i

04-SF-101-PM T4.71/6.71 04-3A270

EFIS#0400000935 August 18, 2014

On Route: 101 – Van Ness Avenue and South Van Ness Avenue

Between: Mission Street

And: Lombard Street

04-SF-101-PM T4.71/6.71

iii

Table of Contents

1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1

2. RECOMMENDATION ............................................................................................ 2

3. BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................ 3

3A. PROJECT HISTORY .......................................................................................................... 3 3B. EXISTING FACILITY ........................................................................................................ 4

4. PURPOSE AND NEED ............................................................................................. 5

4A. PROBLEM, DEFICIENCIES, JUSTIFICATION ...................................................................... 5 Project Purpose ............................................................................................................. 5 Project Need .................................................................................................................. 6 Project Justification....................................................................................................... 9

4B. TRAFFIC ........................................................................................................................ 13 Current and Forecasted Traffic ................................................................................... 13 Traffic Operations ....................................................................................................... 15 Traffic Mitigations ....................................................................................................... 16 Collision Rates ............................................................................................................ 17 Proposed Improvements and Collision Reduction ...................................................... 19

5. CORRIDOR AND SYSTEM COORDINATION ................................................ 21

5A. REGIONAL AND SYSTEM PLANNING ............................................................................ 21 Systems ........................................................................................................................ 21 State Planning ............................................................................................................. 22 Regional Planning ....................................................................................................... 23 Local Planning ............................................................................................................ 23 Transit Operator Planning .......................................................................................... 24 Route Concept ............................................................................................................. 25 5B. Planned/Programmed Improvements ............................................................. 25 Related Projects........................................................................................................... 25

6. ALTERNATIVES ................................................................................................... 27

6A. VIABLE ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................................... 27 Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) ........................................................................... 28 Proposed Engineering Features .................................................................................. 30 Nonstandard Mandatory and Advisory Design Features ............................................ 33 Interim Features .......................................................................................................... 34 ITS (Intelligent Transportation Systems) ..................................................................... 34 Traffic Operation System (TOS) Elements .................................................................. 35 Highway Planting ........................................................................................................ 35 Water Pollution Control .............................................................................................. 36 Non-Motorized and Pedestrian Features .................................................................... 36 Pavement ..................................................................................................................... 37 Needed Roadway Rehabilitation and Upgrading ........................................................ 37 Cost Estimates ............................................................................................................. 38

6C. REJECTED ALTERNATIVES ........................................................................................... 39

04-SF-101-PM T4.71/6.71

iv

7. CONSIDERATIONS REQUIRING DISCUSSION............................................. 42

7A. HAZARDOUS WASTE .................................................................................................... 42 7B. VALUE ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................ 43 7C. RESOURCE CONSERVATION .......................................................................................... 43 7D. RIGHT OF WAY ............................................................................................................. 44 7E. ENVIRONMENTAL ......................................................................................................... 48 7F. AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY ......................................................................................... 53 7G. TITLE VI CONSIDERATIONS ......................................................................................... 54

8. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS AS APPROPRIATE ........................................... 55

PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS ................................................................................................... 55 ROUTE MATTERS ................................................................................................................... 55 PERMITS ................................................................................................................................. 55 COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS ................................................................................................ 57 OTHER AGREEMENTS ............................................................................................................ 57 TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR USE DURING CONSTRUCTION ....................... 58 STAGE CONSTRUCTION ......................................................................................................... 59 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS DURING CONSTRUCTION ................................................................... 61 ACCOMMODATION OF OVERSIZE LOADS .............................................................................. 62 RISK ASSESSMENT ................................................................................................................. 62

9. COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT ......................................................................... 63

10. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION/DOCUMENT .................................. 64

11. FUNDING ................................................................................................................ 64

11A. CAPITAL COST .............................................................................................................. 64

12. SCHEDULE ............................................................................................................. 65

13. FHWA COORDINATION ..................................................................................... 66

14. PROJECT REVIEWS ............................................................................................ 66

15. PROJECT PERSONNEL ....................................................................................... 66

ATTACHMENTS: A. Project Location and Vicinity Map B. Preliminary Engineering Studies C. Preliminary Cost Estimate D. Right of Way Data Sheet E. Record of Decision & Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental

Impact Report Summary F. Storm Water Data Report Cover Sheet G. Pavement Strategy Checklist H. Cooperative Agreement I. Operations and Maintenance Agreement J. Transportation Management Plan Input Request and Data Sheet K. Risk Register

04-SF-101-PM T4.71/6.71

1

1. INTRODUCTION

The San Francisco County Transportation Authority (SFCTA, or Authority), in cooperation with the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA), proposes to implement bus rapid transit (BRT) improvements along Van Ness Avenue and South Van Ness Avenue (Highway 101) in San Francisco. The proposed project extends 2.0 miles from Mission Street in the south to Lombard Street in the north. The preliminary estimated capital cost for the Preferred Alternative is $115.14 million (in escalated 2014 dollars). A Project Location and Vicinity Map is included as Attachment A.

Under the Preferred Alternative, referred to hereafter as the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA), the proposed project will reconfigure the existing roadway cross section to provide dedicated bus lanes and transit platforms, while upgrading pedestrian safety, traffic control systems, and urban design features. Left and right turn pocket locations will be adjusted to smooth traffic flow and reduce conflicts with transit. The project will be implemented under a conventional design-bid-build method of project delivery.

The project would construct the following improvements within the project limits:

One dedicated bus lane in each direction through conversion of a mixed-flow traffic lane in each direction;

Removal of all but one NB left turn (at Lombard Street) and all but one SB left turn (at Broadway);

Level- or near level-boarding station platforms with high-level amenities, including off-board fare collection at selected stations and all-door boarding for passengers with proof of payment;

Pedestrian enhancements, including corner bulbs at most intersections, upgrading of curb ramps to current ADA standards, and installation of pedestrian countdown and accessible (audible) pedestrian signals at all intersections;

Landscaping and streetscape improvements and amenities; Traffic signal infrastructure for real-time traffic management including traffic signal

replacement, fiber interconnect, transit signal priority, protected left turn phases at intersections, variable real-time message signs and real-time bus arrival information displays (NextMuni) funded under the SFgo and Signal Replacement Program1;

Replacement of the overhead contact system (OCS) poles and street lights, funded by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC); and

Rehabilitation of the existing pavement structural section, planned in coordination with the State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP).

In addition, the following two changes to circulation are anticipated to be implemented by SFMTA, and are included in the LPA.

Conversion of Hayes Street to two-way operation; Conversion of Fell Street to two-way operation between Franklin Street and Van Ness

Avenue. 1 The SFgo and Signal Replacement Program is a package of technology-based transportation management system tools being implemented by SFMTA.

04-SF-101-PM T4.71/6.71

2

With the exception of median reconfiguration and localized improvements for intersection corner bulb-outs, and replacement of the OCS support poles/streetlights, the majority of the improvements occur within the existing curb-to-curb pavement.

Dedicated lanes for BRT will be provided only along Van Ness and South Van Ness avenues from Mission Street to Filbert Street. North of Filbert Street, bus service will continue in mixed-flow lanes and terminate with a turnaround at North Point Street; south of the project area, bus service will continue in mixed-flow lanes servicing Muni Routes 47 and 49, as at present.

See the Preliminary Cost Estimate for specific work items included in this project. Project Limits Dist., Co., Rte., PM 04-SF-101-PM T4.71/6.71

Current Capital Outlay Support Estimate

$26.98 (2013 dollars) $27.82 (Escalated 2014 dollars)

Current Capital Outlay Construction Estimate

$62.49 million (2013 dollars) $64.43 million (Escalated 2014 dollars)

Current Capital Outlay Right of Way Costs

$12.38 million [Utilities] (2013 dollars) $12.76 million (Escalated 2014 dollars)

Funding Source: Section 5309 Small Starts Prop K Sales Tax State Highway Operations and Protection Program (SHOPP) Developer Contribution (California Pacific Medical Center) Central Freeway Parcel Revenues SFMTA Revenue Bonds SFMTA Operating Funds

Alternative Recommended for Funding

Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA): Center-lane BRT with right-side boarding/single median and limited left turns

Type of Facility (conventional, expressway, freeway):

Conventional

Number of Structures: 0

Environmental Determination/Document EIS/EIR

Legal Description Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit

2. RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that this Project Study Report – Project Report (PSR-PR) be approved using the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA), and that the project proceed to the design phase. The affected local agencies have been consulted, their views have been considered, and they are in general accord with the plan as presented.

04-SF-101-PM T4.71/6.71

3

3. BACKGROUND

3A. Project History The Van Ness Avenue Corridor was identified as a high priority transit improvement corridor in a number of planning studies and funding actions by the City. The Authority’s Four Corridors Plan (1995) and Muni’s Vision for Rapid Transit (2000) identified Van Ness Avenue as a priority corridor for rapid transit improvements. The Countywide Transportation Plan (CWTP, 2004) reinforced these plans and put forth a citywide rapid transit network including BRT and transit preferential street (TPS) treatments on key routes within the rapid network, including in its plans the Van Ness Avenue Corridor.

With the development of the New Expenditure Plan for San Francisco, approved by voters as Proposition K, the reauthorization of the City’s ½ cent transportation sales tax measure in November 2003, Van Ness Avenue was designated for BRT improvements.

The Van Ness Avenue BRT Feasibility Study, adopted by the Authority and SFMTA Boards in 2006, identified the need for and purpose of BRT on Van Ness Avenue. The Study developed conceptual BRT design alternatives and evaluated initial impacts and benefits. The Feasibility Study found that several BRT configurations are possible for Van Ness Avenue and are likely to provide significant benefits with relatively modest impacts, and called for the next phase of project development, environmental analysis and preliminary engineering.

Since adoption of the Feasibility Study, the SFMTA has developed and adopted the Transit Effectiveness Project (TEP). The TEP recommended comprehensive revisions to the Muni route structure to improve efficiency and meet emerging travel demand patterns. In addition, the TEP recommended a Rapid Network designation composed of the most critical and productive Muni lines. Van Ness Avenue is included in the rapid network and identified in the TEP as a high priority route for rapid transit / BRT treatments.

In September 2007, the Authority issued a federal Notice of Intent (NOI) and state Notice of Preparation (NOP) initiating the project scoping period under NEPA and CEQA, respectively. Two formal scoping meetings were held with the public on October 2 and October 4, 2007 and one agency scoping meeting which included federal, state, regional and local agencies was held on October 4, 2007.

Written and verbal comments were received on a wide range of alternatives, including a no-build alternative, an express bus alternative, side lane and center lane running BRT alternatives, side lane BRT with a removed parking lane, and a subway alternative. Overall, center lane running BRT was the configuration preferred by the public, as documented in the Van Ness BRT Scoping Summary Report. Agency and public input received during the scoping period, in addition to findings of the Feasibility Study, CWTP, and other studies, helped define the range of alternatives recommended for evaluation.

In March 2008, an Alternatives Screening Report was prepared by the Authority to identify the limited set of build alternatives to be analyzed. The report applied a number of screening criteria to assess each alternative for consistency with the purpose and need statement for the project, as developed in the Van Ness Avenue BRT Feasibility Study. The statement reflects citywide BRT development policies found in the Countywide Transportation Plan and project-level goals and needs identified during the conceptual planning work of the Feasibility Study.

04-SF-101-PM T4.71/6.71

4

The alternatives that were analyzed in the Screening Report include a no-build alternative, transit preferential street (TPS) improvements, multiple BRT alignments including center running and side running BRT, and surface light rail and subway alternatives. The report recommended three build alternatives for further study; these alternatives were presented in Section 6 of the Draft PSR-PR.

In December 2007, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) recommended Van Ness BRT as a potential Small Starts candidate project, and awarded the project a rating of “high” for cost-effectiveness, the only Small Starts project in the nation at that time to receive such a designation. FTA has rated the project “high” for cost effectiveness each year since then, and recommended the project for up to $55M, of a total of $75M, in Small Starts funding to support project implementation through federal FY 2013.

The Draft EIS/EIR was distributed and made available to the public for review and comment from November 4 through December 23, 2011, and included three Build alternatives in addition to the No-Build Alternative. The Draft PSR-PR was approved on July 23, 2012. Based on technical analyses presented in the Draft EIS/EIR, agency, stakeholder, and public input received during circulation of the Draft EIS/EIR and results of weighting and risk analysis performed by a steering committee of SFCTA and SFMTA staff, the SFCTA and SFMTA staff jointly recommended, and their boards subsequently selected, the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) as a combination of Build Alternatives 3 and 4, defined as center-lane BRT with right-side boarding/single median and limited left turns for inclusion in the Final EIS/EIR.

3B. Existing Facility Within the project limits, Van Ness and South Van Ness avenues are designated as US Highway 101 and defined as a Conventional Principal Arterial, with no access control. The highway is part of the National Highway System (NHS), a Strategic Highway Network (STRAHNET) Route, and part of the Interregional Road System (IRRS). The San Francisco General Plan designates Van Ness Avenue as a Major Arterial Road and Freight Traffic Route between North Point and Market Streets. It is also part of the Congestion Management Program (CMP) and Metropolitan Transportation System (MTS) network, and is designated as a Primary Transit Street (Transit Important) and a Citywide Pedestrian Network. Van Ness Avenue serves not only as a regional route for goods movement and a local and regional transit corridor for Muni and Golden Gate Transit buses, but it is also important as a distributor of local trips to and from the collector street network.

The key role of Van Ness Avenue within the City’s transit network is emphasized through its status in the voter-approved Proposition K New Expenditure Plan, which calls for a network of BRT routes including Van Ness Avenue, Geary Boulevard, and Potrero Avenue; its identification as a Rapid Network route in SFMTA’s Transit Effectiveness Project (TEP); and inclusion of the Van Ness Avenue BRT project in the adopted 2004 Countywide Transportation Plan.

The roadway cross section typically has six mixed flow lanes for traffic and transit, a landscaped median, and parking on both sides. Total curb-to-curb width is 93 ft, comprising an 8-ft parking lane, 11.5-ft outside lane and two 10-ft inside lanes in each direction, and a 14-ft curbed and landscaped median. Left turn pockets are provided at several arterial cross streets. A double left turn pocket is provided in the northbound direction at Hayes Street, and a triple left turn pocket is provided in the northbound

04-SF-101-PM T4.71/6.71

5

direction at Lombard Street. All left turn pockets have a 4-ft curbed median. Grades vary up to 9.9 percent. The corridor is entirely within the City and County of San Francisco, and is considered urbanized. Peak hour uni-directional volumes range from 1,500 vph to 1,900 vph; average daily bidirectional passenger automobile traffic volumes range from 38,000 in the northern portion of the corridor to 44,000 in the southern portion. Trucks comprise approximately two percent of traffic. A design speed of 30 mph was selected for the roadway throughout the project limits. The posted speed limit is 25 mph.

To the south, US 101 continues on Mission Street and South Van Ness Avenue, with ramp connections to the US 101 South and I-80 East freeways. To the north, US 101 continues on Lombard Street, which is a Conventional Principal Arterial similar in nature and cross section to Van Ness Avenue, leading to the Golden Gate Bridge and Marin County.

The Van Ness Avenue right of way is owned by Caltrans; however, maintenance is performed by the City of San Francisco. As such, Van Ness Avenue also falls under the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Department of Public Works Streets Division. The SFMTA is responsible for the multimodal operations, including providing transit service and maintaining traffic signals. Finally, the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) is responsible for the roadway lighting system. These departments play a large role in maintaining access and mobility, as well as the identity, urban design, safety and livability characteristics of the corridor.

4. PURPOSE AND NEED

4A. Problem, Deficiencies, Justification

Project Purpose

The Van Ness Avenue BRT Project is a key element of San Francisco’s countywide transportation improvement strategy. The project is intended to support the City’s growth and development needs by addressing expected transportation system performance needs - including to stem and reverse the trend toward transit mode share loss within San Francisco - affordably and in the near term. The project is also intended to improve the cost effectiveness and operational efficiency of the City’s mature transportation system infrastructure and service.

The 2004 San Francisco Countywide Transportation Plan analysis identified BRT on Van Ness Avenue as a top priority within San Francisco’s Rapid Transit expansion strategy. The Plan analyzed alternative transportation investment strategies, including a BRT-based plan, a rail-based strategy, and an operations and maintenance-based strategy. The most cost-effective transportation investment plan featured a network of Bus Rapid Transit, including on Van Ness Avenue.

Van Ness Avenue is a core route within the Muni transit network today. Van Ness Avenue has strong existing transit demand and service levels, and future ridership growth potential. Van Ness Avenue transit services today operate at high frequencies. Transit service is provided by Muni Routes 47 and 49, and by Golden Gate Transit, which operates commute service and limited all-day service into San Francisco from Marin County on Van Ness Avenue with Routes 54, 70, 72, 73, 76, 80, 93 and 97. The Muni routes provide a combined headway of 3.75 minutes during the peak periods and

04-SF-101-PM T4.71/6.71

6

6-8 minutes in the off-peak. In 2005, Van Ness Avenue carried an average of 79 percent of all transit trips in the corridor between Gough and Hyde streets. Transit carries about one-third of the motorized person-trips that use Van Ness Avenue, and transit has a 20 percent mode share for trips to, from, and within the neighborhoods surrounding Van Ness Avenue, greater than the 17 percent daily transit mode share citywide.

Improving the speeds and reliability of transit on Van Ness Avenue will fill a key gap in San Francisco’s local rapid transit network; Van Ness Avenue is the best fit to close this gap, since it is the primary north south transit route in the northern half of San Francisco, with more than 16,000 daily travelers using Muni-operated local and Golden Gate Transit regional services along the project limits to access the corridor’s high density commercial, residential, and civic/institutional uses as well as Caltrain peninsula and BART rail services. The purpose of the Van Ness Avenue BRT Project is to contribute towards the City’s transportation system improvement goals, as identified in the 2004 CWTP, through a set of objectives specific to strengthening the Van Ness Avenue corridor:

Significantly improve transit reliability, speed, connectivity, and comfort; Improve pedestrian comfort, amenities, and safety; Enhance the urban design and identity of Van Ness Avenue; Create a more livable and attractive street for local residential, commercial, and

other activities; and Accommodate safe multimodal circulation and access within the corridor.

Attainment of the project objectives must be balanced with the needs to accommodate mixed traffic, bicycle, and goods circulation and access within the corridor, as well as maintain some on-street parking for loading/unloading and drop-off access.

The planning background of the Van Ness Avenue BRT project aligns with Caltrans’ recently-adopted policy planning framework for assessing California’s transportation needs for the next ten years. In Smart Mobility 2010: A Call to Action for the New

Decade, Caltrans created a strategic plan to address the State’s mandate to find solutions for climate change, address the need to reduce per capita vehicles miles travelled (VMT), create transportation systems that get people safely to their destinations, and commit to create transportation systems that achieve social equity objectives. Caltrans’ Smart

Mobility emphasizes the following processes and values: Local Efficiency, Reliable Mobility, Health and Safety, Environmental Stewardship, Social Equity, and Robust Economy. To the extent that a proposed transportation project would align with this framework, it should therefore be judged to be beneficial.

Project Need

The 2004 CWTP found that San Francisco’s 17 percent transit mode share among San Francisco residents will decline by 2025 if measures are not taken to provide a competitive transit alternative to auto travel in major corridors such as Van Ness Avenue (Countywide Transportation Plan, SFCTA 2004). The proposed Van Ness Avenue BRT is intended to contribute towards reversing that citywide trend. In addition, Van Ness Avenue BRT is intended to reverse the citywide trend towards lower transit productivity and higher operating costs. The project is expected to help address these citywide needs through improvements that are specific to the Van Ness corridor.

04-SF-101-PM T4.71/6.71

7

Transit Performance Needs A key need for transit service on Van Ness Avenue is to close the performance gap between transit and automobile travel, as defined by the following transit performance needs:

Separate transit from auto traffic to improve travel time and service reliability. Transit speeds and reliability (both travel time and headway reliability) are poor due in large part to conflicts with mixed-flow traffic. Buses spend approximately half their time on Van Ness Avenue completely stopped (Feasibility Study , SFCTA 2006); these delays occur when moving in traffic, maneuvering to and from the curb to load and unload passengers, and waiting at signals. Signal and mixed-traffic delays account for well over half of total bus delay (Feasibility Study, SFCTA 2006). Travel times on Van Ness Avenue between Mission and Clay average 16 minutes by transit and fewer than 9 minutes by automobile (SFCTA 2010). Even when time spent loading and unloading passengers is subtracted from transit travel time, buses still remain as much as 35 percent slower than cars (SFCTA, 2006).

Travel in mixed traffic also causes reliability problems. As buses travel in mixed traffic, variation in headway increases, and buses begin to bunch (SFCTA 2006). By the time southbound Van Ness Avenue buses reach Market Street, headways are equally as likely to be 1 or 13 minutes apart (as compared to the scheduled 7.5 minutes apart per route), reflecting unreliable service for waiting passengers.

Moreover, conflicts with mixed traffic affect transit operating efficiency and productivity. The delays caused by operating in mixed traffic add significantly to transit’s route cycle time, increasing the number of vehicles and operators required to provide needed service frequencies.

Reduce delays associated with loading and unloading. Time spent loading and unloading passengers, while part of service, does include unnecessary delays that contribute to slow travel times for buses. Dwell times are lengthy because passengers must enter the bus through a single door, ascend from the curb into the bus doorway, and wait in line while those without passes pay bus fare onboard. Passengers with mobility disabilities often need the assistance of lifts or ramps to enter and exit buses, which can further increase dwell time.

Expand the City’s Network of Rapid Transit. As discussed above, San Francisco lacks north-south rapid transit service in the northern part of the city (SFCTA 1994; SFMTA 2000; SFCTA 2003/4; SFCTA 2006; SFMTA 2009). Van Ness Avenue and Mission Street is the dominant north-south transit corridor in the city, but no rapid or limited services are provided north of Mission Street.

Transit Ridership and Mode Share. The Van Ness Avenue Corridor has strong existing ridership, but does not meet its high ridership potential. Approximately 46 percent of households in the Van Ness Avenue corridor do not own cars, compared to 29 percent citywide. At 93 dwelling units per acre, Van Ness Avenue has the highest population density of any transit corridor in San Francisco, which, combined with the concentration of employment and commercial activity along the corridor (45,000 jobs), establishes a strong transit market capable of supporting higher levels of transit investment.

04-SF-101-PM T4.71/6.71

8

The City has targeted the Van Ness Avenue corridor for additional growth in jobs and housing through the Van Ness Avenue Area Plan and the Market and Octavia Plan, and the corridor continue to experience active infill development. Furthermore, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the San Francisco Planning Department anticipate 21,000 additional jobs (50 percent increase) and 9,000 additional housing units (34 percent increase) in the Van Ness Avenue corridor between 2005 and 2015 (ABAG Projections, 2007).

Improve the experience for transit patrons. Existing transit service on Van Ness Avenue lacks many amenities that would make the transit experience attractive to new riders and more comfortable for existing riders, both in and out of the vehicle. While waiting, transit passengers along Van Ness Avenue often lack shelter, seating, and real-time information. Waiting passengers jostle for sidewalk space with passing pedestrians. While riding, transit passengers often encounter crowded buses as a result of bunching and reliability problems, and experience poor ride quality as buses must weave around mixed traffic and into and out of sidewalk bus stops.

Multimodal Circulation Needs People currently use Van Ness Avenue to drive, walk, bike, and ride transit. Van Ness Avenue improvements are also intended to improve multimodal circulation and the overall transportation effectiveness of the corridor, consistent with the needs identified in the CWTP and BRT Feasibility Study, as described in the subsequent section. Van Ness Avenue is also intended to provide landscape and public space amenities and serve an urban design function, in addition to its transportation functions (Van Ness Avenue Area Plan, City of San Francisco, 1998). Attainment of project objectives to support non-motorized travel must be balanced with the need to support local and regional mixed traffic circulation and access within the corridor. Parking is also a key component to supporting local land uses with loading / unloading capability as well as passenger drop-off. Parallel parking is located along most of Van Ness Avenue throughout the project corridor, providing drop-off and loading access to businesses, residents and institutional uses fronting the avenue. Parking also provides persons with disabilities access to the commercial, residential, civic, and cultural centers in the project corridor. Accommodating truck maneuverability is also important in supporting land uses along the corridor as well as regional goods movement.

Additional multimodal circulation, corridor design, and land use planning needs for Van Ness Avenue include the following:

Improve the safety and comfort of pedestrians. Pedestrian trips comprise 26 percent of total daily trips to, from, and within the neighborhoods surrounding Van Ness Avenue, exceeding the citywide average of 17 percent. Every transit trip begins and ends with a walking trip, and nearly half of trips to, from, or within the Van Ness Avenue neighborhoods are a walk, bike, or transit trip, indicating the importance of non-motorized travel in the area along Van Ness Avenue. While the existing street design within the project limits meets City sidewalk width standards with its 16-foot wide sidewalks, most intersections are without pedestrian countdown signals or Accessible Pedestrian Signals (APS) pedestrian crossings of Van Ness Avenue do not meet City and national guidelines, and many of the intersections do not meet San Francisco or federal standards for minimum pedestrian speeds in order to cross Van Ness Avenue during the

04-SF-101-PM T4.71/6.71

9

walk signal phase. At crossings without a pedestrian signal, pedestrians can be caught mid-crossing when the light turns yellow with as little as 4 seconds to reach a curb or median refuge, indicating the strong need for pedestrian countdown and APS with sufficient crossing times at these crossings (SFCTA 2011).

Pedestrians experience twice as much delay at intersections as vehicle occupants, especially when waiting to cross Van Ness Avenue. The greater the delay, the higher the likelihood of noncompliance with signals which results in compromised safety and traffic flow impacts (SFCTA 2011).

Raise the Operating Efficiency of Van Ness Avenue by Maintaining Person-Throughput while increasing the capacity and vehicle occupancy rate. The Van Ness Avenue corridor has the potential to carry more people, more efficiently, than today. Along the BRT corridor, motorized trips on Van Ness Avenue are expected to increase by up to 7.5 percent by 2015 if a BRT project is not built, while the transit mode share is expected to stay the same or decline. These trends would cause an increase in congestion on Van Ness Avenue. These increasing demands on the street’s limited right-of-way (ROW) necessitate more efficient operations and use of space to increase capacity for person-throughput in the corridor by raising the overall vehicle occupancy rate.

Upgrade streetscape to support an identity as a rapid transit and pedestrian environment. Existing streetscape conditions are deficient, lacking in consistency and pedestrian amenities. A main component of the LPA is to provide a consistent landscaped median treatment and pedestrian lighting as well as establish a more unified identity for Van Ness Avenue and rapid transit service.

Support the civic destinations on the corridor, and integrate transit infrastructure with adjacent land uses. The project corridor is a strong market for transit, due largely to the existing transit supportive land uses in the corridor, including the highest population density of any transit corridor in San Francisco, and nearly half of the households in the corridor do not own automobiles.

Accommodate private vehicles and commercial loading. Attainment of the project objectives must be balanced with the need to accommodate mixed traffic and goods circulation and access within the corridor, as well as maintain some on-street parking for loading/unloading and drop-off access.

In addition to existing transit demand, the Van Ness Avenue corridor is planned by the City for additional mixed-use development and transformation of the street into a transit-served pedestrian promenade that supports the Civic Center and commercial uses.

Project Justification

Rapid, reliable transit on Van Ness Avenue will fill a key gap in San Francisco’s local rapid transit network, and reverse a trend towards declining transit mode share among San Francisco travelers. Van Ness Avenue is the primary north south transit route in the northern half of San Francisco, with more than 16,000 daily travelers using Muni-operated local and Golden Gate Transit regional services along the project limits to access the corridor’s high density commercial, residential, and civic/institutional uses as well as Caltrain peninsula and BART rail services.

04-SF-101-PM T4.71/6.71

10

Selection of Van Ness Avenue for BRT. The CWTP analysis identified BRT on Van Ness Avenue as a key priority within San Francisco’s Rapid Transit expansion strategy. The analysis compared a BRT-based plan to a capital intensive, rail-based strategy and to a maintenance-based strategy, and found that development of a fast, reliable, and comfortable rapid transit network is required to cost-effectively and affordably reverse the trend toward declining transit mode share.

Van Ness Avenue was identified as one of three priority corridors for BRT development citywide, due to its strong existing transit demand and service levels and future ridership growth potential. In 2005, Van Ness Avenue carried an average of 31 percent of the daily private vehicle trips (up to 190,000) and an average of 79 percent of all transit trips (up to 28,000) in the corridor between Gough and Hyde streets. The corridor’s central role in the city’s land use and transportation network make optimization of Van Ness Avenue’s transportation functions essential.

Existing Strong Demand and Service Levels. Van Ness Avenue transit services today operate at high frequencies. The Muni routes provide a combined headway of 3.75 minutes during the peak periods and 6-8 minutes in the off-peak. According to Automatic Passenger Count Data collected in 2007, about 43,000 passengers use Muni Routes 47 and 49 and the Golden Gate Transit Van Ness Avenue routes daily, with over 16,000 passengers riding daily within the Van Ness Avenue segment. A number of major east-west transit routes cross Van Ness Avenue and generate major bus-to-bus and bus-to-rail transfers with Van Ness Avenue services, including all Muni Metro lines at Market Street and the Muni lines 38 (Geary) and 38L (Geary Limited). Transit has a 20 percent mode share for trips to, from, and within the neighborhoods surrounding Van Ness Avenue, substantially greater than the 17 percent daily transit mode share citywide, and serves both local and regional transit trips.

