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 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 mar: welcome to the regular scheduled meeting of the transportation committee. i am supervisor mar. to my left is supervisor cohen and mark farrell. public comment is closed. is there a motion on this item? we can take that without objection. item three, madam clerk. to go recommending increasing the authorized amount for the non-federal portion of the memorandum of agreement with treasure island element of 30 to complete the preliminary engineering and design for the i-80 /yerba buena island

interchange improvement project. >> good morning. i want to quickly go ahead and go through the presentation in terms of specifics on the project and then we will get into the amendment details. first, an overview. everyone recognizes cal tran building the eastern stand. that did not include the on ramp, as well as the testing of free. both of those are on the side of the island, and the purpose of the project is to upgrade those ramps. we have selected a preferred alternative as shown in blue, the westbound on ramp would meet the standard after it is constructed. we would also go ahead and widen the road as the rams tight

into the private -- into the new public right away. requires the relocation, which are located right now at the ramp. that is an important part of the project. happy to report that we are completing the environmental documentation process. we have prepared a final eir/eis. it has been posted and the federal register, starting on october 21. we are at the final day review time for the final eir/eis. we expect a decision by the end of november. i will be in front of the program's board next month for the action. that is a major milestone for the project. very quickly, our intent is to complete the final design next year to relocate the historic buildings that are reference

before to put this out to construction advertisement in the summer of 2013 and be in a position to start construction in 2014. that is all being worked out, the details are being worked out closely with cal tran, because their intent is to open up the new bay bridge in the fall of 2013. and once they would open up the new bridge, we will start construction on the new france. the old rams will still be in place for a couple more years. - ramps- ramps will still be ine for a couple more years. what we refer to the west side of the island. there are a series of nine bridges that former treasurer island road. that is a separate project that right now we are completing and have completed. we sat down with cal tran

structures about the approval earlier this month, and we are in a position where we will stir the environmental and design and structure work for this project. it is quite frankly -- once they open of the new bridge to work of the island to upgrade the ravens and these viaduct bridges on the west side as quickly as possible after that. let's get to the specifics. we executed an moa in july of 2008. we have been working as the management arm in dealing with cal tran and obtaining the funding. we upon through a series of amendments. they have gone through a critical match for the highway bridge funds, and is as important to recognize that this is not a a prop kprop k project.

we're being areimbursed for all of the funds. finally, the item before you is to increase by $1 million. and to defer the payment start to coincide with the redevelopment of the island in terms of the cash flow that works for them. that concludes my presentation. i am open to any questions. >> seeing no immediate questions, is there any public comment of this item? -- on this item? >> supervisors, as you know, the san francisco redevelopment agency that was supposed to play a key role with treasure island is no more. as you heard in this presentation, while some very general reference is made to

tida, the public at large really does not know how the funds will be paid. i suppose treasure island and still comes under the jurisdiction of the city and county of san francisco. i last heard of deliberations. i am not sure it comes under the jurisdiction of san francisco. while i endorse and look forward to new developments in the expansion of the roads or in to treasure island, i think some further investigation is required on the development strengthening of the bridges and

roads. my main concern regarding this is because when the new bridge was being built over 600 remains were found this is a sensitive issue. while the public at home knows very little and very few people are interested in that archaeological concerns, we must, san francisco must, pay attention to this. that is all i am saying, because the gentleman says, most everything is on place. the focus is on the money. in this dire economic time, we do not know how tida is going to

function. it was paid to circumvent the redevelopment agency to play a main role that is not possible now. the ifd, the new type of program or project, we really do not know how that will work. the public needs to be told, and so and the gentleman could put something on the backside as to the funding and the role of the ifd's in this will be appropriate. thank you very much. supervisor mar: any other additional public comment? is there a motion on this item? move the item forward with recommendations. can we take that without objection? next item, please. to go recommend a board of a consulting contract to kimley- horn and associates in an

amount not to exceed 250,004 program management and technical support a of thevan ness avenue bus rapid track a program, with an option to extend for two additional years, and authorizing the executive director to negotiate contract terms and conditions. his for members of the publ, the document can be found on our web site. this item relates to the consulting contract. a recommendation for the award. we identified this need through our joint work last fall when we came to the authority board for appropriation to support the overall planning and project

development activities of both agencies on july 22 we did issue an rfp for overcalling technical support services. we held two pre-proposal conferences. we agree to use the small enterprise program to ensure we would have significant local participation and minority and women-owned participation. out reach that we did throughout this process to anchorago encoue firms to sign up for the conferences, eight ethnic organizations, including the asian american contractors association, hispanic chamber of commerce and african american

chamber of commerce, as well as women-owned organizations and offices here in san francisco. we also put advertisements out through the common cro"the chrod emailed out. the result was good. we had good participation amongst the three proposals that qualified and very strong firms. we did interview all three firms, and the team led by kimley horn and associates is here and audience. it does include 51% small business enterprise firms in terms of the percentage of the contract that would be dedicated to those firms, i.

including a minority firm, with 41% value. steven and associates would be a san francisco-based firm of african-americans. 10% participation with 100% minority holding in the principal position. ted crickpritchett is an african american who owned his own firm and provides architectural design services. in total, the participation on at this consultant team would exceed the 20% goal exceeded. it would hit the 50% mark. with that, we're happy to into questioned in are seeking