trip generation and driving. “I don’t think explicitly there is an assumption that if you ramp up or down the parking that it has an impact explicitly on the analysis,” said Nelson. Instead, he noted, as part of the preparation for the DEIR, CPMC ran “sensitivity tests” to determine what level of parking wouldn’t have an impact on traffic in the neighborhood.

“If you did half the MOB or half the hospital, would there be any meaningful reduction in peak period trips?” said Nelson. “The answer is basically, you have to get down to such a small, basically less than what the code allows on the site’s proposal to really meaningfully reduce peak period traffic impacts.”

“The Planning Department is like the White Queen in Alice Through the Looking Glass: ‘if you practice believing impossible things, you can get so good at it, you’ll believe six impossible things before breakfast.’ They’ve become the White Queen of transportation planning.” –Tom Radulovich

For Radulovich, the fact that all the extra parking is code compliant shows the code is out of step with a livable city. “They may be correct in saying this is by right, but that’s not to say it’s not too much. The whole purpose of the planning profession was to increase people’s health and well being, but their planning tools don’t account for them and they don’t propose any effective mitigations.”

Radulovich compared the Planning Department’s view of parking with a fantasy novel. “The Planning Department is like the White Queen in Alice Through the Looking Glass: ‘if you practice believing impossible things, you can get so good at it, you’ll believe six impossible things before breakfast,’” he said. “They’ve become the White Queen of transportation planning.”

Planning Department Director John Rahaim did not respond to requests for comment on this article.

Nato Green, a labor representative for the California Nurses Association (CNA) and a spokesperson for the Coalition for Health Planning, said the Cathedral Hill facility as planned would devastate the neighborhood with traffic. In addition to an array of complaints with numerous other pieces of the plan, Green said the Coalition for Health Planning was concerned with the affect traffic would have on health care delivery.

“There are significant things about the relationship between traffic and health care. The plan is expected to bring an extra 10,000 cars a day. This means that there will be babies born in traffic,” he said. Green argued the plan inadequately analyzed how traffic impacts would affect patient transfers, let alone emergency and disaster response. Green said CNA had fought with Sutter Health, CPMC’s parent company, across numerous counties in the Bay Area and said their “regionalization” plan was ultimately eliminating 1300 beds across the nine counties, which would require patients not only to drive more, but farther. According to Green, the DEIR scope of study fails to account for the larger changes.

“Are the health care benefits so overwhelming that it’s worth destroying the central city and its neighborhoods?” asked Green. “The answer is no.”

CPMC’s Nelson acknowledged the long-standing riff with the CNA and said unfortuntely the Cathedral Hill hospital plan “hits every [third] rail in San Francisco, there’s not an issue this project doesn’t hit.” Though he wasn’t surprised by the initial uproar, he said he thought some of the opponents just wanted to see the project go away. He also defended CPMC’s travel demand management (TDM) plan and said they would institute a significant shuttle system linking facilities to BART and other transit hubs with headways under five minute in many cases.

“Would I like it not to be a petri dish around all the issues on parking? I’d love it,” said Nelson, but he noted the data behind the parking demand they presented in the DEIR was rigorous and he felt the proposed supply they hoped to build was consistent with their needs.

Click to enlarge circulation schematic of one option being studied for the Cathedral Hill complex

Both the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA), which runs Muni, and the San Francisco County Transportation Authority (SFCTA), the long term transportation planning body for the city and county, expressed reservations with the project, but resisted outright criticism. Both agencies have worked extensively with the project sponsors and generally felt CPMC was trying to ameliorate its environmental impacts.

“As a Transit First city, we have serious concerns about the project, however, we are committed to working with those involved to ensure that we identify innovative solutions to make this project work for everyone,” said Paul Rose, SFMTA’s spokesperson. “At this point, we are exploring all options as we move forward with identifying the appropriate solutions.”

Tilly Chang, Deputy Director of Planning at the SFCTA, said they had been negotiating with CPMC to make changes to their initial plan to mitigate the impacts the driveway entrances to the MOB and the hospital on Geary would have for the future Geary BRT. In the first iteration of CPMC’s proposal, for example, there would have been ingress and egress at both facilities on Geary, but SFCTA and the Planning Department had convinced them to eliminate egress (except for emergencies at the hospital) onto Geary.

“We feel like the on-street design and on-street concepts are getting there,” said Chang. “The parking garage is a different issue. We’ve talked with them about parking and parking provision and they feel like this is what they need.”

Nelson was reluctant to hypothesize how much less parking they could build and still keep the facility feasible, but he also expected the project dimensions and attributes to change throughout the approval process. “If we had to reduce the parking somewhat, is there some line that we would cross where we would go, “no más?” he said. “Yeah there is, but I couldn’t tell you what it is.”

“That said, I’ve deliberately not put a straw man in there for analysis. We’ve deliberately put a thoughtful approach for analysis and I hope it’s not taken as a throw away option to then get us to some ‘real’ negotiation,” said Nelson. “If there’s change to be made, we need to do it on some rational basis.”

What the view of CityPlace would look like from Mason Street. Image: Market Street Holdings LLC

At the heart of the San Francisco Planning Department’s 328-page Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for CityPlace, sustainable transportation advocates have pinpointed one glaring flaw. In assessing the impacts of new off-street retail parking, the environmental analysis [pdf] concludes that building a 167-space garage will have the same effect on traffic as building no garage at all.

“This environmental analysis has really pitted this project against pedestrian safety and the livability of this neighborhood,” said Tom Radulovich, the executive director of Livable City.

CityPlace is a 250,000 square foot retail project planned for Market Street that the Mayor has trumpeted as essential for the area, “a key pillar in the continuing revitalization of Mid-Market that will bring hundreds of jobs and new revenues to boost our City’s economy and thousands of new pedestrians and shoppers to activate one of the most blighted blocks of Market Street.”

Radulovich along with attorney Arthur Levy and Walk SF had filed an appeal of the Planning Commission’s certification of the DEIR, arguing that it failed to adequately address and mitigate the dangers to pedestrians and bicyclists. Levy was also concerned the St. Francis Theater, designed by architect John Galen Howard, will be demolished and that the glass structure won’t fit in with the visual and historic character of Market Street.

Supporting the appeal seemed politically impossible for the Board of Supervisors. Instead, Supervisor Chris Daly, who represents the area, with help from Judson True, an aide to Supervisor David Chiu, brokered a deal [pdf] before the supervisors meeting Tuesday.  Market Street Holdings LLC (Urban Realty), the project’s sponsor, agreed to charge a 20 cent per vehicle exit fee at the CityPlace garage that would eventually add up to $1.8 million for “bicycle and/or pedestrian and/or transit improvements.” That pleased the supervisors and the DEIR was certified on a 9-0 vote, giving the final clearance.

The rejection of the appeal followed a public hearing in which the advocates laid out their case, and the project’s sponsors were allowed a rebuttal.

"We need to be a city that does everything it can to ensure the livability of neighborhoods and to ensure pedestrian and bicycle safety ," said Tom Radulovich of Livable City.

“What we are talking about today are really issues of life and death. The fact that this project and this EIR are not mitigating the impacts that they’ll have on this community,” Radulovich told the supervisors.

The neighborhood, he argued, which houses many low-income residents, seniors and children, is dangerous enough and doesn’t need any more auto traffic spilling into the six affected intersections. Sixth Street, immediately adjacent to the project, is one of the city’s worst streets for pedestrian fatalities and injuries.

“In helping Market Street we can’t make 6th Street even worse,” Manish Champsee, the president of Walk San Francisco, testified. “Three of the top five intersections for pedestrian safety are on 6th Street.”

The DEIR analysis, instead of looking at automobiles as the real danger to pedestrians, assessed the impacts to pedestrians based on increased foot traffic and conflicts with other pedestrians.

Radulovich said the analysis flew in the face of the Planning Department’s own parking code, Section 150 [pdf], and the city’s General Plan, “which states that if you have a short-term parking need in the downtown, don’t add more parking, convert long-term parking to short-term parking because adding more parking creates more automobile trips.”

“We do not want to stop the project. We want to improve environmental analysis in this city.” –Andy Thornley, SFBC

“The notion that providing 200 more parking spaces will not create more [automobile] trips is ludicrous, frankly,” said Andy Thornley, the program manager of the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, whose offices along with Livable City and Walk SF have been been located in the Mid-Market area for many years.  “We do not want to stop the project. We want to improve environmental analysis in this city.”

Thornley said as San Francisco moves away from using intersection Level of Service (LOS) to analyze transportation impacts and toward evaluating automobile trip generation (ATG) “it’s very troubling to see an environmental document come forward that makes such a flimsy estimate of auto trip generation.”

The advocates argue that allowing CityPlace and other projects excessive parking sets a bad precedent and runs afoul of a Transit First policy and neighborhood plans that are supposed to guide transportation and land use decisions.

