from the project meetings. we held four public meetings on or near second street. we conducted door to door outreach from market to king street and we have invited and attended over 20 meetings within the community with different neighborhood groups, merchant groups, residents. in general, the project is for new marking and bicycle community and landscaping and streetscape amenities. the best way to talk about the project is to look at example blocks. i picked one 1 block on the northern end of the corridor, you can see it includes one lane in each direction, bicycle lanes in both directions, transit boarding islands, in fill of trees, a bike

share pod and on street parking. this last slide is an example of the block between harrison and bryant. one of the major improvements of the project in this area would be widening the sidewalks. the existing sidewalks are only 10 feet wide on each side. we will increase them by 5 feet to 15 feet on each side. this block isn't typical of the whole area but approaching hairs -- harrison in the northbound direction we added a lane to help vehicles trying to get to the freeway or the bay bridge to get there easily or to provide space and capacity for

them. but one of the exciting projects is what we are providing for them which is two lanes and it makes it easier for pedestrians to cross second and harrison. again, you can see the bicycle lanes in each direction, you can see the in fill of trees, the sidewalk widening is shown. south of bryant, that second turn lane is dropped and parking is added. you can see this block doesn't have any parking because of that second lane, but south of bryant we have the widened sidewalks and we have one lane in each direction and bicycle lane, also bike share and the new parking in south park. the total cost estimate is about $13.5 million. we have full

funding for the project primarily provided by the one bay area grant, about $10 million. we also have prop k and general fund dollars that are being added to complete the project budget. our schedule is to complete design in 2016 and to begin construction hopefully in the fall of 2016. we expect construction to last anywhere from 9 months to a year. with that, we are available to answer any questions. >president cindy wu: thank you, we'll take public comment first. is there any public comment on this item? >> sue hester. i was glad

to see the eir coming out on this. i would ask it be widely distributed to people that are affected by the project. that includes the people who live there. the bicycle coalition dominates all public meetings. i was working in this area where the warriors project was coming to pierre 32 and there are a lot of people who live in this area. they live on the east side of second street in various condominium projects, they know what it's like to live in the area and what it's like for traffic to choke the area after the ball games getting onto the freeways . it's not likely to disappear. so people really

need to participate in this and i'm going to send out my own e-mails and i hope it's an honest effort to circulate the eir beyond the bicycle coalition numbers, who comes to all of our meetings for sure on there. the people who are not on there are the people who live there. i would ask that they really pay attention to all the condominium complexes along second street because the understanding of people, the reality of how they live is very different from people who are in a bureaucracy to city hall and over here. people who live there really know the difficulties the muni buses and my own experience is anything that interrupts the flow of the muni. there is very little muni

service and it has to go down second street because we have a big abutment between second street and the water front. you can't get through. second street is the last escape for the muni. they have though place else to go and that which disrupts the muni that goes down second street is horrible and it has the repercussion around the entire muni system. >president cindy wu: thank you. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner >commissioner michael j. antonini: i have some comments and questions. i'm looking at the diagram and it appears that some of these areas have some parking allowed and this black area between dowell and folsom is

bike parking. bike sharing parking. that's taking away parking for cars. >> it's actually existing. there are two bike share pods existing now. >> so they are already there apparently? >> yes. >> my other concern, you are cutting it down to two lanes, what are the buses? >> the 10 and the 12. i believe they recommended eliminating the 12 but there is a similar route. >> the problem is you are cutting down to one lane and in some cases you built the platforms for people to board the buses and the buses have to stop in the middle street for people to get on and off and all the traffic behind that is coming to a stand still and any buses behind the traffic is also coming to a stand still. so it sounds like a formula for

grid lock. it's already crowded. i think putting some trees in and bicycle lane. but the buses, the people get off the lane and they get back on again. i think this would be impacted. i would encourage muni to look at alternate roads. you have the great bus street, there is plenty of room, they can get where they have to go and going in the other direction, they can go on fourth even though the subway would be underneath, they can still run buses on top of there and ultimately they go on embarcadero. this is a good street for walking, a good street for some traffic, but if you are doing all these things then probably the buses are going to turn it into total grid lock because it's one of the

streets that services the area down by the ballpark and beyond. so those are a couple of my concerns with this plan. the other thing i'm concerned about is where you square off the corners, you make it harder. cars used to be able to go to the right and get ready to make the right turn and allow traffic for buses to continue to go after but now that you square it off, they are stopped there and they make a turn on red without moving to the side. i think it's even more dangerous for pedestrians in that way because i think the way to solve the pedestrian problem is lights like you have down in the financial district when there is traffic light one way, the other way and then pedestrian onlies that they cross diagonally in both directions and that's a better system

