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 proj

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

today, we will be talking about the brt project. right behind it are improvements to the geary corrido , mission corridor, and geneva corridor. the project itself is on van ness between mission and lombardy in. it would continue on to listen to city college and to route 47 which would continue past van ness and market to the train station. the key goals of the project are to improve travel time and improve the reliability of the service to improve pedestrian safety and integrate street improvements and provide a key north-south plank in the transportation system very we have been working with the transportation authority on the environmental review process, which they have been leading. at the completion of that process, mta will become the project lead to design, construct, and operate the project. the overall time line is shown on this slide. the third bullet is the point that we are reaching out. the information here is a little out of date. the actual, anticipated release of the draft environmental documents is going to be novem

/eir process, and the transportation analysis in the van ness avenue brt draft eir was consistent with the transportation analysis elsewhere. at the request of another of our cac members, jacqueline sacks, we have asked to have california pacific medical center representatives present to present to the cac on the medical center's project and discuss how the project was coordinated with the plant in van ness avenue and geary corridor brt projects. as a conflict -- as a consequence of these two inquiries, we expect to hear more information at one of our next meetings. let me just say, with that, this item was placed on our consent calendar to allow us to provide more opportunity for deliberations and comments on the other action items throughout our agenda, some of which you receive the gallaspy meeting. with that, unless there are questions from your board, i will conclude my comments. supervisor campos: thank you very much, sir. i do not see any questions, the thank you for the presentation. again, thank you to you and the rest of the cac for your service. is there any member of the pu

geary brt is also making progress. i wanted to point out, as a segue from the chair's remarks about high-speed rail, there was a session on high-speed rail at the focus on the future conference happening right now in san francisco, and i was intending that this morning. a member of the high speed rail authority board clarified the schedule for comment on the business plan that is out there now, that was released on november 1. the idea is that the authority, the high-speed rail authority, will take comments at a hearing today in palo alto and then on december 6 in san francisco. then they will consider incorporating all of those comments and directing the mine some fashion. then at that yuri one, are the first week of february, the intention of the meeting to approve the revised plan that might incorporate those comments. only after that, the 60-day timespan, will the legislature kick in. so there's time to organize commons, even beyond the two hearings that are already scheduled. i think that is time that is welcome t

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 re

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

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

sohe p side os isxyuttthg foard ur a so pde bpartisantt prosal nfod jsust brt a pr al publans jve utuall a supp ted bls ipaisan eort u illfrasuctu. we he a ppdreat oportpaityan e t wk iastutogeer nd h a ihinkat owhatrtey eed i w oge publannkollgues to at ed st i jus sing o nd bllles to les tr to f urestusut sng someing at isold andletro f regnifant at n give a meg

hacould you just address how the california medical center project impacts the brt and also the geary? and there was a question about the bicycle lane. >> on your first question, we did ordinate throughout the planning process with stakeholders. certainly cpmc because they were preparing an environmental document. the way that their project is coordinated with ours is primarily in the design of the entrances and exits of the medical site said they would reduce and minimize the conflicts. there is some turning lanes and cuing that would potentially conflict, and there were able to make design changes, and we are hopeful there will be an opportunity to revisit -- revisit the fine details and final design, but we are satisfied we of found a way to minimize the conflict. another way we are courting is the and our mental documents in the planning process seas, that we use a common traffic base and make sure the existing and future conditions match. we are assuming, at least an hour project, the project is loaded onto the network. i served also notes, a final way we are coordinating is the

an amount not to exceed $250,000 before program management and technical support of the van ness and brt program with an option to extend for two additional years. supervisor mirkarimi: discussion? public comment? seeing none, public, disclosed it is in house, col. next item. >> three. robbers would surge of the citizens advisory committee for a two-year term. this is an action item. -- reappoint robert salatin. discussion? >> public comment? take this without objection. some lived. next item. >> item a, appropriate up to $126,827 for the 19th avenue transit corridor investment study, subject to the attached fiscal year cash flow distribution schedule, and in the transportation/land use coronation five-year prioritization program. action item. supervisor mirkarimi: discussion? public comment? and seeing none. take this without objection but also moved. clark, please read item number nine. we will skip this. then we will turn back. >> i will remind the last item 9 to report on the limited scope performance audit of the sentences the municipal transportation agency. phase ii. action item.

because we're tied to the geary brt, and a kind of move at their own pace. we're trying to keep an active voice and our transportation subcommittee is working with them on making sure that landscaping and other development is sensitive to the neighborhood. so at this point, i would like to turn over the podium to bob to discuss our cultural heritage and economic development work. >> thank you. commissioners and director, good afternoon. i am a member of the organizing committee and co-chair of the committee of economic development in the japan center subcommittee. i am here to brief you on a couple of elements, the cultural heritage and community ownership aspects. but first, a couple of general comments. first, i want to recognize the other committee chairs that have worked on it on the other chapters. in the transportation public realm area, greg johnson, diane onizuka, paul, and rose. in the land use build forum, you already met karen, and her sidekick is not here today, could not make it. the committee heritage, paul, in, and brian, who is filling in for

supervisor elsbernd: i also wanted to ask, on the geary brt, are the alternatives on the website so anyone from the public can work at the traffic modeling or transit modeling alternatives? >> yes, all -- the makeup of the alternative is on the web site. you can see the project. what we do not have yet are the results of the modeling. it will be on the website for everybody to see. >> all right, seeing that there are no further comments or questions, of public comment on item one of the directors' report. seeing none, public comment is closed. this is an informational item. no vote is necessary. read the next one. >> item 5, authorize the exhibit a director to execute a memorandum of agreement with the city and county, through the san francisco municipal transportation agency, can san francisco planning department, and the department of the environment for a three-year time span in an amount not to exceed $434,746, for the san francisco integrated travel demand management public-private partnership project to this is an action item. supervisor mirkarimi: public seeing none, public comment