streetscape prioritization - San Francisco - San Francisco Municipal ...

S T R E E T S C A P E P R I O R I T I Z AT I O N M AR CH

2015

PROJECT TEAM CONTROLLERS OFFICE

Claire Phillips Peg Stevenson

SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

Rachel Kraai

PLANNING DEPARTMENT

SAN FRANCISCO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH

Adrienne Aquino

Devan Morris

Gary Chen

Megan Wier

Paolo Ikezoe Lily Langlois Adam Varat PUBLIC WORKS

Ananda Hirsch Cristina Olea John Thomas

MUNICIPAL TRANSPORTATION AGENCY

Grahm Satterwhite OFFICE OF ECONOMIC AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT

Manish Goyal

In collaboration with Fehr and Peers and Switchpoint Planning

S T R E E T S C A P E P R I O R I T I Z AT I O N

M AR CH

2015

OVERVIEW This document contains a summary of the Streetscape Prioritization Project and includes the final project deliverables. This project was an inter-departmental effort and included representatives from the Planning Department, Public Works (DPW), San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA), Controller’s Office, Department of Public Health, Office of Economic and Workforce Development (OEWD), and Public Utilities Commission (PUC). The project began in July 2014 and concluded in January 2015. This project stemmed from the WalkFirst Phase II project that used a data-driven approach to identify and prioritize pedestrian safety projects on the High Injury Network. This project took a similar datadriven approach to prioritize future streetscape improvements on the Streetscape Network. (See page 5 for the project timeline). The City contracted with transportation consultants Fehr and Peers to provide services for the scenario planning tasks outlined in Chapter 2. Switchpoint Planning subconsultants completed a best practices report provided in Appendix A1. A review of past plans was completed towards the beginning of the project to better understand the landscape of planned, completed and funded projects. The methodology is summarized in Appendix A2.

The Project Team collected and analyzed data to develop three potential strategies to determine locations for future streetscape projects (See Chapter 3). The City and consultants facilitated an internal charrette in October 2014 with City stakeholders from Public Works, Planning, MTA, PUC, OEWD, SF County Transportation Authority, and the Controller’s Office. This group provided feedback to the City Team to identify which strategy and data inputs were most important to use for this prioritization effort. Based on the charrette feedback, the consultants and City Team developed a preferred scenario (See Chapter 3). The investment strategies and map of project locations were also shared at two stakeholder sessions with representatives from Citywide organizations. Following the development of the preferred scenario, the City Team used block-level data to select 3 or 4 locations in each Supervisor District for future streetscape improvements (see Chapter 4). These project locations are not planned projects. Once funding becomes available designs would be developed in further detail. A technical memorandum summarizing the scenario planning approach is provided in Appendix A3. To accompany the map of project locations, a master database was created with all of the data compiled throughout the project. The full set of variables available in the database, including their definitions and sources, is listed in Appendix A4. To complement the prioritization work, the City Team created a funding landscape listing and describing potential funding sources for streetscape projects (Chapter 5), which will continue to be updated as more information is available.

Contents Chapter 1: Introduction 1 Chapter 2: Streetscape Network 7 Chapter 3: Investment Strategies

13

Chapter 4: Locations for Future Streetscape Improvements

27

Chapter 5: Funding Landscape 37 Appendix 44 A1

Best Practices Research

A2 Prior Plan Methodology A3 San Francisco Streetscape Prioritization Project Technical Memorandum A4

Database of Streetscape Variables

A5 Streetscape Suitability and Coordination Opportunities with Green Infrastructure Projects A6

Draft Policies

C hapt e r 1 : I ntrod u ction

CHAPTER

1

Introduction San Francisco’s streets represent 25% of city land. Streets are our most important public resource, in large part because they are shared equally by all residents of San Francisco. Our streets are not just about transportation, but also recreation, social and economic activity, and ecological performance. The way in which we design our streets can help support these activities. Over the years our streets have been transformed through efforts such as the Great Streets Project and the 2011 Road Repaving and Street Safety Bond. These projects have led to streetscape improvements across the city which enhance the public realm, improve the transportation function of the street, and create other economic, environmental and social benefits. Each streetscape project is tailored to the existing site conditions, can incorporate greening and plantings that are appropriate to the location, can include other amenities to celebrate the character of the street or neighborhood. The design and implementation of these projects is a collaborative effort among City agencies and community members.

The primary goal of this project is to identify where the City should make future streetscape improvements to have the greatest benefit, given limited funding. This project provides the City with a technical and data-driven approach to identify future streetscape projects and a framework to prioritize locations for implementation.

1

2

W A L K F I R S T : S T R EE T S C A P E P R I O R I T I Z A T I O N

PROJECT PURPOSE

PROJECT DELIVERABLES

This is a multi-agency effort to identify locations for future streetscape improvements. This project builds on the Better Streets Plan, a comprehensive set of pedestrian-oriented policies and design guidelines for San Francisco’s public streets and sidewalks, and coordinates with other efforts to improve and build complete streets.

This document integrates the following project deliverables:

The goals of the project are to: Identify where the City should make streetscape improvements to have the greatest benefit, given limited funding Get buy-in and agreement on priorities for future projects Ensure the City is well positioned when funding becomes available Build on pedestrian planning previous efforts and data driven approach Understand the funding picture for streetscape projects

BENEFITS & OUTCOMES This project will benefit the City by: Achieving complete streets Optimizing our investments Minimizing disruption

Best Practices Research Review of completed and funded streetscape projects Three investment strategies and preferred strategy List of potential locations for future streetscape improvements Database of streetscape variables Funding assessment


STREETSCAPE PROJECTS …Improve the street environment for all people by providing space for mobility, social recreational, and commercial activities.

…Enhance the aesthetic and ecological qualities of the street, improve safety, and enrich the street’s character and identity

…Include improvements such as sidewalk extensions, street trees, sidewalk landscaping, green infrastructure, street furniture, pocket parks, and other amenities.

3

4


BACKGROUND This project builds on previous phases of WalkFirst, a program which sets out a framework to prioritize investments for pedestrian improvements. The timeline to the right explains the evolution of this project and how this project fits into other City efforts related to pedestrian safety and improving the public realm.

WALKFIRST PHASE I In 2010, San Francisco received a grant from the California Office of Traffic Safety to fund the first phase of WalkFirst, a project to develop a framework for how the City would prioritize future pedestrian improvements. The Map of Key Walking Streets (streets where people are walking), and the map of Pedestrian High Injury Corridors (streets with the highest concentration of severe and fatal injuries) were developed as part of this project, identifying which streets to target for streetscape improvements and/or pedestrian safety improvements. In December 2010, as WalkFirst was underway, then Mayor Newsom passed Executive Directive 10-03: Pedestrian Safety in San Francisco, directing City departments to implement solutions that would reduce pedestrian fatalities and severe injuries by 25 percent by 2016 and by 50 percent by 2021, increase the walkability of San Francisco and make all neighborhoods safer for people walking. The Pedestrian Safety Task Force and Pedestrian Safety Steering Committee were formed and met on a regular basis to develop the Pedestrian Strategy, a document. The Pedestrian Strategy was published in 2013, outlines goals and strategies towards meeting the Pedestrian Directive’s targets

WALKFIRST PHASE II Having decided on an overall strategy for improving pedestrian safety and walkability, the City’s next step was to identify and prioritize capital projects to carry out that strategy. WalkFirst Phase II, initiated in September 2013, took a data driven approach, looking at pedestrian injury statistics and crash profiles to identify locations where safety improvements were most needed. A variety of criteria were then used to develop a prioritized list of safety-related projects on the High Injury network, published in February 2014.