CityPlace’s sponsor argues that despite the 4,500 spaces in more than a dozen nearby city-owned garages, parking in the building is needed for the project to succeed because of the type of value-based “household goods, electronics and sports equipment” stores they are seeking. Drivers, they argue, need to transport large purchases. According to the San Francisco Business Times, the stores being sought include TJ Maxx, JCPenney, Ross, Dick’s Sporting Goods and Big 5 Sporting Goods.

Jim Abrams, who presented the CityPlace transportation plan to the Planning Commission, argued the parking in the building would be much less than similar retail spaces in dense, urban areas such as Brooklyn and Queens, and would be setting an example by providing “the lowest amount of parking of any comparable center in the country.”

By contrast, though, some nearby stores including Macy’s, Bloomingdales, Barneys and Nieman Marcus offer no parking in the building for their driving customers. The San Francisco Examiner recently reported that Target wanted to move into the Metreon where there is no on-site parking.

The project rendering of Stevenson Street, where drivers will enter and exit the parking garage. Image: Market Street Holdings LLC

“I think the fundamental decision to drive or not is whether you have a prospect of finding parking,” said Bill Wycko, the head of Major Environmental Analysis for the San Francisco Planning Department.

Wycko, responding to a question from Supervisor Daly, said his office is not able to effectively analyze ATG for shopping trips because there has been no research and surveys conducted on retail auto trips, which would offer some evidence for how retail parking affects driver behavior. Instead, the analysis is based on commuter surveys.

“Intuitive or not, the relationship between supply in parking and how people travel, other than the obvious situation where you don’t have a car, you don’t drive, is not as obvious as you would think and for shopping trips the substantial evidence, the real evidence, is largely non-existent,” said Wycko. “We can all have our hunches and our intuition but that’s kind of not what we use in [California Environmental Quality Act analysis].”

Wycko did acknowledge the city is engaged in a monumental process to overhaul LOS and replace it with ATG, which will presumably require planners to analyze trip generation associated with parking spaces.

“There is an effort to take a different approach and as part of that approach one of the things we’ve been urging is that there does need to be follow-up monitoring because one reason there isn’t data, especially local data, is that there hasn’t been this sort of, okay, if you do this, what’s the behavior pattern? If you do that, what’s the behavior pattern?”

In an interview with Streetsblog, John Rahaim, the Planning Department Director, said he supports eventually transitioning to ATG but feels the issues raised by transit advocates in the appeal probably don’t belong in the CEQA process.

“Whether we should be looking at the safety issues, and the pedestrian and vehicular conflicts is an important question. I don’t think it’s a CEQA issue, however. I would love to figure out a way to get at those issues outside of the CEQA process, which is a cumbersome process, frankly.”

Both Livable City and Levy are considering a lawsuit.

“I think that EIR is a very poor document. I think it’s legally defective. I feel that the Board of Supervisors was under a lot of political pressure to move this project along. That part of Market Street has been neglected and been a problem for a long time,” said Levy, who added that he would like to see the project move forward, but not it until it fully addresses the issues raised in the appeal.

The project is now scheduled to break ground in 2011 and despite the surcharge that will be directed toward bicycle, pedestrian and transit improvements advocates are skeptical they’ll happen quickly.

Radulovich said he was disappointed the letter outlining the compromise “wasn’t water tight” and didn’t include language guaranteeing the money and the improvements would come immediately. True later tried to assure him that the money paid to the SFMTA would secure improvements sooner rather than later.

“We feel strongly that the MTA is well positioned to use the money for this parking surcharge to in some way finance up front improvements for bicyclists, pedestrians and transit riders. So we feel confident that while it’s untested, the parking surcharge is a mechanism that will not just give money over time but provide for some up front money and that’s really up to the MTA to figure out the best way to do that,” said True.

SFMTA spokesperson Paul Rose said CityPlace had already separately paid $200,000 to the agency, $50,000 of which will be used for a study to see what improvements are needed, and the rest will be put toward implementation.

“The full scope will of course need to be developed based on the initial study,” said Rose.

Radulovich said transit advocates were an influential force in getting the sponsor to commit the money, and hoped that mid-block crosswalks — where a majority of pedestrian injuries and fatalities occur in the area — bulbouts and protected bike lanes would be included.

Yee at a press conference recently celebrating the Valencia Streetscape Improvement Project. Photo: Bryan Goebel.

Bond Yee, a veteran traffic engineer who has spent thirty years designing and managing San Francisco's streets, will be named to fill the recently created Sustainable Streets Director position permanently, Streetsblog has learned. Yee was appointed interim director of the Sustainable Streets division eight months ago while the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) conducted a nationwide search for a permanent director.

"He was intimate in merging us toward the Sustainable Streets division over the last 8 or 9 months so he’s been putting the infrastructure there and I think it’s only fair that we give him a shot to bring it home," said SFMTA Chief Nat Ford.

Yee was the city's longest serving traffic engineer before Jack Fleck, who recently retired, and had been the director of the former Department of Parking and Traffic before stepping into his new role. He is greatly respected among many staffers at the SFMTA.

DPT was merged into Sustainable Streets last year as part of a directive passed by voters under Proposition E in 1999 to merge all departments into one agency to better govern the streets. Whether that has been working is something transit advocates have been debating. Some have even called the move a failure.

Many advocates had hoped to bring some fresh blood into the position and wanted the SFMTA to hire someone with a bold vision for streets governance, similar to what has happened in New York City under the leadership of NYC Department of Transportation Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan.

Tom Radulovich, the Livable City executive director, said both Yee and the retired Fleck have been resistant to traffic calming measures over the years. He said the mission of the Sustainable Streets division has been "ill-defined," and was not pleased with Yee's promotion.

“It’s disappointing news. That department needs to not just be traffic engineering and for too long their idea of street design has been traffic engineering. It’s not the same thing. We need somebody with more of a multi-modal street design background and we need somebody who gets that streets aren’t just for moving cars. They’re not even just for moving people. They’re actually public spaces, social spaces, they’re environmental spaces and we just haven’t seen that from Bond.”

Radulovich has been pushing the agency and elected officials to consider moving streets management into a separate agency.

Ford defended Yee and said the characterization of him as an old-school traffic engineer who tends to prioritize automobiles over other modes was unfair.

"Under Bond’s watch we’ve done some very creative things with bikes. We’re one of the most bikeable cities in the country. We’ve done some innovative things with pedestrians. We’re one of the most walkable cities in the country," said Ford. He also noted that Yee has been overseeing the implementation of SFPark, one of the most innovate parking pilots in the country. "What perception may be is one thing, but let’s look at the results and look at where we stand as it relates to other urban cities."

The San Francisco Bicycle Coalition said it was looking forward to working with Yee, but offered no other comment.

In the interview with Streetsblog, Ford did acknowledge that part of the reason the position was being handed to Yee was because the agency has been eliminating management positions and two people they were eyeing for the job turned it down.

Cheryl Brinkman at a press conference earlier this year celebrating San Francisco's first new bike lane in three years. In the background is SFMTA Chief Nat Ford. Photo: sfbike

"Cheryl Brinkman is exactly the kind of candidate that Mayor Newsom hoped would apply," said Newsom's spokesperson, Tony Winnicker. "She has tremendous experience as a transit rider and is a transit advocate. She will bring great perspective and energy and ideas to the MTA."

The move to nominate a director with such solid credentials was roundly cheered by transit advocates, who applauded the Mayor for choosing such a laudable advocate for sustainable transportation to a board that has been dominated by loyalists who rarely break from Room 200's wishes.

While acknowledging he has a clear bias, Livable City Executive Director Tom Radulovich called Brinkman a transportation superhero. "She is one of the hard workers and has really worked behind the scenes to make Sunday Streets happen," he said. "I think she's going to be a great asset to the MTA."

Radulovich added that Brinkman is someone who really gets the land use and transportation connection along with the complexities of funding transportation improvements.

Brinkman, 45, is the president of the Livable City Board of Directors, and a senior product manager at McKesson Corporation. A 24-year San Francisco resident, she has logged more than a thousand volunteer hours for Sunday Streets, and in addition to Livable City, serves on the Market-Octavia Citizen Advisory Committee and is the former chair of the Pedestrian Safety Advisory Committee. She will resign from those positions once she is confirmed by the Board of Supervisors, which has never rejected any of the Mayor's appointments to the SFMTA Board.

"We, at the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, are thrilled to hear that Cheryl Brinkman has been nominated to the MTA Board. Cheryl has been a real leader in bringing Sunday Streets to San Francisco, a regular event that gives San Franciscans a new way to enjoy their streets. We look forward to working with Cheryl in her new position on the MTA Board," said Renee Rivera, the SFBC's acting executive director.

Brinkman poses for a photo in Momentum Magazine. Photo: dustinj

Brinkman and her husband Rich Coffin, an associate principal in the infrastructure division of the design engineering firm Arup, have been car-free since they sold their Honda Civic in early 2001. Both get around by bicycle or Muni.  

"She is committed to public transit and sustainable transportation," said Dave Snyder of the Transit Riders Union, who added that the next appointees to the SFMTA Board should have the power to think more independently.

