Issue 302 ___Will you want to live in San Francisco - tomorrow ___Febuary 2006

Treasure and Yerba Buena Islands New Plan is on the Right Track

The revised land use plan for Treasure Island and Yerba Buena Island has been received enthusiastically by the environmental community. This new plan would relocate the ferry terminal, create a mini town center near transit, add community agriculture and restore a wildlife wetlands. And there’s more.

Previous versions of the plan had incorporated some of the earth-friendly measures that environmental groups have been advocating, such as stormwater-treatment wetlands and a number of green-building measures, but the earlier land-use concepts fell far short of the compact development and smart transportation approach needed to make the project sustainable. The major new improvement is in walkability: 90% of the 3500 to 5500 dwelling units would be within a 10-minute walk of the transit hub and retail-commercial core. The transit hub would include a west-side ferry terminal set into a harbor excavated out of the island, just a 10-minute ride from the San Francisco Ferry Building, as well as a turn-around for the 108 Muni Bus and the termini for 3 on-island shuttle lines. Adjacent to the ferry dock would be a weather-protected, open-air shopping area with bike and pedestrian access down the middle. Most of the 585 hotel rooms would also be nearby. The greater density with a smaller footprint (the previous plan had called for only 2,800 residential units, with 13 acres less open space) was accomplished by adding nine mid-rise and four or five slender high-rise residential towers, one of which could be as many as 70 stories tall. SFT supports the concept of freeing up public space through clustered development, including taller buildings, but has no position yet regarding specific building heights.

The 260 acres of open space on Treasure Island would provide a range of uses including sports fields, community agriculture, a sculpture garden, a native-plant nursery, and recreational paths, as well as the constructed wetlands and their associated wildlife-watching and interpretive opportunities. Vegetated windrows would help block the wind. The existing 70 acres of open space on Yerba Buena Island would remain mostly natural or naturalistic.

Other features of the development proposal include:
• a re-oriented street grid allowing for maximum solar exposure, better views of San Francisco’s mainland, and the staggering of cross-streets to reduce wind impacts;
• the possibility of creating tidal wetlands;
• increased emphasis on renewable energy – e.g., the translucent roof over the retail core would be embedded with photovoltaic panels, the residential buildings would have solar panels on their southern faces, and bird friendly wind turbines would be installed;
• an on-island sewage-treatment plant, producing recycled water for landscape irrigation and to enhance the stormwater treatment wetlands;
• 30% of the residential units designated as affordable.
Smart transportation
While the increased density and clustered development by themselves do not guarantee a smart transportation program, they lay a groundwork for the creation of a “car-minimal” oasis, where residents can choose a car-free lifestyle, and visitors can enjoy the safety, clean air, and peace and quiet of a public resource not dominated by the private automobile.

Unfortunately, the Draft Transportation Plan released on January 6th fails to support this vision.
The transportation proposal contains admirable goals and many good provisions such as improved Muni service, frequent ferry service, separating the payment for residential units from payment for parking spaces, free shuttles, Car Share pods, free or low-cost bike rental, pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly streets. However, without a marked reduction in the proposed number of parking spaces – 7,895 for the 5,500-unit build-out scenario – the stated goal of reduced car dependency will not be achieved.

Another major flaw in the plan is the uncertainty of the proposed means of funding the public transportation program. One funding component would be an electronically collected fluctuating "congestion-management fee" for residents leaving and entering the island in cars. The proposal rests on the assumption that it will be possible to set up a special government authority that will index the fees to the level of congestion. By charging a higher fee during the peak periods, the developer hopes to encourage drivers to switch to transit, but there is no certainty that the effect won’t be instead a spreading out of the peak period.

Parking revenue is proposed as the other main source of funding for transit, but in San Francisco all curbside parking fees go to Muni, and the parking tax on commercial parking goes to Muni, the SF general fund, and seniors. It is unknown whether parking revenues collected on TI could be dedicated to TI’s own transit program.
The Transportation Plan needs to spell out what happens if the projected revenue fails to materialize. Would the shortfall in transit funding be made up by the developer? The City? Or will transit services be cut, leading to higher usage of the private car?