Large Ridership Growth Potential. Van Ness Avenue bus service has the potential to serve more riders both today and in the future. Approximately 46 percent of households in the Van Ness Avenue corridor do not own cars, compared to 29 percent citywide. At 93 dwelling units per acre, Van Ness Avenue has the highest population density of any transit corridor in San Francisco, which, combined with the concentration of employment and commercial activity along the corridor (45,000 jobs), establishes a strong transit market capable of supporting higher levels of transit investment. The City has targeted the Van Ness Avenue corridor for additional growth in jobs and housing – particularly near Market Street - and active infill development is underway throughout the corridor.

Furthermore, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the San Francisco Planning Department have targeted the Van Ness Avenue corridor for 21,000 additional jobs (50 percent increase) and 9,000 additional housing units (34 percent increase) between 2005 and 2015 (ABAG Projections, 2007), particularly near Market Street, and active infill development is underway throughout the corridor, consistent with the objectives of the Van Ness Avenue Area Plan and the Market/Octavia Better Neighborhoods Plan.

Corridorwide Benefits. In meeting the project purpose and need, the Van Ness Avenue BRT project provides demonstrated benefits to transit operations and efficiency, which are described in detail in Section 3.2 of the environmental document. However, the

04-SF-101-PM T4.71/6.71

11

project also provides other significant benefits to mobility within the corridor, which align with Caltrans’ Smart Mobility framework, and which are summarized as follows:

Result in a 33 percent reduction in transit travel times over current transit in Year 2015. By making transit service more efficient, it becomes a much more reliable, attractive and viable choice

Increase transit ridership by 37 percent over existing patronage in Year 2015 Improve lane productivity; with BRT, each transit lane would carry 36 percent

more people than each mixed traffic lane in Year 2015 Improve vehicle occupancy from an average of 1.7 people per motorized vehicle

on Van Ness Avenue to more than two people per vehicle due to the increased number of people riding transit in Year 2015

Achieve energy efficiency through a reduction of 0.1 percent to 0.6 percent of energy consumption in Year 2035, which is the equivalent of 115,000 to 750,000 gallons of gasoline annually

Improve air quality by reducing carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide and other key particulate emissions in the Van Ness Avenue corridor

Improve the pedestrian environment with numerous features, including shorter crossing distances, APS count-down signals, and enhanced medians, thus improving safety and promoting healthy life-styles

Sustain the local economy by improving the accessibility of patrons to stores and other commercial ventures

Enhance area resident’s access to employment, medical services, and government services, particularly for the approximately 46 percent of the households in the study area do not own a private automobile

In addition to local residents, tourists will be able to better access entertainment venues and cultural destinations

The project will enhance sustainability by helping to serve the economically disadvantaged who are more reliant on transit than is true of the general population and thus will be socially equitable.

In addition to the benefits outlined above which would accrue with the introduction of a Bus Rapid Transit System to Van Ness Avenue, the Department’s goal of achieving Complete Streets (AB 1358; 2008) will be further promoted because it provides mobility options, encourages alternatives to driving, and reduces automobile dependence without excluding the auto.

Refer to the Final EIS/EIR for a further discussion of the project purpose and need, and benefits. A summary of key points pertaining to the identified project purpose and need are summarized in Table 4-1 below.

04-SF-101-PM T4.71/6.71

12

Table 4-1: Project Justification Key Points

Project Need Project Justification Key Points

Separate transit from auto

traffic to improve travel

time and service reliability

BRT on Van Ness Avenue will decrease transit travel times by up to 33%, and

improve reliability by 50% (SFCTA, 2013).

BRT will improve transit operating productivity by a similar 33 percent,

reducing the overall cycle time of Van Ness Avenue routes and saving

substantial operating resources.

Reduce delays associated

with loading and

unloading

BRT stations with level or near level boarding platforms, proof-of-payment, and

fare pre-payment at select locations will facilitate faster and easier passenger loading

and unloading by enabling passengers to simply walk or roll onto the bus through all

vehicle doors.

Expand the City’s

Network of Rapid Transit

Over 40 percent of all Muni Routes 47 and 49 riders make at least one transfer

to the many heavily used east-west cross routes, including Muni Metro, as well

as regional services such as Golden Gate Transit, BART at 16th Street, and

Caltrain at 4th/King. With this extent of interconnection between Van Ness

Avenue passengers and other routes, the travel time and reliability benefits of

BRT on Van Ness Avenue will extend throughout the city’s transit network. As

a result, riders with destinations along the Mission, Market, SOMA, Geary

Boulevard, and Union Street corridors will benefit, specifically from shorter

travel times and enhanced rider experience, with the implementation of BRT

(Small Starts Entry to Project Development, FTA/SFCTA 2007).

Transit Ridership and

Mode Share

In 2015, BRT on Van Ness Avenue is expected to increase transit ridership on

the routes serving the street by up to 37%, and increase ridership on the system

as a whole by 2% (SFCTA 2013).

Improve the in-vehicle

and out-of-vehicle trip

experience for transit

patrons

BRT will upgrade bus service with station amenities including larger shelters,

additional seating, communications systems, ticket vending machines, real-time

service information, improved lighting, and security features. BRT station

platforms would be separated from pedestrian traffic, and would include

landscape and streetscape features to offer a buffer from vehicular traffic where

feasible. BRT will improve ride quality by eliminating the need to pull in and

out of stops, and for most alternatives, the need to weave around mixed traffic.

The BRT buses would accommodate more passengers, offer additional seating,

and would operate at more reliable headways, relieving crowding.

Improve the safety and

comfort of pedestrians

BRT will improve pedestrian safety and conditions through shorter crossing

distances (and targeted walking speeds), greater visibility including pedestrian

scale lighting, APS count-down signals, and refuge medians that meet City

standards. These BRT features are expected to reduce the crosswalk pedestrian

collisions commonly experienced on Van Ness Avenue. In addition, the

elimination of nearly all left turn opportunities would reduce one of the most

frequent causes of vehicle-pedestrian collisions. The remaining left turns would

operate under a protected phase only, eliminating the permissive left turn phase

under existing conditions.

Raise the Operating

Efficiency of Van Ness

Avenue by Increasing

Person-Throughput

BRT makes it possible to provide more frequent service for the same operating

cost: this is because with BRT, each bus can complete its route in less time, and so

more frequent service could be provided with the same number of vehicles and

drivers. Preliminary results indicate that 1 to 2 more buses per hour could be

added on both the 47 and 49 BRT routes based on the travel time savings.

BRT would also create the capacity to carry much more travel than conservative

assumptions forecast. In addition, transit network improvements, such as the

implementation of the Transit Effectiveness Project’s Rapid Network, would also

contribute to person-throughput increases in the Van Ness Avenue corridor, and

04-SF-101-PM T4.71/6.71

13

Table 4-1: Project Justification Key Points

Project Need Project Justification Key Points

without additional mixed traffic impacts.

Upgrade streetscape to

support an identity as a

rapid transit and

pedestrian environment

The improved streetscape features of the proposed LPA would enhance the

amenity and urban design of Van Ness Avenue as a gateway into the city.

Support the civic

destinations on the

corridor, and integrate

transit infrastructure with

adjacent land uses

Rapid transit service along Van Ness Avenue would contribute to the city’s

transit-oriented development efforts by expanding transit capacity, providing

higher-performance service, and improving access to destinations both within

the corridor and elsewhere in the city. The placement of BRT infrastructure

demonstrates an investment in the corridor and provides a greater sense of

permanence than typical bus facilities.

Accommodate private

vehicles and commercial

loading.

Private vehicle traffic in the future is anticipated to become more congested on

Van Ness Avenue and on the adjacent parallel streets in the no project

scenario. Analysis indicates that the implementation of BRT is not forecast to

increase the number of congested intersections (i.e., those operating at LOS E

or F) in the corridor, in year 2015, relative to the No Build Alternative. Parallel

parking is located along most of Van Ness Avenue throughout the project

corridor, providing drop-off and loading access to businesses, residents, and

institutional uses fronting the avenue. Parking also provides persons with

disabilities access to the commercial, residential, civic, and cultural centers in

the project corridor. Accommodating truck maneuverability is also important

in supporting land uses along the corridor, as well as regional goods

movement.

4B. Traffic

Current and Forecasted Traffic

The traffic analysis period was determined based on existing traffic volume data collected at five locations along Van Ness Avenue and at one location each along Franklin and Gough streets over 24-hour periods from March 20-25, 2007. These counts indicate that: traffic volumes along Van Ness Avenue are generally higher during the PM peak hour than during the AM peak; weekday volumes are higher than weekend volumes; and the PM peak hour occurs from 5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.

Table 4-2 shows the existing and design year Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) and peak hour volumes for the No-Build and LPA. Trucks account for two percent of the peak hour traffic volume. The two arterial roads to the west of Van Ness Avenue, Franklin and Gough streets, carry a weekday average of approximately 31,000 and 27,000 daily vehicles, respectively.

04-SF-101-PM T4.71/6.71

14

Table 4-2: AADT, Peak Hour Traffic Volumes on Van Ness Avenue

Location

2011 Traffic Volumes (vph)

2035 No-Build Traffic Volumes

(vph)

2035 Design Traffic Volumes (vph)

AADT (2-way)

PM Peak Hour/Peak Direction

AADT (2-way)

PM Peak Hour/Peak Direction

AADT (2-way)

PM Peak Hour/Peak Direction

Market Street N.A. N.A. N.A. 2,500/NB N.A. 1,800/NB Golden Gate Avenue 48,000 N.A. N.A. 2,000/NB 40,200 1,300/NB

Turk Street 49,500 1,708/NB 59,000 2,000/NB 42,000 1,300/NB California Street 44,500 1,582/SB 48,000 1,900/NB 37,000 1,300/NB Lombard Street 38,000 N.A. 46,000 1,600/SB 40,000 1,400/NB Source: Caltrans Traffic Data 2011; Traffic Data & Forecast Modeling, SFCTA/CHS

Note: N.A. = not available

Traffic forecasts were developed using SF-CHAMP, San Francisco’s travel demand forecasting model. Under 2035 No-Build conditions, traffic volumes on Van Ness Avenue are anticipated to increase by an average of 20 percent over existing conditions. Under the 2035 Build conditions, one lane of traffic in each direction would be converted to dedicated bus use, reducing the capacity to serve vehicular traffic on Van Ness Avenue by somewhat less than one third. Forecast results indicate that PM peak automobile trips on Van Ness Avenue decrease 13 percent to 30 percent during the PM peak on Van Ness Avenue with any of the LPA. This is attributable to time of day shift, mode shift, and diversion to adjacent parallel arterials as well as routes beyond the Van Ness corridor.

In terms of mobility, there are approximately 146,000 existing (2005) daily person-trips within the corridor (Van Ness Avenue and parallel streets). Under the 2035 No-Build, this increases to approximately 165,000 person-trips. Under 2035 Build conditions, average daily person-throughput is maintained, and the corridor would carry just as many people with BRT as it would without the project (difference is less than 1 percent). It should be noted that the analysis reports forecasted travel demand based on the assumption that the transit network and bus frequencies stay similar to existing conditions; however, BRT would create the capacity to carry much more travel than conservative assumptions forecast. Transit network improvements, such as the implementation of the Transit Effectiveness Project’s Rapid Network, would also contribute to person-throughput increases in the Van Ness Avenue corridor, more cost effectively than in the No Project scenario, and without additional mixed traffic impacts. Preliminary results indicate that 1 to 2 more buses per hour could be added on both the 47 and 49 BRT routes at no additional operating cost, based on the travel time savings in 2015.

As shown in Table 4-3, due to the increase in transit ridership on Van Ness Avenue, each travel lane would carry more people per hour (both autos and transit) as a result of BRT when compared with the No-Build. While there would be a decrease in the number of mixed traffic lanes on Van Ness Avenue, the resulting auto travel lanes would carry more people on average than in the no-build alternative. Transit would carry 13-36 percent more people in its dedicated lane than each automobile lane carries, and would provide the capacity to carry many more trips per hour as Muni’s Rapid Network and the City’s population grow.

04-SF-101-PM T4.71/6.71

15

Table 4-3: PM Peak Person-Trips per Lane per Hour Average PM Peak Person-Trips/Lane/Hour Transit Automobiles 2005 Existing 585 550 2015 No Build Alternative 610 620 2015 Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) 930 670

In the 2015 No Build Alternative, an average of 1.7 people would occupy each motorized vehicle on Van Ness Avenue. With the implementation of BRT and the increased number of people riding transit on Van Ness Avenue, vehicle occupancy would increase to (2.1 people per vehicle under the LPA.

Traffic Operations

Traffic operations were analyzed for the existing conditions and future years 2015 and 2035, for the No Build Alternative and the Build alternatives, using a SYNCHRO operations model. The traffic study area included six north-south streets that would most likely be affected by the proposed project: Van Ness Avenue, Franklin Street, and Gough Street from Mission Street to Lombard Street; Polk Street from Market Street to Pacific Street; Larkin Street from Market Street to California Street; and Hyde Street from Market Street to Pine Street. The LPA (including the Vallejo Northbound Station Variant) would have the same traffic impacts as Build Alternatives 3 and 4 with Design Option B, as reported in the Draft Project Report and the Draft EIS/EIR. Because the LPA would have 11 fewer right-turn pockets, there are minor differences in LOS between the LPA and Build Alternatives 3 and 4 with Design Option B along Van Ness Avenue. However, none of these differences would cause a new significant intersection LOS impact or worsen a significant intersection LOS impact compared to the impacts outlined for Build Alternatives 3 and 4 with Design Option B.

In the 2035 design year, all intersections on US 101 would operate at LOS D or better under the LPA, with the exception of the following:

Duboce/Mission/Otis/US 101 Off Ramp, which would operate at LOS F; Otis/Mission/S. Van Ness, which would operate at LOS E;

All intersections within the study area that would operate at LOS “E” or “F” for traffic in 2035 are listed in Table 4-4. Refer to the Final Traffic Operations Report (CHS Consulting, November 2011 for a complete summary of traffic operations.

Note that the Vallejo Northbound Station Variant would have one fewer (2 versus 3) mixed traffic lanes in the SB direction for the block between Vallejo and Green streets versus the LPA. Under the LPA without the variant, this lane would be used to store left-turning traffic onto Broadway. Under the Vallejo Northbound Station Variant, that roadway space would be used for the additional far side NB station at Vallejo Street. In 2015, the Vallejo intersection would operate at LOS A during the PM peak under the LPA and would operate at a similar LOS with implementation of the Vallejo Northbound Station Variant.

04-SF-101-PM T4.71/6.71

16

Table 4-4: Intersections Operating at LOS “E” or “F”

Intersection

2035 No Build

Alternative

2035 Locally Preferred

Alternative (LPA) LOS (Delay) LOS (Delay)

Gough/Green* F (93.6) F (142.7) Gough/Clay* D (29.8) E (44.5) Gough/Sacramento C (25.2) F (102.4) Gough/Eddy B (14.8) F (107.3) Gough/Hayes F (98.1) F (126.2) Franklin/Pine E (66.7) E (77.8) Franklin/O'Farrell E (77.5) F (115.3) Franklin/Eddy C (24.1) F (113.1) Franklin/McAllister C (29.7) F (143.1) Franklin/Market C (33.1) F (148.3) Otis/Mission/S. Van Ness E (74.0) E (79.0) Duboce/Mission/Otis/ US 101 Off-Ramp F (115.2) F (97.2)

* Unsignalized intersection. Table shows worst approach LOS (Delay) for an unsignalized intersection. Table shows intersection LOS (intersection average vehicular delay) for signalized intersections.

Traffic Mitigations

The LPA would incorporate features that help avoid or minimize traffic impacts through project design, in keeping with the project’s objective to accommodate traffic circulation. These include area-wide signal timing; optimization; signal priority for BRT on Van Ness Avenue, which also benefits (north/south) mixed traffic; reduction in left turn opportunities; and right-turn pockets at high-demand locations.

Engineering measures could, at some affected intersections, mitigate the identified delay impacts in the near term. The engineering mitigation measures primarily include parking tow-away lanes or traffic turn pockets, which increase roadway capacity at the affected intersections. Such mitigation measures were identified and tested for each project scenario, but may not be chosen for implementation by the Authority Board (who will certify the EIR) if they find the mitigations to be infeasible due to the adverse effect on pedestrian conditions, conflicting with the City’s Transit First Policy, and potential for induced demand.

Instead of short-term engineering mitigation measures, holistic demand management responses to traffic congestion offer more promise in managing traffic in the long term. The Authority and other City agencies are leading several City or district-wide transportation planning efforts that respond to area-wide traffic-handling and congestion management needs. These efforts include the implementation of the Market and Octavia Plan, SFMTA’s TEP; SFCTA’s Central Freeway Circulation Study; recommendations from SFCTA’s Mobility Access and Pricing Study (MAPS); SFMTA’s Eastern Neighborhoods Transportation Implementation Planning Study (EN TRIPS); SFCTA’s

04-SF-101-PM T4.71/6.71

17

Geary Corridor BRT Project; Proposition B Road Repaving and Street Safety Bond Projects; and the City’s Better Market Street project. The Authority is also developing the San Francisco Transportation Plan, which is an update to the City’s long-range strategic transportation investment and policy plan. These planning efforts are intended to comprehensively address the demand and supply sides of traffic congestion.

In addition, a “toolbox” of short-term traffic management strategies is proposed to improve traffic management in the Van Ness Avenue corridor and study area. These strategies include driver wayfinding and signage; a public awareness campaign and transportation management plan (TMP) during project construction; and installation of pedestrian amenities at additional corridor locations.

Refer to Section 3.3 of the EIS/EIR for a full discussion of traffic impacts and mitigation measures considered.

Collision Rates

Collision data were obtained for the three-year period from January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2010.

Table 4-5 summarizes the actual collision rates and statewide average rates for the project limits and for each intersection within the project limits from Mission Street to Lombard Street. Percentages of collisions by collision type for the project limits are shown in Table 4-6.

Even though the total actual rates for fatality and injury collisions exceed the statewide averages, this is not observed in the intersection data. Within the two-mile length of the BRT project, only eleven out of 41 intersections have either fatal or fatal plus injury collision rates that are above the statewide averages, and only two are above statewide average for total accidents. This indicates that the corridor-wide comparison of Van Ness Avenue with statewide average collision rates is not a true representation of the relative safety of Van Ness Avenue.

Of the 289 recorded collisions within the corridor, the majority (78%) occurred in clear weather; approximately 60% of collisions happened during daylight and 37% occurred with street light conditions; and approximately 89% of collisions occurred in dry conditions. Collisions were divided fairly evenly between the northbound and southbound directions and showed little difference by month of the year or day of the week. Neither driving nor roadway conditions appear to have been a factor, although a small percentage of collisions (1.0%) were attributable to holes or ruts in the pavement.

A review of the collision data indicates that more than 25% of the collisions occurred while making a left turn movement. The intersections with the highest percentage of collisions associated with a left turn movement were at Eddy St (64%), Grove Street (62%), Union Street (50%), Hayes Street (53%), Geary Street (47%), Fell St (44%), Pacific Ave (38%), Bush Street (33%), O’Farrell (29%), Golden Gate (29%), California (24%) and Broadway (22%). Even though left turn movements are not allowed at Market Street and Mission/Otis Streets, left turn related collisions accounted for 33% and 17% of the collisions, respectively.

04-SF-101-PM T4.71/6.71

18

Table 4-5: Van Ness Avenue Collision Rates – January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2010

Bold underlined numbers reflect higher-than-average collision rates. Key: F = Fatal; I = Injury; MV = Million Vehicles; MVM = Million Vehicle Miles Source: Caltrans, TASAS-TSN

04-SF-101-PM T4.71/6.71

19

Table 4-6: Percentages of Collisions by Collision Type - January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2010 Collision Type Percentage

Head-On 6.2% Sideswipe 12.5% Rear End 20.4% Broadside 39.4% Hit Object 2.8% Overturn 1.0% Auto-Pedestrian 12.1% Other 4.2% Not Stated 1.4%

Source: Caltrans, TASAS-TSN, June 20, 2012

The project would eliminate all of the left turn movements except for southbound onto Broadway and northbound onto Lombard Street where dedicated lanes would be provided. It would also eliminate the permissive left turn phase for the remaining left turn opportunities.

The primary collision types cited for the collisions are broadside (39.4%), rear end (20.4%), auto-pedestrian (12.1%) and sideswipe (12.5%). These collision types are associated with congested urban conditions, and can be attributed to speeding, improper turns, and lack of attention. Twenty-five percent of collisions involved making a left turn, and 37% of collisions occurred in the interior lanes.

Pedestrians were involved with 12.1% of collisions reported. Of these, two-thirds occurred in the intersection crosswalk and the remaining third involved pedestrians crossing at locations other than a crosswalk. Approximately four percent of the collisions involved bicycles.

There was one fatal collision reported at Bush Street within the project area.

As noted in Section 1C, the improvements proposed under this project are expected to improve vehicular and pedestrian safety, and reduce the accident severity and crash rate for all collision types within the Van Ness corridor.

Proposed Improvements and Collision Reduction

As documented in the 2004 Countywide Transportation Plan and 2006 Van Ness Avenue BRT Feasibility Study, the proposed project is needed to both address transit performance and to improve safety for pedestrians. In achieving this, and also addressing the primary causes of vehicle collisions, the project would improve safety for the various users of Van Ness Avenue.

As discussed previously, collision records indicate that Van Ness Avenue currently experiences total collision rates below the statewide average at all intersection locations within the project limits except Myrtle Street and Fern Street which are slightly higher. Of those collisions occurring on Van Ness Avenue, the most common types are broadside (40.6%), rear end (28.7%), auto-pedestrian (11.1%) and sideswipe (10.7%). These collision

04-SF-101-PM T4.71/6.71

20

types are associated with congested urban conditions, and can be attributed to speeding, improper turns, and lack of attention. Specifically, broadside collisions are typically a result of red light violation, failure to yield, or unsafe left turn movements; rear-end collisions result from following too closely within congested conditions and at intersections; sideswipe collisions are typically the result of unsafe lane changes and unexpected movements resulting from “shying” away from adjacent vehicles or obstacles; and auto-pedestrian collisions occur through a variety of factors, which include inattention, limited visibility, driver error and pedestrian error. The proposed project would directly or indirectly address each of these collision types and factors, resulting in improved safety, as follows: Vehicular safety would be enhanced by providing designated bus-only lanes, thereby removing buses from the mixed-flow traffic lanes, eliminating vehicular conflicts from buses entering and leaving the traveled way from sidewalk bus stop pullouts, and eliminating conflicts with right turning vehicles at near-side bus stop locations. This is anticipated to reduce the incidence of sideswipe collisions, and would similarly result in improved bicycle safety from the elimination of buses weaving to and from the outer lane. The project would increase the width of the center mixed flow lane width from 10 ft to 10.5-11 ft, and the adjacent dedicated bus lane from 10 ft to 11.5-12 ft. The increased lane widths, in combination with conversion of the inside mixed flow lane to the less-traveled dedicated bus lane would relieve the current lane width constraints, and would both improve driver comfort and reduce the incidence of center-lane sideswipe collisions. Vehicular safety would be further improved through the removal of existing left turn pockets under the project: of the twelve pockets in each direction, all would be removed except at Lombard Street in the northbound direction and at Broadway in the southbound direction. In addition, the left turn movement at Broadway would become protected rather than permissive. The associated removal of vehicular conflicts is anticipated to significantly reduce the incidence and severity of head-on, broadside, and auto-pedestrian collisions. Finally, installation of signal mast arms will improve visibility. The project would improve pedestrian safety by reducing pedestrian crossing distances and improving pedestrian visibility through provision of curb bulbs and median refuges and installing pedestrian countdown signals, audible pedestrian signals, and enhanced roadway and pedestrian scale lighting. All median refuges will be widened to a minimum of 6 ft to meet Caltrans, City and ADA accessibility standards. In addition, the elimination of left turns at all but two locations and the lack of a permissive left turn phase at those locations would improve pedestrian safety. Some sidewalk curb bulb extensions (curb bulbs, bulb-outs, or corner bulbs) were originally constructed in two phases as a part of the City of San Francisco’s “Van Ness Avenue Pedestrian Safety Improvement” program in the early 2000s. Corner bulbs improve safety by reducing the crossing distance, improving sight lines and visibility for pedestrians and drivers alike. Under the proposed BRT project, these curb bulbs would be reconstructed to the current HDM standard, increasing the offset to traveled way. Further pedestrian safety enhancements would occur through construction of additional corner bulbs at selected intersections; construction of median “thumbnail” islands to create pedestrian crosswalk refuges at those intersections where they do not currently exist; replacement or upgrading of all nonstandard pedestrian curb ramps within the project limits to current ADA standards; and provision of pedestrian countdown signals at

04-SF-101-PM T4.71/6.71

21

all intersections. Each of these improvements serves to encourage and facilitate pedestrian crossing at the preferred intersection crosswalk locations, and is anticipated to reduce the incidence of auto-pedestrian collisions. Three other related improvement projects are proposed to be incorporated into the BRT construction project, each of which is anticipated to have a beneficial effect on safety within the corridor, as follows: SFMTA, together with the Department of Public Works (DPW) and SFPUC, propose to replace the aging overhead contact wires and OCS support poles/streetlights and upgrade them to current standards with modern materials and energy-efficient light fixtures. As part of this work, lighting would be upgraded to current standards with high pressure sodium roadway lighting mounted higher than the existing fixtures for improved quality and lighting distribution, and improved sidewalk lighting. The enhanced lighting would improve sight distance at crest and sag curves, improve overall vehicular and pedestrian safety, and reduce the number of auto-pedestrian collisions. SFMTA also plans to install a new fiber optic traffic signal communications network on Van Ness Avenue under the SFgo and Signal Replacement Program, providing traffic signal infrastructure for real time traffic management. This would allow traffic conditions to be monitored and adjusted dynamically to actively manage operations and delays. As part of this project, the existing traffic signal hardware and controllers would also be replaced and upgraded, including signal mast arms, providing greatly improved signal visibility as well as more efficient timing for smoother traffic operations. This is anticipated to reduce the incidence and severity of rear-end and broadside collisions. Pavement resurfacing is also proposed to be funded through a SHOPP CAPM Project. This would improve the ride quality for all vehicles and reduce erratic vehicle behavior resulting from uneven pavement and from drivers swerving to avoid potholes. This is anticipated to reduce the incidence of sideswipe collisions. Reducing mixed-flow traffic lanes from six to four and providing additional curb bulbs and other enhanced pedestrian facilities would have a traffic calming effect, lowering speeds and therefore reducing collision rates. Thus, each project element would contribute individually and cumulatively to improved vehicular and pedestrian safety, and reduce the accident severity and crash rate for all collision types within the Van Ness Avenue corridor.

5. CORRIDOR AND SYSTEM COORDINATION

5A. Regional and System Planning

Systems

Within the project limits, Van Ness Avenue is designated as US Highway 101 and defined as a Conventional Principal Arterial, with no access control. The highway is part of the National Highway System (NHS), a Strategic Highway Network (STRAHNET) Route, and part of the Interregional Road System (IRRS). The San Francisco General Plan designates Van Ness Avenue as a Major Arterial Road and Freight Traffic Route between North Point and Market Streets. It is also part of the Congestion Management

04-SF-101-PM T4.71/6.71

22

Program (CMP) and Metropolitan Transportation System (MTS) network, and is designated as a Primary Transit Street (Transit Important) and a Citywide Pedestrian Network. Van Ness Avenue is designated a Muni Rapid Route and is part of the Transit Priority Network.

State Planning

Caltrans' statewide long-range plan to improve interregional mobility is the Interregional Transportation Strategic Plan (ITSP), providing policy-level guidance to the programming of ITIP funding. The ITSP references the Interregional Road System (IRRS), which was identified as a subset of the existing 249-route State highway system. The IRRS, as identified in statute, is that portion of the State highway system serving the interregional movement of people and goods. Within the ITSP, certain IRRS routes are defined as “Focus” or “High Emphasis;” the remaining IRRS routes are categorized as “Basic.” Focus routes are the highest priority facilities regarding attainment of minimum facility standards; high emphasis routes are the next highest priority. The 1998 Interregional Transportation Strategic Plan (ITSP) (Caltrans 1998) classified Highway 101 as one of two IRRS routes in District 4 to warrant the Focus Route designation. Highway 101 provides an important north-south route for automobile and truck travel. Within San Francisco, the Van Ness Avenue corridor provides part of the surface street link of US 101 through the City. Thus, maintaining satisfactory traffic operations in the Van Ness Avenue corridor is essential; at the same time, Vision D of the June 1998 ITSP notes that mass transit can support interregional travel improvements with cost effective investments in corridors that are densely populated and heavily traveled.

In addition to route planning, Caltrans has adopted a number of planning goals and objectives to address future transportation and mobility needs.

Caltrans recently adopted a new policy planning framework for assessing California’s transportation needs for the next ten years. In Smart Mobility 2010: A Call to Action for

the New Decade, Caltrans created a strategic plan to address the State’s mandate to find solutions for climate change, address the need to reduce per capita vehicles miles travelled (VMT), create transportation systems that get people safely to their destinations, and commit to create transportation systems that achieve social equity objectives. Development of BRT on Van Ness Avenue is consistent with these objectives (see previous section).