"The Mayor knows very well that whoever he appoints doesn't have to follow his wishes because the appointment is going to last longer than the Mayor's term and there's nothing he can do about it. He did the right thing and appointed an excellent candidate."

Jason Henderson, a geography professor at San Francisco State University who sits with Brinkman on the Market-Octavia committee, praised her as a consensus builder who is pragmatic and enthusiastic.

"I think she'll do great and she'll read everything. That's not to say that other people don't read everything, but a lot of times on appointed committees you got people that are there to carry someone else's water and maybe someone else reads it. Cheryl will read things like environmental review documents and budget reports for herself."

"I appreciate that it seems like he may be selecting MTA commissioners that are more responsive to Muni riders but that doesn't preclude the need for significant Muni reforms," Board of Supervisors President David Chiu told Streetsblog.

Brinkman's nomination must first be confirmed by the Rules Committee before heading to the full Board of Supervisors. The next SFMTA Board meeting is August 6th so presumably it would happen before then.

Winnicker said they are still interviewing candidates to fill the second vacancy that was left open when the terms for Shirley Breyer-Black and James McCray expired earlier this year.

The BP oil spill goes on. And on. We watch the oil on live web cam pouring into the Gulf of Mexico. And we watch. Political rage is muted, practical responses even more distant. What to do? How do we “take action” on something like this? How can individuals meaningfully respond to this catastrophe? Stop driving? Boycott one brand of gas? Stop buying things made of plastic? Let’s not flatter ourselves. A few folks I know are planning to go to a local ARCO gas station (owned by BP) to protest, which will surely be a big moment for the minimum wage employee in the cash booth, and probably an irritant to the half dozen or more motorists waiting to fill their cars.

The numbing impotence we feel is painfully calibrated to our inability to affect what’s happening. Consumer choices we might make will have zero impact on this disaster, and can’t shape the larger dynamics of a globe-spanning, multinational oil industry either. Just listen to Democracy Now on Friday morning to hear how Chevron has destroyed thousands of square miles of the Nigerian delta in its incessant exploitation of the oil there, or how the Ecuadoran Amazon too is covered in vast lakes of spilled oil.

The deeper questions about technology and science are far from our daily lives. The world we live in is embedded in complex networks of technological dependencies, which none of us have chosen freely. Nor do any of us have any way to participate directly in deciding what technologies we will use, how they will be deployed, what kind of social controls will be exerted over private interests who organize and run them for their own gain, etc. (supposedly the federal government regulates them in the public interest, but that is clearly false as shown YET AGAIN by this disaster). The basic direction of science is considered a product of objective research and development, when it has always been skewed to serve the interests of those who already have economic and political power. Public, democratic direction for science and technology is not only non-existent, we really don’t even discuss it as a possibility!

British Petroleum should be given the death penalty. Oh wait! They don’t have death penalties for corporations. In fact, though they apparently have all the rights of individuals with respect to “free speech” (which they are free to buy at any price they wish), they cannot be held accountable as individuals for overtly criminal behavior. And even if they were, their bottom-line obsessing, litigation-phobic approach to the worst oil spill in history is just an example of normal corporate behavior in 2010. Their efforts to control press access and spin the story to their advantage have been consistent since the original accident, insisting on journalists being embedded on BP boats or planes so they can control what is seen and reported.

Penalizing corporate executives that get “caught” only legitimizes the rest of the criminal class in their everyday destruction of the planet. Maybe BP executives will be held criminally responsible (probably not), but the entity whose logic controls the behavior of anyone who is its executive is virtually immune. Unlike its political competitors in human form, the corporation is also apparently immortal.

The abject obeisance of the Obama government during the first 30 days of the oil geyser is a shame. Government ignorance and inaction, following the routine corruption that granted safety and environmental waivers to BP for this drilling project, should rock its legitimacy as much as Chernobyl did the Soviet government’s in 1986. I hope that blind faith in technology would also suffer a severe blow. Assurances about safe technology, proper safe guards, etc. are made about all our energy sources, from undersea oil drilling to nuclear power to the fictional “clean coal.” (Just last Tuesday I was speaking at a class at UC Santa Cruz where a couple of earnest students tried to argue that nuclear power was the solution to global warming!) This oil geyser resembles nothing so much as an uncontrollable nuclear meltdown. But rather than radiating thousands of square miles of countryside as happened in the Ukraine in 1986, this is filling the Gulf of Mexico with billions of gallons of crude oil. The sea is already dying, which is beginning to cascade into seaside communities and economies. The death of the Gulf will have unknown further effects on weather, ocean ecology, bird migration, and much more, and that’s before the massive underwater oil plume reaches the gulf stream in the Atlantic and does even more damage. It’s an insane, unwanted experiment in a foreseeable and preventable ecological catastrophe of unprecedented scope and severity.

Turns out that BP is closer to us, in a bigger way, than a lot of folks realize. Only a couple of years ago BP and the University of California at Berkeley signed a $500 million deal that will build a new biofuels research institute at the school, to be managed by BP and it is to BP that all patent discoveries will go. Obama’s Energy Secretary Steven Chu was the UC official who made the deal. Now his deputy energy secretary is the former chief scientist for BP! Maybe folks who want to protest this disaster should explore an alliance with the dynamic student movement that has already been in motion since last fall. Protest and obstruction do have their place.

Nature in the City's new proposal for a 10-mile "wild" corridor.

But other things are afoot in San Francisco too of a more affirmative nature. A couple of weeks ago the Public Utilities Committee of the Board of Supervisors held a well-attended public hearing regarding new ways of working with local water supplies from ground water and storm water to rain catchment and graywater. On Wednesday night Nature in the City presented their new campaign for a Bioregional Park (PDF) in the heart of San Francisco, a long-term feature of which is a 10-mile corridor that sweeps from the Presidio in the north down the spine of the City’s major peaks and then angling east across McLaren Park to Bayview Hill and Candlestick Point.  A natural corridor that knits together as many existing open spaces and parks as possible, planted with native plants to restore basic habitat for local critters, bugs and plants, would also help them to migrate through the urban environment. Bikeways, hiking paths, even daylighted creeks could be part of this.

And the SF Bike Coalition just announced their new campaign Connecting the City—San Francisco's Crosstown Bikeways for All (which is not as ambitious—after all these years—as a modest little flyer I put out in 1987 calling for a City of Panhandles). So far it’s a campaign to raise money, but it demonstrates a willingness to finally push for a more serious challenge to the dominance of private cars over our public streets. It’s a campaign that dovetails nicely with the notion of a wild corridor, new ways to think about watersheds and underground creeks, and more. It’s welcome development for the bigger agenda of altering how we live.

Ultimately these small choices are the only way we CAN start to lay a new foundation, technologically and socially, for a real transformation of life that will preclude disasters of the magnitude in the Gulf. A materially comfortable life for all should be the goal of a creative and energetic campaign of social and technological re-invention so that we radically reduce our use of energy, water, and other materials.

Combining the various incipient insurgencies for other uses of public streets, maybe we can start by getting some accurate numbers. What percentage of the land area of San Francisco is covered in public streets? What percentage of that street area is dedicated to cars as opposed to bicycles, pedestrians, or even transit lines (obviously buses use the same streets as cars, but not nearly as many streets as cars; nor do they generally park curbside)? What percentage is open space, parklands, sidewalk gardens, etc.? What are the largest contiguous zones of open lands not built on in some fashion?

I propose that once we get the numbers, which we can only guess at now, it will be possible to raise the demand for a specific percentage of city streets being permanently turned over to new uses, including daylighting subterranean waterways, building city-spanning parkways for crosstown bicycling, walking, and for the critters, scurrying and slithering. What do you think? Five percent of the streets converted to new auto-free uses? 10 percent? 25 percent? How far can we go?

Our era is characterized by a profound impotence in the face of national and global breakdowns. We don’t have a political vision, let alone a movement of movements, ready for prime time. We have to build the capacity to reinvent life one block, one neighborhood, one city at a time. The good news is that thousands of your friends and neighbors are already involved in just these efforts. Paul Hawken in his book “Blessed Unrest” identifies 30 million grassroots environmental organizations around the world! He calls them the immune system for Earth. Let’s hope the immune system will behave like our own bodily immune systems, and start killing the threats to our global health, the corporations that left unchecked will certainly kill us and everything else on the planet.

We are often attracted to city life for the energy, the boisterousness, the noise. I am a city guy having lived all my life in cities (born in Brooklyn, Chicago until age 10, Oakland until 17, and San Francisco since I was 20). I often make the joke that "nature is trying to kill me," when one of my friends suggests we go camping. Back in the late 1970s and early 1980s I was a punk rock fan, and went to dozens of shows with ear-splitting volumes. I've been to plenty of other events through the years with overwhelming noise, from other concerts to major sports events, etc. Maybe that's why I have had a ringing in my ears for the last two years (tinnitus). And perhaps not surprisingly, I've become increasingly frustrated at the oft-overlooked urban problem of noise pollution.

