the street lights. that is crumbling infrastructure now, and we put it environmentally so it can be replaced in coordination with this project. the next alternative is number 3. these buses would run in the middle of the street, where the median is currently. what this would require is a complete replacement of the median with bus lanes. there would be two side platforms and rebuilding of the median. the final alternative is build alternative four, which would have buses running i was currently the left most lane of van ness avenue. it would require left and right- store vehicles. we could retain the medium. mikel slowed on the left on the brt corridor. without the corridor, they would have right doors, so they would be able to load on the right, similar to a light rail transit vehicle.

as part of the project, we're planning to eliminate about half of the left turn, both north and south on and van ness avenue. this is to approve traffic circulation and performance. their two design variations for three and four the proposed eliminated all but two left turns. when we consider the locally- preferred alternative, those will also be considered. there same as alternatives to three and four but with less left turns. in terms of how we choose the locally preferred alternative, and this is upcoming milestones in the next few months, chapter 10 of the eir/eis lays out each alternatives performance on a number of different criteria. these are the different categories, things like a trend the performance, passenger experience, access to pedestrian safety, and most of these are tied closely to the purpose and need. but throughout reach, deborah stakeholders and agencies have

identified other criteria that like to see considered. those are also part of chapter 10. now that we have released the document, as of last friday, we're doing is significant outrage. we have relaunched our website. anyone can download the document and fact sheets, translated to spanish and chinese. we have much information on the different project performance. we have done presentations, such as here and also at the mta board last month. we have our next cac meeting on november 15. we have posters in bus shelters, on buses, and i have been translated into multiple languages. we're making a presentation that neighborhood group meetings. we have started that and will continue through december 19, when public comment closes. all this is an attempt to obtain public input on the document. that is the main goal.

the main goal of the public circulation is to get public comment on the document, the environmental impacts, and the performance of the alternatives. so there are multiple ways to obtain the document. you can get it off of our website, electronically, and it is on display at our offices, mta, the planning department, and some branch libraries. you can also write to us, and we will send you a cd copy. people can make copies at our offices. to comment, you can e-mail us or write a letter to us. you can make verbal comments at our public hearings. and you can also comment electronically during our webinar on december 5. here is the status of the public circulation began on friday. comment time or close on december 19. we will hold a hearing at the holiday inn golden gateway on

november 30. there will be a court reporter there to take verbal comments from the public. a webinar on december 5. next milestones will be selecting a locally-preferred alternative. after public comment is closed, we will look through our analysis and staff will bring forward to the authority board and the mta board our recommendation for a locally- preferred alternative. we will finalize the eir with a circulation in the summer and certification in the fall of 2012. with that, i would like to open it up for questions. thank you for your time. supervisor campos: thank you for your presentation. supervisor wiener. supervisor wiener: thank you. this is an incredibly important project, and i want to thank the authority's staff for your work on this. i think brt is, particularly in the time of not having enough transit dollars for all the things you want to do, it is a very efficient way of creating

is essentially a form of light rail or something approaching that. i think it is terrific, and i hope we can get it on geary and other parts of the city as well. one question i have, among alternative two, three, and four, in terms of the differential impact on the traffic, congestion, and travel times, are there significant differences? >> in terms of the traffic circulation impacts, they are fairly equal in terms of traffic circulation. number two as i think just one year -- actually, they have the same in 2015. it has fewer traffic impact site 2035 in alternatives and three four. in terms of travel time, three and four per for our slightly better -- perform slightly better. supervisor wiener: in terms of

parallel parking, it will go through the bustling, will have a double parking problems potentially with alternative two? >> correct. each alternative has its trade- offs. supervisor wiener: presumably three in four will probably result in more efficient brt travel, i would imagine? >> yes, and that is what our models indicate as well. supervisor wiener: it has always start read that because we have franklin and others that go with the timing of the lights to be efficient with north-south automobile trial -- travel, and van ness is sort of a worse alternative currently if you're driving north-south. i assume that there will be perpendicular increases on franklin and goff because it is

somewhat more difficult to drive on van ness overtime. are there plans in place or considerations of improving traffic signals on goff and franklin to accommodate that increase? >> yes, the sf go project, a series of smart signals that allows for battle signal progression is actually going into construction, i believe, right now. it is partly in anticipation for this project. that should hopefully accommodate the additional traffic. we're only anticipating about three more vehicles per minute on those streets. our models indicate that is the case. we are seeing no increase in traffic impacts in 2015 and beyond that. supervisor wiener: thank you very much. supervisor campos: thank you very much for your presentation. i have a general question about the outreach that has been done

and that is being done in terms of getting as much feedback from our different communities as possible. i mean, i understand looking at page 6 of your presentation why there is a geographic focus, if you will, in terms of the groups that were approached. but the thing one thing i don't see enough of its involvement by organizations that work with language minorities and clearly there are neighborhoods like the mission, chinatown, and others that will be impacted by this. it would be helpful if you could involve some of these organizations, especially as to

