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 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.