The BRT is also consistent with Caltrans Deputy Directive 98 (October 2008), entitled “Integrating Bus Rapid Transit into State Facilities.” The directive supports the integration of BRT on the State highway system, recognizing its potential to increase “person-throughput”, reduce congestion, mitigate pollution, reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and improve goods movement. Deputy Directive 98 places strong emphasis on the responsibility of Caltrans to ensure that BRT is integrated with other transportation modes on the State highway system through revised design policies and standards, as well as maintenance/operations functions.

Another relevant Caltrans Deputy Directive 64 (October 2008), is entitled “Complete Streets - Integrating the Transportation System,” which provides for the safety and mobility of all travelers including bicycle, pedestrian and transit users on the state highway system. The directive supports the development of complete streets during

04-SF-101-PM T4.71/6.71

23

system planning and continuing through project development. A “complete street” is defined as a transportation facility that is planned, designed, operated and maintained to provide safe mobility for all users, including bicyclists, pedestrians, transit riders and motorists appropriate to the function and context of the facility. Complete streets are intended to improve safety and foster strong healthy communities by creating a safe walking and bicycling environment as well as an alternative to driving. They also address climate change and oil dependence by encouraging alternative modes of transportation. Caltrans Director’s Policy DP-27-R1 (November 2103) provides policy guidance to promote and implement BRT in coordination with local jurisdictions, regional transportation planning agencies, transit operators and other stakeholders.

The 2002 Caltrans Transportation Corridor Concept Report for Highway 101 Peninsula calls for a 6-lane conventional highway for U.S. 101 on Van Ness Avenue. However, in 2003, Caltrans supported local planning efforts by providing a Community Planning Grant to study whether BRT can address transit needs and opportunities in the Van Ness Avenue corridor.

Regional Planning

The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) serves as the Bay Area’s transportation planning, coordinating and financing agency for the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area. The MTC functions as both a regional transportation planning agency for California, and for federal purposes, as the region's metropolitan planning organization (MPO). As such, it is responsible for regularly updating the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), a comprehensive blueprint for the development of mass transit, highway, airport, seaport, railroad, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The most recent RTP, Plan Bay Area, was adopted in 2013 and specifies how $218 billion in anticipated federal, state and local transportation funds will be spent in the Bay Area during the next 25 years. Improvement to local and express bus services is included as a major project in the 2009 RTP, with BRT service on Van Ness Avenue specifically identified as part of this plan. MTC Resolution 3434 identifies Van Ness Avenue BRT as one of the two regional priorities for Small Starts funding. Finally, in 2010, MTC recommended full funding for SFgo on Van Ness Avenue to support BRT implementation through transit signal priority capability.

Local Planning

Van Ness Avenue has been identified as a high priority transit improvement corridor in a number of planning studies and funding actions by the city. The Authority’s Four Corridors Plan (1995) and Muni’s Vision for Rapid Transit (2000) identified Van Ness Avenue as a priority corridor for rapid transit improvements. Since 1996, Muni’s Short-Range Transit Plan has called for rapid transit on Van Ness Avenue. In 2003 San Francisco voters approved Proposition K, the reauthorization of the city’s ½ cent transportation sales tax. The Prop K Expenditure Plan serves as the investment component of the 2004 CWTP, which sets forth the city’s “blueprint to guide the development of transportation funding priorities and policy.” A key objective of the CWTP is the promotion and implementation of San Francisco’s transit first policy through development of a network of fast, reliable transit, including bus rapid transit. The purpose of the multimodal transportation investment package recommended in the CWTP is to:

04-SF-101-PM T4.71/6.71

24

1. Support the city’s growth and development needs by addressing expected transportation system congestion impacts;

2. Stem and reverse the trend toward transit mode share loss within San Francisco affordably and in the near term; and

3. Improve the cost effectiveness and operational efficiency of the city’s mature transportation system infrastructure and service.

The CWTP evaluated alternative approaches toward meeting these system needs, and recommended a preferred scenario that calls for development of a citywide Bus Rapid Transit Network (defined initially by a core BRT network encompassing Van Ness Avenue, Geary Boulevard and Potrero Avenue). The purpose of this rapid transit network is to:

1. Improve transit levels of service for existing users quickly and cost-effectively;

2. Strengthen the citywide network of rapid transit services;

3. Raise the cost effectiveness of Muni services and operational efficiency of the city’s Transit Preferential Streets (TPS) roadway network; and

4. Contribute to the urban design, identity, and livability of the BRT corridors as signature TPS streets.

San Francisco currently lacks north-south rapid transit service in the northern half of the city. Van Ness Avenue, combined with Mission Street, functions as the primary north-south transit corridor in San Francisco. However, Van Ness Avenue lacks rapid transit service, and existing transit services suffer from poor performance in terms of speed and reliability.

As a result of recommendations in the CWTP, the Van Ness Avenue BRT Feasibility Study was initiated in 2004 and completed in 2006. The study evaluates the feasibility of four alternative BRT configurations on Van Ness Avenue. BRT alternatives were developed and compared with a No-Build scenario, in conjunction with a comprehensive public and agency participation program. The feasibility study was unanimously approved by both the Authority and SFMTA Boards in December 2006.

Transit Operator Planning

As discussed above, Muni’s Vision for Rapid Transit (2000) identified Van Ness Avenue as a priority corridor for rapid transit improvements. Since 1996, Muni’s Short-Range Transit Plan has called for rapid transit on Van Ness Avenue.

Since adoption of the Feasibility Study, the SFMTA has developed and adopted the Transit Effectiveness Project. The TEP recommended comprehensive revisions to the Muni route structure to improve efficiency and meet emerging travel demand patterns. In addition, the TEP recommended a Rapid Network designation composed of the most critical and productive Muni lines. Van Ness Avenue is included in the rapid network and identified in the TEP as a high priority route for rapid transit / BRT treatments.

04-SF-101-PM T4.71/6.71

25

Route Concept

The 2002 Caltrans Transportation Corridor Concept Report for Highway 101 Peninsula calls for a 6-lane conventional highway for U.S. 101 on Van Ness Avenue. This project is broadly consistent with this; however, two lanes would be converted to dedicated transit use.

5B. Planned/Programmed Improvements

A Capital Preventative Maintenance Project (CAPM) Project Scope Summary Report on Van Ness Avenue from Mission Street to Lombard Street was approved in June 2013, with funds programmed in the 2014 SHOPP under PPNo. 0832J, and made available in FY 2016/2017.

Related Projects

In addition to the projects integrated in the No-Build Alternative, several significant projects are planned within or near the Van Ness corridor that could overlap with the Van Ness Avenue BRT construction schedule. Table 5-1 identifies the other planned projects that could be implemented during the same timeframe but independent of the proposed BRT project. A discussion of these other planned projects is included in Section 2.6 of the environmental document, broken down by local transportation projects, regional transportation projects, local public works projects, and local planning and development projects.

Table 5-1: Related and Planned Projects Project/ Activity

Construction Start/End Dates Project Description

Doyle Drive Replacement 2010/2013

The Doyle Drive approach to the Golden Gate Bridge will be replaced with a new approach that provides widened traffic lanes, shoulders and median. Additional project aspects include seismic and soil stability upgrades, and improved landscaping.

Transbay Transit Center 2008/2017

Modernization of the existing Transbay Terminal in downtown San Francisco will include a new terminal that will accommodate the extension of Caltrain service as well as the California High speed Rail Project.

California Pacific Medical Center (CPMC)

2011/2016

The California Pacific Medical Center Cathedral Hill Campus would expand its campus to include the entire block bounded by Van Ness Avenue, Geary, Franklin and Post Streets. The expanded campus includes a new medical center and medical offices of over 1.5 million gross sq feet. A pedestrian tunnel crossing Van Ness Avenue just north of Geary Street is proposed under this project.

Central Subway 2010/2019

This third phase of the Third Street Light Rail Project from Fourth and King to Jackson and Stockton Streets is an underground subway project with multiple stations and tunnel openings.

Geary Boulevard BRT 2014/2019

The Geary Boulevard BRT project involves the construction of a BRT system on Geary Boulevard between Van Ness and 33rd Avenues.

04-SF-101-PM T4.71/6.71

26

Hayes Two way Street

Conversion 2011/ 2015

Conversion of Hayes Street from Gough Street to Polk Street from a one-way to a two-way street. Phase 1 from Gough Street to Van Ness Avenue completed in 2011.

SFgo and Signal Replacement

Program

Ongoing in coordination with

Van Ness BRT

Replace traffic signal infrastructure to provide fiber optic interconnect communication on Franklin and Gough streets.

Road Repaving and Street Safety

Bond Projects Ongoing

A $248 million Road Repaving and Street Safety Bond Program to improve city infrastructure, including repaving streets, pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements, traffic flow improvements, and ADA upgrades. Near-term plans include repaving Gough, Franklin, and Polk streets, along with installation of pedestrian enhancements.

SFpark 2010/2012 Pilot test project involving installation of parking meters and sensors to utilize real-time parking data to implement demand-responsive pricing.

Polk Street Bicycle Lane

Extension 2011/2013 Addition of northbound bicycle lane on Polk Street between

Market and McAllister Streets.

1860 Van Ness Avenue Complete /Sold

Development of a 35-unit mixed residential/commercial unit is proposed at the northeast corner of Van Ness Avenue and Washington Street. Completed and sold in 2012.

1800 Van Ness Avenue 2011/2014

Development of a 94-unit mixed-use building with 5,000 SF of retail on the northeast corner of Van Ness Avenue and Clay Street.

Mission Family Housing 2012

Residential development of approximately 90 units as part of the Mission family Housing Project at 1040 Mission Street. Completed in 2012.

Veteran’s Commons

To be completed in 2014

Redevelopment of community use into 76 studio apartments for veterans at the corner of Otis Street and Duboce Avenue.

Eddy and Taylor Family

Apartments 2011/ Unknown

Residential development of approximately 130 units as part of the Eddy and Taylor Family Apartments Project at 168-186 Eddy and Taylor Streets.

Better Market Street 2016 Streetscape improvement project on Market Street.

Environmental review is planned for completion in 2016.

100 Van Ness 2012/Unknown

100 Van Ness is an existing 29 story office building that is currently 96% vacant. The proposal is to change the use from office to multi-family residential, renovate the interior of the building to create 399 multi-family residential units with ground floor retail, 118 parking spaces, and a 12,000 square foot rooftop resident’s playground above.

1285 Sutter Street 2012/2013

Located at the corner of Van Ness and Sutter Streets in San Francisco, this project is a 13-story apartment building with 10,000 square feet of retail space on the ground floor. The concrete-frame development includes 107 apartment units for rent, as well as two levels of underground parking.

1401 Market Street 2011/Unknown Construction of new mixed-use building containing

approximately 719 dwelling units and up to 719 parking spaces. Southwest

Corner of Market Street and Van Ness Avenue

2011/Unknown

Mixed Use Development - Residential over podium garage, approx. 182 units of apartments, 126 spaces maximum parking garage, leasing fitness and 3,900 sq. ft. corner retail space (at Octavia & Laguna Streets)

04-SF-101-PM T4.71/6.71

27

6. ALTERNATIVES

6A. Viable Alternatives Based on the outcome of the Van Ness Avenue BRT screening process, four alternatives were defined in the Alternatives Screening Report prepared by the Authority in March 2008, including one no-build alternative and three build alternatives. These alternatives have been refined in response to changes in funding and programming since the 2008 Screening Report, and are presented in detail in the following sections.

The No-Build Alternative and three build alternatives and a design option for center-lane Alternatives 3 and 4 were analyzed in the Draft EIS/EIR, which was circulated for public review and comment from November 4 through December 23, 2011. The No-Build Alternative provided a basis of comparison but did not meet the established purposes and needs of the project and was therefore rejected. The three build alternatives considered consisted of one side-lane option (Alternative 2) and two center-lane options (Alternatives 3 and 4), as well as a reduced left-turn variant (Design Option B). Based on technical analyses presented in the Draft EIS/EIR, as well as agency, stakeholder group - including the project Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) - and public input received during circulation of the Draft EIS/EIR and the resulting risk analyses performed by a steering committee of SFCTA and SFMTA staff, the SFMTA and SFCTA jointly recommended, and subsequently selected, the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) as a center-lane BRT with right-side boarding/single median and limited left turns for inclusion in the Final EIS/EIR.

The LPA represents an optimized, refined center-running alternative that would retain the high-performance features of Build Alternatives 3 and 4 (e.g., maximum transit priority, fewest conflicts) while avoiding the need to acquire left-right door vehicles or remove the entire existing median. Because the limited left-turn variant (Design Option B) was shown in the Draft EIS/EIR to provide the greatest travel time benefits for transit, would reduce the weaving associated with the transitions, and aid with the flow of north-south traffic on Van Ness Avenue, the LPA incorporates Design Option B, eliminating all left turns from Van Ness Avenue between Mission and Lombard streets, with the exception of the southbound (SB) (two-lane) left turn at Broadway.

The LPA also involves some modifications to station locations versus those shown for the build alternatives in the Draft EIS/EIR. Specifically, the stations are now on the near side of intersections to allow for trucks turning onto Van Ness Avenue. Since the NB Market Street station would be less than one block from the Mission Street station, the NB Mission Street station would be removed under the LPA. Lastly, a NB station at the Vallejo Street location is under consideration as a design variant under the LPA, called the Vallejo Northbound Station Variant. Incorporation of this NB station at the Vallejo Street/Van Ness Avenue intersection will be decided at the time of project approval. The station locations represented in the LPA respond to comments on the Draft EIS/EIR and public outreach regarding LPA selection, and efforts to further optimize transit operations.

The LPA would require substantially more modification of the existing median landscaping than Build Alternative 4 (but less than Build Alternative 3), including removal of more existing trees and landscaping at station platform locations and transition blocks leading to and from station locations. Existing trees would be retained where feasible, and new trees would be planted in the median and along the sidewalk at former bus stop locations.

04-SF-101-PM T4.71/6.71

28

The LPA recommendation was considered and approved by the SFMTA Board on May 15 and was unanimously adopted for inclusion in the Final EIS/EIR by the Authority Plans and Programs Committee on June 19 and the Authority Board on June 26. The LPA includes features of Build Alternatives 3 and 4, as described in greater detail in the following sections. The other Build Alternatives were rejected for the various reasons stated in Section 5B, Rejected Alternatives of this PSR-PR.

Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) The proposed project will reconfigure the existing roadway cross section to provide dedicated bus lanes and transit platforms, while upgrading pedestrian safety, traffic control systems, and urban design features.

Under the LPA, BRT vehicles would run in dedicated center lanes alongside a single median for most of the corridor; however, at station locations, BRT vehicles would transition to the center of the roadway, allowing right-side loading at station platforms. Detailed plan drawings of the LPA are provided in Attachment B.

In addition to the features of the Build Alternative described below, the LPA would include a number of transportation system and infrastructure improvements that are planned to occur within the near-term horizon year of 2015, regardless of implementation of the proposed BRT build alternative. The following transportation system and infrastructure improvements were included in the No-Build Alternative, and would be implemented concurrent with the project:

Pavement Rehabilitation. Caltrans prepared a draft Capital Preventative Maintenance Project (CAPM) Scope Summary Report in 2013 to preserve and extend the life of the existing pavement and improve ride quality on Van Ness Avenue between Mission Street and Lombard Street (Segment 1), and on Lombard Street/Richardson Avenue from Van Ness Avenue to Lyon Street (Segment 2). The project was programmed in the 2014 SHOPP cycle to be funded in FY 2016/2017.

OCS and Support Pole/Streetlight Replacement. SFMTA, together with the San Francisco Department of Public Works (SFDPW) and the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC), plans to replace the existing overhead wire contact system and supporting poles /streetlights along Van Ness Avenue from Market Street to North Point Avenue, to address the failing structural condition of the system. Improvements would include removal and replacement of existing poles and light fixtures. Poles would be replaced in approximately the same locations on the sidewalk, within approximately three to five feet from existing poles. These poles would also provide street and sidewalk lighting. New lighting would be energy efficient, require low maintenance, and meet current lighting requirements for safety. A new duct bank would be constructed within the sidewalk area to support the streetlights and traffic signal interconnect conduits.

Traffic Signal Infrastructure for Real Time Traffic Management. The SFgo and Signal Replacement Program led by SFMTA is a package of technology-based transportation management system tools with the following objectives: - Advance the City’s Transit First policy; - Replace 50-year old traffic signal and communications infrastructure;

04-SF-101-PM T4.71/6.71

29

- Provide transit priority and emergency vehicle preemption; - Disseminate real-time traveler and parking information; - Manage special events; - Enhance operations & maintenance. The SFgo and Signal Replacement Program is comprised of many projects that would be implemented throughout the City, including the Van Ness Avenue corridor. Some elements of the program are expected to be implemented on Van Ness Avenue by 2015 regardless of a BRT project, and were part of the No-Build Alternative. Other elements of the program intended for Van Ness Avenue would be implemented as part of the proposed LPA, and are presented under Proposed Engineering Features, below. The following signal infrastructure elements of the SFgo and Signal Replacement Program are planned for implementation in the Van Ness corridor by 2015, and were included in the No-Build Alternative:

- Traffic Signal Replacement. Existing traffic signal heads and poles would be upgraded to mast arm poles (arched to hang over traffic lanes), and new signal heads would be installed at all intersections along Van Ness Avenue.

- Pedestrian Countdown Signals. As part of the SFgo and Signal Replacement Program, pedestrian countdown signals would be installed on all crosswalk legs at all signalized intersections along Van Ness Avenue. Pedestrian countdown signals are traffic signals located at crosswalks that, in addition to displaying the standard symbols for walk/don’t walk, also provide a flashing numerical countdown that indicates how much time is remaining before cross traffic is given a green light. Countdown signals increase pedestrian safety by giving clear and accurate information about crossing time so that pedestrians can complete their crossing before cross traffic receives the right of way.

- Accessible Pedestrian Signals (APS). APS would be installed at some additional signalized intersections in the project corridor as part of the SFgo and Signal Replacement Program. APS provides audible crossing indications for visually impaired pedestrians. Currently APS is installed on Van Ness Avenue at the intersections of Market, McAlister, Hayes, Grove and Fell Streets.

- Curb Ramp Upgrades. The SFgo and Signal Replacement Program would install curb ramps that meet current City standards and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements at all intersections along Van Ness Avenue within the project limits, to provide access by people in wheelchairs as well as providing easier travel for those with strollers, carts, and the like.

High-quality Bus Vehicles with Low Floor Boarding. SFMTA is gradually converting its fleet to low-floor buses which would provide more-level boarding, resulting in easier and quicker boarding and alighting. Low-floor buses would not require passengers to climb steps to board or exit buses, helping to shorten dwell times, especially the time required for passengers in wheelchairs to board and alight, and thereby improving service reliability over existing conditions. The

04-SF-101-PM T4.71/6.71

30

replacement fleet in the Van Ness Avenue corridor is anticipated to be an even split of 60-foot articulated electric trolley coaches and diesel hybrid coaches, and would be phased into operation by year 2015.

On Bus Proof of Payment/All-door Boarding. In 2012 the SFMTA implemented all-door boarding, allowing passengers with proof of payment such as a Clipper Card, to board through any door and swipe their fare cards on receptors on the bus. Under the LPA, SFMTA would have the BRT platforms function as proof-of-payment areas at selected stations, and passengers would swipe their fare cards on receptors before the buses arrive, further helping to reduce dwell time.

Real-Time Arrival Information. SFMTA is installing real-time bus arrival information displays (NextMuni) at major bus stops with shelters along Van Ness Avenue.

Proposed Engineering Features The LPA proposes BRT operating along a dedicated transit lane, or transitway, for the 2.0 mile project corridor. Under the LPA, two mixed flow traffic lanes (one southbound and one northbound) would be removed to accommodate the creation of two dedicated transit lanes (one southbound and one northbound). Mixed flow traffic lanes would be reduced from three to two lanes in each direction to accommodate the BRT transitway. The project would be constructed entirely within the existing street right-of-way: no property acquisition would be required, and sidewalk widths would not be reduced. Curbside parking would generally be maintained although some loss of street parking would occur at specific locations throughout the project corridor.

Under the LPA, the existing Muni bus stops along Van Ness Avenue would be removed and replaced with BRT stations. Under this consolidation, five bus stops would be removed in the southbound direction and seven in the northbound direction, in order to reduce dwell time delays and improve service reliability over existing conditions. If the Vallejo Northbound Station Variant is selected, six stops would be removed in the NB direction.

Existing left-turn pockets for mixed flow traffic would be eliminated in both directions, except for the northbound left turn at Lombard and the southbound left turn at Broadway.

Specific features are described as follows:

Dedicated Bus Lanes (Transitway). BRT buses would operate in an exclusive, dedicated bus lane on the street surface that is typically 11.5 ft wide. The BRT transitway would accommodate both SFMTA and Golden Gate Transit vehicles which currently operate along the corridor, and would be available for use by emergency response vehicles. The bus lane would be distinguished from mixed flow traffic lanes by colored pavement or other special markings. Other physical means of separation from the mixed flow traffic lanes may also be utilized in some locations, to be determined in final project design.

High-quality Stations. The BRT stations proposed under the LPA would include a platform, canopy, landscaped planter, and station amenities. The station platform would be 10-12 inches above the street grade. Stations would be approximately 150 ft in length, with a platform length of 130 ft in order to accommodate two 60 ft articulated BRT vehicles. The platform provides the area for passenger waiting, boarding, and station amenities. The station platform

04-SF-101-PM T4.71/6.71

31

would be 9 ft in width, accommodating single direction travel. Stations amenities would include ticket vending machines (TVMs) at selected locations, seating, lighting, a canopy and wind screens, garbage receptacles, and wayfinding information (maps/signage). Stations would be designed to comply with ADA requirements. The stations would feature active data display and audio capability to indicate bus arrival time as required by ADA. Protective railings would be incorporated as appropriate for safety requirements, and to discourage jaywalking.

Pavement Rehabilitation and Resurfacing. Under the LPA, Van Ness Avenue would undergo curb-to-curb rehabilitation and resurfacing. This work would be planned in coordination with the Caltrans SHOPP plans for pavement rehabilitation as described above for the No-Build Alternative.

Platform Proof of Payment/All-door Boarding. As described for the No-Build alternative, the LPA would operate with all-door boarding BRT service, allowing passengers with proof of payment, such as a Clipper Card, to board through any door. In the LPA, SFMTA will have the BRT platforms function as proof-of-payment areas, and passengers would swipe their fare cards on receptors before the buses arrive, further helping to reduce dwell time.

NextMuni Real Time Passenger Information. As described for the No-Build Alternative, the BRT stations under the LPA would be equipped with NextMuni, providing real-time bus arrival information displays.

Transportation System Management (TSM) Capabilities. In conjunction with the traffic management systems to be implemented under the SFgo and Signal Replacement Program described above, the proposed BRT service would utilize advanced traffic and TSM technologies, including:

- Traffic signal infrastructure for real time traffic management. Traffic signal poles would be upgraded to mast armed poles. Signal controllers and interconnects would be replaced with modern controllers and a new fiber optic signal interconnect communications network that would allow for real time traffic management. Variable real-time message signs and traffic cameras would also be installed to manage traffic conditions and special events. The interconnects and controllers allow for active monitoring and adjusting of traffic signal timings.

- Global Positioning System (GPS)-based Transit Signal Priority (TSP). Under the proposed LPA, TSP hardware would be installed on the traffic signal masts. TPS provides advance and extended green light time for buses approaching signals, to reduce bus delay caused by red lights. Buses would be granted a green light to travel through the intersection and then subsequently stop at a station, benefiting transit travel time and reliability.

- Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL). AVL would be utilized under the LPA to manage transit route operations in real time.

Median Upgrades / Nose Cones for Pedestrian Safety. Median refuges would be modified and widened where feasible to reduce the distance pedestrians must cross during one light cycle, improving pedestrian safety at those locations. Nose cones (thumbnail islands) would be installed where feasible to provide a protective buffer between pedestrians and automobile traffic. Under the LPA, all

04-SF-101-PM T4.71/6.71

32

medians on Van Ness Avenue would be at least 6 feet wide, and nose cones would be installed for all east-west crossings of Van Ness Avenue. All upgrades to intersections would comply with ADA standards.

Curb Ramp Upgrades. Curb ramps would be installed at all intersections along Van Ness Avenue. Curb ramps would meet current City standards and ADA requirements to provide access by people in wheelchairs, as well as provide easier travel for those with rolling devices such as strollers and carts.

Landscaping. Medians would be landscaped to promote a unified, visual concept for the Van Ness Corridor. BRT stations would include landscaped planters, and landscaping would be incorporated as feasible to provide a buffer between bus patrons and adjacent auto and pedestrian traffic. In addition, the discontinuation of existing Muni bus stops and removal of bus shelters as proposed under the LPA would open up additional sidewalk space at these locations. This would enhance the pedestrian environment at these locations and offer opportunities for tree planting, landscaping or streetscape features. Under the LPA, the project proposes to implement an approximate 2-foot-wide buffer in the form of planters in between existing sidewalk trees on the block between O’Farrell and Geary streets on the east side of the street, as well as the two blocks between Broadway and Green Street on both sides of the street due to the lack of parking or shoulder area on those blocks. The planters would provide a buffer for pedestrians from moving traffic.

Curb Bulbs. Curb bulbs are proposed at most signalized intersections to improve pedestrian safety by improving visibility between motorists and pedestrians, shortening the crossing distance across Van Ness Avenue, and reducing the speed of right-turning traffic.

Pedestrian Countdown Signals. Pedestrian countdown signals would be installed on all crosswalk legs at all signalized intersections in the project corridor.

Accessible Pedestrian Signals. APS would be installed at all signalized intersections in the project corridor.

OCS support pole/streetlight replacement. The OCS overhead wire and support pole system would be replaced and upgraded, along with the associated street lighting.

Muni Power and Traffic Signal Duct Bank Installation. A new Muni power and traffic signal duct bank is proposed to be constructed within the sidewalk area. This is needed to support the projected increased power demand to the Muni OCS and to support new traffic signal interconnect conduits.

The typical cross section on Van Ness Avenue will comprise an 8-ft shoulder used for parking, 11-ft outside and 10.5- to 11-ft inside mixed flow lanes, 11.5 to 12-ft center dedicated BRT lane, and a 9 to 11-ft landscaped median. At station locations, the BRT lanes will transition to the center of the roadway and be separated by a 1-ft buffer, with a 9-ft wide platform between the BRT lane and mixed-flow lane. A concrete barrier with railing will separate the platform area from the adjacent mixed flow lane. Typical section and plans of the LPA are included as Attachment B.

04-SF-101-PM T4.71/6.71

33

Nonstandard Mandatory and Advisory Design Features A number of exceptions from mandatory and advisory design standards are required under the LPA. Typically, the nonstandard features are existing features that will be perpetuated under the proposed project, and which are consistent with design features already common in the corridor. The nonstandard conditions are a function of San Francisco’s hilly terrain and the competing cross-sectional needs of multiple transportation modes and uses within the limited right of way on Van Ness Avenue. The design exceptions are not necessarily related to BRT, but would apply to any type of improvement within the Caltrans right of way.

Exceptions to Mandatory Design Standards Nonstandard mandatory design features include vertical stopping sight distance, maximum grade, traveled way width, shoulder width, left turn channelization width, corner sight distance, longitudinal tree setback on median, and tree setback from median curb. The Fact Sheet for Exceptions to Mandatory Design Standards was approved on April 24, 2013.

Stopping Sight Distance: Nonstandard vertical stopping sight distance occurs at sag and crest curves throughout the project, primarily at cross street intersections. Stopping sight distances vary upwards from 69 ft. Standard stopping sight distance is 200 ft for the design speed of 30 mph.

Standards for Maximum Grade: Maximum grade is exceeded at two locations: between Turk and Eddy Streets (9.2%), and between Pacific Avenue and Broadway (10%). The maximum grade for an urban highway in mountainous terrain is 9 percent.

Standards for Traveled Way Width: The existing cross section of Van Ness Avenue consists of two 10-foot through lanes and one 11.5-foot outer lane in each direction. The proposed cross section under the LPA consists of an inner BRT lane that varies from 11.5 to 12 ft, a center through lane that varies from 10.5 to 11 ft, and an outer through lane of 11-ft. The standard lane width is 11 ft. Center 10.5-foot lanes would occur on 13 of the 29 blocks between Mission and Lombard Streets, with the majority (10) occurring on the 11 blocks between Mission and O’Farrell Streets.

Standards for Shoulder Width: Nonstandard outer shoulder width is proposed at all locations where the lane transitions to the curb to accommodate station platforms or turn lanes. The minimum outer shoulder width for a 6 or more lane conventional highway is 8 ft. At locations where there is zero shoulder width, a 2-ft-wide sidewalk planter would provide a buffer for pedestrians from moving traffic.

Standards for Left Turn Channelization: Existing and proposed left-turn lane widths at Lombard Street and Broadway are 10 ft. The standard left-turn lane width is 11 ft.

Standards for Corner Sight Distance: Existing and proposed corner sight distance is less than standard at a number of signalized and unsignalized intersections. Corner stopping sight distance at these locations varies from 30 ft. Standard stopping sight distance is 200 ft for the design speed of 30 mph.