WALKFIRST PHASE III This project is the remaining piece. The goal is to create a prioritized project list for future streetscape improvements, analogous to the prioritized pedestrian safety improvements list created in Phase II, so that the City will be ready to implement streetscape projects as funding becomes available. Similar to what was done in Phase II, WalkFirst Phase III starts with the Streetscape Street (identified in Phase I as the Key Walking Streets) and uses a data-driven process to identify and prioritize locations for future streetscape improvements.


Background: Streetscape Prioritization

PROJECT TIMELINE 2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

1

1

2

2

Better Streets Plan

WalkFirst Phase I

2006 – Adopted December 2010

October 2010 – September 2011

DELIVERABLE

DELIVERABLE

A unified set of standards, guidelines, and implementation strategies to govern how the City designs, builds, and maintains its pedestrian environment.

Map of key walking streets (streets where people are walking). Map of pedestrian high injury corridors (streets with the highest concentration of severe and fatal injuries). Draft General Plan Policies. Five case studies and designs.

OUTREACH

Over 100 public meetings.

2011

OUTREACH

Online survey with 400+ participants. Focus groups. Regular PSAC meetings.

3 Executive Directive 10-03: Pedestrian Safety in San Francisco December 2010 DELIVERABLE

Directed City departments to implement solutions that would reduce pedestrian fatalities and severe injuries by 25 percent by 2016 and by 50 percent by 2021, increase the walkability of San Francisco and make all neighborhoods safer for people walking.

2012

2013

3

4 Pedestrian Strategy

2014

4

5

5

6

WalkFirst Phase II

Vision Zero

April 2013

September 2013 – February 2014

March 2014 – Present

DELIVERABLE

DELIVERABLE

DELIVERABLE

Outlined goals and strategies to meet the Executive Directive.

Prioritized list of pedestrian safety projects and programs. Ongoing implementation.

Citywide commitment to reduce traffic fatalities to zero. Vision Zero 2-year Action Strategy released. 40 Projects identified to be implemented in 24 months.

OUTREACH

Pedestrian Safety Task Force and Steering Committee formed, co-chaired by SFDPH and SFMTA. The Strategy was developed with input from the Task Force and Steering Committee.

OUTREACH

Focus groups. Online tool with 300+ participants.

OUTREACH

Pedestrian Safety Task Force reestablished as the Vision Zero Task Force. Vision Zero Committee of the Transportation Authority Board established. Ongoing meetings and public hearings.

2015

6

7

7 Streetscape Prioritization August – December 2014 DELIVERABLE

Prioritized list of locations for future streetscape improvements.

5

C hapt e r 2 : S tr e e tscap e N e t w or k

CHAPTER

2

Streetscape Network INTRODUCTION This project aims to prioritize improvements on the 132 miles of roadway that comprise the Streetscape Network. The Streetscape Network was first developed as part of WalkFirst Phase I and has been further refined as part of this project. Streetscape streets (previously referred to as Key Walking Streets) represent places where people are walking or would walk if the conditions were better The factors used to define these streets include density of people, transit, land uses and priority pedestrian streets identified in streetscape plans. In defining these streets, quantitative data was used in addition to qualitative observations about street qualities. During WalkFirst Phase I, the public was invited to provide input on their favorite street to walk along, their least favorite street and the qualities of the street environment that influence this choice. The feedback received was an early input into the streetscape network. The streetscape network and data inputs are explained in this section.

7

8


STREETSCAPE NETWORK

C hapt e r 2 : S tr e e tscap e N e t w or k

CRITERIA The criteria used to define streetscape streets include:

LAND USES:

CONNECTIONS BETWEEN STREET SEGMENTS

Commercial land uses (defined by Better Streets Plan Street Types; Commercial Throughway, Neighborhood Commercial)

Where the above criteria is not present along an entire street and there is a gap of three blocks or shorter, the gap should also be included.

Civic and institutional land uses: Streets fronting these land uses. (UCSF, USF, City Hall/Civic Center, SF General, Laguna Honda, Kaiser, Mission Bay)

NEW DEVELOPMENT:

TRANSPORTATION:

MUNI Rapid transit network (E, F, J, KT, L, M, N, 1, 5, 8x, 9, 14, 22, 28, 30, 38, 47, 49, 71) Major Transit Nodes (MUNI Metro, BART, Caltrain) “PRIMARY” PEDESTRIAN STREETS IDENTIFIED IN A STREETSCAPE PLAN:

Candlestick Point/Hunters Point Shipyard Phase II Urban Design Plan & Transportation Plan Downtown Area Plan (Map 7 Pedestrian Network: Downtown District Pedestrian Oriented Streets) Fisherman’s Wharf Public Realm Plan Parkmerced Vision Plan

For new projects where there will be new streets, the relevant area plan or streetscape plan should be used as a guide.

9

C hapt e r 3 : P rioritizing L ocations for F u t u r e S tr e e tscap e I mprov e m e nts

CHAPTER

3

Prioritizing Locations for Future Streetscape Improvements The scenario planning process is a way to identify how the City might select future locations for streetscape improvements. While streetscape improvements have been implemented across the city, the way that projects have been selected has varied by funding source and by program. At the beginning of this project, best practices research was conducted to better understand how other cities have approached this type of project. The findings from this report are included in Appendix A1. The project team also investigated current City practices for prioritizing streetscape improvements. The scenario planning process began at the completion of the WalkFirst Phase II with the identification of three investment strategies highlighting three distinct sets of priorities for identifying the most important locations for improvements on the Streetscape Network. The three investment strategies were presented via a series of maps and infographics, to a group of key stakeholders from selected City agencies to solicit feedback on the approach and results. Feedback from the scenario charrette helped to guide the project team in its selection of a preferred investment strategy. This strategy highlights a set of blocks on the Streetscape Network that could be prioritized for streetscape improvements. This information helped the City to determine project locations.

11

12


METHODOLOGY This project considers three different strategies for how the City could prioritize future projects. Strategy 1 - Invest Where People Walk: Locations with a high level of pedestrian activity. Strategy 2 - Tap into Economic Potential: Locations with a large number of underutilized buildings yet a high level of recent business growth.

Outcome metrics were also identified to facilitate an informed comparison of the three investment strategies using available data. Metrics were selected from a range of variables and were distinct from the data used in each strategy. The three investment strategies were then evaluated and compared based on these four categories: Target Population Stewardship

Strategy 3 - Target Physical Deficiencies: Locations with poor pedestrian infrastructure and environment, based on an approximated version of SFDPH’s Pedestrian Environmental Quality Index (PEQI).

Safety

For each strategy, the City identified a strategy goal and data inputs. The definitions were refined to match available data and were modified and vetted until the set of prioritized blocks appropriately reflected the goals of each strategy. A map for each strategy highlights the streetscape network and the streets that rank the highest for that strategy.

For each category, three to five outcome metrics were analyzed. The top-priority blocks (i.e., top 20% of blocks) within each strategy were evaluated in order to assess the impacts of selecting one set of blocks over another. Evaluation results were displayed in a summary infographic using charts and figures. These graphics provide a clear visual comparison of the performance of each strategy.

Efficiency

Based on feedback received, a preferred strategy was selected, using inputs from Strategy 1 and Strategy 3. This chapter includes a discussion of the three strategies, the preferred scenario, and the associated data, maps and infographics.


SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT METHODOLOGY

DEVELOP INVESTMENT STRATEGIES

SELECT INVESTMENT STRATEGY

Identify three potential investment strategies for how future projects could be selected

Prioritize blocks by Supervisor District

Identify data inputs Identify metrics to compare across strategies

Aggregate blocks into corridors

DEVELOP PROJECT LIST Design details to be determined once funding is secured Identify funding sources and availability

13

14



SUMMARY OF INVESTMENT STRATEGIES

STRATEGY 1: INVEST WHERE PEOPLE WALK

STRATEGY 2: TAP INTO ECONOMIC POTENTIAL

STRATEGY 3: TARGET PHYSICAL DEFICIENCIES

Strategy Goal: Prioritize locations with high levels of pedestrian activity (top 20%).

Strategy Goal: Prioritize locations with underutilized buildings yet actively growing businesses (top 20%).

Strategy Goal: Prioritize locations with poor pedestrian infrastructure and/or surrounding environment conditions (top 20%).

Data Inputs: Pedestrian volumes: current + forecasted growth (x5)

Data Inputs: Presence of vacant storefronts and lots (x3)

Transit ridership at nearby stations Number of change of use permits, miscellaneous permits, and new business licenses

Data Inputs: Score based on SFDPH’s Pedestrian Environmental Quality Index (PEQI), approximated version, including traffic volume; speed limit; street/ sidewalk width; presence of buffers, street trees, pedestrian plazas, parks, empty lots

15

16

STRATEGY 1 INVEST WHERE PEOPLE WALK W A L K F I R S T : S T R EE T S C A P E P R I O R I T I Z A T I O N

BLOCKS WITH MOST PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY

STRATEGY 1: INVEST WHERE PEOPLE WALK STRATEGY GOAL:

Prioritize locations with high levels of pedestrian activity (top 20%). Scenario 1 Invest where People Walk Prioritize locations with high levels of pedestrian activity. Data Inputs • Pedestrian volumes: current + forecasted growth (x5) • Transit ridership at nearby stations

DATA INPUTS:

Pedestrian volumes: current + forecasted growth (x5) Transit ridership at nearby stations

Strategy Goal:


INVEST WHERE PEOPLE WALK STRATEGY 1 STRATEGY 1 EVALUATION METRICS INFOGRAPHIC BLOCKS WITH MOST PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY

Over 65 15%

Total Population in Adjacent Census Blocks: 204,866

Under 18 8%

Total Employment in Adjacent Census Blocks: 386,738

Blocks in Downtown (C-3 Zoning District)

Parklet 36%

Other 77%

Blocks with Parklet within 1/8 Mile* No Parklet 64%

50%

50%

7% 47%

Blocks in MTC Community of Concern

70%

0%

53%

30%

50%

93%

100%

Blocks within Community Benefit District

STEWARDSHIP

TARGETED POPULATION

Pedestrian Collision Injuries

6

Bicycle Collision Injuries

3

Blocks with Sidewalk Landscaping within 1/8 Mile*

*based on permit history

Completed 6% Fully Funded 7% Partially Funded 10%

Completed/ Funded 23%

Unfunded/ Undefined 77%

Average Number of Collision Injuries per Block (2007 - 2011)

Streetscape Project Overlap 42%

35% 65%

58%

Percentage of Blocks on Percentage of Blocks on Pedestrian High Injury Network Bicycle High Injury Network

Blocks within a Priority Development Area (PDA)

98%

Blocks that overlap a future paving project (2019 and beyond)

Average Prioritization Weight for Blocks on WalkFirst High Injury Network = 3.5

SAFETY

98%

2%

Blocks that overlap a project identified in a plan

41%

0%

2%

59%

50%

Coordination Opportunity

EFFICIENCY

100%

17

18

STRATEGY 2 TAP INTO ECONOMIC POTENTIAL W A L K F I R S T : S T R EE T S C A P E P R I O R I T I Z A T I O N

BLOCKS WITH MOST VACANCIES AND RECENT BUSINESS GROWTH

STRATEGY 2: TAP INTO ECONOMIC POTENTIAL STRATEGY GOAL:

Prioritize locations with underutilized buildings yet actively growing businesses (top 20%). DATA INPUTS:

Presence of vacant storefronts and lots (x3) Number of change of use permits, miscellaneous permits, and new business licenses

Strategy Goal:

Prioritize locations with underutilized buildings yet actively growing businesses (top 20%).


TAP INTO ECONOMIC POTENTIAL STRATEGY 2 STRATEGY 2: EVALUATION METRICS INFOGRAPHIC OF STRATEGY


Over 65 14%

Total Population in Adjacent Census Blocks: 267,477 Total Employment in Adjacent Census Blocks: 321,469


Under 18 11%

Other 75%

No Parklet 51%

36%

Blocks with Parklet within 1/8 Mile*

Parklet 49%

64%

18% 38%


67%

0%

62%

33%

50%

100%

82%


STEWARDSHIP

TARGETED POPULATION


6


3



Completed/ Funded

Completed 23% 10% Fully Funded 7% Partially Funded 6%



Streetscape Project Overlap 32%

37% 63%

68%



89%

Blocks that overlap a future paving project (2019 and beyond)

2%



SAFETY

98%

29%

0%

11%

71%

50%


EFFICIENCY

100%

19

20

STRATEGY 2 TAP INTO ECONOMIC POTENTIAL W A L K F I R S T : S T R EE T S C A P E P R I O R I T I Z A T I O N


STRATEGY 3: TARGET PHYSICAL DEFICIENCIES STRATEGY GOAL:

Prioritize locations with poor pedestrian infrastructure and/or surrounding environment conditions (top 20%). DATA INPUTS:

Score based on SFDPH’s Pedestrian Environmental Quality Index (PEQI), approximated version, including traffic volume; speed limit; street/sidewalk width; presence of buffers, street trees, pedestrian plazas, parks, empty lots

Strategy Goal:

Prioritize locations with underutilized buildings yet actively growing businesses (top 20%).


TARGET PHYSICAL DEFICIENCIES STRATEGY 3 STRATEGY 3 : EVALUATION METRICS INFOGRAPHIC

BLOCKS WITH WORST PEDESTRIAN INFRASTRUCTURE AND ENVIRONMENT



15%

Over 65 14%

Parklet 26%

Under 18 11%

Other 75%


5%

85% 20%


36%

0%

95%

80%

64%

50%

100%



STEWARDSHIP

TARGETED POPULATION


4


Completed 14%

2


15%

Fully Funded 6%

Partially Funded 11%




Streetscape Project Overlap

44% 56%

85%


Blocks within a Priority Development Area (PDA) Blocks that overlap a future paving project (2019 and beyond)

77%

1%



SAFETY

23%

99%

36%

0%

64%

50%


EFFICIENCY

100%

21

22


SCENARIO 4

PRIORITIZE BLOCKS WITH HIGH PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY, POOR PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT, AND NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL STREET TYPE

PREFERRED SCENARIO: HIGH PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY, POOR PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL AND TOURIST CORRIDORS STRATEGY GOAL:

Scenario 1 Invest where People Walk Prioritize locations with high levels of pedestrian activity. Data Inputs • Pedestrian volumes: current + forecasted growth (x5) • Transit ridership at nearby stations

Prioritize locations with poor pedestrian infrastructure and/or surrounding environment conditions (top 20%). DATA INPUTS:

Pedestrian volumes: current + forecasted growth Pedestrian Tourist corridors Score on SFDPH’s Pedestrian Environmental Quality Index (PEQI), approximated version Neighborhood Commercial corridors

The preferred scenario utilizes data inputs from Strategy 1 and Strategy 3. The map highlights the set of blocks on the Streetscape Street Network that would be prioritized for future streetscape improvements. Blocks were prioritized by Supervisor District instead of across the City. This helped to provide a more even geographic distribution. Based on a block’s calculated score, the block was assigned a ranking category within the Supervisor District: top 33%, middle 33%, or bottom 33%. The blocks with the highest scores are shown in red as the top 33% of the network.

