subway, they are trying to say that a phase one of the third street like real works, when it does not. so if we have learned that the third street light rail, from the middle of nowhere in visitation valley k to fourth visitationing in the service up to today does not provide reasonable service, meaning that you have to wait on an average of 30 minutes or 40 minutes for the light rail, then something has to be done. if something is not working on the first phase, it casts a doubt as to what will happen in phase two. so, again, the cac candidates who come here should be very well-informed about the history, very well-informed about this. right now flows in one direction. [bell rings] to change that requires

expertise, not some expertise from the state and some drab expertise, but really knowing how to facilitate transportation so that people can take public transportation, that we can truly say that we are a transit- first city, which we are not. i repeat, we are not a transit- first city. we just say that like a mantra. thank you very much. supervisor campos: thank you. is there another member of the public that would like to speak on this item? seen none, public comment is closed. that may begin by saying that i want to thank the two individuals who spoke, who have come forward to apply to the cac. from my perspective, it would be great to see both of them serve. i was definitely very impressed with the presentation from adrian hime, and i think that she is the kind of individual that we want to see on this kind

of body. that said, it is important though that we have geographic representation in the seed that is currently vacant, which is a seed that represents residents of the district 7 supervisor real seat, my understanding is that she lives in district 5. i think it is important for us to make sure that geographic representation is there, but i encourage you to continue to please be involved because i think that, whether it is this body or some other body, that you definitely have the kind of qualities that we want to see in some and who serves on this kind of committee commission task force. so thank you for coming forward. the big question for me as, with respect to mr. spencer, who clearly is dedicated and has done a fine job on the cac, is simply getting the feedback from the district 7 supervisor.

with that, my understanding is that, commissioner chu, you have heard -- supervisor chu: thank you. i want to thank all the individuals willing to serve in this capacity. it takes a lot of time and effort to be a part of any organization. i do want to indicate that supervisor elsbernd has indicated his support of mr. spitzer and the reappointment. so i would like to make a motion to reappoint mr. robert spitzer to represent the district 7. supervisor campos: we have a motion. can we get a second? second by supervisor wiener. colleagues, can we take that without objection? motion passes. we want to thank mr. spitzer. again, i would, ms. hime to continue her involvement. we look forward to seeing you participate in the capacity in the near future. and thank you, mr. spencer, for your service. congratulations. next item. >> item 5, recommend

appropriation of two $126,827 for the 19th avenue transit corridor investment study, subject to the attached fiscal year cash flow distribution schedule, and amendment of the transportation/land use coordination five-year prioritization program. this is an action item. >> at this start on page 19 of your packet. there are some maps on page 44 that might be helpful. this is a request for prop k funds to serve as a local match for a new study, the 19th avenue transit corridor investment steady. it is also known as the tier 5 improvement study, which i will get to. i will talk about the background, and then i will get to the study and the request itself. as background, this concerns the southern portion of the 19th avenue corridor, basically from eucalyptus up to the county line on 19th avenue. there are several large

properties in this section of 19th avenue, some of which have been envisioning potential further growth. including stones town galleria mall, san francisco state university, which adopted a master plan in to dozens of an envisioning to grow its student body, and park are said more recently, the residential complex located just south of sf state, which has recently been approved for growth in 2011. included in that proposal, a commitment to several transportation improvements. we see this as an impetus to court in a possibly a wider set of transportation changes that could benefit the community above and beyond partners said. the study would have three focus areas. the first being the idea of shipping the m-ocean view light rail line that runs in the medians of 19th avenue to the west side. most of the riders of the light

rail line are heading toward the west side, so shifting would be an improvement for pedestrian transit access. we're also thinking about possibly separating the crossings of the light rail under 19th avenue. that would be an improvement to both transit operations as well as traffic. the second area of focus would be to look at related pedestrian and bicycle improvements. if we did ship to that line, how would the pedestrian conditions change, and how might we shift the space around a little bit to make sure the pedestrian conditions in the remain as they are can be improved. finally, the last area of focus would be this idea of extending transit to the l.a. city bart. that has been talked about as an extension of the light rail line, m-ocean view, to the l.a. city bart. we like to look at that as well as ideas on improving bus

reliability in the corridor. there is a lot of buzz transit service in this area, and we think it would be the most cost- effective way to improve the reliability of that service. the study activities would include the needs assessment, developing some transportation improving concepts, and then doing a real engineering feasibility analysis and evaluation of those improvement concepts. looking at some cost estimates and in doing some thinking about how we could fund and implement those new projects. there has been some previous work in this corridor. i will mention two efforts. one of them is the 19th avenue park presidio boulevard transportation plan. that was a study by the authority itself and was adopted in 2008. it looked at existing needs for pedestrian safety and transit operations. this new study is looking more at sort of future transportation