Longitudinal Tree Setback on Median: At eight locations, the distance between an existing tree and the longitudinal end of the median is less than the minimum required distance of 100 ft. In addition, where replacement trees are to be planted under the project, a longitudinal set back distance of 35 ft from the end of the median is proposed.

04-SF-101-PM T4.71/6.71

34

Tree Setback from Median Curb: At a number of locations, the tree setback from the face of median curb is less than the minimum required distance of 5 ft. Replacement trees proposed under the project would be planted in accordance with setback requirements. A minimum offset of 2 ft was approved for existing median trees separated from mixed-flow lanes by a dedicated transit lane.

Exceptions to Advisory Design Standards Nonstandard advisory design features include minimum grade, vertical curve length, median width, angle of intersection, design vehicles (truck turning), and corner sight distance. The Fact Sheet for Exceptions to Advisory Design Standards was approved on July 15, 2013.

Standards for Minimum Grade: Existing grades are less than the standard 0.3 percent at six locations within the project: Hayes Street, McAllister Avenue, Bush Street, Sacramento Street, between Clay and Washington Streets, and at Jackson Street.

Vertical Curves – Length: Existing vertical curves are less than the minimum standard at the majority of intersections and several mid-block locations throughout the project corridor. The minimum curve length is 200 feet for design speeds less than 40 mph.

Median Width: The existing and proposed median width is less than the minimum standard of 18 ft, for the limits of the project. The proposed median will be reduced from 14 ft to provide for wider travel lanes, and will typically vary from 9-11 ft in width.

Standards for Angle of Intersection: Inside angle of intersection is less than standard at Mission, Otis and Market Streets, where the angle varies between 44 and 59 degrees. The minimum angle of intersection is 75 degrees.

Design Vehicles and Related Definitions: Turning movements of the California Design Vehicle cannot be fully accommodated at 19 intersection locations on Van Ness Avenue under the LPA. Five locations are at arterial cross streets. Six locations currently have an advisory sign restricting truck turns. Geometry will be refined during final design to facilitate truck turns, but no additional restrictions are proposed, unless problems become apparent following construction.

Standards for Corner Sight Distance: The proposed corner sight distance at the 12th Street unsignalized intersection is 200 ft. Standard stopping sight distance is 330 ft for the design speed of 30 mph.

Interim Features Interim features are not proposed with this BRT project.

ITS (Intelligent Transportation Systems) The Van Ness Avenue BRT Project would include technologically advanced passenger information and traffic control features, referred to as intelligent transportation systems (ITS). There are two primary elements of ITS:

- Real-time bus arrival information, which is displayed (and announced) at stations as well as available on the internet, and

- Transit signal priority for buses at traffic signals along the avenue with real-time adjustments to maintain even spacing between buses.

04-SF-101-PM T4.71/6.71

35

Real-time bus arrival information is based on the current progress of the bus along the route rather than scheduled arrival time. Under the LPA, with BRT buses operating in dedicated lanes, the reliability of service—and predictability of bus arrival times—would be enhanced. Compared to the No-Build Alternative, passenger information would become more accurate and, as appropriate, more detailed, and would possibly include transfer options, advisories, and other information.

Traffic signal priority means that the traffic signals are (1) timed to the average speed of the bus; this serves to lessen the number of traffic signal stops a bus makes on its route; and (2) where traffic signal conflicts exist, the bus transmits a signal to the traffic light controller that modifies, when feasible given certain traffic signal operational parameters, the signal aspect to provide green time for the bus to proceed without substantial delay. This is done by extending the “green phase” available for an approaching bus, beginning the green phase earlier for an approaching bus, or inserting into the signal cycle a special phase that facilitates bus movement through an intersection. Improved priority through traffic signals can be offered without degrading conditions for other vehicles.

Traffic Operation System (TOS) Elements A number of TOS elements currently exist in the southbound direction of Highway 101 within the project limits:

Changeable Message Sign (CMS) at the SB Van Ness Loop on-ramp to SB 101

Closed-Circuit Television (CCTV) at the SB Van Ness Loop on-ramp to SB 101

Extinguishable Message Sign (EMS) South of Bush Street

All TOS elements will be kept operational through the construction phase and maintained under the project. Any TOS elements that may be affected by the project would be relocated, modified, or fully replaced, as necessary.

Highway Planting Under the LPA, the existing median would be reduced in width to provide for wider travel lanes, and reconfigured at station locations and approaches. Replacement landscaping would be provided on median islands that are four feet or greater in width. Existing median trees would be removed where necessary, or trimmed to provide adequate clearance to the OCS wires that would run above the inside bus lane. Additional median landscaping would be provided in the vicinity of stations. In addition, sidewalk trees would be planted as infill where sidewalk bus stops are no longer needed. Landscape design guidelines have been prepared to define the locations and planting types that would occur, with the goal of providing a unified approach to the Van Ness corridor. Design exceptions have been approved allowing for less than standard setbacks for existing and proposed tree plantings.

Maintenance of landscape areas will continue to be provided the City of San Francisco in accordance with the current maintenance agreement with the State. Traffic management during maintenance operations will be dependent on the alternative selected, but will likely follow current practices.

04-SF-101-PM T4.71/6.71

36

Water Pollution Control To comply with the conditions of Caltrans National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, all graded and disturbed soil areas and staged construction areas, would be provided with permanent and temporary erosion control; and water pollution control plans, specifications, and estimates would be prepared in accordance with design and construction best management practices (BMPs), as referenced in the Caltrans Storm Water Quality Handbooks—Project Planning and Design Guide. Erosion control and water pollution control items would be specified for all disturbed soil areas and applicable drainage facilities, as required to meet water quality discharge requirements under the project Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). A Storm Water Data Report was prepared for the project and is incorporated by reference (see Attachment F). The SWDR determined that the project will result in a net decrease in impervious area, and BMPs for treatment of runoff from the new and reconstructed impervious areas will not be required. The SWDR estimated the cost of implementing water pollution control, and this is reflected in the Preliminary Cost Estimates included as Attachment C.

Non-Motorized and Pedestrian Features The LPA incorporates design features intended to improve pedestrian conditions, including: pedestrian countdown signals, accessible pedestrian signals (APS), and ADA-compliant curb ramps provided at all signalized intersections in the project corridor; curb extensions (corner bulbs) to reduce crossing distances and improve pedestrian visibility; median refuges that meet City standards for refuges; and visible crosswalks. These features would improve the safety and comfort of pedestrian crossing conditions, which currently perform below City standards and/or guidelines in all of these areas.

Improvements to pedestrian and station facilities proposed under the LPA will comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, as amended. Such improvements will include replacement or upgrading of all nonstandard pedestrian curb ramps within the project limits; establishment of accessible routes to the station platforms; installation of accessible pedestrian signals with countdown signals at all intersections; and active data display and audio capability to indicate bus arrival time at stations.

As a result, the LPA will improve pedestrian conditions over the existing condition. Under the LPA, crosswalks would be restriped to meet City standards for crosswalk widths and reduce pedestrian crowding. Crossing distances would decrease somewhat on average due to installation of corner bulbs where possible. Median refuges with nose cones will be provided at all signalized intersections, which would substantially improve pedestrian crossing conditions; and pedestrian crossing times will be brought into consistency with City and FHWA targets.

The LPA would not increase pedestrian delay at any intersection to LOS E or F and would not increase pedestrian delay at Mission Street (the crossing with the greatest delays in the existing condition) by more than 5 percent. The project would eliminate left-turn movements, except at Broadway and Lombard Streets, which would allow left-turn movements only during a dedicated left-turn signal phase. This would reduce conflicts between pedestrians and turning vehicles.

The designated bicycle route in the corridor is a Class II/III dedicated facility on Polk Street, which runs parallel to Van Ness Avenue one block east. Nevertheless, bicycle

04-SF-101-PM T4.71/6.71

37

conditions on Van Ness Avenue would improve under the LPA due to elimination of bus weaving in and out of traffic lanes, decreased bicycle signal delay resulting from TSP.

Refer to Section 3.4 of the environmental document for a detailed discussion of nonmotorized conditions.

Pavement As-built drawings and materials records received from Caltrans indicate the existing pavement is typically 4 to 10 inches of Asphalt Concrete over 8 inches of Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) base over variable subbase.

Since the proposed project will significantly increase the loading on the designated BRT lanes, structural and functional evaluations of the existing pavement were conducted to ensure the existing pavement will withstand the proposed loading caused by the BRT buses for the next 20 years with minimum future traffic interruptions. A visual inspection was conducted to assess pavement condition and ride quality.

Preliminary pavement structural section recommendations have been developed for this PA/ED phase and summarized in a Pavement Design and Rehabilitation Strategy Technical Memorandum. It is highly recommended that falling weight deflectometer (FWD) and mechanistic pavement design be used for the final design and that the assumptions and preliminary recommendations be validated. Determination of the final pavement type and structural section will be made during the design phase on the basis of geotechnical investigations and recommendations from the Materials Branch, and will consider factors such as construction and life-cycle costs, existing pavement type, staged construction needs, and policy supporting use of Rubberized Hot Mix Asphalt. The preliminary structural section for estimating purposes assumed new pavement for the BRT transitway would consist of 0.2’ RHMA-G with 0.8’ JPCP, 0.4’ HMA-A and 0.6’ AS, based on a 20-year design with a Traffic Index (TI) of 11.0. PCC Bus pads would be constructed adjacent to platforms. At the approach to the bus stations, a high stability mix (HMA Type HS.) is recommended to resist the rutting associated with bus deceleration.

A Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) was not performed on this project since the majority of the recommended rehabilitations are simple functional or minor structural overlay. The only applications for LCCA are whether to use RHMA-G or conventional HMA and conventional concrete vs. thin whitetopping for the bus pads at stations. RHMA-G was selected for the final top 0.2’ lift due to longer performance. LCCA will be performed during final design for the selection of type of concrete overlays for bus stations and bus pads.

A Pavement Strategy Checklist has been completed and is included as Attachment G.

Needed Roadway Rehabilitation and Upgrading Based on a visual inspection conducted in March 2009, a draft Capital Preventative Maintenance Project (CAPM) Report prepared by Caltrans in August 2008, and a subsequent CAPM Project Scope Summary Report prepared in June 2013, the following conclusions can be drawn for the existing pavement:

a) The majority of existing pavement consists of 0.35’ to 0.80’ of asphalt pavement over 0.67’ of concrete pavement.

04-SF-101-PM T4.71/6.71

38

b) Pavement is structurally sound based on average (80th percentile) deflection levels of 0.007 inches and a 10-year Traffic Index of 9-10.

c) Van Ness Avenue was last resurfaced in 1976.

d) The ride quality and condition of the asphalt pavement is poor, with surface raveling and oxidation of the asphalt concrete, shoving and rutting at the intersections, numerous utility trench excavations and longitudinal and transverse reflective cracking from the underlying base.

e) The average ride quality expressed as International Roughness Index (IRI) varies from 277-385 for the outside lanes. An IRI number of 200 or more is considered unacceptable ride quality.

f) The outer lanes (lanes 2 and 3) are experiencing a significant amount of distress that has impacted the ride quality of the pavement. The combination of reflective cracking from the underlying concrete pavement and pavement settlement at utility manholes located in the wheel path has caused extensive breaking up of the asphalt pavement.

g) The concrete parking lane requires minor rehabilitations such as saw and sealing of joints, spall repairs, and profile grinding. Otherwise, the concrete appears structurally sound.

h) The inside lanes (lane 1) are in relatively good condition and only experiencing low severity intermediate cracking. The ride quality is not available for this lane but based on a visual inspection and lack of any significant distress, it appears to be acceptable.

The need for rehabilitation of the pavement on Van Ness Avenue has been recognized since 2001. Caltrans has performed a number of pavement evaluation studies, culminating in approval of the CAPM Project Scope Summary Report in 2013. This report recommended a pavement rehabilitation strategy of reflective crack retardation, and proposed cold planning the existing asphalt concrete pavement to a depth of 0.25’ and to replace this with 0.25’ of HMA (Type A), together with cleaning and sealing of cracks and joints in the concrete base, and replacement of failed and damaged areas.

The report requests programming in the 2014 SHOPP cycle to be funded in FY 2016/2017. Segment 1, from Mission Street to Lombard Street, is proposed to be combined with the BRT project. Preliminary pavement rehabilitation recommendations for the LPA are shown in Table 6-2.

Cost Estimates Construction costs have been estimated for the project and are summarized in Section 11A. The Preliminary Project Cost Estimate for the LPA is included as Attachment C. Costs are not included for a number of construction activities that will be incorporated into the construction contract, but are funded from sources outside of the BRT project. These include replacement of the OCS poles and wires, signal modifications that are to be funded under the SFGo and Signal Replacement Program, and certain costs for vehicles.

04-SF-101-PM T4.71/6.71

39

Table 6-2: Preliminary Pavement Rehabilitation Recommendations PAVEMENT REHABILITATION

COLD PLANE AC PAVEMENT Var 0.1’-0.40’ SAMI-F (WHERE REQUIRED) NEW BRT

PAVEMENT LANE 1 (BRT LANE) LANE 2 LANE 3

0.2’- RHMA-G 0.2’-HMA-A (5% Total length of

the project )

0.2’- RHMA-G 0.1’-HMA-A (10% Total length of

the project) Repair concrete base in

isolated areas (5% Total length of

project)

0.2’- RHMA-G 0.2’-HMA-A (20 % Total length of the project)

Repair concrete base in isolated areas

(10% Total length of project)

0.2’ RHMA-G 0.8’ JPCP 0.4’ HMA-A 0.6’ AS

Allowances have been included in the Preliminary Cost Estimate for those risks that have been quantified to date, including the need for utility relocations resulting from unforeseen utility conflicts or pavement rehabilitation.

The estimate currently uses 27 percent contingencies for roadway and systems items. This is factored in to Sections 7, 8 and 9 of the Preliminary Cost Estimate Summaries to match cost reporting to FTA. The estimate includes an allowance for hazardous waste mitigation work and an allowance for environmental mitigation associated with pedestrian and urban design improvements to adjacent and parallel streets related to traffic pattern changes ($1.0M) and a potential increases in landscaping costs due to tree preservation/relocation commitments ($0.4M). A two percent allowance for public art is included in the estimate.

The construction cost estimates were developed using Caltrans unit cost data, unit costs from similar projects, and recent bids within the region. Both unit prices and quantities have been rounded to reflect the level of accuracy of estimates at this stage of project development.

6C. Rejected Alternatives The following presents alternatives considered and withdrawn from further consideration, as either not meeting the project purpose and need, or not performing as well as the Preferred Alternative (LPA).

Alternative 1, The No-Build Alternative: The No-Build Alternative did not include a BRT service and instead assumed the existing roadway and transit services in the 2-mile Van Ness Avenue corridor would continue and be supplemented by funded improvement projects planned to occur within the near-term horizon year of 2015. These transportation system and infrastructure improvements were planned to occur regardless of implementation of any proposed BRT build alternative, and included pavement rehabilitation, OCS and Support Pole/Streetlight Replacement, Traffic Signal Infrastructure for Real Time Traffic Management under the SFgo and Signal Replacement Program High-quality Bus Vehicles with Low Floor Boarding, On Bus Proof of Payment/All-door Boarding, and Real-Time Arrival Information. These improvements would not result in changes to the basic sidewalk, intersection crossing, and median configurations. Therefore, Van Ness Avenue would maintain the existing physical configuration, and median widths,

04-SF-101-PM T4.71/6.71

40

sidewalk widths, crosswalk dimensions, crossing distances and provision would be the same as today. Muni 47 and 49 buses would continue to serve curbside stations; existing parallel parking and all existing traffic turning movements would be maintained.

Alternative 2: Side Lane BRT with Street Parking: Build Alternative 2 would provide a dedicated bus lane, or transitway, in the right most lane of Van Ness Avenue located adjacent to the existing curbside street parking area. The transitway would extend from Mission Street to Lombard Street in northbound and southbound directions. The transitway would be traversable for mixed flow traffic which would enter the transitway in order to complete a right turn, or to parallel park. Under Build Alternative 2, BRT stations would be located within the curbside parking area as curb extensions, eliminating the need for buses to exit the transitway to pick up passengers. Golden Gate Transit vehicles that currently operate on Van Ness Avenue would operate in the transitway and use BRT stations exclusively, thus eliminating the existing Golden Gate Transit Turk Street station. Build Alternative 2 would involve minimal modification to the existing median and thus existing trees and landscape plantings would not require removal. With the exception of conversion of the outer lane to dedicated transit use, the cross section would remain the same as existing with a 14-ft median, and two 10-ft mixed traffic lanes, an 11.5-ft BRT lane, and 8-ft parking lane in each direction.

Alternative 3: Center Lane BRT with Right-Side Boarding and Dual Medians: Build Alternative 3 would provide a transitway comprised of two side-by-side, dedicated bus lanes located in the center of the roadway (where the median currently exists) in between two medians. The transitway would be separated from mixed flow traffic by a 4 ft wide median and a 9 ft wide median. Golden Gate Transit vehicles that currently operate on Van Ness Avenue would operate in the transitway and use BRT stations exclusively, thus eliminating the existing Golden Gate Transit Turk Street station. BRT stations would be located on the 9 ft median, allowing right-side boarding. Build Alternative 3 would require removal of the existing medians, including existing trees and landscaping, to construct the dual median, center lane transitway; therefore, opportunities to preserve existing trees and landscape would be minimal; replacement trees and landscaping would be the most constrained among the Build Alternatives.

Alternative 4: Center Lane BRT with Left-Side Boarding and Single Median: Build Alternative 4 would provide a transitway in the center of the roadway comprised of a single, 14 ft median flanked by dedicated northbound and southbound dedicated bus lanes, where the left-most travel lane in each direction currently exists. Station platforms would be located on the single center median, requiring left-side passenger boarding and alighting, as well as left side doors on vehicles. All stations would be of this single median design, with the exception of BRT stations proposed at Geary/O’Farrell which would utilize a dual median configuration similar to that proposed under Alternative 3, in order to accommodate Golden Gate Transit vehicles that only have right-side doors. As with the other build alternatives, Golden Gate Transit would operate exclusively in the transitway. Outside of the Geary/O’Farrell station, all other Golden Gate Transit stops along the BRT corridor would be consolidated. Golden Gate Transit vehicles operating along the Van Ness BRT corridor would make an additional stop at the corner of Chestnut Street and Van Ness Avenue to provide access in the northern end of the corridor. This would require routing Golden Gate Transit buses along Chestnut Street instead of Lombard Street between Laguna Street and Van Ness Avenue.

04-SF-101-PM T4.71/6.71

41

Center Lane Alternative Design Option B: Both center running alternatives (Build Alternatives 3 and 4) contained a design option referred to as the Design Option B. This design option would eliminate all but one northbound left turn (at Lombard Street), and all but one southbound left turn (at Broadway) in the project corridor. Design Option B would reduce conflicts at intersections with turning vehicles, and increase the green light time available to BRT buses for through movement. The removal of left-turn pockets would allow for more street parking at certain locations, and avoid the possibility of turn queues blocking movements on the through-lanes.

The No-Build Alternative 1 and Build Alternatives 2-4 described above were withdrawn from further consideration during the process to select the LPA, wherein it was determined that the LPA best met the purpose and need of the project while also reducing project design risks (e.g., need to acquire left-right door vehicles, need to replace entire median, etc.) posed by alternatives 2-4. A full summary of the analysis is contained in Chapter 10 of the Final EIS/EIR.

Alternatives Rejected Prior to Detailed Study A number of alternatives were considered during project development and were analyzed in the Alternatives Screening Report (SFCTA, 2008). This section summarizes the alternatives that were not carried forward for further study.

Some alternatives failed to address one or more project screening criteria, or would worsen existing conditions. The inability to provide improvement with respect to one or more of the screening criteria was considered a fatal flaw. Any alternative which would fail to meet one or more of the screening criteria was dropped from further consideration. In other words, only alternatives which addressed all elements of the project purpose and need were carried forward along with no-build. The following two alternatives were dropped from further consideration due to a fatal flaw.

Curb Lane BRT, No Parallel Parking. A Curb Lane BRT with no parallel parking was not recommended for further analysis because although this alternative would provide transit benefits, it would worsen pedestrian safety conditions, and would eliminate 393 parking spaces which also provide drop-off and loading/unloading access to businesses and residences fronting on Van Ness Avenue.

This alternative would require the removal of existing pedestrian safety treatments, including curb bulbs and median refuges where left turns are provided, and would preclude installation of any new curb bulbs. Removal of the parking lane would result in no buffer between pedestrians on the sidewalk and moving traffic for the entire length of the corridor, which would substantially degrade the pedestrian environment. It would also increase the number of traffic lanes pedestrians would be exposed to when crossing Van Ness Avenue, requiring pedestrians to cross eight lanes of traffic without a median refuge where left turns are provided. Because the parking lanes themselves are not wide enough to serve as bus lanes and the width of the sidewalks is fixed, the center landscaped median would be reduced by 3’ along its entire length and eliminated altogether where left turn pockets are provided.

Surface Light Rail and Subway. Surface light rail and subway alternatives were not recommended for further analysis based on cost effectiveness analysis performed for

04-SF-101-PM T4.71/6.71

42

the Alternative Screening Report and BRT Feasibility Study. Rail technology would provide high levels of transit benefits, but with significantly more capital, operating, and construction costs.

Some alternatives had no fatal flaws, but would provide only slight or modest levels of improvement. Projects which did little to meet the screening criteria were eliminated from further consideration. In other words, only alternatives which would provide the greatest ability to meet all the aspects of project purpose and need were carried forward. The following alternatives are considered low performance, and thus were eliminated from further consideration.

Transit Preferential Street (TPS) Treatments without a Dedicated Bus Lane. These alternatives were not recommended for further evaluation because the magnitude of expected benefits is low. TPS treatments without provision of a dedicated bus lane are expected to provide up to a 17 percent reduction in travel times, in comparison to a 30 percent reduction in travel times provided by bus dedicated lanes. Additionally, without a physically separated bus lane, buses would continue to operate in mixed traffic and experience associated reliability impacts. Of all transit delays, mixed traffic delays have the greatest variability and thus result in the greatest unreliability in service; therefore TPS treatments without provision of a dedicated transit lane would provide minimal benefit and are not sufficient meet the project purpose and need.

Peak Period Dedicated Bus Lane. A peak period only dedicated bus lane would provide transit travel time and reliability benefits only during the peak period. Van Ness Avenue corridor transit experiences delays and reliability problems throughout the day. Additionally, transit ridership on the Van Ness Avenue corridor is strong throughout the day, not just during the peak periods. Thus a peak period dedicated bus lane would not meet the project purpose and need, and would provide low benefit overall.

7. CONSIDERATIONS REQUIRING DISCUSSION

7A. Hazardous Waste An Initial Environmental Site Assessment (ISA) was conducted for this project in 2009 by AGS, Inc. The study determined that distribution of environmental risk sites within the project corridor is reflective of the industrial and commercial development of the area, particularly the development of automotive businesses. The most prevalent environmental risks are associated with sites of existing or former automotive businesses, gasoline stations, and other sites which had, or still have, underground storage tanks.

The most likely source of significant contamination to impact the project limits would be from two environmental risk sites: former Mobil / BP Station #11184, 2559 Van Ness Avenue; and Chevron Station #90030, 1501 Van Ness Avenue. In each instance, a leaking underground storage tank was discovered, with resulting contamination of soil and/or groundwater; the case status for each is open and in review or assessment.

In addition, there are 36 potential environmental risk sites that have closed cases, but are still considered to pose a potential risk to the proposed project. Twenty-two of them are within the project limits and 14 are near the project limits (and less than 0.25 mile upgradient). These cases may have been closed without sampling and testing to determine the full extent of contamination, including underneath roadway and sidewalk areas.

04-SF-101-PM T4.71/6.71

43

The report recommends that following preliminary engineering of the LPA and more detailed design information, there is a need to conduct updated database searches, records review and field review for the identified environmental risk sites and any other sites that may be identified as occurring in the vicinity of proposed excavation work. These sites should be checked on a case-by-case basis to examine whether or not there is a reasonable likelihood that contamination could have spread into the subsurface. These reviews would occur as part of the project design phase, just prior to project implementation. Following results of these reviews, Phase II subsurface investigations may need to be conducted within the project limits, adjacent to, or downgradient from any environmental risk sites still of concern.

In addition to environmental risk sites, the medians of Van Ness Avenue may be contaminated with aerially deposited lead from the exhaust of cars burning leaded gasoline. The lead levels present in surface soil along busy arterial roads can reach concentrations in excess of the hazardous waste threshold, requiring on-site stabilization or disposal at a Class 1 landfill. Other hazardous materials consisting of lead-based paint may be present in OCS support poles/streetlights, other light poles, traffic lane striping, and pavement marking materials. Prior to construction, samples should be collected from these items and tested for lead. If lead is detected, appropriate procedures should be used during construction to avoid contact with these materials, or generation of dust or vapors. These issues should be addressed in a construction waste management plan, in conformance with applicable state and federal regulations.

Lastly, the report recommends that a construction risk management plan should be developed and implemented and should include the following components to address procedures to be followed if contaminated soil and/or groundwater is encountered: a worker site health and safety plan (including risk/hazard analysis, employee training, personal protective equipment, medical surveillance requirements, air monitoring and environmental sampling techniques, an emergency response plan, and a spill containment program in the event of an accidental spill or leak); safe storage and disposal measures for any contaminated soil, groundwater, or debris, including temporary storage locations, labeling, and containment procedures; procedures to contain any possible contamination, including methods to protect storm drains, and prevent any contaminated runoff or leakage either into or onto the exposed ground surface; and necessary public health and safety measures to be implemented during construction.

7B. Value Analysis Value Analysis will be conducted during preparation of the 30 percent design, in accordance with FTA guidance.

7C. Resource conservation Measures to conserve energy and nonrenewable resources have been considered. Any existing hot mix asphalt pavement that is removed will be recycled if it is economically and logistically advantageous to do so. Additional features such as signs, signals, lighting, and other associated hardware will be salvaged and reused, relocated, or stockpiled for use at a later date if they are in working condition and if doing so would be economically and logistically advantageous. These features will be further analyzed during the final design phase.

04-SF-101-PM T4.71/6.71

44

7D. Right of Way

General The project is a reconfiguration of the existing roadway cross section within the existing right of way (R/W). Thus, the proposed project will not require additional right of way for construction of the BRT lanes or for required utility relocations.

A right of way data sheet has been prepared based on the scope of work described and on preliminary engineering prepared for the project. Estimated cost information is contained in the Right of Way Data Sheet in Attachment D for work within the State right of way.

Railroad Railroad facilities are not within the project limits.

Utility and Other Owner Involvement Underground and aboveground utilities are present along Van Ness Avenue and throughout the project corridor. Utility facilities in the project corridor include utility poles and overhead wires, surface-mounted utility boxes, utility mains, laterals and vaults, or valves. These features support the combined sewer (i.e., stormwater and wastewater combined system), water, electric, gas, and telecommunications systems, as well as Muni OCS support poles/streetlights. Utilities typically run parallel to Van Ness Avenue within the sidewalk, pavement, and median. Utilities also run perpendicular to Van Ness Avenue at cross street locations, and at lateral connections serving adjacent land uses.

All surface utility features within the limits of proposed BRT platforms were assumed to require relocation. Within proposed BRT lanes, it was assumed that all existing surface utility facilities will require adjustment to a new grade. Other underground utilities will require relocation only when above-ground features conflict with proposed curb bulbs, sidewalk widenings, new medians, or other streetscape design elements, and only when adjustment or modification of these features is impractical.

An assessment of utility conflicts was made for the LPA. 195 utility conflicts were found within the project corridor. Of these, 50 require relocation and 117 require adjustment of surface facilities. In addition to these conflicts, upgrades will be made to an aging sewer line where it underlies the new construction. (Traffic signal heads, poles and controllers will be upgraded under SFgo and are not discussed in this section). The preliminary cost estimate for all utility work attributable to the project is $12.43 million, excluding the OCS pole replacement and Muni duct bank work, which are a required element of the project. This is described in the following pages and summarized in Table 6-3, Attachment C (Preliminary Cost Estimate), and Attachment D (Right of Way Data Sheet).

The following paragraphs categorize and briefly describe the utility conflicts/upgrades in this project.