The roar of approaching motorcycles drowns out all conversation until they're well past.

There are many specific contributors to our unnecessarily noisy environment, from the incessant sirens of emergency vehicles to the mechanized roar of the early morning garbage trucks, to the always galling car alarm serenade.

San Francisco's streets, however, are not that noisy compared to say, New York City. Or even compared to what it must have been like in the early decades of the 20th century when the City was criss-crossed by streetcars. Our cable cars are good examples of the kind of noisy transit that used to dominate the streets. For those who live along the tracks of the J-Church or N-Judah, or the cable cars, they know well how noisy a "light rail" vehicle can be.

Transit and street noise is taken largely for granted. We know it takes mechanical devices using fossil fuels to carry us around, unless we've embraced bicycling.

For us cyclists, the sounds of our whirring wheels and gentle gear changes is a pleasant confirmation of our self-propulsion. One of my favorite aspects of Critical Mass is the completely altered soundscape that accompanies our progress through the City. Sure, sometimes we're hooting and hollering, and there are at least a half dozen folks who might show up with serious sound systems pumping loud tunes into the air (a side note: the SFPD ticketed all the sound systems last month for lack of sound permits in their ongoing war of attrition, trying to literally raise the price for participating in CM). But the majority of time the sound is that of rolling bikes, murmuring voices, tinkling bells, and laughter. It's such a lovely kind of quiet, full of life and sweet energy, but so different from the anonymous, unaccountable thrumming of machines that fills our ears so often that we frequently stop noticing until they are turned off. And once you've ridden through the city in a mass of bicycles, it's hard not to remember that different urban environment, and wonder why it can't be more like that all the time.

One of the pleasures of a vibrant street life is the serendipitous encounter with street artists or performers, whose work is often dependent on the availability of a quieter public space. I had the pleasure in 1980 of running into Jean-Francois Batellier on the streets of Paris, France, one of the more prolific street artists there at the time (he appears in the car-free plaza in front of the Centre Pompidou daily to vend his drawings, books, postcards etc.) A lot of his work speaks to the alienation of modern life, the destruction of the urban fabric, and specifically a lot of great cartoons addressing the car culture. I got his book at the time, and one of his pieces stayed with me all these years:

By Parisian street artist Jean-Francois Batellier.

I really hate the motorcycle that you hear from blocks away. As it approaches, sidewalk conversation has to stop since no one can yell loud enough to be heard over the roar of the engine. The motorcycle has to be a full block away before anyone can even try to resume talking in a normal voice. Many Streetsblog readers are enthused about the new public plazas, mini-parks and parklets that are finally getting a local tryout. I love them, and see in them a harbinger of a more convivial, friendly, sociable city. But in this awkward interim period before they're fully developed, and while the preponderant use of local throughways is still overwhelmingly automobiles, we sit in our new parklets next to traffic, the sonic environment dominated by internal combustion engines (not to speak of the olfactory environment!).

By Parisian street artist Jean-Francois Batellier.

Another pet peeve is the sonic deterioration of BART. I recall riding it when it opened in the early 1970s and being impressed by its smooth, quiet, gliding quality. These days, whenever the train is going through a turn, whether between the Civic Center and 16th Street stations, or from downtown to West Oakland, the jarring screech of the metal wheels on rails is deafening; again it stops all conversation. Even just at high speed through the Transbay Tunnel it's much harder to converse than it used to be.

Noise is recognized by the San Francisco Department of Public Health (DPH) as a serious issue. And there is a Noise Task Force that brings together representatives of the police, DPH, city officials, entertainment businesses, and others. The enforcement of noise pollution ordinances is somewhat balkanized, with a half dozen agencies having varying responsibilities for it. The fight over late-night nightclubs is often driven by noise concerns, and Community Boards mediation services are often employed to address conflicts between neighbors with radically different tastes when it comes to amplified music and other kinds of noise.

It's an issue that comes up in more and more of our lives, and as more of us are getting older, we can hope for a more respectful approach to social space and noise. I know there will be comments here that say basically "if it's too noisy for you, stay home (or move to the suburbs)!" I've been struggling with bars and restaurants for a while already, but it's not nearly as bad as the problems my 78-year-old father has. If we don't find a restaurant with a quiet corner, we might as well not go out to eat because he really can't hear a thing over the roar of most San Francisco restaurants.

Sad to say, I'm heading the same way, even though I'm only 53. I've pretty much given up on bars, unless there's a quiet room or booth in the back. I can count the restaurants on one hand that are quiet enough to have a personal conversation that doesn't require yelling to be heard. It's a mystery to me why the common wisdom for restauranteurs is that a loud roaring restaurant is the most profitable. It would be nice if the private spaces in which we gather to drink, dine, and talk would honor the desire to talk as much as their narrow focus on selling us food and beverages. Perhaps some bar owner might still decide to promote a quieter environment. I'm sure there are a few out there already.

Ultimately our streets are our primary public spaces besides parks. We have a right to less noise, especially that imposed by trucks and motorcycles that are far exceeding the allowable decibel levels as they roar through our streets. If we continue to spend more time in our reclaimed street space, we should demand that right.

Unlike numerous downtown garages, this one adheres to planning code and charges a non-discounted monthly parking rate. Photo: Michael Rhodes.

Planning Code Section 155(g) prohibits discount rates for all-day or monthly parking in off-street parking spaces downtown (the C-3 District in planning code parlance). It’s intended to discourage commuting by car to San Francisco's crowded downtown, while encouraging transit and leaving spots open for shorter car trips, like shopping and appointments.

Because the Planning Department doesn't have an effective enforcement wing, nor a financial incentive to enforce parking rules, the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (MTA) is considering how it could take over enforcement of the commuter parking law, a move the MTA believes could net an additional $6 million annually.

"Enforcement has not been done in any systematic way that I’m aware of," said the Planning Department's Josh Switzky. "It's normally done on a complaint basis. It's a matter of practicality and workload."

Switzky said the Planning Department is enthusiastic about the idea of handing the responsibility over to the MTA, which already enforces many other parking rules in the city and has a major financial incentive to enforce the code aggressively.

At present, the average monthly fee for parking downtown is $285, according to a recently completed parking census. That’s an average hourly rate of $1.78 based on a 40-hour workweek. If the ordinance were strictly enforced, based on current market rates all parkers would pay an hourly rate of around $2.30, regardless of their length of stay.

By enforcing existing law the MTA would gain additional revenue to help close budget gaps of $45 million and $55 million in the next two fiscal years, without resorting to cutting even more Muni service. By discouraging discount rates, garage operators would charge more for long-term parking and the MTA will get more in parking tax revenue and income from its own garages.

In a move to gain the support of Supervisor Bevan Dufty, Board of Supervisors President David Chiu has stripped language from his proposed garage legislation that would have ensured all new garage additions to existing buildings in Chinatown, North Beach and Telegraph Hill conform with Better Streets Plan (BSP) guidelines.

The original legislation, which Chiu sponsored, would have required garage additions in sections of those neighborhoods to receive a conditional use authorization from the Planning Commission. Garages would be blocked if they had been built following no-fault evictions or didn't meet the design guidelines in the BSP.

At Tuesday's Board of Supervisors meeting, Chiu announced that the BSP provision would be removed, and only buildings with four units or more would need to go through a full discretionary review process at Planning -- significantly lowering the bar for adding new garages compared to the original proposal.

Chiu said the revised legislation would return to the Board of Supervisors Land Use Committee for a public hearing on Monday. The revised legislation, he said, "would really help to protect the core purpose of why we're moving this legislation," while dealing with the concerns raised by Dufty and others.

That's still an important victory for protecting housing, said Livable City's Tom Radulovich, but a setback in terms of ensuring better conditions for pedestrians, bicyclists and transit riders.

"The consolation is we've got the Planning Department talking about it for the first time," said Radulovich, a principal supporter of the BSP provision. "It's been a big loophole in the Planning Code because the addition of a non-required garage has a big impact."

Revised legislation hasn't made its way to the public yet, but it will likely still include restrictions on driveways on portions of major commercial streets like Broadway and Columbus, and could still remove parking minimums in the affected neighborhoods.

Garage addition companies, landlords and condo conversion supporters who oppose the measure have heavily lobbied Dufty, who could provide a critical override vote in case Mayor Newsom vetoes the legislation. Dufty has said he supports legislation to limit no-fault Ellis Act evictions, but has been cool on further restrictions to new garage additions in Chinatown, North Beach and Telegraph Hill.

You can contact Supervisor Dufty's office about the legislation by email at Bevan.Dufty@sfgov.org or by phone at (415) 554-6968.

Photo: sirgious

On an incredible spring day with temperatures in the 60s, thousands of people descended on the Embarcadero in San Francisco for the first Sunday Streets of 2010, riding, skating, dancing, hula hooping, and swinging in the coolest bicycle-powered amusement park ride I've ever seen.