what choices should be selected and gone through. >> we have done outreach to those groups. we have a plan to have limited the outreach. we have made at least to try to reach those contingencies in other ways if not necessarily a presentation. we are presenting this at the chinatown community development group. we have made contact with districts 6 and some groups in the mission. >> i would encourage you to reach out to other tree graphic areas of the city that will be users of the system. whether it is groups like power, i think it is important to be

as inclusive as possible. it seems like you are doing that anyway but to the extent that we can do as much as possible would be helpful. >> thank you. >> colleagues, any other comments or questions? why don't we open it up to public comment? since there is any member of the public that like to speak in this item, please come forward. >> when we have on important projects like this, one of the important things to note is the time given for public comment. november 4th thru november 19th, a lot of people are on vacation. i would say that we need more time for public comment. i was looking at the general

presentation and icy variable by clients -- i see very little bike lanes. usually the bike coalition is here but they are absent. i would like to sit down with the person to review a few things who gave the presentation. the demographics point to an increase of seniors and i want to see the output. as the director of environmental justice advocacy, i want to see empirical data on pollution, cumulative pollution. a lot of the traffic will go on

franklin and a lot of people are living indoors as residents, renters and they would be adversely impacted. i would like to see some impact on that. supervisors, none of you asked the question about this huge project. how's this going to impact this? this is an important project. you should have done this when things were rosy. we should have done this five years ago but we spent a lot of time on the eir.

we should do this project. this is an important project. just looking at it, at this presentation, now we just talked about like -- bike lanes, then we don't. we talked about being interested in our carbon footprint, then we don't. i would like to hearing -- have a hearing on this if possible. thank you very much. >> thank you, next speaker. >> i just want to come and encourage you and the board of supervisors to have dedicated lines so we don't have cars moving in. we should have level boarding so that people can get on quickly.

then the trances signal priority so that the buses can go and move freely. i would like to encourage you between mrs. street so that there is not the back up and bunching and i like to encourage you to support this project. thank you. >> thank you. is any other member of the public that would like to speak? colleagues, this is an informational item. do we have anything to add? ok. madam clerk, please call the next item. >> introduction of items. >> colleagues, are there any items to speak on? is there any public comment on this?

seeing none, public comment. >> public comment. >> this is the percentage for members of the public to speak within on an item -- to speak on an item. >> next item. >> adjournment.

supervisor avalos: good morning. welcome to the city operations and never had services committee. my name is supervisor john avalos, the chair the committee. joined by supervisor eric mar. the other member of the committee will be absent today, supervisor sean elsbernd. can we get a motion to excuse his absence? so done, without objection. we're also joined right now by supervisor david campos. the clerk of the committee is ms. gail johnson.

can you share announcements? >> all persons are requested to off all cell phones and pagers. if you wish to submit speaker cards, please put them up by the rail in front of you to your left. if you submit copies of materials for members of the committee, please submit an extra copy for the file. the two items on the agenda today, it recommended, will go to the full board for consideration tomorrow afternoon at 2:00 p.m. >> very good. thank you, madam clerk. please call item number 1. >> item 1, resolution supported regulated and safe patient access to medical cannabis in the city and county of san francisco. >> supervisor campos? supervisor campos: thank you. good morning, everyone. happy monday, happy halloween. this is the resolution that i am introducing, along with a number

of my colleagues did not want to think that for their co- sponsorship. supervisor mar, supervisor of ellis, president chiu, supervisor mirkarimi, supervisor kim, and supervisor wiener. this makes it very clear that we, on the board of supervisors, want to send a very strong message to the federal government that they live up to the promises that the president made, who was running for president, and the promises that were made in the early stages of the current administration, that they would respect state law. the voters here in the state of california have spoken loud and clear that they believe in the right of patients to have access to medical cannabis. that was passed into law through proposition 215, the compassionate use act, which voters supported in 1996. we have seen in the last few weeks a very troubling development with respect to the

approach of the federal government. we have seen the federal government that, contrary to its prior promises, is now disregarding state law. and in the process, really hurting so many patients that rely on the access to medical cannabis as a way of treating their illnesses and as a way of just survival. the voters of california have made it clear that we in california believe in the right of patients to have access of medication. in the city of san francisco, we have enacted regulations that serve as a model for the rest of the state in the rest of the country. and we believe that the federal government's should not be spending its very limited resources trying to go after patients. by this resolution, we're doing a number of things. first, we're urging the federal government to reconsider its bad policy and to actually respect the rights of patients to

medicine. we also call upon the federal government to end the prohibition on medical cannabis and request that the united states congress passed hr 1983, the state's medical marijuana medicate debt -- medication act of 2011, which was introduced by representative barney frank. we also are calling upon the federal government to pass hr 1985, the small business tax equity act of 2011, which was introduced by congressman pete stark. we're also calling upon the federal government to follow the lead and take leave from people like mark leno, leland yee, and others who have called for the protection of the rule of law as enacted by the voters of the state of california. we also encourage the president of the united states to enact legislation requiring federal

law enforcement to respect state law when it comes to medical cannabis. i think in these times, it is very important for us in the city and county of san francisco to take a clear stand in supporting patient rights, and i urge support of this resolution. i also want to take this opportunity to thank the medical canada's community and all the activists that have rallied behind this very important plot -- cause. i also want to think my colleagues for their co- sponsorship. >supervisor avalos: very good. i am a co-sponsoring this resolution as well. and i believe supervisor mar is as well. i am co-sponsor because i believe in and access to medical cannabis, as our state law has allowed. i think the changes that are coming down from the gut -- from the federal government against.

