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

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

long standing needs the city has for growth, especially along a transit preferential street in the geary brt. we also began working, again with staff, shelley and michael and johnny were very instrumental in some of the very initial stages of taking social heritage resources the committee had identified and mapping those resources, and we continue that process with the cultural heritage committee, hoping to refine that list of resources and how they should be mapped. also, i was happy to get help from one of the -- a young woman who is now in law school in san diego by the name of jennifer lie. and jessica avila, a san francisco state senior. and a young man you will hear later from, who has helped me to start to look at the rooftops for the malls. we have almost three city blocks the rooftops. and without height change and without significant work done on the subterranean garage is that support the malls, we're probably looking at building form for many years to come. and we were thinking that black rooftops were not the best use of that rooftop area. so we have begun to explore a variety o

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 public who would like to speak on this item? if so, please come forward. >> if i remember correctly, the last time one of the things we wanted to find out from the cac was if the central subway project had to come to a halt, the cac wanted to know the impact of it. and i would have thought that today the cac would have come up with some s

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

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 conflicts. there is some turning lanes and

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 november 4. he ending date will shift accordingly and. the next significant action is for this board