With over three miles of the northbound lanes of the Embarcadero closed to cars, San Franciscans of all stripes flocked to the typically touristic confines of Fisherman's Wharf for a Family Fun Fair hosted by the merchants, including the bicycle powered Cyclecide carnival, a rock climbing wall, and a number of other free events.

Fisherman's Wharf Community Benefit District (FWCBD) Executive Director Kevin Carroll marveled at the nice day and said that events like Sunday Streets are important to show locals that "there are things you can come down and enjoy the rest of the year" at California's second largest tourist attraction (behind Disneyland).

Carroll said his merchants had assembled gift bags with promotional materials meant to draw locals back to the district after the events and said they were monitoring who attended by getting feedback. At last year's Sunday Streets event at Fisherman's Wharf, Carroll told Streetsblog, more than two-thirds of visitors were local San Franciscans.

This year's series of Sunday Streets events has been spearheaded by the MTA, which co-organizers like Livable City said makes the events run much more smoothly. MTA Spokesperson Judson True, who told me that he made the Embarcadero route a piece of a three-hour bike ride throughout the city yesterday, was very encouraged by the street "closure."

"This was a terrific start to the Sunday Streets season," said True. "The credit goes to the tremendous team of volunteers, all the city staff and personnel and to everyone who came out on a gorgeous day to enjoy the best of what San Francisco has to offer."

When asked how he take measure of the day, FWCBD's Carroll said, "If we're seeing families and kids and people having fun, and enjoying the day, to me that is successful." 

As the following pictures demonstrate, it was a success indeed:

The Cyclecide bicycle-powered amusement park swing. This girl's mother was riding one of the four bikes that propelled her. Photo: Matthew Roth

The SFBC set up a course to teach the young ones how to safely operate their bicycles on the streets of San Francisco. Photo: Bill Ward

Photo: Bill Ward

Proud papa getting a pic of his daughter's first climb. Photo: Matthew Roth

Photo: Matthew Roth

Is that Walk SF's Maneesh Champsee doing the do-si-do? Photo: Bill Ward

Cyclecide's bus. Photo: Matthew Roth

Street closed, or open? Photo: Bill Ward

Susan King of Livable City flanked by beautiful bikes. Photos: Michael Rhodes

The six Sunday Streets events last year managed to attract between 16,000 and 20,000 people each, and the biggest complaint was that there weren't enough of them, said MTA Executive Director Nat Ford.

"Last year, we checked with all the participants and they said they wanted more Sunday Streets. We're delivering that," said Ford. "They said that they wanted to have more activities. We've provided that. And they wanted it to be diverse around the city, so I think we've answered all of the requests by our citizens."

On top of that, they'll be longer: each event will run from 10 a.m. until 3 p.m. this year.

Sunday Streets is a chance to walk, bicycle, and generally play in the streets, all for free - but merchants have embraced the events as a welcome economic boost as well. "We're really excited this year because we're going to be able to welcome everyone into the heart of Fisherman's Wharf for a Family Fitness Fair," said Kevin Caroll, Executive Director of the Fisherman's Wharf Community Benefit District.

Sustainable transportation advocates are geared up too: the tag line for Sunday Streets this year is "No Sunday Drivers. Guaranteed," and Ford made it clear that he's serious about that. "We expect everyone who will be joining us on these Sundays to use Muni, to walk or to take their bike to get to these Sunday Streets venues," said Ford.

The events take a lot of coordination between partners in the city's government, non-profits and businesses; it also takes a lot of volunteers.

"One of the most important elements of Sunday Streets is our volunteers," said Susan King of Livable City, the non-profit that has led organizing for Sunday Streets. "We had over 1,000 volunteers over the last two years give up part of their day, instead of having fun, making sure that everybody stays safe."

If you're able to help out at one or more of the events, head over to the Sunday Streets website to sign up. The San Francisco Bicycle Coalition coordinates the volunteer program, meaning you'll get to work with Kate McCarthey, who just received the 2010 Susie Stephens Joyful Enthusiasm Award from The Alliance for Biking and Walking for her "tireless enthusiasm to harness the power of individuals to better bicycling."

As for this Sunday, the forecast calls for 60-degree weather and clear skies: all the more reason to come out and enjoy San Francisco's own ciclovía.

A very satisfied attendee of Sunday Streets in the Mission last year.

Could the bleakest budget in the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency's history force its directors to finally get creative in funding Muni?

The answer, judging from Tuesday's MTA Board meeting, is yes. Fresh off approving a 10 percent cut to Muni service to balance this year's budget, MTA directors appeared eager to close the agency's massive budget gap in the upcoming two years without cutting more service or raising fares.

MTA staff presented $75 million in solutions that the agency could enact without going to the ballot box, but more than a third of that would come from charging for transfers and cutting even more service -- ideas quickly shot down by the board.

The remaining solutions, including a plan to extend parking meter enforcement hours, add up to about $40 million annually. That's far less than the $56.4 million shortfall the agency is projected to face next year, or the $45 million shortfall projected for the year after that.

But for the first time in the MTA's ten-year history, the board seems serious about going to the ballot box to stave off further service cuts. Transit supporters say it's a noteworthy shift.

"It is a really good sign to see the MTA trying to get ahead of things now and come up with a long-term revenue strategy so they're not facing a crisis every single year," said Gabriel Metcalf, Executive Director of the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association (SPUR), an urban planning think tank.

Tom Radulovich, Executive Director of Livable City and a member of the BART Board, also called it a welcome development. "This would be the MTA Board for the first time not being totally passive about creating new revenue and actually being proactive," he said. "It's late, but it's progress."

The directors will have to maintain their resolve during what is certain to be an uphill battle. MTA staff presented five potential ballot measures to the board on Tuesday, and the directors themselves suggested two more. Each of the seven faces formidable hurdles.

Any measure would need two-thirds approval from voters to be dedicated to the MTA, instead of going to the city's general fund. That's a tall order in any year, but especially in a recession.

Two of the proposals -- a parcel tax and an increase in the hotel occupancy tax -- are heavily opposed by the city's business interests while promising relatively small financial returns (the taxes are projected to bring in $15 million and $20 million, respectively). That could quickly scuttle both ideas.

Another measure -- a one-half percent increase in the city's sales tax -- could bring in more than $70 million annually, but is likewise bound to meet strong opposition (60 percent of respondents opposed the idea in a poll released yesterday [PDF]). It may be a large enough sum to justify the struggle, and the Bay Area has a history of supporting sales tax measures for transit funding. But it's a very tough sell in the midst of a recession that has already decimated retail sales.

A Tie to Transportation

Some transit supporters say the focus should be on measures that have an obvious tie to transportation.

"The CAC (MTA Citizens' Advisory Council) has given me pretty clear direction that they prefer taxes that have some direct linkage to transportation," said Daniel Murphy, chair of the CAC. "Vehicle license fees, parking fees, extending parking meter hours, things like that are things the CAC has generally been supportive of."

The advantage of measures that generate revenue from parking, said SPUR's Metcalf, is that they increase the price of driving while funneling money to transit, which is in line with the city's Transit First policy.

MTA staff presented two measures that meet that criteria: an increase in the vehicle license fee (VLF) from the current 1.15 percent to 2 percent of the vehicle purchase price, and raising the commercial off-street parking tax from 25 percent to 35 percent. The VLF could generate $33 million annually, while the parking tax could bring in $20 million, according to the MTA.

"I would observe that there is a really clear nexus between the vehicle license fee and the commercial off-street parking tax and Muni," said Metcalf. "So, I would think that from a tax policy perspective, those would be the two most logical places to look."

In fact, of all the measures the MTA is considering, the VLF has by far the strongest support within San Francisco. It has the endorsement of transit advocates, most of the Board of Supervisors, the city's state representatives, and even the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce.

Supported Everywhere Except at the Top

But the VLF increase doesn't have the support of Governor Schwarzenegger -- a potential deal breaker because state law sets the maximum VLF rate.

Senator Mark Leno is working to change the law, and has introduced legislation in the past that would allow San Francisco to raise its VLF locally. The last time he tried, the bill cleared the state Assembly, but the governor vetoed it. At the time, Schwarzenegger said it was unfair for the bill to only apply to San Francisco. This time, Leno is calling his bluff by reintroducing the bill as a statewide measure, giving any county the authority to charge a VLF as high as two percent if voters approve it.

But will the governor simply veto the bill again?

"It's a mystery," said Leno. "You never know. I would like to think with the business voice of San Francisco urging him to sign this bill," he'll pass it.

The San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, which is rarely keen on new taxes, has strongly supported the bill, said Leno. "We've supported it," confirmed the chamber's public policy director Jim Lazarus. "We've been a co-sponsor along with the San Francisco Labor Council."

"We believe it's one of those fees that are shared. When residents pay and businesses pay, it's a type of revenue stream we could support."

According to a poll released yesterday, which was commissioned by the chamber, a majority of residents agree: 54 percent said they'd support an increase in the VLF to two percent, even without being told what the money would be used for. (A dedicated Muni revenue stream might appeal to even more voters.)