i have a lot of concern about the so-called war on drugs and how the policies of it are ongoing as a failed policy. it has been the war on drugs now for decades, and we're not seeing a real diminishment in the resources that go towards it, resources going -- that could go towards other things like health care and education. thank you for bringing this resolution forward. supervisor campos, supervisor mar, if there no comments from you, we can do to public comment. supervisor mar: i did want to thank supervisor campos and the activists from the community who have been working on this for years. the former assemblyman as well. and i appreciate supervisor campos also writing in support for the hr 1983 by barney frank

and also the state's medical marijuana protection act of 2011 as well, supporting other legislation at the state, local, and federal level as well. thank you. supervisor avalos: very good. we can go into public comment. we will do two minutes per person. i have a few cards i can read. please come on up. diamond dave, [unintelligible] penny -- i cannot read the last night. cynthia -- i cannot read the last name. paul girello. >> good morning, supervisors. my name is stephanie tepper, a spokesperson for the medical can this task force.

i am here today to thank you for standing up and taking leadership on this very important issue. over the last 10 years, the state of california has engaged in creating laws in local jurisdiction to transparently regulate medical cannabis facilities throughout the state. there were promises made, and direction given by our leaders, and as a result, we have had a community that has been very invested within their community and very invested in a transparent process. so for us to have the blanket pulled from right underneath this is unacceptable. in addition to this being an attack on patients access to medicine, which by the way, an attack on a facility is an attack on patients, they're innocent bystanders, too, that are also under attack. those are the landlords are complying with state and local laws by renting to these facilities were now being

threatened with 40 years in jail, a civil forfeiture, and for them to go back and take any money that they got in rent and be sued for that as well. it is unacceptable. so i applaud everybody on the board of supervisors for getting up today and making a definitive stand against the federal government's attack on state rights. thank you. i would also like to say that i stand in solidarity with occupysf and occupy oakland. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, sister. this seems to be something which is bound to happen here. i believe this is what they call a no-printer. we better support our brothers and sisters in this. it goes all the way back -- i am talking about yerba buena. that means they can smoke the good herb. it looks like this has support. what i am really worried about,

it seems like the knicks step -- i see my brother here from the guardian. uses the next step is to attack the newspapers that provide ads for medical marijuana. is that right? this is definitely an attack on our freedom of speech, freedom of access, free them to find the sustenance 22 survive in his previous times. so count me in. i believe we can do more together than any of us can do alone. thank you, brothers and sisters. let's stay strong. at the occupation and at the facilities dispensing medical marijuana, the good herb, ganja. [applause] supervisor avalos: thank you. next. >> good morning. [unintelligible] first of all, supervisor campos,

thank you again for being in our corner during these trying times, as well as your colleagues for coming to make the statement to the federal government that we, as a state, are taking care of our own and regulating our own. and if they would open their hearts and their minds to the idea of sick and dying people, they, too, might learned something from this body. thank you. [applause] supervisor avalos: thank you. next speaker, please. i have a few more cards. [reading names] >> ok, happy halloween. i am part of patient advocacy for medical cannabis, honored to speak before you.

i want to thank supervisor campos for his sponsorship of this emergency resolution. i want to point out for is that the prohibition of cannabis has been a huge factor in corporate greed for decades, and the current crackdown on medical can and this is a blatantly unconstitutional. not a single patient advocate in any of the 16 medical cannabis states believes for one moment that the department of justice is doing this crackdown to prevent patient exploitation. by profiteers. furthermore, we would like to see all the medicine from our collectives that has been seized returned. the reward system for federal agents needs to be examined for profiteering and piracy. at the task force level, we passed together basically a decade of work that has been done on it profiteering and

patient exportation, with compassion that direction that our court. we created a model for our nation. we are outraged and demand immediate injunction and the participation of our federal representatives to prevent closures that are set to occur in a matter of days for divinity 3 and other cooperatives. and for our city to uphold our sanctuary status for medical cannabis and perhaps finding locations for these and other cooperatives to serve their patients in the interim, while hopefully president obama uses his executive powers to rein in the role of u.s. attorneys and create some debt lead -- diplomatic reasonable solutions. thank you. [applause] supervisor avalos: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> hello peter i am a resident of san francisco, a patient, and i own the hemp center in oakland since july 1999. first, i like to think the