Scenario Goal: Prioritize locations with high levels of pedestrian activity, poor pedestrian infrastructure and/or


SCENARIO 4 PREFERRED SCENARIO: EVALUATION METRICS INFOGRAPHIC

PRIORITIZE BLOCKS WITH HIGH PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY, POOR PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT, AND NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL STREET TYPE

Over 65 14%


Blocks in Downtown 9% (C-3 Zoning District)


Under 18 12%


91%

16%

18%

82%

37%

0%

Parklet 30%

Other 74%

63%

84%

50%

100%


STEWARDSHIP

TARGETED POPULATION


4


Fully Funded 6% Partially Funded 3%



14%


Completed 16%

2



Streetscape Project Overlap

40% 60%

86%



66%


23%

0%

34%

77%

50%

Coordination Opportunity Average Prioritization Weight for Blocks on WalkFirst High Injury Network = 2.9

SAFETY

EFFICIENCY

100%

23

C hapt e r 4 : L ocations for F u t u r e S tr e e tscap e I mprov e m e nts

CHAPTER

4

Locations for Future Streetscape Improvements OVERVIEW A key deliverable of the project is a list of priority locations for future improvements. The preferred scenario presented in Chapter 3 highlights the blocks with the greatest need for streetscape improvements based on the available data inputs. The next step in the project was to take the preferred scenario and develop a map of priority locations for streetscape projects based on available funding. Blocks were grouped together to form potential project boundaries. Three or four project locations were identified in each supervisorial district. These locations represent priorities for future streetscape improvements as funding becomes available. The map on the next page illustrates which streets the City could prioritize for streetscape improvements. The map doesn’t tell us what type of improvements might be included in each project. The design details and proposed project elements have yet to be determined. These details will depend largely on funding as well as existing conditions and input from community members, and would be determined through a separate process, using the Better Streets Plan as a guide.

25

26


STREETSCAPE PROJECTS The specific improvements will depend on a number of factors including the project budget, existing conditions of the street and community feedback. The table below illustrates the types of improvements you might see, depending on the specifics of the project.

VERY LIGHT

LIGHT

FULL

Examples of streetscape elements:



Infill street tree planting, bike lane striping, median planting, and upgrades to existing street lights.

Repaving, infill street tree planting, a limited number of bus bulb-outs, ADA improvements, bike lane striping, median reconstruction, and upgrades to existing streetlights.

Substantial pedestrian and bike improvements (such as sidewalk widening and separated bike lanes), street greening, street lighting, transit station upgrades, and reconfigured traffic patterns.

Examples:

Lower Polk, Van Ness Avenue, San Bruno Avenue, 19th Avenue Median and Point Lobos.

Examples:

Folsom Street (19th to Cesar Chavez), Divisadero Street (Geary to Haight)

Examples:

Castro, Valencia, Jefferson, Masonic, 2nd Street Streetscape projects.


PRIORITY LOCATIONS FOR STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS (PENDING FUNDING) The map to the left shows priority locations for streetscape improvements (in purple). Note, this is not a list of funded projects. Streetscape projects that have been funded or completed are shown in gray.

Priority Projects Streetscape Network Completed/Fully Funded Project Supervisor District Boundary

BEACH

JEFFERSO

N ST

JEFFERSON

COLUMBUS

CHESTNUT CHEST NU

LO MBAR

D ST

UNION ST

N ST STOCKTO

LOMBARD

VAN NESS

2

3

T ST

CLAY ST

STOCKTON

AVE

JONES

FO

PRECITA AVE

ST

0.25 0.5

DA LE AV E

OAKDALE

CRESCENT

IN

WILLIAM S AVE

ST

NE SA VE

GR I

FF ITH

NE

PH EL ST PS

MISSION - 3

OCEAN

KE YA VE

SAN JOSE VISITACION ST G WA Y

SAN TOS ST

RO LP H

WIN DIN

0

ST

ON D DIA M AV E JO SE

RU TH

SA N

PHELAN AVE

PLYMOUTH AVE

GENEVA

NT CE ES CR

LEL VISIT AN ACIO DA VE NA VE SU NN

YD A

LE A VE

TER HES AVE

BROAD ST

BO CA

ST

NA

AV E W ES TP OR TA L

11

CORTLAND VE A

9

NEY ST

OA K

CORTLAND AVE

E L AV

AVE

IRA

19TH AVE

7

ADM

OC EAN

10

MISSION - 2

ST

30TH ST

ST

15TH AVE

CESAR CHAVEZ ST

HAH N

ST

9TH AVE

STANYAN

CHURCH ST

NA D GU LV LA A B ND HO

19TH AVE

WEST PORTAL WIN STO ND R

24TH ST

29TH ST

GLEN PARK

22ND ST

22ND

24TH

CHURCH

PORTOLA

TENNESSEE ST

22ST ST

RANDALL ST

SLOAT BLVD

POTRERO AVE

19TH ST

17TH ST

20TH ST

8

ULLOA ST

MISSION - 1

21ST ST

LAGUNA HONDA

TARAVAL

POTRERO

KANSAS ST

CASTRO ST

DOLORES ST

UPPER MARKET15TH ST

MISSION ST

DUBOCE AVE 14TH ST

NORIEGA

4

6

HAIGHT - 2

9TH AVE

JUDAH - 1

JUDAH - 2

M O LS

FOLSOM

CONNECTICUT ST

HAYES ST

HAIGHT - 1

ST

ST

06TH ST

D 3R

FILLMORE

ST

5

PARK PRESIDIO

EDDY H 6T

1

BMS GE ARY ST

LA

CLEMENT ST

7TH AVE

CLEMENT - 2

PARK PRESIDIO BLVD

UNION SQUARE POST

DIVISADERO

CLEMENT - 1

BLAN

KEN A VE

1 Mile

DRAFT Priority Locations for Streetscape Improvements - Feb 4, 2015

27

28


POTENTIAL LOCATIONS FOR FUTURE STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT

DISTRICT

06TH ST

6

High volumes of pedestrian activity. Need for pedestrian safety improvements.

22ND

10

Community vetted design. Leverage impact fees. Neighborhood commercial street.

24TH

9

Neighborhood commercial street. Invest in Neighborhoods corridor.

9TH AVE

5

Neighborhood commercial street. Transit corridor. Community ideas for plaza on 9th Ave. Adjacent to Golden Gate Park.

BEACH

2

Identified in Fisherman's Wharf Public Realm Plan. Major tourist activity.

MARKET STREET

3/6

NOTES

Citywide Priority.

CHESTNUT

2

Neighborhood commercial street. Transit corridor.

CHURCH

8


CLEMENT – 1

1

Neighborhood commercial street.

CLEMENT – 2

1


COLUMBUS

3


CORTLAND

9


CRESCENT

9

Public Realm opportunity adjacent to farmers market.

DIVISADERO

2/5

Extend Divisadero Street improvements.

EDDY

6

Transit corridor.

FILLMORE

5


FOLSOM

6

Important east-west bicycle connection. Leverage impact fees.