Van Ness Brick Sewer Replacement. A 3-foot by 5-foot City of San Francisco brick sewer runs down the center of Van Ness Avenue. The sewer dates from the late 1800s and is in poor condition. Several sections have been upgraded over the years, but a number of emergency repair projects have been required in recent years due to structural failure. The project proposes to replace portions beneath newly constructed pavement to

04-SF-101-PM T4.71/6.71

45

minimize potential for future pavement damage or excavation resulting from failure or other repair/replacement needs. This work is being funded under the SFPUC Sewer Replacement Project, and will be implemented under the BRT construction project. The sewer replacement is ineligible for State or Federal transportation fund reimbursement. The estimated cost to the project for this work is $11.5 million. Water System, City of San Francisco. One fire hydrant, 12 water valves and 9 handholes, will require relocation. Twenty water valves and one water handhole, will require adjustment to grade. The total estimated cost for this work is $155,000 Auxiliary Water Supply System (AWSS), City of San Francisco. The AWSS system is a high-pressure water system that supplies water to the SFFD. The system includes underground ductile iron and cast-iron pipes, underground cisterns, aboveground gate valves, and high-pressure fire hydrants. Cisterns are large storage tanks buried under the roadway surface approximately 25 to 30 feet in diameter and 20 to 25 feet tall, and they hold approximately 75,000 gallons of water. Ten AWSS high-pressure fire hydrants and one gate valve have been identified as being in physical conflict with the project and will be relocated, while five handholes will require adjustment to grade. The total estimated cost for this work is $614,000. Sanitary Sewer, City of San Francisco. Eight sanitary sewer manholes will be relocated away from proposed BRT platforms or curb ramps. An additional 25 manholes will require adjustment to grade. The estimated cost for this work is $111,000. PG&E Gas. One low-risk PG&E gas valve cover will require adjustment to grade. This work is estimated to cost $3,000. PG&E Electric. Two high-risk manholes will require relocation, while 2 high-risk manholes and 24 high-risk vaults will require adjustment to grade. The estimated cost for this work is $30,000. Comcast Cable Television. One Comcast cable TV vault cover will require adjustment to grade. This work is estimated to cost $5,000. AT&T Telephone. Two AT&T telephone manhole covers and one pull box cover will require adjustment to grade. This work is estimated to cost $12,000.

Verification of utilities will be required. The need for positive location (potholing) as prescribed by the State’s Policy on High and Low Risk Underground Facilities Within Highway Rights of Way (January, 1997) will be ascertained during the preliminary engineering phase.

04-SF-101-PM T4.71/6.71

46

Table 6-3: Summary of Affected Utilities

Owner Description Resolution Locations (by nearest intersecting street to the south) Number of Items Item Cost Estimated

Total Cost

City of S.F. 3’x5’ Brick Sewer Line & var. Replace BRT platforms at Market, Grove, Post, Sutter, California 1 $11,500,000 $11,500,000

City of S.F. Fire Hydrant Relocate Mission 1 $4,274 $4,274

City of S.F. AWSS Fire Hydrant, High Pressure Relocate

Hayes, McAllister, Turk, Ellis, Geary, Pine, Clay, Union, Lombard 10 $58,769 $587,694

City of S.F. AWSS Valve Relocate Fell, Hayes, Pacific 3 $5,343 $16,028

City of S.F. AWSS Valve Adjust Golden Gate Sutter, Green 3 $2,137 $6,411

City of S.F. Water Valve Relocate Fell, Hayes (2), Grove, Golden Gate, Turk, Eddy, Ellis (3), O'Farrell, Geary 12 $1,603 $19,234

City of S.F. Valve Relocate Sutter 1 $750 $750

City of S.F. Backflow Device Relocate O'Farrell (2), Post (2), Sutter (2), Union (2), Filbert, Greenwich (2) 11 $1,603 $17,631

City of S.F. Water Valve Adjust McAllister (2), Eddy, O'Farrell (2), Post (3), Sutter, Bush (2), California, Clay (2), Washington (3) 20 $1,069 $21,371

City of S.F. Water Handhole (includes 20 ft of adjacent water lines) Relocate

Hayes, McAllister (2), Post, California, Clay, Washington, Jackson, Union 9 $2,671 $24,042

City of S.F. Water Handhole Adjust Ellis 1 $2,137 $2,137

City of S.F. Water Handhole New Hayes, McAllister (2), Post, California, Clay, Washington, Jackson, Union 9 $3419.4 $30,775

City of S.F. Water Meter Adjust

Grove (3), McAllister (3), Golden Gate (3), Eddy, O'Farrell (2), Post (3), Sutter (3), Bush, Clay (3), Washington (3), Pacific (2), Broadway (2), Green, Union (2), Greenwich (2) 34 $1,069 $36,330

City of S.F. Backflow Device Adjust California (2) 2 $1,336 $2,671

City of S.F. Sanitary Sewer Manhole Adjust

Fell (3), Hayes (2), McAllister (2), Turk, Eddy, Ellis, O’Farrell, Geary, Post, Sutter, Pine (2), California, Sacramento, Clay, Vallejo, Green, Union, Filbert. Greenwich (2) 25 $1,870 $46,749

City of S.F. Sanitary Sewer Manhole New California, Jackson, Union, Filbert (2), Greenwich, Lombard (2) 8 $8,014 $64,112

PG&E Gas Valve, Low Risk Relocate Clay 1 $750 $750

04-SF-101-PM T4.71/6.71

47

Owner Description Resolution Locations (by nearest intersecting street to the south) Number of Items Item Cost Estimated

Total Cost

PG&E Electric Manhole, High Risk Relocate Geary, California 2 $2,671 $5,343

PG&E Electric Conduit, Low Risk New California 10 $171 $1,710

PG&E Electric Manhole, High Risk Adjust Post, Greenwich 2 $1,870 $3,740

PG&E Gas Valve, Low Risk Adjust Clay, Lombard 2 $1,069 $2,137

PG&E Electric Pull Box Adjust

Mission, Hayes (2), McAllister, Golden Gate, Eddy (2), Ellis, O’Farrell, Geary, Post, Sutter, Bush, California, Washington (2), Pacific (2), Green (2), Union, Greenwich (2), Lombard 24 $801 $19,234

Comcast Cable Cable TV Vault Adjust Bush 1 $5,343 $5,343

AT&T Telephone Manhole Adjust Pacific, Green 2 $5,343 $10,685

AT&T Telephone Pull Box Adjust Sacramento 1 $1,069 $1,069

TOTALS 195 $12,430,218

04-SF-101-PM T4.71/6.71

48

7E. Environmental A Final Environmental Impact Statement / Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) was prepared in accordance with State and federal environmental regulations, and is the appropriate document for the proposed project.

As a Responsible Agency, Caltrans has had an opportunity to review the technical environmental reports and environmental document prepared for the project.

Refer to the Final EIS/EIR included as Attachment E for a detailed discussion of the following environmental issues, and for a summary of other environmental studies conducted for the project, together with the findings. SFCTA and SFMTA adopted the LPA and certified the Final EIR under CEQA through their respective Board actions on September 10 and September 17, 2013; and FTA certified the Final EIS under NEPA with a Record of Decision dated December 20, 2013.

Natural Resources

A Natural Resources Technical Memorandum was prepared by Garcia and Associates for the proposed project, intended to identify potential impacts to natural resources as a result of the project. The study explains that the project area is wholly developed with little or no indigenous vegetation. Vegetation consists of ornamental trees and shrubs planted along the sidewalks and within the median strip. There are no wetlands, seasonal or perennial watercourses, or riparian areas within the project area; therefore, the project would not affect Waters of the U.S. or require Section 401 Water Quality Certification.

The study determined that the project area has no special status biological resources that could be impacted by the project. There are no wildlife or plant species or protected habitats within the project area. However, median and sidewalk vegetation within the construction zone provides potential habitat for nesting birds. Disturbance to any active nests can be avoided or minimized by conducting pre-construction surveys for nesting birds and/or trimming or removing vegetation during the non-nesting season (September 1 to January 31).

A tree survey was completed in 2009 and a tree removal and planting opportunity study was completed in 2012 by a certified arborist. The study found one median tree, a 17-foot Cork Oak (Quercus suber), located at the intersection of Jackson Street and Van Ness Avenue that was planted as part of an Arbor Day celebration on March 14, 2006, and was dedicated to civil rights pioneer Rosa Parks. Although this tree does not qualify as a landmark or significant tree per County ordinance, it may warrant special consideration in planning and may be a candidate for relocation in accordance with the San Francisco Planning Department issued Director’s Bulletin No. 2006-01. To minimize impacts from removal of existing trees and landscaping, mature trees shall be preserved and replacement trees and landscaping shall be incorporated into the project landscape plan as feasible. Also, a certified arborist should complete a preconstruction tree survey during final design to identify protected trees that could be impacted by the proposed project, and to determine the need for tree removal permits and tree protection plans under San Francisco Public Works Code requirements.

Visual Impacts

The project would alter the visual setting of Van Ness Avenue with changes to the landscaped median, the introduction of BRT features, and the replacement OCS support

04-SF-101-PM T4.71/6.71

49

pole/streetlight network. However, with incorporation of minimization and mitigation measures, these changes would not substantially change or impact the character of the Van Ness Avenue corridor because the proposed BRT features are consistent with the urban, contemporary visual setting of Van Ness Avenue, and the introduced features would not substantially degrade the surrounding visual environment for any viewer group.

While the removal of existing median trees under the LPA would noticeably degrade the visual environment of the corridor until replacement plantings matured, the opportunities for replacement tree plantings would be greater than under Build Alternative 2, and the corridor would ultimately benefit from a unified, higher-quality landscape plan. This would enhance the visual setting of the corridor over existing conditions and restore character to the blocks that currently feature a mature tree canopy in the median.

Under the LPA, the visual cohesiveness of the corridor will be fostered through the careful selection of elements to be placed within the visual landscape, to promote a unified, visual concept for the Van Ness Avenue corridor consistent with policies in the Van Ness Area Plan, Civic Center Area Plan, and San Francisco Better Streets Plan. Such elements include: replacement OCS support pole/streetlights with a uniform aesthetic throughout the corridor and visual character that is reminiscent of the architectural style of the original OCS support pole/streetlight network; a project landscape design plan, including tree type and planting scheme for medians, BRT stations, and sidewalk trees; sidewalk lighting designed to minimize glare and nighttime light intrusion on adjacent residential properties and other properties that would be sensitive to increased sidewalk lighting; and context-sensitive design of BRT station features that provide a branded, cohesive identity for the proposed BRT service, but that reflect the character and streetscape design theme of the specific neighborhood or district.

Proposed elements will require review and approval by the Civic Design Review Committee of the San Francisco Arts Commission, and would require a Certificate of Appropriateness from the San Francisco Historic Preservation Commission where the project runs through the Civic Center Historic District.

Refer to Section 4.4 of the Final EIS/R for a detailed discussion of changes to the visual environment within the Van Ness Avenue corridor.

Cultural Resources

A Historic Property Survey (HPS) was prepared for the proposed project, which summarizes the findings of two cultural resource studies conducted in the project Area of Potential Effects (APE): a Historic Resources Inventory and Evaluation Report (HRIER) prepared by JRP Historical Consulting, and an Archaeological and Native American Cultural Resources Sensitivity Assessment prepared by Far Western Anthropological Research Group.

The HRIER identifies 30 potential historic resources located within the Architectural APE. There are 27 potential individual historic built environment resources and three multi-component historic resources, the latter consisting of the San Francisco Civic Historic District; the Van Ness Avenue roadway corridor; and an OCS support pole/streetlight (trolley pole) system that is located along both sides of Van Ness Avenue, between Market Street and North Point Street. Of the 30 potential historic resources, three are historic properties with previous standing in the National Register of Historic

04-SF-101-PM T4.71/6.71

50

Places (NRHP), California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR), or other formal listings. In addition, the study concludes that four properties evaluated as part of this project appear to meet the criteria for listing in the NRHP and CRHR.

The remaining 23 resources identified within the APE, including the OCS support pole/streetlight system, do not appear eligible for listing in the NRHP or the CRHR, and are not considered historical resources for the purposes of CEQA. The majority of the resources do not meet the criteria for listing because of a lack of significance; however, those few that do possess potential significance have all experienced substantial compromises in their integrity and do not appear eligible for listing because of these extensive alterations and changes over time.

The Archaeological and Native American Cultural Resources Sensitivity Assessment discusses the types of potentially significant archaeological resources that could be present in the project area, and identifies general locations where these resources may be found with degrees of sensitivity based on geomorphology, historic land use, and previous investigations. These include prehistoric and historic-era archaeological resources. The assessment identifies the potential for significant artifact deposits and features underneath the urban landscape but because these potential archaeological resources are in a fully-developed setting, a subsurface investigation to determine the presence of archaeological resources was not feasible as part of this undertaking.

The FTA, as lead federal agency, initiated consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) under 36 CFR 800, assisted by the Authority as local public agency sponsor, regarding the proposed project and potential impacts to cultural resources. The HPS, which includes the HRIER and archeological sensitivity assessment, was submitted to SHPO for review in early 2010. In May 2010, SHPO concurred with FTA’s determinations of the APE and with the four eligible and 23 non-eligible properties.

Though the SHPO agreed with FTA’s finding that the poles did not constitute a National Register-eligible property in and of themselves because of a major compromise in the overall integrity of the poles, they nonetheless represent a landscape and streetscape element of the Civic Center Historic District. The replacement poles are proposed to be of compatible architectural design, and although slightly taller than the original height, would not be out of character with the setting of the Civic Center Historic District.

While the proposed changes associated with the LPA would result in slight alteration to the urban setting of the previously listed or eligible historic and architectural properties in the APE, they would not constitute a significant change and therefore, the NRHP eligibility status would not change.

With respect to the potential for use of historic resources protected under Section 4(f), SFCTA, in cooperation with FTA, and in consultation with SHPO, proposed a finding of no adverse effect. SHPO concurred that the project would not change the NRHP eligibility status for any of the seven significant historic and architectural properties in the APE and that the proposed undertaking would have no adverse effect on these properties, or on archaeological resources, with the condition of No Adverse Effect with Conditions (for focused documentary research for archaeological resources). The conditions stipulate that the project proponents will produce detailed documentary research and a site treatment plan if necessary, to identify and protect potential buried archaeological resources. The SHPO letter is included in the Final EIS/EIR as Appendix C.

04-SF-101-PM T4.71/6.71

51

Noise and Vibration

A noise and vibration study was prepared by Parsons to evaluate operational noise impacts for areas along the Van Ness Avenue corridor and for various local streets parallel to the BRT corridor which may experience traffic diversion during peak hours. FTA noise impact standards were applied to determine impacts on Van Ness Avenue, and City noise impact standards were applied to determine impacts on the parallel streets. On Van Ness Avenue, noise assessment procedures specified by the FTA were applied to determine potential noise impacts at adjacent sensitive receptors such as residences and various education institutions. In addition, the City municipal code provides guidance on allowable noise increases; however, the City does not specify a threshold for evaluating transportation noise, and thus this may not be the most appropriate threshold for evaluating a transit project on Van Ness Avenue. Nonetheless, it was considered for impact assessment along the parallel City streets, such as Gough and Franklin, where traffic volumes are expected to increase as a result of the project.

Consistent with FTA guidelines, only the additional noise from BRT operations as a result of the proposed project alternatives was considered in the FTA analysis of Van Ness Avenue; this approach produced conservative impact results. No project noise impacts were identified along Van Ness Avenue relative to either FTA criteria which are based on the existing versus project noise or the Caltrans criterion which is based on changes in total noise levels.

Franklin and Gough Streets are expected to attract more of the diverted traffic from Van Ness Avenue under the proposed project than any other alternate route. Along segments of these roadways paralleling Van Ness Avenue, future (2035) traffic noise levels under the proposed project are predicted to be 0 to 1.5 decibels (dB) higher than future no project noise levels. Relative to existing traffic noise levels, future project traffic noise levels would increase by 0 to 2.2 dB. All of these levels are below the 5 dB threshold derived from the City Noise Ordinance for fixed objects. No mitigation is required for operational noise impacts on Franklin and Gough Streets.

Due to the typical operational characteristics and vehicle design of the proposed BRT vehicles, operational vibration impacts would be less than significant relative to the applicable (FTA) criteria. However, roadway surface defects such as pot holes would elevate BRT passby noise and vibration. Thus, it is recommended that upkeep of roadway surface be maintained to avoid increases in BRT noise and vibration.

Nighttime construction related to the proposed project would cause City noise ordinance limits to be exceeded from time to time. Caltrans guidelines for construction noise include compliance with local ordinances. In the absence of mitigation, there would likely be a few instances where vibratory rollers would need to operate near enough to wood-frame buildings such that FTA vibration thresholds for cosmetic damage could be briefly and slightly exceeded at those buildings. A combination of mitigation techniques for equipment noise and vibration control as well as administrative measures, when properly implemented, can be selected to provide the most effective means to minimize the effects of construction activity impacts. Application of the mitigation measures will reduce the construction impacts; however, temporary increases in noise and vibration still would occur at some locations.

04-SF-101-PM T4.71/6.71

52

Water Quality

A Water Quality Technical Report was prepared for the proposed project by Parsons. The project area drains via a system of storm drain lines to the Central San Francisco Bay. The closest wetlands to the project area are in the South San Francisco Bay, located at Belmont Slough, Foster City Lagoon and Bair Island, about 30 miles away from the project site. No major streams exist in the project area, and the project limits are not mapped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The project area is located within the City of San Francisco Combined Sewer System (CSS) network, in which domestic sewage, industrial wastewater, and stormwater runoff are all collected in the same pipes (combined sewer). Such a system is subject to overloading during severe storms. This network is sized for storm events less than the 100-year storm. Shallow flooding has been evident within some of the City’s lower lying areas during high storm events, though the project site has not been subject to flooding in the past.

Water quality impacts related to construction are not expected to be adverse because the proposed project would require nominal earthwork and the area of soil to be disturbed would be limited. Completion of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit would be required to identify and implement construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) to avoid adverse impacts on water quality during construction. The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission has developed guidelines for water pollution prevention referred to as “Keep it on Site” which provides information for construction within the City and provides important regulatory agency contact information for the Contractor. It also describes requirements for SWPPP development and implementation to ensure NPDES compliance with the California State Department of Water Resources General Construction Permit. A project Storm Water Data Report (SWDR) was prepared which summarizes the actions taken in compliance with the permit, and is included as Attachment F.

The project will result in a decrease in impervious area under the LPA; therefore, the resultant decrease in runoff could be considered a water quality improvement because there would be less runoff that could potentially come in contact with pollutants such as suspended solids, organic and inorganic compounds, oils and grease, and miscellaneous waste from the roadways, BRT stations, and landscaping, and no adverse impact to the water quality of the San Francisco Bay is expected.

In addition to stormwater BMPs specified in the SWPPP, the following measures would be implemented to avoid adverse impacts to water quality: bus platforms would be equipped with trash receptacles to minimize the miscellaneous waste that may enter the storm drain system; opportunities to incorporate stormwater management tools set forth in the San Francisco Better Streets Plan will be investigated for implementation as project design progresses; landscape areas provided by the project will be designed to minimize and reduce total runoff; the overuse of water and/or fertilizers on landscaped areas will be avoided; and prevention and non-chemical control methods will be employed in maintaining landscaping in the Van Ness Avenue corridor.

Seismic Hazards

A Geologic Impacts Assessment Report was prepared by AGS, Inc. for the proposed project. The study included a review of published and online maps and reports presenting

04-SF-101-PM T4.71/6.71

53

data on regional geology, seismic hazards and faulting, in addition to San Francisco City records of geotechnical and environmental site investigations and planning and database sources. The project is located within a seismically active region, subject to major earthquakes capable of producing strong to violent ground shaking. While no active faults are known to cross the project alignment, several major active faults are mapped within 30 miles, including the San Andreas, Hayward, Calaveras, and San Gregorio Faults. There is no Alquist Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Map covering the San Francisco North Quadrangle (CGS, online 2008), which includes the area of the proposed BRT project, and geotechnical investigation reports completed in the area did not identify faulting. There is no evidence to indicate that the project alignment crosses an active fault; thus, impacts due to surface fault rupture from a future earthquake are considered unlikely even though the project may be subject to very strong ground shaking.

Two separate locations of the project area are considered susceptible to liquefaction. These are: (1) the area between the Union Street and Broadway intersections, where historic fill is mapped and (2) the area between the Hayes Street and Mission Street intersections, where artificial fill is mapped. Other portions of the project alignment are considered to have low to moderate susceptibility to liquefaction. As project design progresses, liquefaction mitigation measures should be evaluated for implementation including soil mixing and grouting techniques, in addition to implementing adequate subsurface drainage through use of wick drains or other suitable means.

Seismically induced settlements can be mitigated by such methods as pre-loading, deep foundations, and soil improvements; such mitigation will be considered as project design progresses.

7F. Air Quality Conformity The proposed project was included in the regional emissions analysis completed by the MTC for the conforming Transportation 2035 Plan. The proposed project’s design concept and scope have not changed significantly from what was analyzed in the Transportation 2035 Plan. This analysis found that the plan and, therefore, the individual projects contained in the plan, are conforming projects, and will have air quality impacts consistent with those identified in the SIP for achieving the NAAQS. FHWA determined the Transportation 2035 Plan to conform to the SIP in May 2009.

The proposed project is also included in the federal 2011 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). FHWA/FTA determined the TIP to conform to the SIP on December 14, 2010. The proposed project is consistent with regional conformity guidelines.

The proposed project has undergone Interagency Consultation (IAC) and IAC participants have concurred that the project is not one of concern and is exempt from PM2.5 project level conformity requirements.

The California Project-Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol (CO Protocol) was used to conduct a CO analysis for the proposed project. Part of the CO analysis includes the screening procedure found at Level 2 of the flow chart in Figure 3 in the CO Protocol. First, the proposed project will not significantly contribute to cold start percentages because no additional land uses are proposed that would add vehicle trips to the area. Second, since the proposed project does not propose any additional land uses in the area, it will not generate any additional trips. The project would reduce regional VMT,

04-SF-101-PM T4.71/6.71

54

especially vehicle trips located in and near the project corridor. Third, the proposed project would not impede the flow of traffic in the project area. The traffic study states that in 2015 the average travel speed for most of the streets in the traffic study area, under the LPA, would remain approximately the same (generally ± 0.3-mph) as the No Build Alternative, and no segment would see the speed decrease by more than 0.9-mph). Fourth, the proposed project will not move traffic closer to any sensitive receptors in the region. Although eliminating left turns could increase traffic volumes along certain roadway segments parallel to Van Ness Avenue, such as Franklin Street, this is not significant from an emissions perspective,. The project would not result in a localized CO hot spot. The proposed project satisfies all the conditions of Level 2 of the CO Protocol in order to be screened out. Therefore, the proposed project will not have the potential for causing or worsening violations of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for CO.

The proposed project is not considered a POAQC because it does not meet the definition of a POAQC as defined in EPA’s Transportation Conformity Guidance. The proposed project will not increase the percentage of diesel vehicles on the roadway, does not involve a bus or rail terminal that significantly increases diesel vehicles, and is not identified in the SIP as a possible PM2.5 or PM10 violation site. Thus, a particulate matter hotspot analysis is not required.

Because of the higher capacity of buses and the updated fleet associated with the proposed project, buses are able to transport higher quantities of people while producing fewer emissions than the cars they are replacing. This results in a reduction in greenhouse gases (GHG) under the LPA, with a beneficial global warming impact.

7G. Title VI Considerations Title VI is a section of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requiring that “No person in the United States shall on the grounds of race, color or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.” A Community Impacts Memorandum analyzing U.S Census and Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) population, housing, employment and income data has been completed for the proposed project to address Title VI considerations and requirements. Also, community facilities and resources along the project corridor were identified in addition to existing and planned land uses.

The study determined that project corridor includes a multi-ethnic population representative of the City and County of San Francisco and extends through portions of neighborhoods in the planning subareas including: South of Market, Hayes Valley/Lower Haight, Western Addition, Civic Center, Lower Pacific Heights, Nob Hill, Russian Hill, and Marina/Cow Hollow. Based on 2000 U.S. Census Data for the study area, lower-income, ethnic minority and affluent, white populations live close to the proposed project. Approximately 43 percent of all study area residents are members of a minority group, as compared to an approximate 56 percent minority population in the City and County of San Francisco as a whole. The percentage of low-income residents is slightly higher in the study area than in the City and County as a whole, at 12 and 10 percent respectively. The study found that there does not appear to be a disproportionate incidence of minority or low-income populations, and that the BRT project is expected to result in substantial benefits to these populations by providing higher-quality transit service.

04-SF-101-PM T4.71/6.71

55

Mitigation is proposed for displacement of colored, on-street parking, and for noise and other temporary construction impacts resulting from the proposed project, including implementation of a Traffic Management Plan (TMP), and any such impacts would be distributed evenly without disproportionate impacts to any particular area, neighborhood, or population group.

8. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS AS APPROPRIATE

Public Hearing Process A public hearing was held during the circulation period of the Draft EIS/EIR on November 30, 2011 to inform the public and obtain their comments on the proposed project alternatives. Comments were received from individuals, public agencies, and stakeholder organizations. Each comment was responded to individually. Comments and responses are included in Appendix I of the Final EIS/EIR.

The project team conducted significant outreach pertaining to the staff recommended LPA, presenting at more than 15 public and stakeholder meetings prior to the SFCTA Board meeting on June 26, 2012, to select the LPA for inclusion in the Final EIS/EIR. Additional presentations regarding the LPA have been made since June 26, 2012, and the project team continues to perform outreach with numerous stakeholders.

Route Matters Route adoption, relinquishment, or new public road connections are not proposed under the BRT project.

Permits Permits that would be required under the project are summarized in Table 8-1.

Table 8-1. Anticipated Permits and Approvals

Agency Approval or Permit SFDPW/BOE/ISCOTT Encroachment permit required for work within public right-of-way.

SFDPW/BSSR Engineering design for repaving of the street to be approved by the SFDPW.

SFDPW/BSM

The geometrics of street, pavement markings, use of streets and sidewalks must be approved by the SFDPW Bureau of Street Use and Mapping, along with review proposed construction staging and access.

SFDPW/SFMTA The SFDPW will need to approve proposed alterations to street lighting circuitry and/or traffic signals.

SFDPW/BSM The SFDPW must approve an excavation permit, requiring compliance with the Article 2.4 and Director’s Order No. 176, 707, Excavation in the Public Right-of-Way.

SFDPW/BSES Approves tree removals and replanting in public ROW

SFDPW The Director of Public Works must approve nighttime construction work permits.

SFDPW Approves street excavation work.

San Francisco Planning Department

Prepares General Plan Referrals that determine consistency of project with General Plan, which support Board of Supervisors

04-SF-101-PM T4.71/6.71

56

Table 8-1. Anticipated Permits and Approvals

approval of sidewalk and grade changes.

San Francisco Arts Commission Approves design of public structures.

San Francisco Historic Preservation Commission

Approves certificate of appropriateness regarding design of landscape and structures in the Civic Center Historic District).

San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, San Francisco Fire Department, PG&E SFDWP

Coordination with utility providers regarding temporary or permanent relocation of utilities (including sewer line) through NOI and other filings with the San Francisco Street Construction Coordination Center and participation in the Committee for Utility Liaison on Construction and Other Projects (CULCOP). Also, coordination with the San Francisco Fire Department regarding the Auxiliary Water Supply System.

SFPUC/Hetch Hetchy/ PG&E

Permits required for OCS support pole/streetlight and related duct bank replacement.

Approval by the SFPUC of minimum allowable clearances to wires and work requirements near overhead lines per State of California General Order No. 95.

SFPUC Approval of minimum allowable clearances to wires and work requirements near overhead lines per State of California General Order No. 95.

SFPUC Approves discharge for release of any construction wastewater, including groundwater, into the City’s Combined Sewer System.

SFPUC

Determines compliance with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit requirements for construction activities including contractor’s preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP).

SFPUC Sewer line inspection/relocation Caltrans Access Control Properties Review and Encroachment Permit.

Caltrans Approves Project Study Report/Project Report, including conceptual design of the project.

Caltrans Plans approvals for traffic and electrical work.

Caltrans Caltrans will need to approve proposed alterations to street lighting standards.

Caltrans

A Lead Compliance Plan approved by Caltrans will be required prior to the start of construction or soil-disturbance activities if an Aerially Deposited Lead (ADL) Survey identifies soil contains extractible lead concentrations that meet the definition of hazardous materials.

Caltrans Cooperative Agreement for Construction

Caltrans Maintenance Agreement Caltrans Right of Way Certification Caltrans Utility Permits

San Francisco Bay Area Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)

Receives General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit. A Notice of Intent (NOI) to construct, which includes the SWPPP, must be filed with the San Francisco Bay RWQCB at least 30 days prior to any soil-disturbing activities.

MTC Air Quality Conformity determination. CA Fire Marshal Construction on State ROW – Fire & Life Safety

04-SF-101-PM T4.71/6.71

57

Table 8-1. Anticipated Permits and Approvals

San Francisco Board of Supervisors Approves sidewalk and grade changes.

SHPO Finding of Effect Determination CPUC Deviations from GO Standards Source: Parsons, 2013

Cooperative Agreements Project Approval and Environmental Document (PA/ED) activities were prepared by the Authority under Cooperative Agreement 4-2220 with Caltrans. The Authority was responsible for 100 percent of all work and support costs, except for the State's Independent Quality Assurance (IQA) for the project. Cooperative Agreement 04-2450 executed November 8, 2012, was entered into with the San Francisco County Transportation Authority (AUTHORITY) and the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) for the Design and Right of Way phases of the Project and is included as Attachment H.

SFMTA will prepare the Plans Specifications and Estimates (PS&E) and perform all required right of way activities for the Project. Funding will be provided 100% by the AUTHORITY.

State will perform IQA only at no cost. SFMTA will operate and maintain the constructed BRT facilities at its own cost until a maintenance agreement is executed to cover the Project area.

SFMTA will own the constructed BRT improvements with exception to improvements to the traveled way. The State will continue to own the right of way in the Project area.

A separate Cooperative Agreement will be entered into to cover responsibilities and funding for the subsequent construction phase of the Project.

