we will be joined shortly by the other commissioners. the clerk of the committee is ms. erica cheng. we have to a knowledge the folk -- the work of the folks at sfgtv. thank you for your work. madam clerk, please call the first item, item number 2. >> item number two. approve the minutes of the may 15, 2012 meeting. this is an action item. supervisor avalos: colleagues? any comments on the minutes? any members of the public it would like to comment on the minutes? >supervisor olague: motion to approve the minutes. supervisor avalos: taken without objection. item #3. >> item #3. citizens advisory committee report. this is an information item.

>> good morning. today's agenda has two action items that were reviewed last month by the cac. item number six, allocate in prop k funds for nine annual requests. the cac pass this item amendment endlessly. the questions were focused on how pedestrian safety is evaluated by the mta regarding

the green wave projects. the mta responded that they had not responded on the impact. pedestrian safety in the area of implication authority staff, where they will work with the mta with regards to potential evaluation of behest reinstate the -- on -- evaluation on pedestrian safety. staff stated that they would be working with the mayor's office of housing in creating a hardship appeals process. item #7, the fda program

project. the cac pass this item unanimously, without sustainable decision. that is the end of my report. thank you. supervisor avalos: thank you very much. comments or questions? we will go on to public comment. >> you have just heard the cac report, ok? it was very difficult for me to understand what the gentleman was saying. but i did read the minutes from the other package.

so, more or less, i knew what was happening. so, we have a cac report on two agenda items. i want to talk about the so- called green way pedestrian safety. you may have listened to the news today about an elderly chinese woman who was hit on a van ness. we only just found out about that. i am saying this because one of the most important titles we have in the city, we need to have the best type of evaluation done on van ness. so does it gary and 19th avenue , as well as third street. here we have the cac, with two

agenda items. few words are spoken. this is the city and county of san francisco, supervisors. you all do not seem to care about having astute, educated, professional people on the cac. i have seen good people before, but they are left out. my plea to you, have us do it, professional people with fortitude in the cac said good deliberations can be done. thank you very much. supervisor avalos: any other members of the public? seeing no one, we will close public comment. that is an action item. ok. information item? ok, thank you. item #4.

>> item number four. recommend appointment of two members to the citizens advisory committee. this is an action item. >> good morning. this item begins on page 21 of your packet. in the authority has an 11 member citizens advisory committee where each member serves a two year term. the present authority board plan recommendation is from the members. staff has not made recommendations on appointments. you then see the list of those who submitted applications to serve on the supervisory committee. page 23, you can see the information regarding our current numbers. you have to be a san francisco resident and appear at least once before the committee to speak your interest and qualifications. we currently have two vacancies that have resulted from the term expirations of chris jones and

conrad [unintelligible] i believe we have some members in the audience who might be speaking. supervisor avalos: we are delighted to hear from applicants. i hear that there are other members here that may be applying for d5, but there may be others as well. if you have applied, please come up here. you are welcome to introduce herself and talk about your interest in the cac. >> my name is marlena cannon. i have lived in district 5 for my whole life. this is an opportunity to serve my district and the city. there are a few issues that i would like to help with, with suggestions and contributions to ideas. i have lived in a number of

different cities in europe and the u.s.. i have ideas to make transportation hear more efficient as well. connectivity in the city is important. sometimes it takes me as long to get to my friend's house on one side of the city as it does oakland. i would like to suggest different ways to make it accessible. also, i have been a victim of a violent crime on public transportation and i want to make more suggestions and help make the community safer and public transportation safer. i would like to contribute to decisions around major projects, like near where i lived, i have seen the challenge of managing more bicycle vehicular traffic. there are many of viewpoints and i wanted to make sure that the

voice of the community is clearly heard and advocated for. i know that there are a lot of major projects in the fund. also, to participate and contribute ideas to make those projects come to fruition and be successful. and that is everything. thank you very much for your time. supervisor avalos: thank you. commissioner? supervisor olague: i wanted to mention that we met marlena through our office. she was a volunteer their. we were very impressed by her ability to -- she was a fast learner and picked up a lot about the district, as she has lived there for most of her life. i think it is important that the cac have members, and i am sure

that they do already, but ones with international experience. experience living in london and other cities that they can compare to our city and how we might be able to do things more efficiently. also the fact that marlena uses public transportation is important. the fact that she had the experience of being a victim of violent crime, sadly. i think that her perspective is open, broad, and she would be willing to work with a lot of the allies that we have. the senior committee, and the bicycle coalition, who we worked closely with. i think she would be a perfect fit for the cac, given her background and the fact that she is the writer. supervisor avalos: one other question about your experience.