GENEVA

11

Deficient pedestrian conditions. Community vetted design. Opportunity to coordinate with future BRT project.

GLEN PARK

8

Transit hub. Identified in Glen Park Area Plan.

HAIGHT – 1

5

Opportunity to add streetscape enhancements in coordination with transit project.

HAIGHT – 2

5

Opportunity to add streetscape enhancements in coordination with transit project.

JEFFERSON

3

Extend Jefferson St improvements. Identified in Fisherman's Wharf Public Realm Plan. Major tourist activity.

JONES

6

Conceptual design developed as part of Green Connections.

JUDAH – 1

4

Neighborhood commercial street. Transit corridor. Opportunity to add streetscape enhancements in coordination with transit project.


PROJECT

DISTRICT

JUDAH – 2

4

Neighborhood commercial street. Transit corridor. Opportunity to add streetscape enhancements in coordination with transit project.

LAGUNA HONDA

7

Transit hub.

LOMBARD

2

Opportunity to add streetscape enhancements in coordination with repaving and sewer project.

MISSION – 1

9

Opportunity to add streetscape enhancements in coordination with transit project. Major transportation corridor

MISSION – 2

9


MISSION – 3

9


NORIEGA

4

Neighborhood commercial street. Wide right-of-way.

OAKDALE

10

Conceptual design developed as part of Green Connections. Build on funding allocated from 2011 Streets Bond.

OCEAN

7/11

NOTES

Community vetted design. Adjacent to major transit corridor and transit station.

PARK PRESIDIO

1

Deficient pedestrian conditions.

PORTOLA

7


POST

5

Identified in Japantown Plan. Neighborhood commercial street.

POTRERO

10

Extend Potrero Ave improvements. Transit corridor.

SAN JOSE

11

Adjacent to transit hub. Deficient pedestrian conditions.

STOCKTON

3

High volumes of pedestrian activity. Major transit route. Opportunity to add streetscape enhancements in coordination with transit improvements.

TARAVAL

4

Opportunity to add streetscape enhancements with rail replacement.

UNION SQUARE

3

High volumes of pedestrian activity.

VISITACION

10

Connect to Hope SF development. Opportunity to add streetscape improvements and build on planned transit improvements.

WEST PORTAL

7

Neighborhood commercial street. Adjacent to major transit corridor and station.