Other Agreements The project will convert one northbound and southbound mixed flow traffic lane to dedicated bus-only use through the Van Ness Avenue corridor. The BRT pavement may have integral or surface treatments that add complexity and cost to maintenance activities. In addition, the project will modify existing signals and provide for transit signal priority (TSP). Furthermore, the project will provide additional and replacement landscaped areas, and implement pedestrian safety improvements such as median refuge areas, thumbnail islands and curb bulbs.

The existing maintenance agreement with the City and County of San Francisco (the “delegated Maintenance Agreement” or “DMA”), effective July 2, 2009 provides for delegation of maintenance to the City, to be reimbursed by Caltrans subject to maximum expenditures within any fiscal year. Typically, maintenance activities cover roadway pavement, signals and lighting, sidewalks, cleaning and landscaping. An Operations and Maintenance Agreement (O&M) with the City for Bus Rapid Transit Facilities on State Route 101 has been prepared and is pending execution. This agreement is separate from the DMA; however, reimbursement for expenditures related to maintenance functions currently delegated to the City under the DMA will be made through the DMA, up to the

04-SF-101-PM T4.71/6.71

58

authorized expenditures. Under the BRT O&M, the City is responsible for all costs related to operation, maintenance and repair of the BRT facilities, including pavement maintenance, litter and graffiti, signs, striping, lighting, safety devices, landscaping and garbage collection, passenger platforms and appurtenances, and transit and emergency vehicle preemption devices.

The executable Operations and Maintenance Agreement is included as Attachment I.

Transportation Management Plan for Use During Construction A Transportation Management Plan (TMP) will be required leading up to and during construction of the proposed improvements to minimize delay and inconvenience to the traveling public. The TMP will identify specific lane closures and transit operational changes; needed detours and other travel changes for drivers, transit, bicyclists, and pedestrians; and specific strategies that will be implemented to achieve those detours and other travel changes. The TMP for the project will be developed and refined during final design, and will be coordinated with other major projects in the area (e.g., Doyle Drive/Presidio Parkway, Geary Boulevard BRT, and CPMC projects). The TMP will be approved by both Caltrans and SFMTA, and will include the SFMTA’s process for accepting and addressing complaints.

The proposed construction approach includes roadway work that will require lane closures and/or detouring. The need for necessary lane closures, or short-term detour routes for closures, will be identified and included in the TMP, along with specific physical and communications measures that will be implemented to guide detours and other travel changes. Any detours for pedestrian facilities shall meet ADA requirements.

The TMP would include measures to ensure coordination with transit operators, emergency services, and neighborhood and special interest groups; consideration of construction strategies and contract incentives to ensure that construction is completed on schedule and that planned TMP measures are implemented; CHP and local law enforcement involvement and development of contingency plans for unforeseen events or incidents. Various TMP elements such as portable Changeable Message Signs and a CHP Construction Zone Enhanced Enforcement Program (COZEEP) may be utilized to alleviate and minimize delay to the traveling public.

The TMP would include a public information program and briefing for local public officials to disseminate project information and notices of upcoming traffic lane closures and detours.

The TMP Data Sheet prepared for the project is included as Attachment J. The Preliminary Project Cost Estimate includes a sufficient estimate of cost for the TMP described in this Project Report.

The TMP would include, but not be limited to, some of the measures shown in Table 8-2.

04-SF-101-PM T4.71/6.71

59

Table 8-2: Elements of Transportation Management Plan ELEMENT DESCRIPTION

Public Information Program

Brochures, mailers, Internet, e-mails, and briefings to local public officials, transit operators, and emergency services alerting travelers, residents, businesses, and interested parties of project construction, lane closures, detours, alternative routes, changes in locations of bus stops, partial sidewalk closures, changes to on-street parking (including loading zones) identification of safety hazards. SFMTA’s process for accepting and addressing complaints, including provision of contact information for the Project Manager, Resident Engineer, and Contractor on project signage with direction to call with concerns..

Traveler Information Strategies

Changeable message signs and ground-mounted signs to alert traffic to potential delays and to direct traffic to alternative routes.

Transit Passenger Information Strategies

Public outreach measures described above, including notices on transit vehicles, shelters, and Web sites that inform passengers of changes in bus stop locations and alternative parallel routes, and facilitate wayfinding.

Incident Management

CHP and local law enforcement involvement and development of contingency plans in the event of an incident, unexpected construction activities such as a late lane opening or need for a second lane closure in one direction; Implementation of a Construction Zone Enhanced Enforcement Program (COZEEP) with CHP and local traffic control officer presence through the construction period.

Construction Strategies

Use of approved lane closure charts governing acceptable periods for all planned lane closure activities

Maintain two, open traffic lanes in each direction during peak hours Limit closures of a second mixed-flow traffic lane for nighttime or off-peak traffic hours Implement truck traffic restrictions Utilize parking restrictions within the construction zones Implement reduced speed zones in construction areas Consider transit operations in identifying construction segments Locate bus stops outside construction zones Reduce/consolidate bus stops in consideration of traffic impacts as appropriate Maintain curbside bus stops where buses are able to pull out of through traffic Designate additional parking removal to facilitate bus weaves to/from the travel lane Avoid sidewalk closures Maintain one east-west and north-south crosswalk leg open at all times at all intersections Install sufficient barricading, signage, and temporary walkways as needed to minimize

impacts to pedestrians and bicyclist Alternative Route Strategies

Temporary signage and parking restrictions to direct drivers to alternative routes. Bicycle and pedestrian accommodations also considered.

Contingency Planning

Strategies for handling traffic congestion in the event of unexpected construction activities such as a second lane closure in one direction.

Stage Construction In order to minimize disruption to the traveling public, it is anticipated that the proposed project would be constructed on two three-block segments of Van Ness Avenue at the same time to reduce the overall construction schedule. Construction on three-block segments would occur simultaneously in the northern and southern ends of the corridor to stagger associated parking and traffic circulation disruption, followed by construction in the central segment. There are no unusual aspects of the construction work. Parking and mixed flow traffic lane closures would be necessary for construction of the LPA. In some cases, both parking lanes along Van Ness Avenue would need to be temporarily taken during bus lane construction.

04-SF-101-PM T4.71/6.71

60

All construction work would be conducted in compliance with obtained permits and regulations set forth by the City and Caltrans, in accordance with the SFMTA Regulations for Working in San Francisco Streets (Blue Book), the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), San Francisco Municipal Code (Noise Ordinance, Sections 2907 and 2908), and SFPUC and SFDPW Bureau of Street Use and Mapping (BSM) work orders.

Construction work will conform to San Francisco Health Code Article 22B which requires all City projects of over a half acre in size to control dust from construction activities by preparing a dust plan approved by the San Francisco Department of Public Health, with the goal of minimizing visible dust and protecting sensitive receptors from dust exposure.

Specific construction staging requirements would be refined during the final design process and shown on construction staging plans, as part of the construction documents. It is anticipated that construction of this project would take approximately 20 months to complete.

Following mobilization and staging activities, construction of the LPA would follow the work sequence shown in Table 8-3:

Table 8-3: Construction Phases

Construction Phase

Description

Phase 1 Remove Existing Curb Bulbs and Undertake Utility Work

Phase 2 Build BRT Station Platform Foundations

Phase 3 Construct Transitway

Phase 4 Conduct Intersection/Corner Work and OCS Support Pole/Streetlight Replacement

Phase 5 Finish BRT Stations

Phase 6 Curb-to-Curb Pavement Rehabilitation

Phase 7 Additional Infrastructure Elements

Source: Arup, 2012. Project Construction Plan for the Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project.

Most of the work could be done during daylight hours, but some nighttime work would be required to permit temporary closures for tasks that could interfere with traffic or create safety hazards, subject to City approval with respect to noise ordinance requirements. Examples of these tasks include placing and removing temporary concrete barriers, certain utility relocation activities; or pavement conforms.

Principles of the project construction approach to be implemented under the LPA include the following:

Maintain two mixed flow traffic lanes in each direction during peak hours, and as feasible during non-peak hours on Van Ness Avenue during project construction;

04-SF-101-PM T4.71/6.71

61

The two mixed flow traffic lanes would carry transit vehicles and maintain service for bus routes 47 and 49 throughout construction.

Assure 10-ft widths for all traffic lanes at a minimum; Place a physical barrier between traffic lanes and the construction zone (typically

be done by using a concrete k-rail barrier); Provide an appropriate width between the construction zones and the adjacent

traffic lanes, which include the k-rail concrete barrier; Reduce speeds through construction work areas; Remove curbside parking as needed during construction of stations or the

transitway; and Adhere to requirements and standards identified in the MUTCD and the San

Francisco Blue Book, which govern the temporary work zone installations.

Construction staging for the LPA would take place on both sides of Van Ness Avenue at the same time, in approximate three-block segments. Construction of the BRT stations, transitway and medians would take place in an approximate 43-foot-wide area in the center of the roadway. Two traffic lanes would generally remain open on either side of the construction area. The parking lane on both sides of the street would be closed during the construction work to maintain two open traffic lanes in each direction. Sidewalk closures would not be required, although partial closure of the sidewalk would be required for curb bulb construction work, replacement of the OCS support poles/streetlights and associated duct trenching, signal installation, and reconfiguration of underground utilities. The intersection corner work would be primarily performed during the night to minimize impacts to pedestrian and vehicular traffic.

Short-term closures of an additional traffic lane may be required at times for construction tasks that could interfere with traffic or create safety hazards, reducing the number of open lanes in one direction to one. These closures would be planned for nighttime or off-peak traffic hours as feasible to avoid or reduce traffic impacts, subject to stipulated noise restrictions.

Under this construction implementation scenario, construction for the LPA is anticipated to require 20 months. Under the LPA, it is anticipated that the sewer pipeline would require replacement at station locations and in areas where construction of the transitway could cause damage to the sewer.

Traffic Operations During Construction Traffic circulation would be impacted whenever a mixed-flow traffic lane is closed for construction activities. As the project will convert one northbound and southbound mixed flow lane to dedicated transit use, traffic impacts during the lane closures proposed for construction are not anticipated to be substantially different from the completed project; however, unlike the completed project, buses would continue to operate in the mixed traffic lanes during the construction period and there would be slower overall operations due to reduced speed zones. Therefore, the traffic impacts described in Section 4B, Traffic Operations, would occur during project construction, along with some additional congestion and reduced travel speed due to construction activities. The impact of transit operations on the remaining traffic lanes would be minimized by: (1) moving bus stops out of the three-block construction segments to prevent buses stopping in the lane of

04-SF-101-PM T4.71/6.71

62

traffic to load/unload; or (2) ensuring that stops were located where the bus could pull out of the traffic lane. In addition, localized congestion would occur in advance of each construction segment, where the current three lanes would merge to two, or where lane shifts occur.

Other temporary traffic impacts would occur during construction due to short-term detours and as a result of signage stipulating reduced speeds through construction zones and encouraging drivers to use parallel streets to reduce traffic flow through construction zones. Therefore, some drivers would divert to parallel routes, such as Franklin or Gough streets, during the project construction period. Short-term detours and closure of a second travel lane in one direction may be required for construction tasks that could interfere with traffic or create safety hazards, such as equipment transport or construction vehicles pulling in/out of mixed-flow traffic, certain utility relocations, placement of concrete barriers or large equipment, and pavement conforms. This would result in additional congestion in the corridor due to the inability to move around right-turning vehicles waiting for crossing pedestrians to clear; however, these closures would be planned for nighttime or off-peak traffic hours as feasible to avoid or reduce traffic impacts.

In summary, reduced road capacity and posted operating speeds would produce localized traffic congestion and slow average travel speeds on Van Ness Avenue during project construction.

As discussed earlier, a TMP would be developed during the design phase, in conjunction with the local jurisdictions, to provide advance notice to motorists and transportation and emergency service providers with information on construction activities and durations, detours, and access issues during each stage of construction, thereby reducing construction-related traffic impacts. The TMP would identify services to facilitate the safe implementation of the construction project such as increased enforcement presence during critical construction operations, and include a public information program to provide residents, businesses and motorists with advance notice of information related to the construction activities and durations, temporary closures and detours. Detailed analysis will be performed with preparation of the TMP, to ensure adequate operations through the construction phase. In addition, impact minimization measures described in Chapter 3.3, Vehicular Traffic, and in Section 4.15.1.2 of the Final EIS/R would lessen these impacts.

Accommodation of Oversize Loads Depending on the alternative selected, the proposed project may limit the use of the corridor to oversized loads due to the placement of BRT stations, median pedestrian refuges and curb bulb extensions. The project does not place any new height limitations on loads moving in or out of the area.

Risk Assessment A Risk Assessment Register has been prepared for the project and distributed for review by the PDT. Risks were assessed and are being managed for critical elements that affect project delivery or cost through the PA/ED, PS&E and construction phases. The Risk Register which summarizes the identified risks is included as Attachment K.

Allowances have been included in the Preliminary Cost Estimate for those risks that have been quantified to date, including additional paving rehabilitation needs, additional

04-SF-101-PM T4.71/6.71

63

project costs attributable to scope additions; utility relocations resulting from unforeseen utility conflicts; or delay in project implementation.

The Risk Assessment Register will be maintained and updated for the subsequent project development phases. As part of the FTA project development process, a formal risk assessment will take place at the 30 percent design level.

9. COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT

Public participation for the Van Ness Avenue BRT Project has been accomplished through a variety of formal and informal means, including meetings with stakeholder, local community and focus groups; public workshops, meetings and open houses conducted as part of the Feasibility Study and scoping process; establishment of the Van Ness Avenue BRT Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) to provide community input concerning the project; development of a project website; distribution of project Fact Sheets in English, Spanish and Chinese; hosting of a “webinar” for regional and other stakeholders unable to attend a workshop in person; door-to-door business outreach; and mailings and emails to the project outreach database. Comments received during the scoping process assisted the Authority and FTA in their review and evaluation of possible BRT alternatives evaluated in the EIS/EIR.

The Draft EIS/EIR was circulated for a public review and comment period between November 4 and December 23, 2011. A public hearing was held on November 30, 2011. Comments were received at the public hearing and throughout the circulation period from 69 individuals, 7 public agencies, and 11 stakeholder organizations. The most prevalent concern was about tree removals and replanting opportunities. Many commenters expressed a desire to preserve trees and felt that some of the alternatives removed too many. The next most prevalent concerns were about the potential for traffic diversions and potential for congestion on neighboring streets. In addition, concerns were raised over the alternatives screening process and lack of alternatives that included express bus or peak period only service, private buses and shuttles; cost effectiveness of BRT; transit stop elimination, construction impacts on businesses and residents, calculating traffic and air quality impacts on Van Ness Avenue, Franklin Street, and Gough Street; incorporating CPMC into analyses, including emergency service operations and construction coordination; and pedestrian crossings and safety. All comments were responded to individually. Comments and responses are included in Appendix I of the FED.

The project team conducted significant outreach pertaining to the staff recommended LPA, presenting at more than 15 public and stakeholder meetings prior to the SFCTA Board meeting on June 26, 2012, to select the LPA for inclusion in the Final EIS/EIR. Additional presentations regarding the LPA have been made since June 26, 2012, and the project team continues to perform outreach with numerous stakeholders. Incorporation of the southbound station at Vallejo, and consideration of the southbound station as a potential variant resulted from this outreach.

04-SF-101-PM T4.71/6.71

64

10. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION/DOCUMENT

SFCTA is the local project sponsor, acting as Lead Agency for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process and as joint Lead Agency with the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) for the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. Caltrans delegated the role of CEQA Lead Agency to the Authority by letter dated August 29, 2008. Caltrans is a Responsible Agency under CEQA having jurisdiction over the State right of way. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) was released for circulation and public comment between November 4 and December 23, 2011. The Draft PSR-PR requesting conceptual approval for the project was approved July 23, 2012.

A Final EIS/EIR was prepared in accordance with NEPA/CEQA environmental procedures, as well as State and federal environmental regulations, and is the appropriate document for the proposal. Caltrans reviewed the Administrative Draft Final EIS/EIR and comments were incorporated in the final document. SFCTA certified the environmental document under CEQA at the Board Meeting on September 10, 2013. FTA issued an Environmental Record of Decision (ROD) for the project on December 20, 2013. The ROD and Final EIS/EIR Summary are included as Attachment E.

Measures to mitigate the effects of the project were considered during the planning and development in coordination with interested agencies. The mitigation commitments are described in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program to ensure fulfillment of all environmental and related commitments in the Final EIS/EIR.

11. FUNDING

11A. Capital Cost The preliminary cost estimate for the LPA is summarized in the table below. A detailed estimate is included in Attachment C.

The preliminary cost estimate did not include the southbound Vallejo Street station, or the northbound Vallejo Street station variant. These are estimated at approximately $500,000 each.

The capital cost estimate is projected to escalate from $115.14 million to $125.6 million in year of expenditure dollars, assuming an escalation rate of 3.1 percent, and revenue operations in 2019.

Capital Cost Estimate

2013 Dollars Escalated 2014 Dollars

Roadway Items $62,492,648 $64,430,000 Structure Items $0 $0

Subtotal Construction $62,492,648 $64,430,000 Right-of-Way $12,380,217 $12,764,000

Subtotal $74,872,865 $77,194,000 SF Public Arts Commission $1,230,000 $1,268,000 Capital Outlay Support (Design, construction management and agency costs) $26,980,000 $27,816,000 Vehicle Procurement Costs $8,596,975 $8,863,000 Project Cost $111,679,841 $115,141,000

04-SF-101-PM T4.71/6.71

65

Funding Source: Funding for the project has been identified from the following sources:

Funding Source Amount (Millions) FTA Section 5309 Small Starts $74.99

Other non-FTA Funding:

Prop K Sales Tax

SHOPP

Bay Area Climate Initiatives

Planned: SR2T, Development impact fees, ARRA, TIGER FTA Section 5309 BUS Federal Earmark

$36.00

SHOPP $7.30

California Pacific Medical Center Contribution $5.00

Central Freeway Parcel Revenues $12.60

Total Budgeted/Planned Funding $135.90

Any additional funding that may be required for the project would be provided through SFMTA Revenue Bonds.

12. SCHEDULE

HQ Milestones Delivery Date (Month/Year)

Begin Environmental September 2007

Notice of Intent (NOI) September 2007

Circulate DED November 2011

PA & ED August 2014

Regular Right of Way N/A

Project PS&E June 2015

Right of Way Certification June 2015

Ready to List July 2015

Contract Approval/Award December 2015

Contract Acceptance November* 2018

End Project/ Revenue Operations

December* 2018

*Construction duration dependent on construction method and number of construction headings.

04-SF-101-PM T4.71/6.71

66

13. FHWA COORDINATION

The Federal Transit Administration is the federal agency responsible for the Van Ness Avenue BRT Project, and is the lead agency under NEPA. No FHWA action is required for this project.

14. PROJECT REVIEWS

District Program Advisor Robert Camargo Date 6/26/13 District Maintenance Stanley Ng Date 5/5/14 HQ Design Coordinator Larry Moore Date 4/24/13 Project Manager Nandini Shridhar Date 2/16/14 District Safety Review Ramiel Gutierrez Date 9/8/11 Constructability Review Allen Dadafarin Date 9/8/11

15. PROJECT PERSONNEL

Principal contacts for the project are as follows:

Shari Tavafrashti (415) 522-4826 Principal Engineer, SFCTA

Michael Schwartz (415) 522-4823 Project Manager, SFCTA

Tilly Chang (415) 522-4832 Executive Director, SFCTA

Paul Bignardi (415) 701-4594 Manager of BRT Planning, SFMTA

Nandini Shridhar (510) 286-4982 Project Manager, Project Management West, Caltrans, District 4

Jean Finney (510) 286-6196 Chief, Transit & Community Planning, Caltrans, District 4 Amir Sanatkar (510) 286-8826 Senior Transportation Engineer, Caltrans, District 4

Yolanda Rivas (510) 286-6216 Associate Environmental Planner, Environmental Analysis, Caltrans, District 4

Beth Perrill (510) 286-5383 R/W LPA Services, Caltrans, District 4

Laura Hameister (510) 286-5429 Utility Coordinator, Caltrans, District 4

Jeffery Bingham (415) 490-2469 Project Manager, Parsons

04-SF-101-PM T4.71/6.71

67

Kim Franchi (510) 285-1567 Engineering Manager, Parsons

Brynna McNulty (415) 490-2479 Environmental Manager, Parsons

Laura Prickett (415) 490-2383 Environmental Technical Advisor

Chi-Hsin Shao (415) 392-9788 Traffic Operations, CHS Consulting

Corey Wong (415) 957-9445 Senior Transportation Planner, Arup

ATTACHMENTS: A. Project Location and Vicinity Map B. Preliminary Engineering Studies C. Preliminary Cost Estimate D. Right of Way Data Sheet E. Record of Decision & Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental

Impact Report Summary F. Storm Water Data Report Cover Sheet G. Pavement Strategy Checklist H. Cooperative Agreement I. Operations and Maintenance Agreement J. Transportation Management Plan Input Request and Data Sheet K. Risk Register

SAN FRANCISCO

PROJECT LOCATION & VICINITY MAP

ATTACHMENT AVan Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit

PROJECT LIMITS

ATTACHMENT B

Preliminary Engineering Studies (LPA)

Typical Sections, Plan, & Profile

Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit

04-SF-101-PM T4.42L/6.71 EA: 3A270

PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING STUDIES

LPA ALTERNATIVE: CENTER LANE BRT WITH RIGHT SIDE BOARDING/SINGLE MEDIAN AND LIMITED LEFT TURNS

Prepared for: San Francisco Transportation Authority

1455 Market Street 22nd Floor San Francisco, CA 94102

Prepared by: Parsons

50 Fremont Street, Suite 1500 San Francisco, CA 94105

April 2013 (Revised May 2014)

ATTACHMENT C

Preliminary Cost Estimate

Van Ness BRT

Quantities Cost Estimate

Page 1 of 4

Date Printed: 5/16/2014

Revision No: 00

Caltrans Summary

I. ROADWAY ITEMS Section Cost

Section 1 Earthwork Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost 1,964,437$

Roadway Excavation 17,389 CY 43$ 743,219$

Median Excavation 1,333 CY 75$ 99,676$

Remove Base and Surfacing 0 CY 75$ -$

Cold Plane (up to 0.2') 63,412 SQYD 7$ 443,883$

Cold Plane (0.3' or Deeper) 0 SQYD 10$ -$

Profile Grind Concrete 15,570 SQYD 15$ 226,550$

Remove Concrete 1,528 CY 160$ 244,909$

Remove Concrete (SW Reconstruct) 326 CY 160$ 52,200$

Remove Concrete (Parking Pad) 0 CY 160$ -$

Clearing & Grubbing 1 LS 50,000$ 50,000$

Tree Removal 104 EA 1,000$ 104,000$

Section 2 Pavement Structural Section* Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost 8,263,692$

HMA-HS 351 TON 139$ 48,785$

DGAC 0 TON 118$ -$

RAG-O 0 TON 139$ -$

SAMIR 0 TON 139$ -$

Concrete Repair 57,566 SQFT 13$ 738,140$

PCC Concrete Minor Construction 1,236 CY 480$ 593,231$

PCC Concrete Sidewalk 674 CY 480$ 323,301$

RHMA-G (Rubberized Hot Mix Asphalt - G) 8,246 TON 139$ 1,145,515$

HMA-A (Hot Mix Asphalt - A) 7,287 TON 139$ 1,012,303$

AS (Asphalt) 9,040 TON 118$ 1,062,600$

JPCP (Jointed Plain Concrete Pavement) 5,952 CY 321$ 1,908,127$

Curb Ramps 104 EA 2,832$ 295,621$

PCC Base 2,273 CY 321$ 728,595$

PCC Subgrade 1,907 CY 107$ 203,737$

PCC Subbase 953 CY 214$ 203,737$

Section 3 Drainage/Utilities (Systems) Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost 6,296,665$

Drainage System 575,859$

Relocate Slot Drain 1 EA 1,000$ 1,000$

Relocate Drainage Inlet 42 EA 1,200$ 50,400$

Cleanout 1 EA 1,603$ 1,603$

New Drainage Inlet 74 EA 1,200$ 88,800$

New Curb Inlet 0 EA 4,274$ -$

8" RCP 0 LF 29$ -$

12" RCP 1,745 LF 39$ 67,545$

15" RCP 45 LF 42$ 1,903$

16" ISP 0 LF 246$ -$

18" VCP 672 LF 262$ 175,924$

30" RCP 0 LF 120$ -$

15" WYE 2 EA 5,343$ 10,685$

Tee 0 EA 5,076$ -$

New Storm Drain Manhole 28 EA 6,000$ 168,000$

Adjust Storm Drain Manhole 4 EA 1,750$ 7,000$

Adjust Draininage Inlet 0 EA 1,500$ -$

Cleanout Valve 3 EA 1,000$ 3,000$

Adjust Manhole 0 EA 1,750$ -$

Sanitary System 1 LS -$ -$

Sewer Replacement 1 LS -$ -$

Water System 1 LS -$ -$

Fire Service System 1 LS -$ -$

PGE Services 1 LS -$ -$

Telecommunications 1 LS -$ -$

Irrigation Systems 1 LS 3,206$ 3,206$

Duct Bank 1 LS 5,717,600$ 5,717,600$

LPA

File: Van Ness BRT - Cost Estimate Details (PE 30% - V14)_Caltrans_rev051614.xlsx

Tab: Summary Caltrans

Van Ness BRT

Quantities Cost Estimate

Page 2 of 4

Date Printed: 5/16/2014

Revision No: 00

Caltrans Summary

LPA

Section 4 Specialty Items Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost 7,189,198$

Landscaping - Ground Plane Planting (Median) 47,415 SQFT 21$ 1,013,292$

Landscaping - Ground Plane Planting (Station) 0 SQFT 21$ -$

Trees (25 ft Palm) 84 EA 7,480$ 628,299$

Trees (36" Box - Median) 254 EA 1,710$ 434,253$

Bus Stop Replacement Trees (36" Box) 114 EA 3,312$ 377,620$

Tree Grate (Sidewalk) 0 EA 1,603$ -$

Maintenance Band (Cast Stone Cobble) 15,860 SQFT 27$ 423,674$

90-Day Maintenance 1 LS 10,685$ 10,685$

New ADA Ramp (SHOPP) 74 EA 2,671$ 197,679$

Repair ADA Ramp (SHOPP) 167 EA 1,069$ 178,445$ x

Resident Engineer Office Space 1 LS 150,000$ 150,000$

Water Pollution Control (2.5%) 0 #N/A 1,300,000$ 1,300,000$

Hazardous Waste Mitigation Work - 25% of median removal 1 LS 75,251$ 75,251$

Environmental Mitigation 1 LS 1,400,000$ 1,400,000$

Maintenance Facility 1 LS 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$

Section 5 Traffic Items Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost 13,005,574$

Traffic Stripes 49,911 LF 7$ 373,322$

Pavement Markings 33,930 SQFT 7$ 253,788$

Median Pole for BRT Signal 56 EA 21,371$ 1,196,759$

Median Signal for BRT 56 EA 32,056$ 1,795,139$

Temporary Muni OCS 0 LS 220,000$ -$

Muni OCS Pole Replacement 0 SQFT 7$ -$

Muni OCS Intersections (Complex) 3 EA 750,000$ 2,250,000$

Muni OCS Intersections (Semi-complex) 5 EA 500,000$ 2,500,000$

Muni OCS Intersections (Simple) 3 EA 250,000$ 750,000$

Muni OCS Trolley Wire (Replace) 0 LF 30$ -$

Roadside Signs 280 EA 267$ 74,797$

Relocate Signs 280 EA 267$ 74,797$

Maintenance of Traffic - Alt 2 0 LS 600,000$ -$

Maintenance of Traffic - Alt 3 1 LS 400,000$ 400,000$

Maintenance of Traffic - Alt 4 0 LS 400,000$ -$

Traffic Control Systems - Alt 2 0 WKDY 8,018$ -$

Traffic Control Systems - Alt 3 403 WKDY 5,345$ 2,154,035$

Traffic Control Systems - Alt 4 0 WKDY 5,345$ -$

Transportation Management Plan 1 LS 840,000$ 840,000$

Temporary Curb Bulb Relocation 1 LS 220,589$ 220,589$

Relocate Controller 2 EA 1,069$ 2,137$

Relocate Detector 0 EA 3,740$ -$

Relocate Emergency Box 2 EA 1,603$ 3,206$

Relocate Street Light 4 EA -$ -$

Relocate Pedestrian Push Button 6 EA 1,069$ 6,411$

Relocate Traffic Signal Pull Box 42 EA 1,603$ 67,318$

Relocate Traffic Signal Light 46 EA -$ -$

Adjust Traffic Signal Pull Box 48 EA 801$ 38,467$

Adjust Detector 3 EA 1,603$ 4,808$

Pedestrian Countdown Signals 0 EA -$ -$

Accessible Pedestrian Signals 0 EA -$ -$

File: Van Ness BRT - Cost Estimate Details (PE 30% - V14)_Caltrans_rev051614.xlsx

Tab: Summary Caltrans

Van Ness BRT

Quantities Cost Estimate

Page 3 of 4

Date Printed: 5/16/2014

Revision No: 00

Caltrans Summary

LPA

Section 6 BRT Platform Items Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost 5,691,010$

Concrete Planters 48 CY 321$ 15,387$

Concrete Finish Slab Integral Color 19,200 SQFT 16$ 307,738$

Barriers and Railings 2,496 LF 75$ 187,200$

Handrails 2,816 LF 107$ 300,899$

Bollards 96 EA 321$ 30,774$

Canopy: Structure & Glass Roof 5,040 SQFT 299$ 1,507,917$

Windscreens 128 EA 1,923$ 246,190$

Display Cases 0 EA 5,343$ -$

Seating (3-unit) 48 EA 1,923$ 92,321$

Trash/Recycling Bins 16 EA 962$ 15,387$

Finishes 16 EA 10,685$ 170,966$

Signage 16 EA 321$ 5,129$

Signage - Spare 16 EA 321$ 5,129$

Lighting 64 EA 2,671$ 170,966$

Ticket Vending Machines (TVM) 16 EA 106,853$ 1,709,656$

TVM Signage 16 EA 1,603$ 25,645$

Electronic Message Signage (NextMuni) 16 EA -$ -$

Surveillance Cameras 0 EA 32,056$ -$

Phone/Intercom (311 Service) 0 EA 10,685$ -$

Signal Interconnect and Communications Fiber 0 LS -$ -$

Broadband 1 EA 128,224$ 128,224$

Solar Panels (1.2 kw) 16 EA 12,822$ 205,159$

Wind Turbine 16 EA 10,685$ 170,966$

PGE Service 1 EA 267,134$ 267,134$

Misc. Electrical 16 EA 8,014$ 128,224$

Subtotal Roadway Items (Section 1 thru 6) 42,410,576$

File: Van Ness BRT - Cost Estimate Details (PE 30% - V14)_Caltrans_rev051614.xlsx

Tab: Summary Caltrans

Van Ness BRTQuantities Cost Estimate

Page 5 of 5

Date Printed: 5/16/14

Revision No: 01

Caltrans Summary

LPA

Section 7 Minor Items Item Cost Section Cost

42,410,576$ x 8.0% 3,386,512$

(Subtotal Section 1 thru 5)

TOTAL MINOR ITEMS 3,386,512$

Section 8 Roadway Mobilization Item Cost Section Cost

42,410,576$ x 10% 4,241,058$

(Subtotal Section 1 thru 5)

TOTAL ROADWAY MOBILIZATION 4,241,058$

Section 9 Roadway Additions Item Cost Section Cost

Supplemental Work

42,410,576$ x 2.0% 848,212$

(Subtotal Section 1 thru 5)

Contingency

42,410,576$ x 27% 11,606,290$

(Subtotal Section 1 thru 5)

TOTAL ROADWAY ADDITIONS 12,454,502$

1. TOTAL ROADWAY ITEMS 62,492,648$

(Subtotal of Sections 1 thru 9)

2. STRUCTURES ITEMS -$

3. SF PUBLIC ARTS COMMISSION AS % OF ROADWAY ITEMS 1,230,000$

4. RIGHT OF WAY ITEMS 12,380,217$

TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY 76,102,865$

CAPITAL OUTLAY SUPPORT (% OF TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY) 26,980,000$

TOTAL PROJECT COSTS (NO VEHICLES) 103,082,865$

VEHICLE PROCUREMENT COSTS 8,596,975$

TOTAL 111,679,841$

File: Van Ness BRT - Cost Estimate Details (PE 30% - V15)_Caltrans_rev051614r.xlsx

Tab: Summary Caltrans

ATTACHMENT D

Right of Way Data Sheet (LPA)

Rev8/98 pgk

To: District Office Chief Date: May 12, 2014 R/W Local Public Agency Services Co. SF Rte. 101 M. P. T4.71/6.71 Attention: District Branch Chief Expense Authorization EA 04-3A270 Local Public Agency Services Subject: RIGHT OF WAY DATA SHEET- LOCAL PUBLIC AGENCY SERVICES Project Description: VAN NESS AVENUE BUS RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT

Right of way necessary for the subject project will be the responsibility of N/A . The information in this data sheet was developed by PARSONS . I. Right of Way Engineering Will right of way engineering be required for this project?