less apt to be conflicts. thoser some of my thoughts on the plan. >> we have three mitigations for the impacts to transit. one key measure, key element to the project is restricting left turn along the corridor because we know that we've left only one lane and transit to one lane and we want to make sure the buses keep moving along the corridor. one thing different from the photos that we have discussed staggering the bus stops so we don't have two buses stopping at the same point along the corridor. we are also currently there are no bus zones along second street. i think there may be a bus zone at the northern end at market but buses are stopping in the roadway on second street to unload or load

passengers and you get dropt off into traffic lane and you have to go through parked cars to get to the sidewalk. the boarding will give passengers that refuge but the boarded islands are supposed to also decrease the dwell time to allow passengers to get on and off. about second and harrison, about the corner, right now as someone walking along second street if you are trying to cross harrison, that dual right turn is pretty uncomfortable. off peak you have cars that are traveling, they are not required to stop so cars take that turn pretty quickly and you are dodging fast moving traffic and during commute hours, that is backed up and you are trying to dodge two lanes of

traffic to cross. so we felt that scoring off the corners and having all vehicles to go to the corner would be a safer design of the intersection. we have worked with mta and we are discussing split phasing so we do separate pedestrians from turning traffic or bicycles from turning traffic. so we are looking at issues that you raised. >> thank you, i agree with you because i walked on there and almost got run over because cars coming along there in a hurry to make the bridge are making the right turn and not acknowledging pedestrians. it wouldn't be a bad idea if you squared it off, even if you didn't, you have to calm them to realize there is a quack there. thank you. >president cindy wu:

commissioner johnson? >> >commissioner christine johnson: yes, i have a couple of questions. as a bicycle commuter 80 percent of the time and i go between on second street between market and king street all the time. that's how i get from mission bay to any other part of the city unless i'm going up here then i go up 7th. i was a little bit confused coming into today about how to prepare questions or comments that might be helpful to you all. there are no materials presented to us so i didn't know if this was kind of like when we looked at the embarcadero plan in terms of schematics and hey there is going to be an eir and i apologize if there will be another planning meeting and i will comment for the future when you come back. my first general comment and all of this comes

from i'm a pedestrian along second street, i walk, i bike every other day at least if not everyday when i'm bike commuting and just a couple of things. the first is i really encourage the mta to marry their creativity for how to get muni and bikes and cars to work together for those coming out of the embarcadero envision for the bike plan because i see a lot of similarities with the conflict issues that are there along the second street corridor, i see a lot of conflict along embarcadero which has limited

space to work so some coordination there would help and see if you can take that if you will and then we'll see the eir for further comments and second is a beast because going north from king to harrison is a disaster from 3:30 p.m. to 630 :30 p.m. every day. sometimes i shed a tear as i bike along 7th street and i'm weaving and watching those poor people in their cars trying to get home anther there at least 45 minutes. it's a mess. i don't know, i kind of feel like we will find that the squaring off harrison street will

create more problems than it solves because it looks like chaos but i feel again from the bicycle perspective because this is a bicycle plan eir and getting that car in that pork chop at least move from the right side of the street versus squaring that off presents more issues for bicycle safety good from mayhem from king to harrison to market to where there is less traffic during traffic times. i reallien encourage to look at the impact because i don't think it's safe for cyclist. and coming down from market to harrison is also horrible.

from market to folsom at least is always a mess. right now there are 222 second story building is going up and they have narrowed the street because of the construction and they have the scaffolding coming out farther but in general even before 22 second street, that part of second street was always pretty dangerous for cyclist. people were making right turns onto howard street, the muni stops and goes around you and it goes actually uphill so people who don't have bike messengers and it can be a little bit dangerous for them. i reallien y encourage us to look at this again. just

as the embarcadero plan that's coming out now that it has to be two complete separate responses northbound and southbound. those are just my comments, i look forward to what's going to be in the actual eir and i'm sure there are other forums and if any response to what i have just said, i would be happy to hear it. >> debra dwyer, planning department staff. thank you for your comments. i think our purpose first and foremost was for the environmental review process itself because there has been so much time since the bicycle plan eir and i can certainly provide you with the information where you can see the full project description and certainly obviously any member of the public can come on directed

to public sponsor public works mta on the project design and our role here from the planning department is for the environmental review of this. although our citywide staff did have an involvement in the outreach and design process. does that answer some of it? >> commissioner as debra said the purpose today is just the environment al review and the project. we'll get into more detail as the project evolves. the issue of these free flowing aren't turns comes up a lot in the city and it came up a lot in the van ness brt and what we find is they are the most dangerous intersection because of pedestrian access because there is the misconception