Representatives from state Assemblymember Fiona Ma's office and state Senator Leland Yee's office said they also strongly supported VLF legislation.

"The senator would certainly support the increase in the VLF," said Yee spokesman Adam Keigwin. "In fact, he has authored legislation to do so in the past."

MTA Executive Director Nat Ford said Tuesday that MTA management would meet with the city's state representatives on March 10 to discuss the legislation.

Muni's Not Alone in Seeking VLF Money

There's a wrinkle in the VLF plan: The Board of Supervisors already intends to introduce a separate VLF measure on the ballot. That measure would direct money to the general fund, with Muni sharing the new revenue with other city agencies. This measure would be much easier to pass, since it would only require a simple majority of voters to approve it -- but also not as lucrative for Muni as a dedicated MTA measure.

Board of Supervisors President David Chiu was the lead sponsor of a local VLF bill last year, which failed because it needed unanimous approval of the supervisors (an odd rule requires that such measures have unanimous support from the supervisors in years when supervisors are not up for election). It had the votes of nine of 11 supervisors, which will be plenty to get it through this year, a supervisorial election year. The measure would increase the city's VLF to two percent, pending approval from the state.

The money wouldn't be dedicated to the MTA, but Chiu said the MTA would benefit from it.

"As we're talking about cutting the huge amount we cut this and last year at the MTA, it's important we think about revenue options," he said. "We'll be working in the next couple of months to work on which ideas would get the most support.

The TA's VLF Ballot Measure

Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi, who chairs the San Francisco County Transportation Authority (TA), a source of some MTA funding, is far from optimistic that VLF legislation will be passed at the state level any time soon. "Leno's bill is not going anywhere," he said.

The TA is working on sponsoring another ballot measure this year that would actually allow a modest increase in the local VLF without additional state legislation, he said. Under SB 83, the city has some leeway to charge a higher VLF, bringing in $5 million instead of $33 million. That money would go straight to the TA, which often sends the MTA funds with conditions.

"I highly recommend we stick with this legal framework," Mirkarimi said. "It's the only strategy that has already been allowed by the state on the vehicle license fee."

Mirkarimi said any ballot measure put forward by the MTA would need to be backed up by a demonstration of much greater accountability on the agency's part.

"I think we all have to account for what improvements there's going to be in performance and efficiency," he said. "I'm all about conditions attached to try to instill a new level of confidence in MTA's ridership."

A 'Hail Mary Pass' Worth Throwing

For all the complication of moving forward with the VLF, former SPUR transportation director and current Muni riders union organizer Dave Snyder said it's a good policy, and well worth pursuing.

"The VLF is the most progressive tax we could possibly come up with because it actually tracks better with income as a tax than even the income tax," he said. "So if your theory is, tax the rich to pay for transit, then VLF is about the only way we can do that locally."

"But," he added dourly, "it's probably not going to happen."

Livable City's Radulovich agrees, calling the VLF a "Hail Mary pass" in Sacramento. But locally, he said, voters get it.

"I think the voters do understand the fee for service, that really direct relationship," Radulovich said. "You create an impact on the transportation system by driving more, you're asked to pay more."

To get any measure on the November ballot, the MTA needs to nominate it by June 15. Senator Leno said he's pushing his colleagues in the Assembly to pass the VLF legislation as soon as possible, and the Chamber of Commerce will then lobby the governor to finally sign the bill.

"You hear, so often, cities and counties outraged that the state continues to raid their money," said Leno, who called the bill a tool to give localities more flexibility to raise money.

Besides, he said, a two percent VLF wouldn't exactly be a new idea in California.

"The tax was in place during the golden years of the state of California, 1958 to 1998," said Leno. "It's not that new, it served the state well, it's equitable, and it's progressive by design."

Next week, Streetsblog will look at another potential source of transit revenue: the off-street commercial parking tax.

Preparing for a new garage addition. Photo: Michael Rhodes

The Board of Supervisors will take a second and final vote tomorrow on the legislation, which passed in a first reading by a 7-2 vote, including an aye from Dufty. Since the Mayor hasn't come out with a position on the legislation yet, proponents hope Dufty will vote in favor of the legislation again, giving it an eight-vote supermajority in case the Mayor vetoes it. (Supervisor John Avalos was absent from the first vote, but the measure's supporters are hopeful he will lend his support tomorrow.)

While he voted for the measure on February 9, Dufty said he did so at the time to give it further study before a final vote. He is reportedly being heavily lobbied by garage addition companies and other groups that oppose restrictions on condo-conversions (including the group Plan C, the Examiner reported.)

"I have not decided what I'm going to do, but I definitely plan to talk to David Chiu before mid-morning tomorrow and let him know what my thoughts are," Dufty told Streetsblog today. "I suspected that I was going to have some concerns, and I definitely have concerns."

Chief among those concerns, he said, is whether the legislation is focused on preventing "no fault" Ellis Act evictions in which tenants are evicted to make room for garages. "I don't fully understand the crafting of the legislation, but if this were focusing on Ellis Acted buildings, I would vote for it in a minute," said Dufty. "But it seems much broader and more complex and convoluted."

Dufty said he's much less enthusiastic about requiring Conditional Use Authorization for all new garages additions in Chinatown, North Beach and Telegraph Hill, which he fears would place too great a burden on the Planning Department.

A sidewalk in Chinatown, which would be covered by the new garage legislation. Photo: Michael Rhodes

Currently, adding a garage is generally allowed in existing residential buildings in the affected neighborhoods, with the burden on opponents of specific garage additions to file a Discretionary Review application to try to block individual garage additions. The new legislation would flip the process, requiring property owners hoping to build new garages in Chinatown, North Beach and Telegraph Hill to seek a Conditional Use Authorization from the Planning Commission.

Installing a garage in an existing building in the area would be permitted as a "conditional use" only if there have been no "no fault" evictions from the building in the past ten years. Garage additions would also need to conform with the Better Streets Policy, and wouldn't be allowed to decrease sidewalk accessibility or front on a public right-of-way narrower than 41 feet.

The legislation would also eliminate minimum off-street parking requirements for residential uses and institute a maximum parking cap in the Broadway Neighborhood Commercial District, North Beach Neighborhood Commercial District, and the Chinatown Mixed Use and Community Business Districts.

"He certainly supported it on the first vote, but apparently he's being lobbied by SF Garage, the people who stick garages into buildings, because it will make it harder to put garages into buildings in a corner of the city," said Tom Radulovich, Executive Director of Livable City, one of the legislation's principal supporters, along with the Chinatown Community Development Center (CCDC) and Telegraph Hill Dwellers.

Legislation Could Make it Easier to Convert Space to Dwelling Units

Radulovich said that by eliminating the minimum parking requirement for new units in the zone covered by the legislation, it would be easier for property owners to convert underutilized garage space into living quarters, since it wouldn't be necessary to include a parking space for the newly carved-out unit.

"If you don't exceed the density limit, which does not change, units which meet those limits but that are otherwise code legal would be permitted," he said. "We hope it would help with the legalization of some units which are there and occupied that don't exceed the density limits."

That, said Radulovich, could actually provide building owners with greater flexibility to build new in-law units in existing buildings, especially when they're already spending money on seismic retrofitting. That could mean new business for the very garage-addition companies that are lobbying Dufty not to support the measure, he said.

"We're hoping for a very healthy business for SF Garage Co., but not necessarily always installing garages," he added.

Dufty said he's not in a position to comment on the potential for converting non-dwelling space to living units, an issue he said is best answered by the Planning Department. (Planning Director John Rahaim couldn't be reached for comment.)

Dufty planned to meet with the City Attorney Monday afternoon, and said he has spoken with CCDC about the legislation. The measure moved through the legislative process very quickly, he said, and he's still hoping to pin down whether it is primarily about preventing Ellis Act evictions, or if it has other consequences he wouldn't support.

"I'm just not sure how openly recognized this issue was, and then all of a sudden it seems like it's a firestorm and I'm kind of looking around and going, wow, this isn't as cut-and-dried as it appeared to be," said Dufty.

The legislation's supporters have stressed that it is not intended as a first step towards a citywide restriction on garages, but rather addresses a specific issue in District 3, where tenants have frequently been evicted to make room for new garages.

You can contact Supervisor Dufty's office about the legislation by email at Bevan.Dufty@sfgov.org or by phone at (415) 554-6968. The Board of Supervisors vote on the legislation is tomorrow, February 22, at City Hall, Room 200, during the regular 2 p.m. full Board meeting.

Yarne also noted that the Green DAs would preempt what he called the "People's Park problem," where the public occupation of a private lot in Berkeley gave rise to a treasured community icon and eventually became a public park. "If a temporary vacant lot becomes too nice, suddenly you have a constituency who wants to preserve the space," said Yarne. "If it's really successful and it becomes this treasured little green space, the developer has created a new problem."

Tom Radulovich, Executive Director of Livable City, a non-profit that promotes public space in San Francisco, was concerned that Green DAs would codify the hierarchy of private interest over public space.