No X Yes (Submit a copy of the Right of Way Engineering, Surveys and Mapping Services

checklist for Special Funded Projects. This checklist includes but is not limited to the following items.)

Hard copy (base map) Appraisal map Acquisition Documents Property Transfer Documents R/W Record Map Record of Survey

II. Engineering Surveys

1. Is any surveying or photogrammetric mapping required?

No Yes X (Complete the following)

2. Datum Requirements

Yes ___X__ The project will adhere to the following criteria. Horizontal datum - policy is CCS 83, CA-HPGN, TBD, and imperial units Vertical datum - policy is NAVD 88 Units - imperial is required No ______ Provide an explanation on additional page.

3. Will land survey monument perpetuation be scoped into the project, if required?

Yes X No Provide explanation on additional page.

Rev8/98 pgk

R/W Data Sheet - Local Public Agency Services 04-SF-101, MP T4.71/6.71 04-3A270 Page 2 of 5 III. Parcel Information (Land and Improvements) Are there any property rights required within the proposed project limits? No X Yes (Complete the following) Part Take Full Take Estimate $ A. Number of Vacant Land Parcels $__________ B. Number of Single Family Residential Units $__________ C. Number of Multi-Family Residential Units $__________ D. Number of Commercial/Industrial Parcels $__________ E. Number of Farm/Agricultural Parcels $__________ F. Reimbursement of Grantor’s Appraisal Expenses __________ ___________ $__________ ($5,000 per First Offer) G. Permanent and/or Temporary Easements $__________ H. Other Parcels (define in "Remarks" section) ___________ $__________ Totals $__________

Provide a general description of the right of way and excess lands required (zoning, use, improvements, critical, or sensitive parcels, etc.).

IV. Dedications

Are there any property rights that have been acquired, or anticipate will be acquired, through the "dedication" process for the Project?

No X Yes (Complete the following) Number of dedicated parcels Have the dedication parcel(s) been accepted by the municipality involved? V. Excess Lands / Relinquishments Are there Caltrans property rights which may become excess lands or potential relinquishment areas? No X Yes (Provide an explanation on additional page.)

Rev8/98 pgk

R/W Data Sheet - Local Public Agency Services 04-SF-101, MP T4.71/6.71 04-3A270 Page 3 of 5 VI. Relocation Information Are relocation displacements anticipated? No X Yes (Complete the following)

A. Number of Single Family Residential Units Estimated RAP Payments $

B. Number of Multi-Family Residential Units

Estimated RAP Payments $ C. Number of Business/Nonprofit

Estimated RAP Payments $ D. Number of Farms

Estimated RAP Payments $ E. Other (define in the "Remarks" section)

Estimated RAP Payments $

Totals $ VII. Utility Relocation Information Anticipate any utility facilities or utility rights of way to be affected? No Yes X (Complete the following) Estimated Relocation Expense†

Facility Owner State Obligation

Local Obligation

Utility Owner Obligation

A. Water lines and valves City of San Francisco $ 0 $ 155,000 $0 B. Fire protection water lines, fire hydrants, auxiliary cisterns City of San Francisco $ 0 $ 614,000 $ 0

B. Gas lines and valves PG&E $ 0 $ 0 $3,000 C. Electrical conduits and manholes PG&E $ 0 $ 0 $ 30,000 D. Sanitary sewer lines and manholes* City of San Francisco $ 0 $ 11,611,000 $ 0 E. Telecommunications manholes, pull boxes AT&T $ 0 $ 0 $ 12,000

F. CableTV vault Comcast $ 0 $ 0 $ 5,000

Totals $ 0 $ 12,380,000 $ 50,000

Number of facilities 195 † Expense obligation between State, Local and Utility Owner subject to confirmation. Additional information concerning utility involvement on this project? *The sewer dates from the late 1800s and is in poor condition. The project proposes to replace portions beneath newly constructed pavement to minimize potential for future pavement damage or excavation resulting from failure or other repair/replacement needs. This work is being funded under the SFPUC Sewer Replacement Project, and will be implemented under the BRT construction project. The sewer replacement is ineligible for State or Federal transportation fund reimbursement.

Rev8/98 pgk

R/W Data Sheet - Local Public Agency Services 04-SF-101, MP T4.71/6.71 04-3A270 Page 4 of 5 VIII. Rail Information Are railroad facilities or railroad rights of way affected? No X Yes (Complete the following) Describe railroad facilities or railroad rights of way affected.

Owner's Name Transverse Crossing Longitudinal Encroachment

A.

B. Discuss types of agreements and rights required from the railroads. Are grade crossings requiring services

contracts, or grade separations requiring construction and maintenance agreements involved? IX. Clearance Information Are there improvements that require clearance? No X Yes (Complete the following) A. Number of Structures to be demolished 0 $ Estimated Cost of Demolition X. Hazardous Materials/Waste Are there any site(s) and/or improvements(s) in the Project Limits that are known to contain hazardous materials? None X Yes (Explain in the "Remarks" section) Are there any site(s) and/or improvement(s) in the Project Limits that are suspected to contain hazardous waste? None Yes X (Explain in the "Remarks" section) XI. Project Scheduling Proposed lead time Completion date * Preliminary Engineering, Surveys N/A (months) May 2014 * R/W Engineering Submittals N/A (months) N/A * R/W Appraisals/Acquisition N/A (months) N/A Proposed Environmental Clearance September 2013 Proposed R/W Certification March 2015

ATTACHMENT E

Record of Decision & Final Environmental Impact

Statement / Environmental Impact Report Summary

(The complete documents were submitted under separate cover.)

S A N F R A N C I S C O C O U N T Y T R A N S P O R T A T I O N A U T H O R I T Y

I N P A R T N E R S H I P W I T H

July 2013

F I N A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T S T A T E M E N T /

E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T

( E I S / E I R )

Van Ness AvenueBus Rapid Transit Project

Preface Introduction

The San Francisco County Transportation Authority (SFCTA or Authority) proposes, in cooperation with the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA), to implement bus rapid transit (BRT) improvements along a 2-mile stretch of Van Ness Avenue in San Francisco, California.

This Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of both the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Both laws require that projects with a potential for significant adverse environmental effects be reviewed in an EIS and EIR, respectively. This Final EIS/EIR identifies three build alternatives for the Van Ness Avenue BRT Project that would meet the project’s purpose and need, as well as the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA), which is the project design selected by the project proponents to be carried forward for approval and subsequent construction. This document evaluates the environmental effects that would result from each project alternative, including the LPA. This document also identifies measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts.

Who is leading the environmental review of this project?

The Van Ness Avenue BRT Project is a collaborative effort. In cooperation with FTA, the Authority initiated this project and has led the effort to complete the environmental review and preliminary engineering (approximately 30 percent design completion). The Authority has partnered closely with SFMTA, which will take the subsequent lead in all major steps of project delivery following completion of the environmental review process, including final design, construction, operation, and maintenance. The Authority has also partnered closely with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), which owns the portion of Van Ness Avenue within the project limits, designated as U.S. Highway 101.

FTA is the Lead Agency under NEPA, and the Authority is the Lead Agency under CEQA. Caltrans and SFMTA participate as Cooperating Agencies under NEPA and as Responsible Agencies under CEQA in environmental review. Other participating agencies include Golden Gate Bridge Highway & Transportation District, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, San Francisco Department of Public Works, San Francisco Planning Department, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, and the San Francisco Mayor’s Office on Disability.

What is the purpose of this document?

As required by NEPA and CEQA, this document informs the public and governmental decision makers of potential environmental effects associated with the project and describes the measures that would be implemented to mitigate or lessen those effects (Chapters 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7). This document will be used by federal, state, regional, and local agencies to assess the environmental impacts of the project on resources under their jurisdiction, to make discretionary decisions regarding the project, and to exercise their review and permit authority over the project. This document also includes information on the cost to construct and operate this project (Chapter 9), and provides an evaluation of important considerations such as environmental impacts, need, feasibility, funding, cost for each project alternative, and selection of the LPA (Chapter 10). This process provides decision-makers and the public information so they may consider the likely effects of the project on the environment, together with other important factors such as feasibility, cost, and meeting the identified project purpose and needs.

The Draft EIS/EIR was made available for public review and comment from November 4 through December 23, 2011; it was the subject of a public hearing on November 30, 2011, and an online webinar on December 5, 2011. After considering public and agency comments on the Draft EIS/EIR and identifying the LPA, the SFCTA

prepared this Final EIS/EIR that includes the responses to comments received on the Draft EIS/EIR, which are included as Appendix I of this document, and documentation on the LPA.

What is the difference between the Draft EIS/EIR and this Final EIS/EIR?

In this Final EIS/EIR, SFCTA and SFMTA recommend a preferred alternative, the LPA, to be carried forward. At the completion of this environmental process, FTA, SFCTA, and SFMTA expect to be able to approve and certify this Final EIS/EIR and make a determination on whether to implement the project LPA. An additional northbound station at the intersection of Van Ness Avenue and Vallejo Street, called the Vallejo Northbound Station Variant, is under consideration as a design variant under the LPA. The decision on whether to include the variant will be made at the time of project approval.

Material that is new or has been substantially revised since publication of the Draft EIS/EIR is indicated by a vertical bar in the margin. Changes between the Draft EIS/EIR and the Final EIS/EIR primarily reflect documentation of the LPA, as well as responses to comments received on the Draft EIS/EIR and staff-initiated changes to correct minor errors or improve/update presentation of information. These changes are delineated with the vertical margin bar.

Appendix I contains all comments received on the Draft EIS/EIR during the public comment period, as well as responses to those comments. Technical reports are available on request by contacting the SFCTA (project contact information provided below).In this Final EIS/EIR, SFCTA and SFMTA recommend a preferred alternative, the LPA, to be carried forward. At the completion of this environmental process, FTA, SFCTA, and SFMTA expect to be able to approve and certify this Final EIS/EIR and make a determination whether to implement the project LPA.

How can I be involved?

The project proponents encourage members of the public to remain involved with the project by reviewing the Final EIS/EIR and attending the SFCTA Board certification hearing, the SFMTA project approval meeting, and other project meetings such as Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) meetings. Members of the public may also attend neighborhood and other stakeholder meetings in which the Van Ness Avenue BRT is discussed during the final design and construction phases of the project. If the project is approved, the SFMTA will distribute information about the formation of a Final Design and Construction Period CAC via the project Web site, direct mailings, and electronic newsletters. Requests to be added to the project mailing list to receive periodic updates on the project can be made by contacting:

Attn: Michael Schwartz, Senior Transportation Planner San Francisco County Transportation Authority 1455 Market St., 22nd Floor San Francisco, CA 94103 vannessbrt@sfcta.org

Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project Executive Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement/ Environmental Impact Report

San Francisco County Transportation Authority July 2013 S-1

Executive Summary S.1Introduction The San Francisco County Transportation Authority (SFCTA or Authority) proposes, in cooperation with the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA), to implement bus rapid transit (BRT) improvements along a 2-mile stretch of Van Ness Avenue in San Francisco,1 from Van Ness Avenue at Lombard Street in the north to South Van Ness Avenue at Mission Street in the south. This chapter provides a brief summary of the purpose of and need for the proposed project, the project alternatives, project performance, a summary of potential environmental impacts, and proposed mitigation measures. This summary should not be relied upon for a thorough understanding of these topics; references to sections of this Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) with complete information are provided below.

Substantive text changes between the Draft EIS/EIR circulated November 4 through December 23, 2011, and this Final EIS/EIR are demarcated by a vertical bar in the margin. Text changes primarily reflect documentation of the LPA, as well as responses to comments received on the Draft EIS/EIR and staff-initiated changes to correct minor errors or improve/update presentation of information..

S.2Agencies and Approvals The Van Ness Avenue BRT Project is a collaborative effort. In cooperation with FTA, the Authority initiated this project and has led the effort to complete the environmental review and conceptual engineering. The Authority has partnered closely with SFMTA, which will take the subsequent lead in all major steps of project delivery following completion of the environmental review process, including preliminary and final design, construction, operation, and maintenance. The Authority has also coordinated project development with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans).

FTA is the Lead Agency under NEPA, and the Authority is the Lead Agency under CEQA. Caltrans and SFMTA participate in the environmental review as Cooperating Agencies under NEPA and as Responsible Agencies under CEQA. Other participating agencies include Golden Gate Bridge Highway & Transportation District, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, San Francisco Department of Public Works, San Francisco Planning Department, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, and the San Francisco Mayor’s Office on Disability. The FTA and the Authority are responsible for approving/ certifying this Final EIS/EIR, and subsequently the Authority and SFMTA are responsible for approving this project. The SFCTA Board and the SFMTA would each approve the project through formal selection of a preferred alternative as the project definition. If the project is approved, the SFMTA would implement project design, construction, operation, and maintenance. The Authority would provide funding and ensure compliance with the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP - see Appendix J) and would also provide review and concurrence on deliverables for the project during the design phase. In addition, the Authority would be actively involved in the project through its oversight role as part of the significant Prop K funding programmed for the project (see Chapter 9). Caltrans, as the owner of the facility (Van Ness Avenue is US 101 in the project study area), would provide various approvals of permits and documents as part of project development and construction. See Chapter 2 on next steps, permits, and approvals for more details on agency roles and responsibilities.

1 The City and County of San Francisco operate as a joint government body within the same geographical boundaries.

Throughout this document, this governmental body and geographic area may be referred to as the “City of San Francisco,” “San Francisco,” “City,” or “County.”

Executive Summary Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project Final Environmental Impact Statement/

Environmental Impact Report

S-2 San Francisco County Transportation Authority July 2013

S.3Project Location Van Ness Avenue BRT is proposed in the northeastern quadrant of the City and County of San Francisco, California. Van Ness Avenue serves as U.S. Highway 101 (US 101) through the central part of the city and is owned by Caltrans. The BRT alignment follows Van Ness Avenue/South Van Ness Avenue, a primary north-south arterial and transit spine, and extends approximately 2 miles from Mission Street to Lombard Street. Replacement of the overhead contact system (OCS) support pole/streetlight network, as part of the project, would extend from Mission Street to North Point Street.

S.4Project History Van Ness Avenue has been identified as a high-priority transit improvement corridor in a number of planning studies and funding actions by the City, including the Authority’s Four Corridors Plan (1995), Muni’s Short-Range Transit Plan (since 1996), and Muni’s Vision Plan and Vision for Rapid Transit (2000). The Authority’s Countywide Transportation Plan (2004) called for BRT on Van Ness Avenue as part of a citywide BRT Network (defined initially by a core BRT network encompassing Van Ness Avenue, Geary Boulevard, and Potrero Avenue). The Authority conducted the Van Ness Avenue BRT Feasibility Study in partnership with SFMTA, comparing four BRT alternatives with a no project scenario. In 2006, the Authority and SFMTA Boards unanimously approved the study and called for continued project development. In 2007, the Authority entered into a formal partnership with SFMTA through a Memorandum of Agreement to develop the project. That year, the Authority initiated joint state and federal environmental review of Van Ness Avenue BRT. The same year, the Bay Area region designated Van Ness Avenue BRT as a regional priority, and the Authority requested entry for the project into FTA’s Small Starts Program. FTA gave Van Ness Avenue BRT a “High” rating for cost effectiveness (“one of the Small Starts project justification criteria),” one of only two Small Starts projects in the nation at that time to receive such a designation, and has received the same rating for that criterion each year since. In 2009, SFMTA adopted the Transit Effectiveness Project (TEP), which included Van Ness Avenue in the Muni rapid network and identified it as a high-priority route for rapid transit and BRT treatments.

S.5Project Purpose and Need

S.5.1PROJECT PURPOSE

Van Ness Avenue is a major north to south corridor for the eastern part of San Francisco. It functions as a major transit corridor, with more than 16,000 daily boardings on Muni Routes 47 and 49 between Mission and Lombard streets and more than 38,000 total daily boardings on those two routes overall. The Muni bus routes that travel along Van Ness Avenue provide regional transit connections to Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART), AC Transit, Caltrain, and SamTrans. Golden Gate Transit (GGT) also provides service along Van Ness Avenue.

As described in the previous section, rapid transit on Van Ness Avenue has been included as part of numerous local and regional plans. One purpose of the Van Ness Avenue BRT Project is to serve a critical function in the City’s rapid transit network and help meet the following goals of the network as defined in the 2004 Countywide Transportation Plan:

Improve transit levels of service for existing users quickly and cost effectively; Strengthen the citywide network of rapid transit services; Raise the cost effectiveness of Muni services and operational efficiency of the city’s

Transit Preferential Streets (TPS) roadway network; and Contribute to the urban design, identity, and livability of the BRT corridors as signature

TPS streets.

The 2006 Van Ness Avenue BRT Feasibility Study identified specific needs for the corridor (see Section 1.3.2) and established the purpose of the Van Ness Avenue BRT project: to

Van Ness Avenue functions as amajor north to south transit

corridor for the eastern part ofSan Francisco, with more than

16,000 daily boardings on MuniRoutes 47 and 49.

For further discussion of theproject’s purpose and need,

see Chapter 1.3.

For more on the history andcontext of the project,

see Chapter 1.

Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project Executive Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement/ Environmental Impact Report

San Francisco County Transportation Authority July 2013 S-3

improve the safety and operational efficiency of Van Ness Avenue. With the development of BRT on Van Ness Avenue, the City hopes to:

Significantly improve transit reliability, speed, connectivity, and comfort; Improve pedestrian comfort, amenities, and safety; Enhance the urban design and identity of Van Ness Avenue; Create a more livable and attractive street for local residential, commercial, and other

activities; and Accommodate safe multimodal circulation and access within the corridor.

S.5.2PROJECT NEED

Van Ness Avenue BRT is intended to address numerous citywide needs, including reversing trends towards declining transit mode share, lowering transit productivity, and escalating operating costs. In addition, BRT improvements were identified to address the corridor-specific purpose described above and to meet the following corridor-specific needs:

Separate Transit from Auto Traffic to Improve Travel Time and Service Reliability. Transit speeds are currently not competitive with automobiles on Van Ness Avenue. Buses now travel at half the speed of cars (only 5 miles per hour [mph]) within the project area. The longer that buses travel in mixed traffic, the more irregular the spacing becomes, causing bus bunching during peak periods.

Reduce Delays Associated with Loading and Unloading and Traffic Signals. Time spent loading and unloading passengers and time spent waiting at traffic signals accounts for nearly 50 percent of total travel time on Van Ness Avenue.

Improve the Experience for Transit Patrons. Existing transit service on Van Ness Avenue lacks many amenities for waiting passengers (e.g., bus shelters with seating and real time information) and for passengers onboard vehicles (e.g., poor ride quality). Improvement of these conditions would make the transit experience attractive to new riders and more comfortable for existing riders, both in and out of the vehicle.

Improve the Safety and Comfort of Pedestrians. Van Ness Avenue has long street crossing distances, and most crossings do not have pedestrian infrastructure such as countdown signals, accessible pedestrian signals, corner bulbs, and nose cones. Pedestrians also experience more delay at signals than other users of Van Ness Avenue.

Raise the Operating Efficiency of Van Ness Avenue. The Van Ness Avenue corridor has the potential to carry substantially more people, more efficiently, than today. Within the study area, automobile trips on Van Ness Avenue are expected to increase by up to 7.5 percent by 2015 if a BRT project is not built, while the transit mode share is expected to stay the same or decline without a BRT project. These trends would result in an increase in congestion on Van Ness Avenue.

Upgrade Streetscape to Support an Identity as a Rapid Transit and Pedestrian Environment. Existing streetscape conditions are deficient, lacking in design consistency and pedestrian amenities.

Reduce operations costs. If buses continue to operate in congested traffic, further degradation in transit speeds will increase the operating cost to maintain Muni’s current service headways.

Support the Civic Destinations on the Corridor and Integrate Transit Infrastructure with Adjacent Land Uses. Van Ness Avenue is already a strong market for transit, due largely to the existing transit-supportive land uses in the corridor; for instance, nearly half of the households in the corridor do not own automobiles. More jobs and housing are being planned along the corridor in future years.

Accommodate private vehicle circulation and commercial loading. Van Ness Avenue is also designated as US 101. For this reason, attainment of transit and pedestrian improvement objectives must be balanced with the needs to accommodate mixed local and through traffic, bicycle, and goods circulation and access within the corridor.

Executive Summary Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project Final Environmental Impact Statement/

Environmental Impact Report

S-4 San Francisco County Transportation Authority July 2013

S.6Project Description

S.6.1BRT FEATURES

BRT is a new mode of transit in San Francisco and represents a package of features that together create rapid and reliable transit service for the benefit of passengers along a given corridor, and the transit system as a whole. The Van Ness Avenue BRT Project includes:

Dedicated bus lanes separated from regular (mixed-flow) traffic to reduce delays and improve reliability.

Level or near level boarding that minimizes the horizontal and vertical gap between the platform edge and vehicle door threshold to decrease passenger loading time, increase service reliability, and improve access for all users.

Consolidated transit stops to reduce delays due to existing stop spacing that does not meet Muni standards (stop locations and details shown in Chapter 2, Table 2-3).

High-quality stations, each with an elevated platform, canopy for weather protection, comfortable seating, vehicle arrival time information, landscaping, and other amenities. Platforms would be large enough to safely and comfortably accommodate waiting passengers, long enough to load two BRT vehicles, and designed to provide Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessibility.

Proof of Payment allowing passengers to swipe their fare cards either on the platform before the buses arrive or on-bus once boarded, allowing for all-door loading, and reducing passenger loading time.

Traffic signal optimization using technology upgrades to allow real-time traffic management and optimal signal timing.

Transit Signal Priority (TSP) to recognize bus locations and provide additional green light time for buses approaching intersections and reduce delay at red lights.

Fewer left-turn pocket lanes for mixed-flow traffic by eliminating left turns at certain intersections to reduce conflicts with the BRT operation.

Pedestrian safety enhancements, including enhanced median refuges, nose cones, and curb bulbs to reduce crossing distances at intersections and increase safety. Accessible pedestrian signals with crossing time countdowns would be installed at all signalized intersections in the project corridor.

S.6.2PROJECT ALTERNATIVES

Based on the findings of the 2006 Van Ness Avenue BRT Feasibility Study and input received during the project scoping process, three build alternatives were defined and recommended for NEPA/CEQA analysis. A No Build Alternative was also defined, which considers planned and funded improvement projects within the Van Ness Avenue corridor that will be implemented by 2015 (opening year of the Van Ness Avenue BRT Project) or 2035 (the long-term horizon or “design” year). The project alternatives are described in the following subsections and further in Chapter 2, along with alternatives considered but rejected during the public scoping process.

Alternative 1: No Build

Alternative 1, the No Build Alternative, would include only improvements that are planned to occur regardless of whether BRT is implemented, including pavement rehabilitation and incremental replacement of the OCS and support poles/streetlights. New, low-floor buses, on-bus proof of payment, and real-time passenger information at major bus stops would result in minor improvements to transit service. Pedestrian improvements at select locations would include curb ramp upgrades, countdown signals, and accessible signals. Figure S-1 provides a typical cross section of Van Ness Avenue as it exists today, and this would remain the same under the No Build Alternative.

The No Build Alternativewould include only

improvements that are plannedto occur regardless of whetherBRT is implemented, including

pavement rehabilitation andincremental replacement

of the OCS and supportpoles/streetlights.

See Chapter 2 for furtherdiscussion of BRT features and

a description of alternativesincluded for analysis,

as well as alternativesconsidered but rejected

through the scoping process.

Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project Executive Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement/ Environmental Impact Report

San Francisco County Transportation Authority July 2013 S-5

Figure S-1: Typical Cross Section of Existing Van Ness Avenue

Build Alternatives

The three build alternatives would include all of the BRT features listed above in S.6.1, but with differing lane configurations and associated station placement at the intersections. The following subsections summarize the differences between the three alternatives, while Chapter 2 describes each alternative in detail. Appendix A contains detailed plan drawings for each build alternative. Under all build alternatives, GGT vehicles that currently operate on Van Ness Avenue would operate in the transitway and use select BRT stations exclusively.

Build Alternative 2: Side-Lane BRT with Street Parking

Build Alternative 2 (see Figure S-2) would provide a dedicated bus lane, or transitway, in the right-most lane of Van Ness Avenue located adjacent to the existing curbside street parking area. The transitway would be traversable for mixed-flow traffic that would enter the transitway to complete a right turn or to parallel park. Under Build Alternative 2, BRT stations would be located within the curbside parking area as curb extensions.

Figure S-2: Typical Cross Section of Van Ness Avenue with Build Alternative 2

Build Alternative 3: Center-Lane BRT with Right-Side Boarding and Dual Medians

Build Alternative 3 (see Figure S-3) would provide a transitway comprised of two side-by-side, dedicated bus lanes located in the center of the roadway in between two medians. The transitway would be separated from mixed-flow traffic by a 4-foot-wide median, widening to a 9-foot-wide median at BRT stations, allowing right-side boarding.

The three build alternatives would include all of the BRT features but with differing lane configurations and associated station placement at the intersections.

