Meeting Information

Archive Center >> Bicycle Advisory Committee >> 2004

back to Bicycle Advisory Committee home page

· update on Page Street traffic circles, part of larger "Bike Priority" designation for Page Street; working with neighborhood, Fire Department, DPT; request BAC to examine and take a stand;
· Bus/Taxi program - stickers for back set of taxis "Look before you leap" - Taxi Commission approved stickers for use but did not mandate;
· "Light your Bike at Night" signs on back of buses;
· developing curriculum for Muni and taxi driver training
· Bike Ed program, training safe & effective cycling
· Mission Creek Bikeway - Rails to Trails Conservancy taking up the cause
· valet parking permit opposed for Luna Park on Valencia Street
· Octavia Blvd project - oppose ramp rebuild at Market; working with TA and DPT to insure good cycling features; concern with Market St access to new on-ramp, conflicts between bikes (and peds) and motor traffic
· DPT recommends placing stop sign at end of JFK in GGPark, first real action
· Embarcadero BART Bike Station - underused; BART station agents reported as rude to cyclists; request sending a representative to the BART Bicycle Advisory Committee in Oakland 2/2/04
· California Bicycle Advisory Committee (CalTrans) meets 2/5
· working with SFPD on training film for police
· Bay Bridge west access a hot cause for the SFBC in 2004 - request BAC liaison

·  Bike Plan Update is central effort; Mike Sallaberry is leaving the DPT bike program, so they'll be a bit shorthanded

reports on BPU Oversight Committee meeting (1/20) and BPU Technical Advisory Committee (1/20), BPU & CEQU clearance meeting (1/6)

a. Wagonner: bikes on Muni Metro - Joe Speaks at Muni says engineers want a special braking system installed (to ease stops) before bike-carrying cars are tested; research and planning proceeds

b. Davis: Port of SF, Islais Creek Bridge project - bike lane/path over the bridge, link into Illinois; looking forward to action with Taxi Commission in improving relationship with bikes; BAC needs to work on outreach with the public, extend involvement; Third Street Light Rail still on schedule to collect fares in 2005

c. Allen: BAC should plan a social event, get together and have a pizza

d. Powell: Increased Mission action anticipated

a. BAC website - still no access to updates - trying to connect with the administrator. Jerry has provided a set of changes. Thornley will be web liaison.

b. Resolution to Present BPU's Goals and Objectives - present to Board of Supervisors for their endorsement. Still trying to find an entry point into Supervisors.

a. Bike Plan Update - Status

· Thornley: Environmental review / CEQA clearance looking to be a complication to all pieces of the BPU, even the Goals and Objectives

· Thornley: will bring Draft Goals and Objectives to Supervisor McGoldrick (Chair of the Transportation) in resolution form and work to get it on the Transportation & Land Use Committee calendar

· Thornley: Environmental review is complicated, we're trying to learn all the lingo and players, in city departments and legislation and regulation

· Thornley: BAC needs to help facilitate and negotiate improvements in standards for treatment of bikes in San Francisco

· Davis: Looking back at bike lane projects, like Polk, Valencia, Arguello, did they require CEQA clearance? Tannen (DPT): Yes, these projects had to be evaluated by Planning under CEQA and have a Neg Dec developed and adopted.

· Davis: How about Brotherhood Way, Seventh Street, no lane removal? Tannen: Such projects are "categorically exempt", don't require environmental review

· Tannen: Interestingly, the last Bike Plan (1997), didn't require environmental review

· Tannen: presenting the "policy" portion of the current Plan probably won't be a big issue for environmental review, it's the specific lane / network projects that will attract more tricky planning review

· Ervin: Timeline for presenting BPU to the Board of Supervisors? Tannen: The policy portion may go first, along with a subset of the 20 priority projects, with the balance coming later.

· Ervin: Has a strategy for this project timing been discussed, with DPT and the other BPU principals? Thornley: That was the thrust of the 1/6 meeting, called by Oliver Gajda, DPT's Bike Plan project manager - "How many of the 20 priority BPU projects do you want to present to the BoS in July?", recognizing that, because of environmental review and staff resource limitations, not all 20 may be cleared for presentation to the BoS. The question is still open, and the BAC is a key participant in that deliberation.