are you a site the list as well? >> not regularly -- cyclist as well? >> not regularly. i do know people who struck her -- struggle with getting to work every day. personally, it is not something that i deal with as a commuter, but in terms of recreation, making sure that where -- i get to where i am going safely, i think things have gotten better from when i was younger. it has been great, having better bike lanes and changing the different turn signals, i guess. to make sure that the bikers can get down the bike lanes. yes. supervisor avalos: ok, thank you. are there other applicants who are here?

let's go on to public comment. ok, we are closing public comment on this item. i know that there is a seat open for district 4 as well. i know that the commissioner from that district would like to hold off on making a decision on applicants, so that he can continue to decide in that regard. commissioner olague, you would like a motion to support this? done without objection. we will move that forward to the full authority board. thank you very much. item number five, please. >> item #5. recommend selection of center lane bus rapid transit with right side boarding/single median and limited left turns as the locally preferred alternative for the van ness

avenue brt project and approval of the draft van ness avenue brt lpa report. this is an action item. >> good morning, shares. my name is michael schwartz, transportation planner. i am going to quickly review how we got to the recommendation and what we have done since the item was continued. the purpose of the project is to improve transit speed and reliability. transit speed, the chart in the bottom right shows the frequency of the bosses are arriving at market street. when they hit southbound, you can see a flat chart with a bell curve around that seven minutes. buses are bunched up, are arriving one minute apart. we also see this as a complete streets project, improving

pedestrian comfort and safety with multi-level moving of people through the corridor. just as a reminder, there was a no-billed alternative for the center running alternatives that reduced the left turns in each direction. the design option reduced to one in each direction. quickly going through what they are, this is number two. it that -- if it was currently the right most traveled laying. these are high-quality platforms in the parking lane. there is parking outside of that area. the authority branded vehicles for a specialized service, such as countdown signals an audible pedestrian signals, replacing the overhead contact system and

pedestrian lighting elements. the left turn on van ness, that is the number one cause for collisions. number three is currently where the median is today. this would fully separate the bosses -- the buses from traffic. this one would have left and right door vehicles, with buses running in the left most traveling. through analysis and environmental documents, we look at a number of different criteria, where transit performance was the most important thing for some. the option of reducing left turns has nearly twice the time saving benefits. the public inherently understood this. the main reason is that in the side-turning vehicles, they had

to park and had to use the b r t lanes. pour that reason, the center- running allowed more through. however, there were challenges in each alternative. number three, because it is a hat on configuration, it might require widening the lanes, which would reduce the size of the median, completely reconstructing it. they would be directly over the sea were for the length of the corridor. the other challenge was the lengthosñ of the vehicles. the 47, motor coach, where the 49 has high electric power. the preacher in challenge reduces operational flexibility with a higher ratio to impact project costs. we put our heads together and asked, how can we come up with a

center running alternatives? the alternative is this center running brt with limited turns. a light alternative for the left most traveling. at the station locations, buses will transition and load and unload using standard vehicles while transitioning back to the outside. this allows us to maintain the median. this is sort of a refinement of the best of all worlds. it does have at best performance in terms of travel time and reliability. you mentioned operational flexibility, it has an intuitive design where the stations are located on the east side of the street headed northbound. the west side, headed southbound, that is consistently

intuitive, and we also believe that we will have manageable costs and schedules for the project. since we have announced this staff recommendation, we have done a significant amount of outreach. those were all translated into spanish enhanced media's. the advisory resulted in numerous articles getting the word out about the staff recommendations and what they are. we made numerous recommendations to stakeholder groups and started to look at improvements for the parallel corridor streets in the corridor. we know the franklin is scheduled for repaving. we are really looking at what the pedestrian improvements are that me white -- we might want to put in to offset the potential for traffic violations. cold street is scheduled for repaving.

with the community stakeholders, the ones in red are the ones we have met with since we announced the system. what we have heard through this outreach is that in general, people like -- people are supporting this alternative. there are still some concerns around traffic diversions on parallel streets. we are looking at some of the mitigation and supervisors about potential solutions. in addition to the left turn removals, a transit stops, that is about every two blocks. there are some gaps where it is longer. we are definitely trying to keep it within four blocks.