Another flaw is the plan's stated objective regarding impacts on Bay Bridge traffic: “[T]otal peak period vehicle trips should be similar to the number of trips generated when Treasure Island was operating as a Naval Base.” There is no evidence that traffic congestion at that time was acceptable, and it has only gotten worse. Further, since then society has acknowledged the threat of global warming, the national-security implications of the depletion of fossil fuels, and the health and environmental impacts of car-related pollution. The Transportation Plan should assure that the new development generates far fewer car trips than the Navy did.

Freeing residents from dependence on cars

The plan needs to create easy, attractive, efficient, and inexpensive alternatives to the car habit: for example, grocery delivery service, shopping carts that can be taken home, three-wheeled bikes in the “bike library,” and availability of transport similar to electric golf carts. The plan should pay more attention to the needs of those who cannot afford cars or who for a variety of reasons cannot drive. Meeting the needs of the car-less will enhance the quality of life for all, and will give those with cars a viable life-style choice.
Families with children will especially benefit from a walkable, bikeable, transit-oriented community, which would help restore the ability of children to negotiate their environment independently and play outdoors safely. A healthy community is one that fosters physical activity.

Visitors

The plan inadequately addresses the transit needs of visitors. Much of the islands' acreage is in the Public Trust--land that must be used to benefit the public at large. The proposed route of the on-island transit system would not take visitors to destinations of interest on the northern shoreline, the wetland with its interpretive center, the ball fields, or the historic admirals’ mansions on YBI – despite the fact that these sites are well served by parking facilities.
What SFT members can do
View the Draft Transportation Plan on the Treasure Island Development Authority’s web site at
www.sfgov.org/site/treasureisland_page.asp?id= 21914#transport
The TIDA website also provides meeting information and other redevelopment documents for public comment.

Write a letter and here are some talking points to choose from:

• The feasibility of the proposed funding mechanisms requires further investigation. We are not convinced that the proposed Parking and Transportation District can be created, and even if it wins approval we need to know where the funding will come from if the revenues it generates fall short of the need.
• Even if the proposed PTD proves feasible, the Congestion Management Fee proposal needs to be studied in comparison to a flat-rate fee for the use of the West Span.
• Despite a stated intent to encourage visitors to use transit, the plan lacks many of the specific actions needed to support this goal, and in fact several visitor destinations are inaccessible by transit.
• Despite the stated intent to minimize car ownership, the plan omits several important ways to help achieve this goal.
• Despite the promise of managing parking to reduce the use of the private car, the total number of proposed parking spaces is too high to achieve this goal.
• Studies are needed to compare ferry service to bus service and to explore the feasibility of using Muni for service around the islands as well as to them, either in addition to or instead of an on-island shuttle service. Having to transfer from one to the other could discourage people from using transit.
The active involvement of SFT members can make a difference in the level of sustainability the final plan will achieve.

Music Concourse Landmark Celebration at City Hall

On February 9th, Mayor Gavin Newsom and the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board celebrated the landmarking of the Golden Gate Park Music Concourse. The ceremony was held on the Mayor’s Balcony under the dramatic City Hall Rotunda. Over 100 members of the public and various city departments attended. Bridget Maley, President of the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board (LPAB), presided. Mayor Newsom, Supervisor President Aaron Peskin, and Sponsor Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi all spoke eloquently of the importance of the Music Concourse to San Francisco and the value of preserving our heritage through landmarking.

LPAB President Maley thanked the many organizations and commissions who contributed to this process, including SPEAK, San Francisco Tomorrow, the Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods, San Francisco Architectural Heritage, the San Francisco Tree Council, Friends of the Urban Forest, the Neighborhood Parks Council, the Western Neighborhoods Project, Friends of the Music Concourse, and others. She also expressed appreciation to the Department of Recreation and Park, the Planning Department Staff, the Planning Commission, and the Board of Supervisors for their efforts. And last, but not least, to the many members of the public who wrote letters, filled out hundreds of postcards, and attended hearings to express their love of and support for the Music Concourse.