improvements that could accompany new growth. the other study is the 19th avenue corridor study, which was requested by the board of supervisors and around the time that the parkmerced proposal came forward. that study looked at four different tiers of transportation and land use changes and how that might affect the transportation system. during that study, the community was interested in what he ended up calling tier 5 improvements, soared above and beyond what was being proposed in parkmerced and sf state. those improvements kind of overlap, and that is the idea. that is some people know this is the tier 5 study. then 19th avenue corridor study was unable to really analyze those tier 5 improvements, and this is what this next level of conversation is intended to be. really to look at some of these a larger improvement and how we

might be about fund them. there's a strong emphasis on partners. we expect a partners with the mayor's office of economic and workforce development. of course we expect to partner with sfmta. we also have some local private institutional land-owner partners, including parkmerced, sf state, and stones down. the total budget is expected to be $480,000. we are funded in part by a grant we received by the department of transportation caltrans in the amount of $300,000. our local partners in the study are looking to provide up to about $80,000. we have commitments from sf state, as well as parkmerced. we made inquiries into stones town, and we're hopeful that will provide local match. that leaves about $100,000 for prop k. if stones town is able to

provide local match, then the amount for prop k would be $127,000. we're asking for the appropriation of up to $127,000. that concludes my presentation. i am happy to take questions. supervisor campos: thank you very much. questions at this time. let's hear from public comment. if any member would like to speak on this item, please come forward. >> recently, the president of the united states tried to set aside or to in fuse in the national economy money is similar to the stimulus plan. now, i want to know that when an entity like the mayor's office, office of economic development and work force, is stated

generally that they could be one of the partners that could infuse money into this project, whether the board of supervisors has any say in matters where the mayor's office of economic development and workforce expends money. about seven years ago, the mayor's office of economic development in work force, there were very few people working for that entity. now i really do not know how big they are. they are spread all over the place. my question is, we see the san francisco county transportation authority expended millions of dollars, and how come we cannot get, say, $200,000 for this

project? what is it then makes them so poor? what is it that makes them like funding for such an important thoroughfare as an 19th avenue? those are my questions from listening to the deliberation. and i find it very difficult that while somebody comes here and gives you a presentation that none of you ask such questions, because i know for a fact, as i have towed you -- maybe you do not understand, that's sf county transportation authority wasted millions of dollars on the three conduit's which are white elephants. they tried to dig out these three conduits' and failed, because they did not do an assessment. i feel i am not aware of this situation, but i know for a fact, and maybe you all do not

know, because sometimes you rubberstamp that the san francisco county transportation authority has wasted money in the past. [bell rings] and we need to find out why they cannot find $200,000 so that they can fast-track this project? $200,000. why not? thank you very much. supervisor campos: thank you. is there any of the member of the public who would like to speak? see none, public comment is closed. colleagues, we had the staff presentation but this is an action item. we have a motion by commissioner avalos. a second by commissioner david chiu. can we take that without objection? without objection. thank you for the presentation. good work. madam clerk, please call item number 6. >> public circulation of the van ness avenue bus rapid transit

draft in brought -- environmental impact statement /environmental impact report. information item. >> good morning, deputy for planning. we're pleased today to finally bring 40 the van ness avenue brt draft environmental document. the tremendous efforts has been the culmination of many years of work and partnership with our partners at the sfmta. i want to recognize paul and peter from sfmta and the manager in charge of the effort, a tent. i also want to thank our longstanding project manager, rachel, who is not here with us today. she is actually on leave, taking a much deserved break. and our deputy project manager, michael, who will make the presentation. michael will actually be our environmental and planning lead for this project going forward. i would like to welcome to the team is sherry, our principal engineer.

she is not here today, but we will be introducing her at a future meeting. she will take over as program manager for the project as we head into the pre implementation phase of the project. finally, i want to recognize parsons transportation group and consultants, including chs, to have been tremendously supportive in producing this enormous amount of work and information. with that, let me turn it over to michael for the presentation. we will be happy to answer questions. supervisor campos: thank you. welcome. >> good morning, commissioners. my name is michael. i am transportation planner. the item begins on page 53. they're also going to get a quick overview about the project, as well as the environmental document and where we stand in terms of the schedule of the van ness brt. as many of you know, then as avenue was recognized as a key transit corridor, and the city has been identified in the