· Tannen: A strategy is being considered, of breaking out specific mention of the 20 projects from the policy portion of the BPU, since Planning can't consider a project at the same time that project is being considered in another proposal - if the policy portion of the BPU mentions the Laguna Honda segment improvements, that project can't simultaneously be evaluated by Planning in another channel.

· Thornley: The BPU should, in any event, present a practical vision for a coherent network of routes, not let the focus fall too much on the list of 20 to the neglect of the larger goals.

· Tannen: Muni, at TAC meetings, has expressed concern about some of the projects, e.g., 16^th Street; this is likely to complicate some of the more sophisticated projects.

· Tannen: Access to Planning has been difficult lately; they're very busy now, but until we hear from them what their resources and protocols are we're not able to make a better estimate about project timing

· Thornley: Paul Maltzer, of Planning, has been in touch; he will have trouble attending our regular meetings, because of a repeating scheduling conflict on the 3^rd Wednesday of the month, but he's expressed his willingness to meet at another time, perhaps with a subcommittee of the BAC.

· Thornley: Seems ironic that environmental regulations, designed to protect air quality and the environment, is an obstacle to making improvements for bicycles, a most environment-friendly transit mode.

· Thornley: Suggest the BAC look at the interactive CEQA chart available on the web:

The chart illustrates how much simpler the environmental review process is going down the negative declaration path (even mitigated neg dec) as opposed to the much more complex (and expensive) EIR path.

· Hart (SFBC): Removing a lane to install a bike lane may trigger an LOS "E" or "F" according to DPT analysis, representing a CEQA impact, but it doesn't mean an EIR is required, if mitigating measures can be offered/shown (alternate routes, etc.).

· Tannen: The deeper into LOS "E"/ "F" the analysis goes, the more scrutiny Planning will give the project. Theoretically, any traffic change that comes before the Supervisors must undergo environmental review, but not every stop sign has to go through Planning - DPT has discretion to clear minor projects.

· Ervin: What are the next steps? Thornley: Continue to reach out to Planning; explore development of a model negative declaration.

· Allen: DPT should let the BAC know how we can help.

· Tannen: The Transit Authority is very supportive of this effort, and the Supervisors are well aware of the LOS SAR effort.

b. LOS standards reform / CEQA clearance

· Allen: The BAC should offer to help facilitate development of a mitigated neg dec

· Tannen: Planning makes the call on whether a project merits a neg dec or EIR

· Thornley: We should be able to ride the LOS reform movement to return to fundamentals on environmental impact analysis; the BAC's innocence is a virtue

· Tannen: Suggest talking with TA staff, they've gotten their foot in the door and have a promising path underway.

· Hart: Careful in assuming Planning is an unapproachable authority - CEQA is designed to be flexible - BAC should gather substantial evidence that adding a network of bike lanes will mitigate whatever negative impact lane removal / motor traffic disruption might have. Gather expert testimony, collect evidence, develop a model set of bicycle safety and service standards

· Ervin: BAC should deliberate and act, at its next meeting, to do just that.

· Allen: Recommend a motion to act on developing a model mitigated neg dec

· Ervin: Hesitant to endorse a specific solution until we've had testimony and collect evidence.

· Hart: With DPT's help, select a project which we expect would trigger an EIR, and try to develop an alternative mitigated neg dec

· Waggonner: Which of the 20 projects does DPT expect the most trouble with?

· Tannen: SFBC may be the best judge, based on their outreach

· Thornley: Suggest identifying a borderline case (not 16^th Street)

· Tannen: BAC really needs to find a way to connect with Planning, try to work with them

· Thornley: Not saying we're giving up on Planning; they'll be a key agency for developing this super-agency overview.

· Victor Veysey - urges the BAC to establish Bike Theft Advisory Task Force (temporary); will work to fill District 2 BAC seat; going to Crescent City to set up a "Bike Library" program; big bike & recycling legislation coming from Sacramento