The brief time allotted for the program prevented naming all of the participants, but many individuals contributed to the success of the landmarking. Major credit is due to Mary Anne Miller and SPEAK for starting the landmark process and getting it to the Landmarks Board. SPEAK also enlisted historian Bill Kostura to reseach and write the application. Other individuals who made major contributions are historic preservationists GeeGee Platt and Margaret Mori, arborists Roy Leggitt III and Chris Buck, and neighborhood activists Chris Duderstadt, Ramona Albright, Carolyn Blair, Terry Milne, and many others.

The Landmarks Board, along with the Planning Department staff, patiently sat through many meetings to work out the wording of the legislation. The Planning Commission added substance to the landmark language. And, finally, Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi championed the landmarking at the Board of Supervisors and was enthusiastically supported by Supervisor President Aaron Peskin as well as Co-sponsors Sandoval, Ammiano, Daly, and Maxwell.

Article submitted by: Katherine Howard, Co-Chair, Friends of the Music Concourse

Angel Island Field Trip
Saturday 11 March all day
Leaders: Jake Sigg and Ruth Gravanis

The primary focus of this hike will be on Angle Island's natural history, but the island is also steeped in human history. Expect marvelous views. The plant life is rich and colorful. There are flower-studded grasslands; manzanita, ceanothus, and chamise chaparral; and oak savanna or mixed evergreen forest, made up of coast live oak, buckeye, madrone, and toyon. Of interest are pipevine (Aristolochia californica) and morning glory (Calystegia occidentalis) cascading from trees, star lily (Zigadenus fremontii), angelica (Angelica tomentosa) and coast iris (Iris longipetala). All these communities were threatened with oblivion because of the aggressive spread of non-native Tasmanian blue gum trees over the island. The California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) just as aggressively eliminated those gums invading the native communities (a huge and controversial job), leaving only those large trees of historic importance which were originally planted at Ayala Cove. DPR has also returned the island's highest peak, Mount Livermore, to its original state by restoring acres of dirt pushed off the summit by the military. With about 20 feet added back to Mount Livermore's summit, the hill is a peak again, and native vegetation has been reintroduced.

Transbay Terminal Faces Critical Delay

The Transbay Terminal and Caltrain Downtown Extension continue to be subjected to attacks and delaying tactics by people who fail to appreciate this project’s importance, the progress that has been made in spite of efforts to impede it, the loss to the City if it is stopped, and that the voters mandated it.

Proposition H of 1999 states that it shall be and is the law that Caltrain be extended to a new or rebuilt Transbay Terminal. Proposition K of 2003 mandates the money to pay for a large part of it. As to the disingenuous complaint of County Transportation Authority’s personnel that they are asked to be a piggy bank -- that is exactly what Proposition K told them to be. Their actions on 80 Natoma Street caused delay and additional cost to the project.

State land formerly occupied by freeway structures was given to the city on the condition that it be developed with at least 3400 housing units, possibly as many as 4700, that 35% of it be affordable to people of low and moderate incomes, and that the money from it be used for the terminal and the Caltrain Downtown Extension. There is a deadline for this to happen.

If this project is stopped and the deadline is not met, the state will take back that land, probably sell it off and all will be lost. Some people think that a large part, if not all,
of the attempts to sabotage this project are coming from real estate speculators who want that to happen because they think they can make more money that way.

Healthy Saturdays on JFK Drive in Golden Gate Park

American youth fitness is at an all time low with 57% of youth 12 to 21 having NO regular active physical recreation in their lives. Thirty-six percent cannot pass a minimal fitness test. With 900 miles of roadway in San Francisco, Healthy Saturdays proposes to turn 1.5 miles of John F. Kennedy Drive in the eastern end of Golden Gate Park into a carfree recreational mecca for 11 hours every Saturday. The proposal is for Saturdays to be exactly the same auto free space as Sundays on JFK in the Park.

This is not a new proposal, but the conditions in the Park are very different today. We now have 800 new parking spaces in the Concourse Garage. Conditions for bicyclists, pedestrians, and skaters are much safer today because access for autos to cross JFK and the Concourse is now limited to museum drop off only. No areas affected by the proposal are more then a five-minute walk from an active roadway so this proposal would not curtail visits to any park attractions. The enactment of Healthy Saturdays is one step in providing healthful non-competitive recreational activities for all our citizens and making Golden Gate Park the healthful place we all what it to be.