countywide transportation plan, as well as multiple other plans. it is a close collaboration with mta, as well as other departments throughout the city, such as public works. it is also u.s. 101, so we have been partnering with caltrans. it has been recognized regionally as a priority, as well as federally by the federal transit administration as a small start creating cost effectiveness. the purpose is to improve transit reliability, speed, connectivity, and comfort. you will see the chart on the bottom right of the slide. these are the bus spacings today on the van ness avenue for the 47 and 49. it is scheduled to be every 47 minutes -- seven minutes. you'll see a lot of bunching. but it is actually spread. you're almost equally as likely to get a bus more than every 14

minutes as you are to get one right on schedule. these are the things we're looking to improve through this project. in addition, we are open to a per pedestrian comfort and safety along the corridor, as well as urban design really making it a key flagship st. for the city. finally, because it is u.s. 101, we need to accommodate multi modal access and circulation around the corridor. van ness, brt in general, is a series of treatments, when combined, makes a bus operate more like a rail system. we're hoping to get all of these different features to make it a full-featured brt and naked act in that way, that it is not just another bus project but a new mode of transportation in the city. the environmental document was a long effort, and we're pleased to be here today. we formed the van ness cac in

2007. with screening, we carry three alternatives for word. there also two design variations. over the last couple of years, we have conducted many technical analyses, which are all contained in the environmental document. we have done significant out reached to committees, commissions, all through the city and region. i will put up a quick list of the many people that we have actually done outreach to through the process. we also did emerge in a walk up and down van ness avenue to make sure we talk to every business up and down the corridor to make sure they are aware of the project. what the findings of this document? we think that brt is able to reduce transit times and increase the reliability. if you look on the chart on the top right, you can see existing conditions. that is the difference in travel time between automobiles and transit today.

that is the far left. as it moves to the right, those are the different alternatives. the gaskets and narrowed by about 50%, as the transit is able to start closing that gap on automobiles because of these benefits, we predict an increase of 35% in transit ridership along the corridor. one of the key benefits by reducing the speed is we are able to run the same frequency of buses but at a lower cost, because buses can get to their end point in recirculate quicker. finally, through pedestrian that improvements such as countdown signals, we're able to improve pedestrian safety. and through the new sign age and a reduction in left turns, we also increase safety for automobile traffic in the corridor. how much did this cost? depending on the altar to the, it is between $90,000,000.100 $30 million. we have identified more than one ever million dollars in funding already. the $20 million in prop k, as well as any $5 million from the

federal transit administration. we think we're in a good position to receive that funding. we have received high cost effectiveness every year we have applied. we have been recommended for $15 million this year, as well as $30 million in next year's presidential budget. we did when we are able to get through these environmental phases, we will be in good condition to receive the grant award for the full 7 $5 million. the findings that ceqa and nepa require liggett potential impact areas, and you'll see that these are areas where we fell less than significant or no impact whatsoever. on the next slide, there are a number of additional areas where, after mitigation for avoidance measures, we were able to make the impacts less than that. these are three very standard avoidance a construction mitigation measures. these are found to be less than significant.

there is one area where we have significant and unavoidable and backs, and that is in traffic circulation. we did transportation mottling on 140 different intersections to get a sense of what is going to happen to traffic when we convert one lane in each direction. what we found is that in the near-term, 2015, existing conditions, there will be three additional intersections that will see an increase in traffic delays persist today. those are called out as environmental impacts. however, much of that is because the background growth. if you look at 2015 without this project, the exact same number of intersections would be impacted. it is not necessarily the brt causing this impact. these are expected projects that are going to cause some traffic congestion. in 2035, it is a slightly different story because of significant growth in this area and the city.

we expect to see additional intersections impacted, receiving automobile traffic delays. however, again, we think that there will be these issues with or without the brt. it is something we're working on a very high level. congestion pricing, looking at the demand management solutions, to look at how we get control over the number of people coming through our cities so we can look at congestion. as i mentioned -- supervisor mirkarimi: question. is there any way to distinguish into the future between -- in terms of what is causing the increase, in terms of the number of congestion injures a chance? >> for existing conditions, we do look net that compared to the brt, and we are required to look

at what is caused, and the background growth in brt. we're able to look at the 2035 project and what is caused by the brt. in the document, we do have 2015 at no projects and that the brt. you can see the distinction that there are no impacts or there are the same number of impacts in the background and the brt does not cause the additional congested intersections. however, they're called out as ceqa impacts in recent ceqa case law. i quickly wanted to go over the three different alternatives. this is build alternative two. the buses will run in what is currently the right most lane on and van ness avenue. you can see that these stations are said what -- sidewalk

extensions, so the buses do not have to pull over. parking is just to the right of the bus. you can see the corner bulbs that held pedestrians have a shorter crossing distance. we will do it full replacement of the overhead support poles in 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 circulation impacts, they are fairly equal in terms of traffic