geary brt is not that. it's not a simple design, but we know what brt is. we know -- it is not the same level of complexity and nebulousness as reenvisioning market street is. thank you. >> any other -- commissioner chew. >> so to understand, you're not planning to support this motion? >> i'm not going to support it. >> question to the ta because, you know, i think many of us -- i share supervisor wiener's concerns. if you weren't able to move this forward, that may have some repercussions too. what can yo do you to to give us more comfort that this project is on the right track? >> i think the best thing to do is [inaudible] comments we de earl yes. [inaudible] up to director resting and to sit down and hash out and agree to hope flip and accelerated /sked /skwraoeul jewel for the project and to document that and how we're going to get there. not just throughing out a date, but do we need dedicated staff, do things in parallel, so forth. >> i want to join supervisor wiener in stressing /ou important that is so a couple possibilities i'm open to is if we wa

and i guess the question is, i know that geary brt is more controversial than van ness brt and i don't begrudge anyone their opinion about whether brt on geary is good or bad. my sense is that -- this is true with a lot of things in san francisco. instead of saying we're going to have a public process, we'll delineate it's going to be a six month process or one year or two or three year process or whatever we define it to be and we'll get feedback and a collaborative community discussion, we allow the community process to go on [inaudible] if someone comes forwards and says i have an issue it sort of restarts everything and i -- as we can see through the extreme drama around the very modest seqa appeal legislation that i did which is nothing more than set deadlines for when people have to file appeals and that has caused, as you know, a sig miff cant controversy. i know it's hard in san francisco not to have an open ended process, but to have process that goes on years and years and years, i just think that we don't do -- it's a disservice to the taxpayers and to the riders of san fran

it's designed specifically to hook up with the geary brt and currently in development and provide east-west connection point and connection hub at van ness and geary. as part of a larger mta network service for the van ness brt will be provided by the trolley and motor coaches currently operate the 47 and 49 limited lines. as you can see from this map the bus rapid transit project will operate in the exclusive right-of-way along van ness. for the rest of the run they will operate as they currently do along the traditional routes of the 49 limited and the 47 lines providing connection to other parts of the city and the 49 line will run virtually the entire length of the city. what goes into making a brt system? what is bus rapid transit? it's the dedicated transit lane is the obvious item but there are subtle features and signal authority and opt minimization to make sure the buses get the extra jump on the rest of the traffic lie continuing to allow the traffic to move efficiently. all buses to maximize the speed for which people can board the coaches and of course pedestrian improvements a

>> such as geary brt? >> any sort of project with complexity [inaudible]. a: thank you very much. let's entertain public comment on this item. >> having served on the [inaudible] as a represent /o*f the cac rep being very familiar with the presidio parkway project i strongly urge you to support this item because this makes a lot of sense. thank you very much. >> are there any other members of the public who would like to speak on this item? >> seeing none, public comment closed. let's move this forward with unanimous vote. >> this is an information item. colleagues. okay. does anyone have any new items? seeing none. i'd like to entertain some public comment? anyone? pub click comment is closed. >> general public comment. >> general pub click comment. speak now or forever hold your peace or until the next meeting. thank you, seeing none, public comment is closed. are there any other matters before this body. >> no, item number 12, adjournment. >> thank you, this meeting is adjourned. thank you everyone. >> good morning, everyone. on behalf of the mayor, i want to welcome you and mo

one, you mentioned that both geary and van ness brt are not part of this document. i'd like to know why not and what is the kind of timeline for those projects being brought to -- >> yes, thank you. so, you have geary and van ness in their own planning process. they already started their planning process when the cup was getting going. we just left those to be a part of different process. you know, i'm not even sure what the latest of van ness is about to release or about to be certified, i believe. and geary is still chugging along, i guess. >> van ness brt e-i-r is within three or four months i believe going to go to the board for certification of e-i-r. >> great. come here, right? >> [inaudible]. >> then in terms of -- you talk about some of the different interventions in the market street. i was wondering how the church street bus only lane is going and the pilot going on and does that help inform some of the tep changes and can you give us an update how that is working so far. >> yeah, you know, it's been working really well, especially during the peak periods w

i think that with geary brt, with transportation and certainly emerging as a way we're organizing our land use to think about the connection of possibility of stop on geary and opening up that geary edge to the plaza, i think really could do a lot for the transit connection. >> commissioner sugaya. >> yes, thank you. i think we've been at this for a long time now and according to the community, we did the right thing by sending it back the first time. i think commissioner antonini, myself, and commissioner moore were on the commission at that point. in any case, i think it's quite a different kind of document than we're accustomed to looking at and adopting. it's innovative in the sense that it goes beyond the traditional historic preservation that we've all -- that we're all familiar with and has been implemented in san francisco around the country for decades and more than decades. but the idea i think of cultural and social heritage, first i think in a way evolved out of the western soma plan. it was first mentioned i think with respect to the latino community. it evolved into the

transportation improvements, we have the geary brt bus transit, muni effectiveness, and sf park in the neighborhood or coming to the neighborhood that can help with connectivity. and marketable neighborhood through s.f. travel. we think s.f. travel could benefit from [speaker not understood] or j chess could be featured in. the next set of recommendations, japantown [speaker not understood]. some of you i know are pretty familiar with these. cdcs exist already in little tokyo in los angeles and chinatown in san francisco among other places. they can provide a wide range of services like owning real estate, technical support, social services, advocacy for the neighborhood. address a wide range of concerns and i think of all of the recommendations the j chess creating a community development corporation stands out as being the most efficacious in japantown. of course, this is not something that the city can do. the community has to do this for itself and [speaker not uer

particular location this area here and this is the transfer point for the eventual geary brt as it moves forward and projected to one of the -- if not the most busy transfer stations along the line, and a major transit hub. for that reason it stands out as being the only block long station in the system right now covering the full length. the project is going to be responsible for constructing a number of major elements. outlined here the boarding islands and the dedicated bus ways and the medians are obvious. more subtle items not readily apparent to the public are things like fire hide drants, curb ramps and rehabilitation and sewer line rehabilitation and we are building a brt and as well as revitalizing the whole van ness corridor as part of this project. in relation to that work that's within the project there is a number of parallel projects going on. sfgov is replacing the traffic signals and overhauling the trolley wire structure in serious need of replacement. puc is coming in doing sewer work and water line replacement along with procuring new radios for communication and traff

transportation authority has done on a very preliminary basis at filling it in on the context of the geary street brt. >> right. >> but i don't think it's gone beyond that. >> okay, because it seemed like from what i remember it, it was one of the most expensive alternatives in the brt. >> it would be nice. >> yeah, it would be really great to do. >> commissioner antonini. >> ann marie, thank you for your report. a couple of procedural questions. the modified wiener c-e-q-a legislation passed on first reading, is that what happened on tuesday? >> that's correct, it will be heard again next week. >> okay. and my second question, the status of mexican museum project, now, that is -- the appeal has already been dismissed, but the board is voting for approval or where are we on that particular legislation? >> i'm sorry, i missed your question. [multiple voices] >> yeah, i'm sorry. you reported on the discussions that went on about the legitimacy of the various -- >> that's correct. >> -- pro forma studies, but where is it legislatively? >> so, this item will be heard again at the land use committee next