"As a public space advocate, I am uncomfortable with the dynamic that civic spaces are tenuous, evanescent, and interstitial, while private development is dominant, permanent, and assertive," he said.

Radulovich was also concerned Green DA's could prolong projects that no longer reflect public priorities. He wondered if the legislation was no more than "the Mayor's office continuing to try to keep some of the unsustainable developments on life support through permit extensions and fee deferrals."

"We ought to ask the worst projects to comply with current codes when their permits expire, and only extend permits or defer fees for those projects that will help us meet our sustainability, transportation, and affordability goals," said Radulovich.

The MOEWD plans to introduce legislation in the next few weeks that would establish the process and conditions for Green DAs on projects already approved by the Planning Commission. Yarne said approval of Green DAs for those projects would also have to go before the Planning Commission, where the public would have a chance to weigh in again.

In addition to the general legislation, Yarne said his office will likely move legislation to authorize the first Green DA project at 399 Folsom Street in Rincon Hill, the future site of the 41-story Echelon luxury apartment building. Working with Rebar and Friends of the Urban Forest, Fifield Company, a developer based in Chicago, would turn the vacant lot into an temporary tree nursery and educational facility until Fifield secures financing to complete the building.

Rebar, whose interim transformations of public space include Park(ing) Day and the Showcase Triangle Pavement to Parks trial plaza, has been developing the list of criteria that would qualify a project for a Green DA. According to Rebar's Matthew Passmore, the criteria would include social, cultural, educational, and environmental components and would look at the life-cycle of the project, attempting to quantify its public benefits.

Anticipating criticism of Green DAs, Rebar's John Bela said they were involved in the process because they want to advance the "thread of niche spaces and loopholes" within the city. "We're not specifically endorsing the Green DA," said Bela, but he hoped they "might become a tool or mechanism for helping achieve cool space."

Bela said Rebar would prefer to see the city pass a law that requires interim use of space for community benefit, period. "Vacancy is a continuum across the city, why not fill those voids?"

Residents and neighbors in the Rincon Hill area are tempered in their support for the innovation. Jamie Whitaker, President of the Rincon Hill Neighborhood Association, said that he has been apprised of the proposal and that both Yarne and a representative of Fifield would speak about the matter at their March 2nd meeting.

"I applaud efforts to at least make the empty lots look more presentable," said Whitaker, "but I also think they have a responsibility to keep their lots from becoming a blight right now without any legislative incentive to do so."

UPDATED: March 9th, 2010

StreetUtopia is a new community organizing effort centered in North Beach. Launched by Hank Hyena and Phil Millenbah at an inaugural event in early January, they drew upwards of 150 people to an empty historic storefront at 1 Columbus Avenue, where they showed Streetfilms, had a small art exhibit, and conducted a survey of the folks who turned out. Hank Hyena explained his motivation in terms of European cities which are often greener, more bike-friendly, and with more pedestrian-centers than US cities. Along with several other parents of children at Yick Wo Public School, including co-instigator Phil Millenbah, a San Leandro city planner, they staged an inspiring evening of art, film, and conversation.

The questionnaire they handed out at the event started with a brief paragraph, assuming that we are on the cusp of a carbon-constrained transition to a future with far less cars:

The “modern” era brought television, automobiles and other technological changes. As part of this cultural transformation to the modern era and to support automobile use, society built millions of miles of paved roadway as both streets in urban areas and as highways connecting urban areas. The “postmodern” world is carbon constrained and the focus of transport is bus or rail and the old the roadway infrastructure is not needed in the same capacity. What should be done with the old infrastructure?

Then it asked a series of questions about whether or not Columbus Avenue should be closed to cars, if there should be “flex-streets,” if Washington Square should have a fountain, and what kinds of mixed-uses North Beach streets should have if cars weren’t the only priority?

Subsequently, I interviewed both Phil and Hank about StreetUtopia and their organizing, which you can read after the jump:

A hopeful vision of a future Grant Avenue.

Phil: Our idea was to create a place that was fun to share ideas of our visions of the city. Land use has gotten so contentious in San Francisco that we wanted to do something that was free of all of that. Instead of promulgating our opinions about how closing a street increases local business activity, we showed films from around the world where business owners told their stories of what great results came from closing a street.

There are two of us but there are others around who we talked with over time and the idea developed through these talks with others in the North Beach Community. Something we are also working on is quantifying the personal and cultural infrastructure of the community [with a] GIS database and series of maps for all of North Beach. We are going to go from building to building and note what happens at each place. We are also working with a senior group and mapping all of the seniors in North Beach. There is word that the COIT 39 bus is going away—a bus used by many seniors. We hope that our map would help us bring in a jitney service if needed and then we could route the service based on our mapping. This is all community internal stuff. We aren’t looking for press or anything, we just want to help the community. There is really an unintentional retirement community developing in North Beach—lots of people growing old in place—and they need special services, like having a place to meet and be social.

We found lots of people needing places to meet. Café Culture is nice but many people would just like to sit down and enjoy the day and not have to buy anything. We need a street farmers’ market or at least some more food sold on the streets. We would like to see more streets converted to pedestrian uses and we would like to see our local business people do well—and our residents have a great place to live.

Lower Columbus: an empty sea of asphalt, what a waste of space!

Hank, explaining some of the more than 100 responses to their questionnaire:

They did not want many things that I wanted, for example, they don't want a fountain in Washington Square. (I want one because kids like them, they are pretty, and in an Italian tradition) but the residents here really don't care for fountains. They see the water use as wasteful, plus it just attracts pigeons. The people surveyed were not interested in closing the main, touristy part of Columbus because they thought that would be detrimental to the tourist industry. However, they were interested in closing off lower Columbus, from Washington Street up to perhaps Broadway, making that section pedestrian-only. I am not sure why people suggested that—perhaps because it is a rather dead part of town and they thought pedestrian-only would liven it up. But they are amenable to making upper Grant auto-free. The main thing the survey revealed is that North Beach residents want more public space, park space, open space, places to mingle and gather.  There is interest in the "Poet's Plaza" space, closing off Vallejo to traffic, but there is impatience that it is taking so long. North Beach residents want things like more parks, community centers, and general open areas to gather and mingle, and this makes sense, because North Beach is very crowded with very little public space.

Phil: People seemed to like our “Flex-space” idea a lot. Flex space to us is space that is used at different times for different things. 25 percent of San Francisco is streets. People seem very open to closing some for human activities or what I call Postmodern street activities. I sold my car 3 years ago and am a full time pedestrian and transit user. I look at cars really differently now. I keep wondering who abandoned this big piece of metal on the street. Cars seem too wasteful and expensive and people keep putting a large share of their income into them. It is really self-indulgent that people expect to have a public place to move their big piece of metal around. We need that space for living life!

CC: By using the name StreetUtopia you probably inspire a lot of people to think more 'out-of-the-box' than they might otherwise. How has using the word/idea utopia helped or hindered you in your first public forays?

Hank: Phil and I are a good team, he is a city planner and he knows the nuts and bolts of enacting change, getting permits, paying fees, etc.  I am a futurist writer (for H+Magazine) and I promote notions like In-Vitro Meat, Nude Swimming for Longevity, and Robot Servants and SexBots. Utopia will be achieved one-step-at-a-time, and Phil is good at seeing the first step, while I am perhaps more interested in the year 2050. We are a mixture of pragmatism and imagination.

Phil: We want a happy place and some of these ideas are really axiomatic—they have been tried around the world and they work. I don’t see why there is this culture of unhappiness where so many people fight tried ideas for better spaces. Meanwhile our neighborhood is clogged with cars.

CC: You showed Streetfilms at your event, and had proposals floating to close all or parts of Grant Avenue to car traffic. What kind of responses did you get?

Hank: StreetFilms are great - the public really enjoyed the films! I think a lot of people were as shocked as I was to find out that cities like Bogota have more progressive urban planning than San Francisco.  Personally, I am interested in Grant because it is the oldest street in San Francisco; it has immense historical value and I believe we should honor and support the street, and work to revitalize it.

CC: How do bicycle boulevards and wider sidewalks fit in to StreetUtopia thinking? Are you inspired by Copenhagen or Barcelona or Paris or ...?

Phil: Barcelona inspired me. They have streets that are closed by the police in early evening with these nice, well-designed gates. Those streets are immediately full of people walking together and talking. Many mothers and children walking hand-in-hand, talking. Now that’s a good life! … I wish people would try more things. I remember Spiro Agnew said “I don’t believe in change for change’s sake.” I can’t make sense of that sentence, but I think that he is saying that he is afraid of new things, and many people are. I wish that we experimented more with our communities and if something didn’t work, fine, we do something else. But it almost seems like the outcome of an experience, such as the Mayor’s closing the Embarcadero a couple of times last year, needed to be determined before the approval was granted. I also think people need to focus more on design issues and not on just whether to approve or deny something.