that pedestrians have that cars will stop. so we are looking very carefully at those intersection and the city's policy is to generally get rid of them where we can because of the fairly pedestrian conditions on the turns. i'm sure the mta will be happy to talk to you about that and i want to make sure you hear that concern. >> i definitely hear that concern and definitely agree that those are more dangerous and this one has a lot of pedestrians going to the ballpark. it's really dangerous. if the eir is a bicycle plan eir, i think we need to look at that as well and not always but in that particular where they are going and coming from it's more dangerous for cyclist because there is

more cars turning right to them and there is no way to ensure that cyclist are going straight and there is no way it can safely proceed unless we do a no right on red deal which will be a disaster. >> the request doesn't incorporate the signal changes and we did a full impact study on this with the eir with the information provided. >president cindy wu: thank you. city clerk: commissioners that will put you on item 10. the citywide nexus study, the informational presentation. >> good afternoon, commissioners, planning department here to

discuss the citywide nexus study. this committee had a hearing on this adoption. we have scheduled the adoption hearing for next week. since the initiation hearing staff also met with the eastern neighborhood puc to discuss this in more detail. i'm going quickly through why what the legislation is doing. as a reminder the department created the nexus study to update the existing nexus study and they are kind of out of date and also use the analysis approach. we also wanted to update how the administration of the fees worked. so this ordinance is all amended article 4 of the planning code which is where

we host the development impact fees in the downtown and area plan fees and citywide fees. the main thing we are doing is incorporating a reference to the citywide nexus analysis in updating the findings. we are also, and again the focus of this effort is really up to the administrative. so the existing around the existing program. most of the fees that we have are established 32 you a community planning project through stakeholders and neighborhood organizations. this legislation is crafted to maintain the priority and decisions made in those processes and update the administration of the program. there are also a few administrative changes that i wanted to highlight and will discuss in more detail one is to establishing across the area plans and that is not changing what the programs

can do and describing the fund and allocation of the funding process. each plan was written by a different planner with different language. we are making that consistent and describing the monitoring program consistently and i have been working with the city attorney on a few other minor changes one is around the timing of the fee collection as a result of the recent confusion on that point and also we are making minor changes to the percentage allocations by each category to mostly match the extending program. we presented those to the neighborhood cac with no comment on that and establishing funds for affordable housing dollars for neighborhood infrastructure fee. right now they are in a combination fund and we are separating it out to be easily to track. and we

are removing the library from the program and this will improve the legislation and to the market cac and we were here before you in october for the hearing and went back to the neighborhood cac in november. in the november eastern neighborhood cac there was one must be who brought up a number of comments around expanding the program either expanding the geography or fee rates or adding new expenditure categories. we really feel that the goal of this legislation is to kind of administer the existing program and to do any expansion to the program would require a feasible analysis and outreach. we are working on expanding the fee program around the transportation sustainability program. we are also looking at the central soma

work which will include and updated fee program building the citywide nexus analysis and finally as you recall from a hearing the mayor's working group is looking at the inclusionary housing program and looking for ways to increase revenue through the affordable housing program. we'll be back next week for adoption. >> if i can add to the comments. we have had a few changes and particularly for this piece of work the nexus that is required by law to update on a regular basis. if you recall what a nexus do is

the upper limit of what we are required to raise for fees. if the city wanted to move ahead with changing fees, there is nothing in this work that would preclude us from doing that, in fact this would become part of the legal basis for doing that, but if we do change fees there is a process around that to discuss with communities especially with the planning efforts where all of those fees were established. i anticipate that is coming just given the current development climate. this piece would be necessary in order for that to happen in the future. i just wanted to clarify that. what you are seeing here is not looking at a new fee structure, but the nexus that legally justifies the fees we do charge. >president cindy wu: thank you. let's open for public comment. is there any public comment on this item?

>> sue hester. i have been around long enough time that i went to all the meetings on the eastern neighborhoods plan, and the studies that were done were based on 2006, 2007, 2008 data. guess what? we were in an economic slump during that period. so all of the assumptions the grounding for the area plan are out the window. i have no idea who the guy was who testified on the dog patch building. he was talking about eight projects going on under construction in a very small area. he is a real

person. what has happened is everyone assumed the conditions were going to continue to the date that their plans are implemented. they are not. the transportation problems alone are monumental. what plans do we have for managing the traffic when there's not the incentive for ups and fedex and amazon to make delivery at will at every block and block muni buses as well as traffic. what assumptions were made of chaos in basic construction disasters. i witnessed one today just south coming to city hall. everything is is grieding -- grinding to a halt because of construction. no one is

adding the addition that anyone who builds must have traffic control and traffic control must include the towing away and ticketing of vehicles that interfere with muni. i give you the intersection of market and van ness. how is the city going to sustain itself while all that construction is going on including construction for the planning department? so i would say unless you affirmatively say we have to look at housing and housing cost and transportation and payment of muni fees, all this is nice window dressing. it doesn't mean a damn thing because if the city grinds to a