29


OVERLAP: PRIORITY LOCATIONS & COMPLETED PROJECTS

ST

JEFFERSON

BU

S

3

AV E

RC AD ER O

CLAY ST

CLAY ST

FR EM O

O

N

N

ST

EM

FILLM ORE

FR

ENTO ST

M

BA

O

SAC RAM

S AVE VAN NES

ER

2

UNION ST

LU

ST STOCKTON

AD

CONNECTICUT ST

ST STANYAN

N M IS

SIO

RS

RO L

MO

RSE

ST

NE

VA

PH

WIN

IA

E AV

PA LO U

S AVE

ST

VIS

WAY

ITAC IO

LE L

AN

N SU N AV E

N YD

DA VE

ALE

AV E

IN AV E

IFF GR

KE Y

AV E

DI N G

WI LLIAM

EA VE

E

T

N

N

LA

CE

EL P ST S

ES

AV E

S ST

GE

N ST

PE

ST

PLYM OUTH AVE

ST

H AH

TH

BROAD ST

NEY ST

CR

DA L

PH

ST AN A

BO C

T DS

9

ON DIA M AV E JO SE

RU

SA N

PHELAN AVE

TP ES W

19TH AVE

10 OA K

CORT LAND AVE

ST

7TH AVE

PARK PRESIDIO BLVD

15TH AVE

AV E OR TA L

46TH AVE ST

GR

IFF

IT

LA

H

N

E

EL P ST S

MONTEREY BLVD

SAN TO

S ST SAN TO

N ST

SIO M IS

PRECITA AVE 29TH ST

GIL

AV E

TE R H ES AV E

H AH

ST N

PH

ST AN A

BO C

T DS ON DIA M AV E JO SE SA N

PHELAN AVE

9TH AVE

CONNECTICUT ST

ST STANYAN

9TH AVE

PLYM OUTH AVE

ST

7TH AVE

PARK PRESIDIO BLVD

15TH AVE

AV E OR TA L TP

24TH ST

CESAR CHAVEZ ST

DR

11 RANDOLPH ST

22ND ST

3RD ST

NA VE

TENNES SEE ST

ES

ST

W

D

OC EA

ST

24TH ST

30TH ST

7

G

AVE

19TH AVE

3R 16TH ST 17TH ST

20TH ST

20TH ST

UNO

AVE

19TH ST

BR SAN

KE N

N KI

6 POTRERO AVE

BL AN

ND R

ST

KANSAS ST

AV E

AV E

ST

ALE

STO

M O

21ST ST

RANDALL ST

WIN

LS

MISSION ST

N YD

DA VE

AN

A OL RT

FO

ST

PO

H 6T

TH

N SU N AV E

M

VALENC IA ST

AN

11

LE L

AV E

ST

E L AV

WAY

ITAC IO

GIL

DOLORES ST

ST

VIS

AV E

NE SA VE

T KE

22ST ST

IRA

AV E

DI N G

S AVE

IN

18TH ST

M AD

WIN

KE Y

AV E

14TH ST 15TH ST

CHURCH ST

PH

IA

DUBOCE AVE

CASTRO ST

RS

ST

VICENTE ST

SLOAT BLVD PA LO U

AR

HAYES ST

ULLOA ST

A BLVD JUNIP ERO SERR

VA

WI LLIAM

TE R H ES AV E

ST

NE

TARAVAL ST

EA VE

M

O ST

E AV

DIVISA DER

PE

IC AVE

ST

MA SON

4

NA D GU B LV LA A ND HO

T

R ST MCALLISTE

8 19TH AVE

N

DA L

HAI GHT

NORIEGA ST

24TH ST

AVE


RO L

RSE

CE

UNO

TH

GE

MO

ES

BR SAN

RU

BROAD ST

CR

ARGUELLO BLVD

LA PLAYA

9

NEY ST

OA K

CORT LAND AVE

EDD Y ST

GEARY ST

5

22ND ST

3RD ST

MONTEREY BLVD

11 RANDOLPH ST

JUDAH ST

10

E L AV

NA VE

IRVING ST

TENNES SEE ST

POTRERO AVE

KANSAS ST

20TH ST

30TH ST

OC EA

FULTON ST

PRECITA AVE

IRA

ND R

16TH ST 17TH ST

29TH ST

M AD

STO

1

BALBOA ST

ST

CESAR CHAVEZ ST

DR

ULLOA ST

7

G

24TH ST

RANDALL ST

WIN

MISSION ST

19TH ST 20TH ST

VICENTE ST

SLOAT BLVD

N KI

6

ST

A OL RT

L

ST

22ST ST CHURCH ST


19TH AVE

PO

FO

M SO

21ST ST

8

TARAVAL ST

VALENC IA ST

18TH ST

ST

TH

14TH ST 15TH ST

NORIEGA ST

4

D

11

DUBOCE AVE

CASTRO ST

JUDAH ST

ST

DOLORES ST

IRVING ST

HAI GHT

GEARY BLVD

3R

HAYES ST

ST

ST

AR

CLEMENT ST

ST

ST

M

T KE

H 6T

R ST MCALLISTE

O ST

FULTON ST

CALIFORNIA ST

EDD Y ST

GEARY ST

5

DIVISA DER

IC AVE

LA PLAYA

MA SON

1

BALBOA ST

T

T

CLEMENT ST GEARY BLVD

ARGUELLO BLVD

CALIFORNIA ST

ST

CLAY ST

D ST

EM

LOM BAR

E TH

UT ST

RC

CLAY ST

CHE STN

POLK ST

3

AV E

ST

ENTO ST

S

BA

FILLM ORE

SAC RAM

S AVE VAN NES

UNION ST

BU

ST STOCKTON

2

D ST

CO M

EM

LOM BAR

LU

E TH

POLK ST

UT ST

ST

H

CO

CHE STN

OVERLAP: PRIORITY LOCATIONS & FUNDED PROJECTS

IT

JEFFERSON

46TH AVE

30

BL AN

KE N

AVE

M

AN

AV E

NE SA VE


OVERLAP: PRIORITY LOCATIONS & COMPLETED & FUNDED PROJECTS

JEFFERSON

ST

CO

BU

S

3

AV E

AD ER O

CLAY ST

CLAY ST

FR EM O

ST

ENTO ST

M

RC

FILLM ORE

SAC RAM

S AVE VAN NES

UNION ST

LU

ST STOCKTON

2

D ST

BA

LOM BAR

EM

UT ST

E TH

POLK ST

CHE STN

DISTRICT SUPERVISORS

N T ST

10

VA

AV E

ST

DI N G

VIS

S ST

NE

PH

WIN

WAY

ITAC IO

LE L

AN

D

AV N E SU N AV E N YD ALE AV E

IN AV E

NE SA VE

SUPERVISORS

1

Eric Mar

2

Mark Farrell

3

Julie Christensen

4

Katy Tang

5

London Breed

6

Jane Kim

7

Norman Yee

8

Scott Wiener

9

David Campos

10

Malia Cohen

11

John Avalos

GR

IFF

IT

LA

H

N

E

ST

PA LO U

S AVE

EL P ST S

KE Y

AV E

SAN TO

ST

IA

N ST

SIO

RS

H AH

N

ST

PE

WI LLIAM

EA VE

PH

ST AN A

BO C

T DS ON DIA M JO SE

AV E

ST

M IS GE

RSE

C

DA L

E AV

GIL

AV E

TE R H ES AV E


PLYM OUTH AVE

SA N

TH

RO L

MO

ES

T

AVE

RU

BROAD ST

CR

EN

UNO

PHELAN AVE

TP ES W

9

NEY ST

OA K

CORT LAND AVE

BR SAN

19TH AVE

CONNECTICUT ST

9TH AVE

STANYAN

ST 15TH AVE

AV E OR TA L

46TH AVE

24TH ST 3RD ST

MONTEREY BLVD

11 RANDOLPH ST

22ND ST

PRECITA AVE 29TH ST

E L AV

NA VE

DISTRICT

24TH ST

DR

IRA

OC EA

ST

CESAR CHAVEZ ST

30TH ST

7

G

TENNES SEE ST

POTRERO AVE

KANSAS ST

20TH ST

20TH ST

ULLOA ST

ND R

16TH ST 17TH ST

21ST ST

M AD

STO

N KI

6

19TH ST

RANDALL ST

WIN

ST

22ST ST

VICENTE ST

SLOAT BLVD

M O

MISSION ST

18TH ST

CHURCH ST

A OL RT

LS

ST

15TH ST

CASTRO ST


19TH AVE

PO

FO

ST

7TH AVE

TH

14TH ST

8

TARAVAL ST

VALENC IA ST

DUBOCE AVE

ST

11

ST

NORIEGA ST

4

D

HAYES ST

DOLORES ST

IRVING ST JUDAH ST

HAI GHT

3R

AR

ST

ST

M

T KE

H 6T

R ST MCALLISTE

O ST

FULTON ST

EDD Y ST

GEARY ST

5

DIVISA DER

LA PLAYA

IC AVE

1

BALBOA ST

MA SON

PARK PRESIDIO BLVD

CLEMENT ST GEARY BLVD

ARGUELLO BLVD

CALIFORNIA ST

BL AN

KE N

AVE

M

AN

AV E

31


OVERLAP WITH VISION ZERO NETWORK The map to the right illustrates the overlap between the potential project locations and the Vision Zero Network.

Priority Projects Streetscape Network Completed/Fully Funded Project

High-Injury Corridor Cyclist HIC Only Pedestrian HIC Only Vehicle HIC Only JEFFERSO

Cyclist/Vehicle HIC

N ST

Pedestrian/Cyclist HIC Pedestrian/Vehicle HIC

CHEST NU

Pedestrian/Cyclist/Vehicle HIC

T ST LOMB AR

D ST

STO CK TO

SS AV VAN NE

UNION ST

N ST

CL AY ST

GE ARY ST

3R

7TH AVE

PARK PRESIDIO BLVD

E D ST

H 6T ST

ST

HAYES ST

LS

O

M

ST

19TH ST

17TH ST

20TH ST 21ST ST 22ST ST

CHURC H ST

LA

15TH AVE

NA D G U B LV A ND

HO

CESAR CHAVEZ ST

PRECITA AVE 29TH ST

ULLOA ST

30TH ST

ST IT H GR I

FF

ST

PH E

LA

NE

LP S

ST

NE SA VE

WAY

T

LE L VIS AN ITAC DA ION VE AV E SU N N YD AL E AV E

NS

TOS

DING

ST

ST

SA N

LP H

AV E

TE R HES AVE

0.25 0.5

M S AV E

KE Y

RO

AV E

TH ST

WIN

0

T

BO C ST ND MO DIA AV E SE JO SA N

PHELAN AVE

RU

LE

IN

WILLIA

NEY ST

PLYMOUTH AVE

AV E

T

AVE

OC E AN

BROAD ST

The maps on these pages illustrate how the proposed project locations intersect with other citywide projects.

AS AN

AV E TA L OR TP ES W

AL

R

M IR

ND

CR

N CE ES

E AV

AD

STO

OA KD A

CORTLAND AVE

HA H

19TH AVE

WIN

22ND ST

24TH ST

RANDALL ST

SLOAT BLVD

TENNESSEE ST

POTRE RO AVE

DOLORES ST

MISSIO N ST

14TH ST 15TH ST

KANSAS ST

STANYAN

DUBOCE AVE

CASTRO ST

9TH AVE

FO

CONNECTICUT ST

CLEMENT ST

19TH AVE

32

BL AN

KEN AV

E

1 Mile

DRAFT Priority Locations and High-Injury Corridors - Feb 4, 2015


OVERLAP WITH INVEST IN NEIGHBORHOOD CORRIDORS

Priority Projects Streetscape Network

The map to the left illustrates the overlap between the potential project locations and the Invest in Neighborhoods Corridors.