Hank: I was very inspired by the "bike lifts' in Norway that took cyclists up hills, because many people often say that San Francisco can't be a bicyclist's town due to the hills.  Copenhagen is also very inspiring because they have inexpensive bikes that you can rent on the street and San Francisco should duplicate that. Honestly, I see North Beach as having more potential for pedestrians: it is very small and crowded and scenic.  There is a LOT of support for widening sidewalks because they are so crowded, almost impossible. I generally walk in the street, because there are so many dining tables and chairs on the sidewalks. North Beach also has many lovely interesting little alleys that should be developed for walkers, closed to traffic and beautified.

Telegraph Hill viewed from the Bay. High-rise apartments from an earlier era tower over Russian Hill further west.

Photo: Postmodern Drunkard

Chiu described his bill as an effort to curb the "recent trend in my district and in other parts of the city where tenants have been evicted from buildings where owners have chosen to build garages."

"What this means is literally we’ve seen a tradeoff of people being forced to move out of San Francisco because someone wanted to put a car in the place of their bedroom or where they used to live," he added.

The legislation would create the Telegraph Hill‐North Beach Residential Special Use District,  eliminate minimum off‐street parking requirements for residential uses, and institute a maximum parking cap in the Broadway Neighborhood Commercial District, North Beach Neighborhood Commercial District, and the Chinatown Mixed Use and Community Business Districts. In addition, the bill would require a Conditional Use Authorization from the Planning Commission every time an owner wanted to install a garage in an existing residential structure. Finally, the bill would prohibit new garage entries and driveways on a stretch of Columbus Avenue and would stop the issuance of minor sidewalk encroachment permits for installing driveways in residential structures that narrow the sidewalk unacceptably [details of bill, PDF].

Supporters of the legislation were pleasantly surprised at last week's Planning Commission meeting, a necessary step for approval of legislation that changes planning code, when Commissioner Christina Olague beefed up the Commission's motion for approval, adding language about no-fault evictions and requiring conditional use authorization for any new garage in the special use district, neither of which were in original Planning Department staff recommendations.

David Noyola, Supervisor Chiu's legislative aide, hoped the lopsided Planning Commission vote in support was a good sign. "I didn’t expect a 6-1 vote recommending the meat of the legislation. I thought they were going to strike the prohibition of no-fault evictions," he said. He also said constituents from Russian Hill and Nob Hill spoke at the Commission meeting, requesting the legislation extend to their neighborhoods, an option Noyola said they would consider in the future if this bill passes.

The bill has to go before the Board of Supervisors Land Use Committee, which could happen as early as next week, and then to the full Board, likely in 2-3 weeks. Noyola expects the bill to pass committee and the full board, though the Mayor's support is still uncertain.

Malcolm Yeung of the CCDC said they were pleased with the outcome of the Planning Commission meeting, particularly after staff took out the no-fault eviction proposal, the one piece of the legislation the CCDC was absolutely steadfast in supporting. Yeung also said they weren't resting on the momentary good news and were urging supervisors to lock up the super-majority support needed in case the Mayor decides to veto it.

"Right now pro-tenant legislation has not been going particularly well in the city," he said. "We haven’t talked to the Mayor’s office on this one, but with any pro-tenant legislation, we think we have to get eight votes."

Yeung said the legislation was unique for bringing CCDC together with preservationists and property owners on Telegraph Hill, who want to see the historic character of their neighborhood preserved, and transit advocates who want to see the city reduce its reliance on cars.

Both Noyola and Tom Radulovich, Executive Director Livable City and one of the central proponents of reducing parking throughout the city, noted that the legislation was precedent-setting, particularly because it applied a parking best practice from neighborhood planning zones like Market and Octavia or Rincon Hill, but didn't wait on a multi-year comprehensive plan.

"The bill is a legacy of slow and incremental change in the planning code and a legacy of the sea-change in the Planning Department's thinking about parking," said Radulovich. "In 2005, parking was required everywhere for every use. Recent planning efforts have chipped away at that."

"It's less frequent that we go back to old neighborhoods, saying we’ve come up with what we think is the best for dense neighborhoods and let's export that," said Noyola, who added that the city doesn't need to spend the time and money on vast plans if neighborhoods agree they want less parking. "Telegraph Hill was the original transit-first neighborhood," he noted.

The precedent that could be set by this bill actually worried Yeung, who hoped supervisors from other districts wouldn't block a bill supported by nearly all the stakeholders where it would become law. CCDC is concerned that those supervisors who "have a lot of homeowners in their district could see this as a precedent that they don’t want set everywhere in the city."

"We’re not pushing for a citywide expansion," he assured. "We’re trying to address patterns we see in Chinatown and Telegraph Hill."

With the MTA proposing deep service cuts to Muni and $5 fares on historic streetcars, transit advocates are concerned about where the city's transit system is headed. Flickr photo: Thomas Hawk.

One proposal would address that very issue. Supervisor David Campos told the Chronicle he hopes to put a measure on the November ballot that would give the Board of Supervisors control over three of the seats on the seven-member MTA Board, which is currently appointed entirely by the Mayor. The proposal is similar to one suggested by Supervisor John Avalos last year, which would have given the Board of Supervisors say over three MTA Board members, with the Mayor retaining control over three members. Voters would elect the seventh member.

Campos has not offered details of his plan yet, including whether the public might elect one member, but he said the proposed service cuts reflect deeper problems with the agency. "There appears to be a systematic problem with Muni and change has to begin at the top with the MTA Board," Campos told the Chronicle.

Susan King, a transit advocate who works at Livable City, said changing the way the MTA Board is chosen is part of the solution. While the current system was intended to "depoliticize" the MTA, said King, transportation shouldn't be removed from the political process. "Transportation should be a political issue. It affects the very core of people's ability to survive," she said. "The voters and the people who use the roads in San Francisco, who also vote, need to have a bigger voice."

The MTA's recurring budget crises have highlighted the agency's long-term need for more stable funding sources, but the current focus is on finding a way to avert this round of cuts. As a near-term solution, King and Walk SF President Manish Champsee both think extended parking meter hours should be part of the equation. "I understand the Mayor is opposed to that, but I think he also has to understand the devastating impact the existing service cuts and existing fare increases have had on a lot of people," said Champsee.

"They need to phase that in," said King. "Maybe not some of the things like enforcing parking until midnight, but they need to do parking on Sundays and they need to do that immediately and say 'our backs are against the wall, we don't have any other choices. It's either you guys or the transit riders.'"

King would also like to see the MTA revise its policies on free disabled parking placards, free parking in parks, the price structure of residential parking permits, and citations for people who illegally drive in transit-only lanes. Another option is to add a tax to downtown parking garages to make up the cost of PCOs who routinely are forced to direct traffic at rush hour.

Supervisor Bevan Dufty, who chairs the San Francisco County Transportation Authority (TA), said he's already directed TA staff to move quickly to assess another part of the MTA's proposal to close its deficit, which would entail the TA transferring $7 million in funds directly to the MTA. "My goal is to try to be as supportive as possible," said Dufty. "Obviously, Muni is hemorrhaging. If we can help fund some of the maintenance, some of the large supplies, some of the hard costs in the maintenance, that's something we need to step up to do. That's kind of the top priority."

Dufty also would like to see a more nuanced approach to the service cuts. "Maybe we should look at the low-performing lines and focus the cuts there rather than the key lines that are carrying the overwhelming majority of riders every day."

As for averting the cuts, Dufty, citing the city's Transit First policy, said he thinks it's time for the MTA to revisit the proposal to sell taxi medallions, which could bring in millions for the agency. Would Dufty now support extending parking meter hours? "Where I'm open to it is, I think the MTA is saying there may be neighborhoods that actually want it, and I would be more comfortable with that," Dufty said.

Though the December 2009 service changes went relatively smoothly, and may have given the MTA Board a false sense of confidence about future service cuts, there are plenty of signs that riders and activists don't see this round of cuts the same way. "I think a lot of people are angry and they're going to show up and tell the MTA Board that," said Champsee.

In a comment on Streetsblog's original story on the proposed cuts, Fran Taylor of the community group CC Puede warned that angry riders and activists should focus on the real forces behind service cuts as they gear up for this afternoon's MTA Board meeting. "The only way to fight this latest assault on public transportation is to work with the union, include all the riders, and develop strategies that transform the disruption these proposals represent to us as individuals into disruptions to business as usual for our attackers," wrote Taylor. "We need sit-ins, pickets, serious actions, and we need the Muni workers acting with us. Stop insulting them -- they've got a tough job and deserve every penny they get."

Livable City's King also thinks a collaborative approach is the best bet for saving Muni from a deep gutting of service. "I think it needs to be a really strong and united force of progressives, social justice advocates, alternative transportation advocates, labor - because the bus drivers are going to get more abuse - and everyone pulling together and saying no, this is not acceptable."

MTA Board meeting, Tuesday, at 2 p.m. in San Francisco City Hall, Room 400. The budget discussion is Item 11 on the agenda, and there will be a chance for the public to comment.