they definitely enhance the amount of three replacement. some of the trees will have to be removed along the median as part of the project. this is an endorsement from the board to allow us to include lta in the final process. this is not a binding decision or an approval of the project. we are allowed to call them up in the final project. we will be coming back in the fall with final environmental document. that is the point at which we will approve the environmental documents can be approved alternative. obviously, we will be meeting with commissioners when we have more identifications on what those might be ahead of the process. the board of the mta approved this at their meeting.

the goal is to certify the environmental document by the end of this year. if all goes well, there will be construction by 2015. opening service in 2016. i would be happy to take any questions. supervisor avalos: thank you for your presentation. i was actually really excited about these alternatives being proposed. i had been hearing about the conundrum we were in to make this work. the efficient running of the buses, the rapid running of the buses on van ness is one of the keys. which is why we want to do bus driver traffic. i thought that this was a good way of threading a needle. this was one of the alternatives proposed. so, those are my thoughts and comments. colleagues? questions or comments?

supervisor olague: i wanted to mention that i also support the median alternative and am glad to hear that you have reached an agreement on that. i know that there was a lot of discussion on the left and right and that option made no sense to me at all, actually. i am happy to see that we are where we are and am anxious to hear from the public about what they have to say about it, but right now we are moving in the right direction. glad to hear about the timeline. looks like by the end of the year we might be improving environmental documents to move this project forward. the question, of course, would be funding and other things, the nuances that we have to work out. i think that i am just really relieved that we decided on the median alternative for the project. supervisor avalos: commissioner

kim? supervisor kim: i wanted to highlight the same things. the problem of the center lane in a solution for it is great. i am sure that you have heard that already. i know that we are keeping the southbound left turn lane onto broadway, but i feel that they -- the people will have a lot of questions about these turns, especially with potential developments. since it is a major corridor, there might be pushed back. i do not know if there is a solution. public transit, we have made that clear. franklin, kroger, obviously alternatives. really good funds on what those would be if we move forward with this design. >> to address that, we have

heard about left turn removal. the 19th avenue, market street, they do not have left turns. what we looked at was the impact. in the near term, there is no additional impact. in the long term, we know that we need to watch it more closely. the thing about left turns was that it was proposed as traffic mitigation. it could actually slow down traffic even more. it became a rationale for choosing as well. we would be happy to follow up with you. supervisor avalos: supervisor avaloi have about five cards tht will call first. [read the nam[le reads names]

>> one important thing is the demographics. if you look at the demographics of san francisco, you will find out that the majority of the people are serious. and whenever model we choose, we have to be very, very sensitive how the seniors will be accommodated. so, you did not say anything about having humps every two blocks, or however which way it is designed. just looking arbitrarily at the model, i see some 3.5, some of them for blocks.

so, if you are insensitive to the seniors -- i am not saying you are insensitive, but if you are insensitive by not really evaluating the model and you have to fix it, you know, as one of you alluded, c v m c is going to heavily impact this model. we also have a $30 million bond for asphalt and repair of roads. we need to do that in any meaningful way. so, i know that this is just a presentation, but i have been listening to the commission and how they react. it is not easy to get a

consensus. finally, i just wanted to remind you that we need to pay attention to the seniors. [tone] supervisor avalos: thank you. next speaker, please. >> my ms george and i have lived in the corridor since 1978. i have specific concerns about the van ness fact sheet. 33% savings with a 40% reduction in stops. based on federal transit authority models, from the characteristics of bus rapid transit decision making top -- documents, chapter 3, page 5, 2009, more than 50% of the savings was achieved by eliminating these stops. second, increase transit rider ship by 39%.

where does this come from? transit time is 69%. even with a more comprehensive plan, it is highly unlikely to change driver behavior. the diversion from the slower line, 19, makes sense, but that is not transit. more than 50% of the trips the start and end in this corridor already walk or bike. this is the most green and economic alternative. where is the campaign to increase this desirable result? pedestrian countdown signals, curbing the whole grid for upgrades, median upgrades, those kinds of safeties. save for pedestrian crossings can and should be done. studies expanding upon a new build the base are not completed.

but significant benefit could be achieved with many elements while maintaining six fixed use of blanks -- fixed use lengths. this could be to the most cost- effective plane -- plant -- plan with the least negative impact. [tone] supervisor avalos: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> i have lived there for -- since 1979. it has the bulk of the problems under less than two miles. it is a different issue with gary. the issue is whether to keep the planes and make improvements, with express buses at peak hours and more stops during quiet hours, with a handicap on the elderly,