Completed/Fully Funded Project Supervisor District Boundary Invest in Neighborhood Corridors

BEACH

JEFFERSO

N ST

JEFFERSON

COLUMBUS

CHESTNUT CHEST NU

LO MBAR

D ST

UNION ST

N ST STOCKTO

LOMBARD

VAN NESS

2

3

T ST

CLAY ST

STOCKTON

AVE

BMS GE ARY ST

ST

0.25 0.5

DA LE AV E

OAKDALE

CRESCENT

IN

WILLIAM S AVE

ST

NE SA VE

GR I

FF ITH

NE

PH EL ST PS

MISSION - 3

OCEAN

KE YA VE

SAN JOSE VISITACION

G WA Y

LEL VISIT AN ACIO DA VE NA VE SU

ST

ST

SAN TOS ST

RO LP H

WIN DIN

0

ST

ON D DIA M AV E JO SE

RU TH

SA N

PHELAN AVE

PLYMOUTH AVE

GENEVA

CE ES CR

A NT

NN

YD A

LE A VE

TER HES AVE

BROAD ST

BO CA

ST

NA

AV E W ES TP OR TA L

19TH AVE

11

CORTLAND AVE

9

NEY ST

OA K

CORTLAND VE

E L AV

AVE

GLEN PARK

IRA

OC EAN

10

MISSION - 2

ST

30TH ST

HAH N

ST STANYAN

9TH AVE

15TH AVE

PRECITA AVE 29TH ST

7

TENNESSEE ST

CESAR CHAVEZ ST

CHURCH

ADM

WIN STO ND R

24TH ST

CHURCH ST

NA D GU LV LA A B ND HO

19TH AVE

WEST PORTAL

22ND ST

22ND

24TH

RANDALL ST

SLOAT BLVD

POTRERO AVE

19TH ST

17TH ST

20TH ST

PORTOLA

ULLOA ST

MISSION - 1

22ST ST

LAGUNA HONDA

TARAVAL

POTRERO

21ST ST

8

NORIEGA

4

6 KANSAS ST

CASTRO ST

DOLORES ST

UPPER MARKET15TH ST

MISSION ST

DUBOCE AVE 14TH ST

9TH AVE

JUDAH - 1

M O LS

HAIGHT - 2

CONNECTICUT ST

FO

FOLSOM

ST

HAYES ST

ST

D 3R

06TH ST

HAIGHT - 1

JUDAH - 2

EDDY

JONES

ST

5

PARK PRESIDIO

FILLMORE

H 6T

1

CLEMENT - 1

LA

CLEMENT ST

7TH AVE

CLEMENT - 2

PARK PRESIDIO BLVD

UNION SQUARE POST

DIVISADERO

BLAN

KEN A VE

1 Mile

DRAFT Priority Locations and Invest in Neighborhoods Corridors - Feb 04, 2015

33

C hapt e r 5 : F u nding L andscap e

CHAPTER

5

Funding Landscape OVERVIEW Streetscape improvements in San Francisco have been implemented through various programs, and specific elements have been successfully added to projects with supplemental funding. However, unlike other types of projects, there is not a dedicated funding source specific to streetscape improvement. Below is a summary of potential funding opportunities for streetscape improvements.

35

36


ONE BAY AREA GRANT

ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM

The OneBayArea Grant (OBAG) Program is the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s (MTC) funding approach that integrates the region’s federal transportation program with California’s climate law (Senate Bill 375) and the Sustainable Communities Strategy. The OBAG program allows flexibility to invest in transportation categories such as Transportation for Livable Communities, bicycle and pedestrian improvements, local streets and roads preservation, and planning activities, while also providing specific funding opportunities for Safe Routes to School and Priority Conservation Areas.

The Active Transportation Program (ATP) was established in 2013 by the California Legislature to encourage increased use of active modes of transportation, specifically bicycling and walking. ATP combines funds from a variety of federal and state sources. The program’s goals include increasing mode share and safety of non-motorized users; advancing greenhouse gas reduction goals; and improving public health.

OBAG is currently the largest Federal source of funds for streetscapes in San Francisco. In the first round of OBAG, $38 million was available in San Francisco to fund multi-modal, complete street projects over three years. Funds were distributed in a competitive call by the San Francisco County Transportation Authority (SFCTA) to all entities in the City who are eligible to expend federal transportation funds. The City was required to spend at least $24.5 million of the $38 million available on projects in Priority Development Areas, along eastern and south-eastern San Francisco, and $2.5 million was set aside for projects improving safety around schools. The dollar value and focus of subsequent OBAG rounds will be shaped by Federal transportation policy, as the Federal legislation which enabled the first round, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21), expires October 1, 2014. The priorities of the SFCTA and MTC will also guide what types of projects are most competitive for future founds of OBAG.

ATP funds are distributed through a statewide competitive call for projects evaluated by the California Transportation Commission and a regional competitive call for projects evaluated by MTC. Infrastructure and non-infrastructure projects were eligible. Of the $3 million awarded to San Francisco in the first competitive state-wide call for projects, $514,000 went towards infrastructure improvements to enhance the streetscape near a school. At least 25% of all ATP funds were directed to projects that benefit disadvantaged communities, and all projects in those locations scored more highly in the competition.

PROPOSITION K In November 2003, San Francisco voters approved Prop K, extending the existing half-cent local sales tax for transportation and approving a new 30-year Expenditure Plan identifying projects and programs to be funded by the sales tax. Prop K generates about $77 million annually in revenue. Prop K dollars are distributed based on the categories laid out in the voter-approved measure. Categories include everything from signals to streetcars, bicycles to boulevards, and pedestrian safety improvements to street cleaning equipment. Every five years, project sponsors (e.g. SFMTA, DPW, BART) work with the SFCTA to identify projects to fully or partially fund over the next five years. In 2014, the SFCTA approved the latest five-year expenditure plan, programming funds through fiscal year 2018-2019.


EXAMPLES OF FUNDING FOR STREETSCAPE PROJECTS 2005 GREAT STREETS PROGRAM (TLC FUNDS)

2011 ROAD REPAIR & STREET SAFETY BOND

2012 ONE BAY AREA GRANT (OBAG)

Federal and state funds, Roughly one project in each District

$55M for Streetscape Projects Citywide

38M allocated to seven projects citywide

Example: Divisadero Street, Leland Avenue

Example: Polk Street, Taraval Street, Castro Street

Example: Broadway, 2nd Street, Masonic Avenue

OTHER SOURCES Impact fees, grants, etc…

37

38


Of the $77 million available annually, approximately $5.9 million is available for enhancements that could be part of streetscape projects, such as upgraded traffic signals or enhanced bicycle facilities. Remaining funds are for named transit and transportation projects, equipment, or other activities not performed in conjunction with streetscape projects.

PROPOSITION AA Proposition AA is a $10 countywide vehicle registration fee that was passed by San Francisco voters in 2010. Prop AA generates about $5 million in revenues each year, used to fund smaller, high impact street repair and reconstruction, pedestrian safety, and transit reliability and mobility improvement projects throughout the city. Any City agency is eligible to receive funds. To maximize leveraging opportunities, minimize disturbances to neighborhoods, and build off of existing project prioritization processes and community planning efforts, Prop AA funds will ideally be expended on projects that are part of existing plans, such as Public Works 5-year Paving Program and MTA’s WalkFirst Program. Prop AA prioritizes using funds from all categories as part of complete street projects. Prop AA funds have been programmed through fiscal year 2016-2017.

DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES Over the past several years, the City has developed and adopted a number of Area Plans to guide land use changes and development and identify capital infrastructure needs, including plans for Balboa Park Station Area, Eastern Neighborhoods, South of Market, Mission, Showplace Square/Potrero Hill, Central Waterfront, Market and Octavia, Rincon Hill, Transit Center District, and Visitation Valley. Most Area Plans include development impact fees charged to new development to fund the infrastructure necessary to serve new residents and workers in these areas.

Guided by the adopted Area Plans, City departments work with Citizens Advisory Committees (CACs) to allocate impact fee revenues to specific projects, including streetscape improvements. The City’s Interagency Plan Implementation Committee develops an annual report and recommendations to the Board of Supervisors on the expenditure of impact fee revenues. The Board of Supervisors approves the appropriation of funds through the annual appropriation process. The projected annual revenue for the streetscape/transportation improvement impact fee category is projected to range from $15 million to $40 million a year over the next five years (2015 to 2019). Impact fees must address the impacts of new growth, and are limited to capital projects (not maintenance or operations). Generally, impact fees must be spent within the boundaries of the Area Plan from which they are collected.

BOND PROGRAMS San Francisco General Obligation (G.O.) Bonds: The City has the ability to issue debt against the full faith and credit of the General Fund. This enables the City to make larger-scale capital investments and pay them off over a longer period of time. The City maintains internal financial policies that limit the amount of debt that it can issue; newly proposed G.O. bonds will not increase resident’s long-term property tax rates above FY 2006 levels. Therefore new G.O. bonds are typically used as existing approved and issued debt is retired and/or the property tax base grows. G.O. Bonds may be proposed by the Mayor or Board or Supervisors, and the Board must then elect to put any bond on the ballot for a public vote. The voter-approved 2011 Road Resurfacing and Street Safety Bond included $50 million over three years for streetscape improvements. The proposed 2014 Transportation and Road Improvement, which will go before voters in November 2014, would provide $5.2 million per year for streetscape improvements. Bond funds may be spent anywhere in the City, but must result in lasting, capital improvements.


POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES FOR STREETSCAPE ELEMENTS IN SAN FRANCISCO

FUNDING SOURCE

ESTIMATED ANNUAL FUNDING

USES

GEOGRAPHIC LIMITATIONS?

RESTRICTIONS ON STREETSCAPE ELEMENTS ELIGIBLE?

PROGRAMMING AUTHORITY

NOTES ON TIMING

One Bay Area Grant

$11,700,000

All elements of streetscapes and safe routes to schools projects

Yes

No

Metropolitan Transportation Commission

Next call for projects expected end of 2015/early 2016, with funding decisions made Fall of 2016. MTC will likely program multiple years of funds. (Prior OBAG was 3 years of projects).

Bonds

$0– $16,000,0000*

All elements of streetscapes

No

No

Bond Holder: e.g. City and County of San Francisco or SFMTA

N/A – unless MTA has any timing info to share on when streetscape project funding will be implemented.

Proposition K

$5,900,000**

Funding for enhancements to specific modes of travel or to be local match to a grant. Uses for much of this funding has been identified in 5-year plan.

No

Yes

San Francisco County Transportation Authority

Requests possible monthly, if use is included in current 5-year plan. Next full update of 5-year plan will start in approximately 3 years.

Proposition AA

$5,000,000

Street repair and reconstruction, pedestrian safety, and transit reliability.

No

Yes

San Francisco County Transportation Authority

Requests possible monthly, if use is included in current expenditure plan.

General Fund

$0–$2,200,000

Varies. Often for a Board-specified streetscape projects of citywide importance.

No

No

Board of Supervisors

Department Capital Budget requests due annually in mid January. Budget approved in August.

Development Impact Fees

$15,000,000– 40,000,000

All elements of streetscapes. Named projects for most of the funding are already identified through area plans.

Yes

No

Board of Supervisors

Funds are programmed annually, and expenditures are approved as part of the City Budget each August. Funds vary widely year to year based on timing of development.

Active Transportation Program

$3,000,000

Infrastructure and non-for streetscapes and other pedestrian and bike safety projects.

Yes

Yes

California Transportation Commission and Metropolitan Transportation Commission

Next call for projects anticipated 3/26. Requests due 6/1. Will program next 3 years of funds.

Sewer System Improvement Program

TBD

Funds must be used for on-site stormwater management (i.e. green infrastructure) or other sewer system improvement projects.

Yes

Yes

San Francisco Public Utilities Commission

N/A

* The 2011 voter-approved Road Repaving and Street Safety Bond included $50 million for streetscape improvements. The proposed 2014 Transportation and Road Improvement would provide $5,200,000 year for these types of improvements. ** Based on average Proposition K programmed for upgrades to major arterials, signs and signals, traffic calming, bicycle and pedestrian circulation and safety, transportation demand management, and transportation/land use coordination.

39

40


MTA REVENUE BONDS

SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL FUND – CAPITAL BUDGET

Similar to G.O. Bonds, SFMTA can issue debt against the full faith and credit of SFMTA. San Francisco voters authorized the SFMTA to issue revenue bonds in 2007 with the passage of Proposition A, and the SFMTA issued its first set of revenue bonds for new projects and financing existing debt in 2012. SFMTA Revenue Bonds provide funding for state of good repair projects and capital improvement programs such as Muni Transit Safety and Spot Improvements, Facility Improvements, Transit Fixed Guideway Improvements, Pedestrian Safety and Traffic Signal Improvements and Muni Light Rail Vehicle Procurement. SFMTA Revenue Bonds can be used to fill in funding gaps where other funding sources have traditionally not been available and to finance state of good repair and priority projects.

General fund monies are appropriated by the Board of Supervisors annually for capital improvements during the budget process, which is informed by the City’s 10-year Capital Plan and Mayor’s proposed budget. In the past, general fund dollars have been appropriated to supplement or match streetscape grants, fully fund a small number of streetscape projects, and construct small neighborhood safety improvement projects.

To date, SFMTA Revenue Bonds have not been used to fund streetscape projects, except as those elements are included within the scope of a Capital Improvement Program as described above. As SFMTA issues additional Revenue Bonds, streetscape projects would be eligible for funding and streetscape elements could be included as part of SFMTA Capital Improvements Projects along streetscape streets.

The amount of general fund dollars directed toward streetscapes has varied over past years, averaging $2.6 million per year. This average does not include general fund dollars which were appropriated for small spot improvements and street safety improvements, which will enhance streetscapes, but not in the form of continuous improvements.


SEWER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM – GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDS The Sewer System Improvement Program (SSIP) is a 20 year, multibillion dollar capital improvement program to upgrade San Francisco’s aging sewer infrastructure. Projects include green infrastructure (rain gardens, permeable pavement, etc.) as well as grey infrastructure (pipe upsizing, treatment plant upgrades, etc.) SSIP is funded through ratepayer dollars; future funding for green infrastructure projects is contingent on future rate increases. Initial funding for green infrastructure through the SSIP included $57M for a set of early implementation projects, currently in planning and design. Funding for future green infrastructure projects will be programmed through the Urban Watershed Assessment planning process based on priority locations for stormwater management. Funds will be used for performance-based projects with physical conditions that are appropriate for green infrastructure and which maximize the ability of the SFPUC to meet the Wastewater Enterprise Levels of Service. Generally, SSIP funds for green infrastructure must result in assets that can be capitalized by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. Urban Watershed Assessment will prioritize interagency streetscape projects which present opportunities for significant cost-sharing. Good candidates for green infrastructure inclusion include streetscape projects projected to cause significant disturbance to the streetscape through curb replacement, grading, etc.

OTHER POTENTIAL SOURCES Other sources of funds which could potentially contribute toward streetscape projects include California cap and trade revenue funds and Federal HUD Community Development Block Grants. However, these sources are either too new for their expenditure plans to be finalized or have not historically been used for these purposes in San Francisco. Cap and Trade will generate substantial revenue and some streetscape elements will be eligible under the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program (AHSC). Preliminary draft guidelines for AHSC indicate that the funds will have geographic limitations to focus on disadvantaged communities and will require projects to have a strong nexus with affordable housing developments. San Francisco has been successful in getting targeted state and federal grant funds for capital efforts, particularly greening projects, from the federal EPA or the state’s Strategic Growth Council for example. But these grants are generally only large enough to fund a portion of a capital project and are best used to augment larger capital investments.

41