Executive Summary Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project Final Environmental Impact Statement/

Environmental Impact Report

S-6 San Francisco County Transportation Authority July 2013

Figure S-3: Typical Cross Section of Van Ness Avenue with Build Alternative 3

Build Alternative 4: Center-Lane BRT with Left-Side Boarding and Single Median

Build Alternative 4 (see Figure S-4) would provide a transitway in the center of the roadway comprised of a single, 14-foot-wide median flanked by dedicated northbound (NB) and southbound (SB) bus lanes. Station platforms would be located on the single center median, requiring left-side passenger boarding and alighting, as well as left-side doors on vehicles. All stations would have this single-median design, with the exception of the BRT stations proposed at Geary/O’Farrell, which would utilize a dual-median configuration similar to that proposed under Build Alternative 3 to accommodate GGT buses that are strictly right-side boarding. All GGT stops, except Geary/O’Farrell, along the BRT corridor would be eliminated in Build Alternative 4. At the northern end of the corridor, GGT vehicles would be routed along a portion of Chestnut Street to accommodate an additional stop at the corner of Chestnut Street and Van Ness Avenue. At the southern end, GGT buses would continue to stop at the intersections of McAllister and Polk streets (NB) and Golden Gate Avenue and Polk Street (SB). A second GGT stop within the BRT runningway at Union Street is also possible.

Figure S-4: Typical Cross Section of Van Ness Avenue with Build Alternative 4

Center-Lane Alternative Design Option B

Both center-running alternatives (Build Alternatives 3 and 4) contain a design option referred to as the Center-Lane Alternative Design Option B, or Design Option B. This design option would eliminate all but one NB left turn (at Lombard Street) and all but one SB left turn (at Broadway) in the project corridor.

S.7Alternatives Analyzed and the LPA As part of the alternatives analysis required by NEPA, the lead agencies are required to analyze the environmental impacts of all reasonable alternatives. Three build alternatives and a design option for center-lane Alternatives 3 and 4 were analyzed in the Draft EIS/EIR (see Chapter 2 for a description of alternatives), which was circulated for public review and comment from November 4 through December 23, 2011. As required by NEPA, an approved EIS must

For detailed analysis of theVan Ness Avenue BRT Project

performance for alltransportation modes, see

Chapter 3. Analysis of benefitsand impacts of each alternative

across all performance measuresis provided in Chapter 10.

Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project Executive Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement/ Environmental Impact Report

San Francisco County Transportation Authority July 2013 S-7

include the selection of a locally preferred alternative (LPA). The three build alternatives considered consisted of one side-lane option (Alternative 2) and two center-lane options (Alternatives 3 and 4), as well as a reduced left-turn variant (Design Option B). Based on technical analyses presented in the Draft EIS/EIR, as well as agency, stakeholder, and public input received during circulation of the Draft EIS/EIR, and results of risk analyses performed by a steering committee of SFCTA and SFMTA staff, the SFMTA and SFCTA jointly recommended, and subsequently selected, the LPA as a center -lane BRT with right -side boarding/single median and limited left turns for inclusion in the Final EIS/EIR. The LPA includes features of Build Alternatives 3 and 4, as described in greater detail in the following subsection. Section 10.3 describes the process of how the LPA was selected.

S.7.1LPA: CENTER-LANE BRT WITH RIGHT-SIDE BOARDING/SINGLE MEDIAN AND

LIMITED LEFT TURNS

The LPA is a combination and refinement of the center-running alternatives with limited left turns (Build Alternatives 3 and 4 with Design Option B) and is referred to as Center-Lane BRT with Right-Side Boarding/Single Median and Limited Left Turns. The LPA retains the high-performance features of Build Alternatives 3 and 4 (e.g., maximum transit priority, fewest conflicts), while avoiding the need to acquire left-right door vehicles or remove the entire existing median. Under the LPA, BRT vehicles would run alongside a single median for most of the corridor, similar to Build Alternative 4; however, at station locations, BRT vehicles would transition to the center of the roadway, allowing right-side loading at station platforms as under Build Alternative 3. Figure S-5 depicts the LPA on a block without a station and a block with a station. The LPA incorporates Design Option B, the left-turn removal design option that would eliminate all left turns from Van Ness Avenue between Mission and Lombard streets with the exception of a southbound (SB) (two-lane) left turn at Broadway Street. Incorporation of Design Option B would provide the greatest transit travel time benefits, reduce the weaving associated with the transitions buses must make between station locations and blocks without stations, and aid with the flow of north-south traffic along Van Ness Avenue. The LPA also includes a design variant to be decided at the time of project approval. The design variant is a NB transit station at Vallejo Street, referred to as the Vallejo Northbound Station Variant.

Figure S-5: LPA: Center-Running BRT with Right-Side Loading/Single Median and Limited Left Turns

Executive Summary Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project Final Environmental Impact Statement/

Environmental Impact Report

S-8 San Francisco County Transportation Authority July 2013

S.8Project Performance in Meeting Purpose and Need To help support decision making, this EIS/EIR documents BRT performance against a number of measures related to the Purpose and Need described in Section S-4 and Chapter 1. For more detailed analysis of Van Ness Avenue BRT Project performance for all transportation modes, see Chapter 3. Analysis of benefits and impacts of each alternative across all performance measures is provided in Chapter 10.

S.8.1IMPROVED TRANSIT PERFORMANCE AND RIDERSHIP

BRT would significantly improve transit travel time, reliability, passenger comfort, and ridership along Van Ness Avenue. In 2015, relative to Alternative 1 (No Build Alternative), the LPA would reduce transit travel time by 33 percent, reducing the travel time gap between autos and transit by as much as 50 percent (Source: VISSIM model).2 Reliability for the LPA would also improve; the likelihood of a bus unexpectedly stopping (excluding loading and unloading passengers) would decrease by 52 percent, allowing more consistent travel times (Source: VISSIM model). Improved station facilities with level or near level boarding, additional amenities, and real-time arrival information would also improve transit passengers’ comfort. With the LPA, transit boardings for Muni 47 and 49 lines throughout their routes would increase by 37 percent with BRT relative to Alternative 1, and up to half of the additional riders could be former drivers (Source: SF-CHAMP). With implementation of the LPA, Van Ness Avenue BRT would increase the street’s transit mode share to 44 percent of all motorized trips, relative to 30 percent in Alternative 1 (Source: SF-CHAMP). See Section 3.2 for additional information on transit performance.

S.8.2ENHANCED PEDESTRIAN SAFETY AND COMFORT

The Van Ness Avenue BRT Project would incorporate features to increase pedestrian safety at intersections, including pedestrian countdown signals, enhanced median refuges, and additional curb bulbs. These features would shorten crossing distances, allowing nearly all intersections to meet local and federal standards for minimum pedestrian crossing speed, while giving pedestrians more information about when it is safe to cross. New ADA curb ramps and Accessible Pedestrian Signals (APS) along Van Ness Avenue would improve safety and access for all users. Pedestrians would also benefit from wider effective sidewalk widths in many locations, pedestrian-scale lighting, and additional median trees and landscaping and tree plantings along the sidewalk. See Section 3.4 for more information on nonmotorized transportation performance.

S.8.3IMPROVED OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY AND ACCOMMODATION OF PRIVATE

VEHICLES AND COMMERCIAL LOADING

By the most conservative estimates, BRT would maintain the same levels of person-throughput on Van Ness Avenue relative to Alternative 1 (No Build Alternative). The dedicated transit lane would carry more people per hour than each remaining mixed traffic lane; however, by reinvesting saved operating resources into more frequent bus service, daily person throughput on Van Ness Avenue could increase by as much as 8 percent in certain locations. If intangibles such as marketing, branding, permanence, and quality are also considered (as they are for rail projects), daily person throughput could increase by as much as 12 percent on Van Ness Avenue in certain locations (Source: SF-CHAMP).

San Francisco’s grid network supports the Van Ness Avenue BRT Project in many ways. The majority of drivers who would drive on Van Ness Avenue under the No Build Alternative in 2015 would continue to drive on Van Ness Avenue under any of the build alternatives (68 to 81 percent for locations north of Hayes Street, depending on the location), including the LPA (Source: CHS, 2013). Of the remaining 19 to 32 percent, many would continue to drive on a street within two blocks of Van Ness Avenue – mostly

2 The proposed project is scheduled to begin service in 2016 and revenue operations are anticipated in 2018.

Relative to theNo Build Alternative,

the LPA would:

Reduce transit travel timeby 33 percent,

reducing the travel time gapbetween autos and transit by

as much as 50 percent.

Incorporate features toincrease pedestrian safety

at intersections.

Carry more people per hourthan each remaining mixed

traffic lane, resulting inmore efficient operations.

Reinvestment of travel timesavings into more frequent

bus service could raiseperson throughput on

Van Ness Avenueby 8 to 12 percent.

Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project Executive Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement/ Environmental Impact Report

San Francisco County Transportation Authority July 2013 S-9

Franklin Street (Source: CHS, 2013); approximately a third would switch modes to transit or change their travel time of day or destination; and a small portion would continue driving on other parallel streets throughout San Francisco (Source: SF-CHAMP). Due in part to the many alternative options for current drivers on Van Ness Avenue, the implementation of BRT does not increase the net number of intersections operating at level of service (LOS) E or F in 2015 when compared with the No Build Alternative in that same year (Source: CHS, 2013). See Section 3.1 for additional information on multimodal system performance. See Table S-1 at the end of this summary and Section 3.3 for details on traffic circulation and impacts. Section 3.3 also discusses how the traffic effects of converting mixed-traffic lanes to dedicated bus lanes could be managed through signal timing, driver information, improvement of alternative routes, and implementation of numerous citywide transportation improvement and system management efforts that are currently underway.

S.8.4UPGRADED STREETSCAPE

A main component of the Van Ness Avenue BRT Project is to provide a consistent landscaped median treatment and pedestrian lighting, as well as establish a more unified identity for Van Ness Avenue as one of the City’s most prominent arterials and a visible rapid transit service. The improved streetscape features of the LPA would enhance the amenity and urban design of Van Ness Avenue as a gateway into the city.

S.8.5SUPPORT OF CIVIC DESTINATIONS IN THE CORRIDOR AND INTEGRATE

TRANSIT INFRASTRUCTURE WITH ADJACENT LAND USES

The improved streetscape features of the Van Ness Avenue BRT Project would enhance the amenity and urban design of Van Ness Avenue as a gateway into the city while achieving multimodal transportation goals. In addition to serving existing transit demand, the Van Ness Avenue corridor is meant to support recently approved nearby high-density mixed-use development plans. The project will also transform the street into a vibrant pedestrian promenade that supports the Civic Center and commercial uses. Rapid transit service along Van Ness Avenue would contribute to the City’s transit-oriented development efforts by providing high-quality, reliable, comfortable transit that improves access to destinations within the corridor and elsewhere in the city. Placement of BRT infrastructure would demonstrate an investment in the corridor and provides a greater sense of permanence than typical bus facilities. Such facilities can support place-making and livability, while helping to stimulate further transit-oriented development.

S.8.6INCREASED TRANSIT OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY AND CAPITAL COST

EFFECTIVENESS

Muni operating resources in the BRT corridor could see a savings of 16 to 32 percent with BRT relative to the No Build Alternative because fewer buses could provide the same service frequency. The resulting savings could be reinvested in additional service on Van Ness Avenue or elsewhere in the Muni system. See Chapter 9 for more information on Operations Costs for each of the alternatives. As discussed in the Environmental Alternatives Screening Report prepared after scoping, the BRT alternatives provide a cost-effective way to deliver transit benefits to the Van Ness Avenue corridor. See Section S-9 and Chapter 9 for more information on Project Cost and Funding.

S.9Project Cost and Funding The Van Ness Avenue BRT Project LPA is estimated to cost $126 million. Two sources are planned to provide a significant portion of the funding for the project:

Small Starts ($74,999,999 million). This program, which is administered by FTA, provides competitive grants for new transit projects whose total capital costs do not exceed $250 million. The maximum grant award is $74,999,999 million. SFCTA and SFMTA have requested $74,999,999 million in Small Starts funding for the project. In 2012, the project was one of three Small Starts potential projects in the nation to receive a High

As discussed in the Environmental Alternatives Screening Report, BRT provides a cost-effective way to deliver transit benefits to the Van Ness Avenue corridor.

Executive Summary Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project Final Environmental Impact Statement/

Environmental Impact Report

S-10 San Francisco County Transportation Authority July 2013

rating for cost effectiveness and the only Small Starts project in the nation to receive a Medium - High rating for “project justification”. (Source: Fiscal Year 2014 FTA Annual Report on Funding Recommendations)3.

Proposition K Sales Tax ($20.5 million). In November 2003, San Francisco voters approved Proposition K (Prop K), approving a new 30-year Expenditure Plan and extending the local half-cent transportation sales tax. The Board-adopted 2009 Proposition K Strategic Plan programs approximately $20.5 million in sales tax funds to the Van Ness Avenue BRT Project. The Authority will examine the Prop K programming during the next Strategic Plan update to determine if more Prop K funds can be used for the Van Ness Avenue BRT project.

The annual operations and maintenance costs associated with the LPA are significantly lower than those of the No Build Alternative, with cost savings estimated at 28 percent. The savings are attributed to the travel time benefits of the BRT, requiring fewer vehicles to provide a similar amount of service. See Chapter 9 for more information on Project Cost and Funding; Section 9.1.3 includes a broader discussion of funding sources.

S.10Summary of Environmental Impacts Table S-1 summarizes the environmental impacts that would result due to each project alternative, the significance of the impacts, and proposed mitigation measures. Under CEQA significance criteria, the proposed project would result in no impacts or less than significant impacts relative to the following environmental factors:

Agricultural Resources Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Mineral Resources Population, Housing, and Recreation Wind and Shadow Hydrology and Water Quality Land Use Noise and Vibration

With implementation of mitigation measures, the project would result in less than significant impacts relative to the following environmental factors:

Aesthetics/Visual Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Community Impacts Cultural Resources Geology and Soils Hazardous Waste and Materials Public Services Transit Crowding (part of Chapter 3, Transportation Analysis) Utilities and Service Systems

Implementation of any of the build alternatives may result in significant and unavoidable impacts in one environmental category: traffic circulation. Traffic circulation impacts would occur by 2035 at 11 intersections in the corridor for the LPA, primarily along Franklin and Gough streets. If implemented, mitigation measures could reduce traffic impacts to less than significant levels. However, the mitigation measures identified in Section 3.3.4, while reducing localized traffic delays in the short term, may ultimately be found by the Authority Board to not be feasible due to policy conflicts, specifically the need to balance traffic 3 The Van Ness Avenue BRT Project received a score of “High” on all three project justification criteria where scoring

measures have been defined. For the three criteria where measures have not yet been defined, all projects were assigned a rating of “medium.” In all previous annual funding recommendations since 2007 (where all measures had been defined), Van Ness Avenue BRT Project has received a score of “High” for project justification, the only Small Starts Project in the nation to receive such a designation.

Van Ness BRT would result intraffic circulation impacts at

6 to 11 intersections in thecorridor, primarily along

Franklin and Gough streets,but no significant impacts at

other intersections, or to transitor nonmotorized transportation.

If implemented, mitigationmeasures could reduce

traffic impacts.

Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project Executive Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement/ Environmental Impact Report

San Francisco County Transportation Authority July 2013 S-11

circulation with pedestrian and transit circulation and safety. In addition, these engineering techniques function by increasing automobile traffic capacity and are unlikely to be effective in the long term due to the risk of induced demand. Section 3.3.4 provides a more comprehensive description of those intersections that would be significantly impacted.

No unmitigable, significant impacts are projected for transit or to nonmotorized transportation. A detailed discussion of impacts, and associated improvement and mitigation measures is provided in Chapter 3, Transportation Analysis, and Chapter 4, Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures. Analysis of cumulative impacts is presented in Chapter 5.

S.11Areas of Controversy Primary areas of controversy raised by the public during review of the Draft EIS/EIR consist of: traffic congestion on Van Ness Avenue and diversion onto parallel streets in the project vicinity, including how increased traffic congestion would affect air quality and noise in the project area; the project’s effects on trees on Van Ness Avenue and the desire to preserve trees; the effects of relocating existing bus stops and stop consolidation (limiting of stops); and concern about how the project alternatives were defined and that there should be more consideration of less costly express bus alternatives. A more detailed discussion of areas of controversy is provided in Section 7.7.

S.12Locally Preferred Alternative Selection As described in Section 10.3, the Draft EIS/EIR for the proposed project was made available to the public for review from November 4 through December 23, 2011. During the Draft EIS/EIR review period, the project team solicited further public and agency input on the alternatives analysis, including input on the selection of an LPA, through a public hearing, webinar, and stakeholder meetings. In particular, input on those performance indicators that are directly related to the project purpose were sought. Once input was gathered from all of the parties, including comments received on the Draft EIS/EIR, SFCTA and SFMTA staff proposed an LPA. An LPA Report was prepared, including a summary of public and agency input, analysis of alternatives’ performance, and the recommended LPA (SFCTA, 2012). The LPA Report was presented to the SFCTA and SFMTA Boards for adoption, and in summer 2012 was unanimously approved by the Board of Commissioners, which authorized the Executive Director to analyze the Staff Recommended LPA in the Final EIS/EIR. The LPA is a refinement of the center-running alternatives with limited left turns (Build Alternatives 3 and 4 with Design Option B), and is referred to as Center-Lane BRT with Right-Side Boarding/Single Median and Limited Left Turns. The staff-recommended LPA combines features of Build Alternatives 3 and 4 in such a way that it reduces project risk associated with needing to rebuild the entire median (and associated environmental, utilities, and cost impacts) and needing to procure dual-side door vehicles (cost and operations impacts) without compromising the ability of the project to fulfill the purpose and need. Additional detail about the LPA selection process is provided in Sections 10.3.2 through 10.3.8.

S.13Project Timeline This Final EIS/EIR was completed following selection of the LPA. The Final EIS/EIR includes all comments received during the public review of the Draft EIS/EIR (Appendix I), responds to those comments, documents the LPA, and proposes mitigation measures for significant impacts. The next steps include certification of this Final EIR by the SFCTA and approval of this Final EIS by the FTA, publication of a NEPA Notice of Availability of this Final EIS in the Federal Register, and subsequent approval of a Record of Decision (ROD) by the FTA. The Final EIS/EIR will be distributed to agencies that previously commented on the Draft EIS/EIR. FTA may sign the ROD no less than 30 days after the Notice of Availability is published in the Federal Register.

Executive Summary Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project Final Environmental Impact Statement/

Environmental Impact Report

S-12 San Francisco County Transportation Authority July 2013

The SFCTA Board of Commissioners and SFMTA Board of Directors would next approve the project to pursue final design and construction phases of the LPA. A Statement of Overriding Considerations is prepared, which is a CEQA findings document that includes a summary of significant and unavoidable impact findings identified in the Final EIS/EIR and explains the justification for approving the project despite these impacts. The Statement of Overriding Considerations is presented at the time of project approval as part of the CEQA Findings. Inclusion of the Vallejo Northbound Station Variant in the project design would be determined at the time of project approval and documented in the CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations.

Construction of the proposed project is planned to begin in 2016 and last 20 months. BRT service is anticipated to begin in 2018.

S.14Opportunities for Public Input The project proponents encourage members of the public to remain involved with the project by reviewing the Final EIS/EIR and attending the SFCTA Board certification hearing, attending project meetings with neighborhood groups and other stakeholders throughout the final design and construction phases of the project, visiting the project website (www.vannessbrt.org), and subscribing to the project e-mail newsletter and mailing list. Through these communication channels, the SFMTA will distribute information about the upcoming formation of the Final Design and Construction Period Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC), in addition to briefings to neighborhood and other local organizations. A list of upcoming meetings is made available on the project Web site: www.vannessbrt.org and will be publicized through the project electronic newsletter. Requests to be added to the newsletter and mailing list may be made by contacting:

Attn: Michael Schwartz San Francisco County Transportation Authority 1455 Market St., 22nd Floor San Francisco, CA 94103 vannessbrt@sfcta.org

Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project Executive Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement/ Environmental Impact Report

San Francisco County Transportation Authority July 2013 S-13

Table S-1: Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

ENVIRONMENTAL AREA/ IMPACTS

NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 2: SIDE-LANE BRT WITH STREET PARKING

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 3: CENTER-LANE BRT WITH RIGHT-SIDE BOARDING AND DUAL MEDIANS

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 3 WITH DESIGN OPTION B

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 4: CENTER-LANE BRT WITH LEFT-SIDE BOARDING AND SINGLE MEDIAN

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 4 WITH DESIGN OPTION B

LPA (COMBINES ALTERNATIVES 3 AND 4)1

Aesthetics/ Visual Resources

Construction

No impact. Less than significant impact.

Less than significant impacts to aesthetics would result from temporary visual disruptions by construction activity, such as signage, soil stockpiles, and construction equipment. Nighttime construction would require artificial lighting, which would be minimized in residential areas and set up to avoid significant light and glare impacts on adjacent residential properties.

Improvement Measures: IM-AE-C1: During project construction, SFMTA will require the contractor to maintain the site in an orderly manner, removing trash and waste, and securing equipment at the close of each day’s operation.

IM-AE-C2: To reduce glare and light used during nighttime construction activities, SFMTA will require the contractor to direct lighting onto the immediate area under construction only and to avoid shining lights toward residences, nighttime commercial properties, and traffic lanes.

Less than significant impact.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Less than significant impact.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Less than significant impact.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Less than significant impact.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Less than significant impact.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Aesthetics/ Visual Resources

Operation

No impact. Less than significant impact with mitigation.

Mitigation measures will be implemented to address impacts to visual character and scenic resources resulting from the following project features: replacement of the existing OCS support pole/streetlight network with taller network that meets current sidewalk and roadway lighting standards and can accommodate the BRT OCS loads, introduction of BRT stations and streetscape features, and reconstruction of the Van Ness Avenue median and implementation of new BRT stations adjacent to the sidewalk, which would involve removal of approximately 14 percent of existing sidewalk and median trees.

Mitigation Measures: M-AE-1: Design sidewalk lighting to minimize glare and nighttime light intrusion on adjacent residential properties and other properties that would be sensitive to increased sidewalk lighting. M-AE-2: Design and install a replacement OCS support pole/streetlight network that (1) retains the aesthetic function of the existing network as a consistent infrastructural element along Van Ness Avenue, (2) assures a uniform architectural style, character, and color throughout the corridor that is compatible with the existing visual setting and (3) retains the architectural style of the original OCS support pole/ streetlight network. Within the Civic Center Historic District, design the OCS support pole/streetlight network to comply with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and be compatible with the character of the historic district as described in the Civic Center Historic District designating ordinance as called for by the San Francisco Planning Code. M-AE-3: To the extent that the project alters sidewalk and median landscaping, design and implement a project landscape design plan, including tree type and planting scheme for median BRT stations and sidewalk plantings that replaces removed landscaping and re-establishes high-quality landscaped medians and a tree-lined corridor. To the extent feasible, use single-species street trees and overall design that provides a sense of identity and cohesiveness for the corridor. Place new trees close to corners, if feasible, for visibility. The project landscape design plan will require review and approval by the San Francisco Arts Commission, as well as review and approval by the SFDPW as part of their permitting of work in the street ROW, which ensures consistency with the San Francisco Better Streets Plan. The median landscape design plan within the Civic Center Historic District will be reviewed by the San Francisco HPC and the City Hall Preservation Advisory Commission. A Certificate of Appropriateness must be obtained from the HPC for the landscape plans within the Civic Center Historic District.

M-AE-4: Design and install landscaped medians so that median design promotes a unified, visual concept for the Van Ness Avenue corridor consistent with policies in the Van Ness Area Plan, Civic Center Area Plan, and San Francisco Better Streets Plan. This design goal for a unified, visual concept will be balanced with the goal of preserving existing trees; thus, new tree plantings would be in-filled around preserved trees.

M-AE-5: Design and install a project BRT station and transitway design plan (including station canopies, wind turbines, and other features) that is consistent with applicable City design policies in the San Francisco General Plan and San Francisco Better Streets Plan; and for project features located in the Civic Center Historic District, apply the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, Planning Code Article 10, Appendix J pertaining to the Civic Center Historic District, and other applicable guidelines, local interpretations, and bulletins concerning historic resources.

Review and approval processes supporting this measure include: (1) San Francisco Art Commission

Less than significant impact with mitigation.

Same as Build Alternative 2, except 25 percent of existing trees would be removed, all of them along the median. The same mitigation measures as Build Alternative 2 would be implemented.

Less than significant impact with mitigation.

Same as Build Alternative 3.

Less than significant impact with mitigation.

Same as Build Alternative 2, except 15 percent of existing trees would be removed. The same mitigation measures as Build Alternative 2 would be implemented.

Less than significant impact with mitigation.

Same as Build Alternative 4.

Less than significant impact with mitigation.

Same as Build Alternative 2, except 22 percent of existing trees would be removed. The same mitigation measures as Build Alternative 2 would be implemented.

1 The summary of impacts and mitigation for the LPA includes all impacts and mitigation that would pertain to the LPA with or without incorporation of the Vallejo Northbound Station Variant into the project design.

Executive Summary Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project Final Environmental Impact Statement/ Environmental Impact Report

S-14 San Francisco County Transportation Authority July 2013

Table S-1: Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

ENVIRONMENTAL AREA/ IMPACTS

NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 2: SIDE-LANE BRT WITH STREET PARKING

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 3: CENTER-LANE BRT WITH RIGHT-SIDE BOARDING AND DUAL MEDIANS

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 3 WITH DESIGN OPTION B

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 4: CENTER-LANE BRT WITH LEFT-SIDE BOARDING AND SINGLE MEDIAN

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 4 WITH DESIGN OPTION B

LPA (COMBINES ALTERNATIVES 3 AND 4)1

approval of the station and transitway design plan as part of its review of public structures; (2) SFDPW approval of the station and transitway design plan as part of its permitting of work in the street ROW, which it will include review for consistency with the San Francisco Better Streets Plan; (3) HPC approval of the portion of the station and transitway design plan located within the Civic Center Historic District as part of granting a Certificate of Appropriateness; and (4) City Hall Preservation Advisory Commission and City Planning Department advisement on design to HPC.

M-AE-6: Context-sensitive design of BRT station features will be balanced with the project objective to provide a branded, cohesive identity for the proposed BRT service. The following design objectives that support planning policies described in Section 4.4.1 will be considered in BRT station design and landscaping:

Architectural integration of BRT stations with adjacent Significant and Contributory Buildings through station canopy placement, materials, color, lighting, and texture, as well as the presence of modern solar paneling and wind turbine features to harmonize project features with adjacent Significant and Contributory Buildings.

Integration of BRT stations and landscaping with existing and proposed streetscape design themes within the Civic Center Historic District in conformance with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and compatible with the character of the historic district as described in the Civic Center Historic District designating ordinance as called for by the San Francisco Planning Code.

Marking the intersection of Van Ness Avenue and Market Street as a visual landmark and gateway to the city in design of the Market Street BRT station.

Aesthetics/ Visual Resources

Cumulative

No cumulative impacts.

No cumulative impacts. No cumulative impacts. No cumulative impacts. No cumulative impacts.

No cumulative impacts.

No cumulative impacts.

Air Quality

Construction

No impact. Less than significant impact with mitigation.

Construction activity would result in a less than significant impact under CEQA due to exceedances of nitrogen oxide (NOX) emissions. Implementation of Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) control measures would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measures: M-AQ-C1: Construction contractors shall implement the BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures listed in Table 4.15-4 and the applicable measures in the Additional Construction Mitigation Measures. This includes Measure 10 in the Additional Construction Mitigation Measures.

M-AQ-C2: Construction contractors shall comply with BAAQMD Regulation 11 (Hazardous Pollutants) Rule 2 (Asbestos Demolition, Renovation, and Manufacturing). The requirements for demolition activities include removal standards, reporting requirements, and mandatory monitoring and record keeping.

Less than significant impact with mitigation.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Less than significant impact with mitigation.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Less than significant impact with mitigation.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Less than significant impact with mitigation.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Less than significant impact with mitigation.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Air Quality

Operation

Less than significant impact.

Less than significant impact.

Localized carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations would result in less-than-significant impacts. An analysis of emissions from idling vehicles during peak congestion period at the most congested intersection showed idle emissions would be well below the State standards after implementation of the BRT in year 2035 traffic conditions. Toxic air contaminant (TAC) emissions would result in a less-than-significant impact under CEQA. The project would not increase TAC emissions. The proposed BRT would reduce regional operational emissions, resulting in a beneficial impact. Localized CO concentrations associated with each of the alternatives would not exceed State ambient air quality standards, and all alternatives would be consistent with the BAAQMD regional air quality plans. The project would reduce the volume of cars by providing the public with alternative means of transportation, which results in lower citywide vehicle miles traveled (VMT), reducing regional operational emissions.

Less than significant impact.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Less than significant impact.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Less than significant impact.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Less than significant impact.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Less than significant impact.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Air Quality

Cumulative

No cumulative impacts.

Less than significant impact with mitigation.

Mitigation Measures M-AQ-C1 and M-AQ-C2 would avoid significant, cumulative air quality impacts during construction of the proposed project and other planned projects in the vicinity.

Less than significant impact with mitigation.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Less than significant impact with mitigation.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Less than significant impact with mitigation.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Less than significant impact with mitigation.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Less than significant impact with mitigation.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

1 The summary of impacts and mitigation for the LPA includes all impacts and mitigation that would pertain to the LPA with or without incorporation of the Vallejo Northbound Station Variant into the project design.

Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project Executive Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement/ Environmental Impact Report

San Francisco County Transportation Authority July 2013 S-15

Table S-1: Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

ENVIRONMENTAL AREA/ IMPACTS

NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 2: SIDE-LANE BRT WITH STREET PARKING

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 3: CENTER-LANE BRT WITH RIGHT-SIDE BOARDING AND DUAL MEDIANS

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 3 WITH DESIGN OPTION B

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 4: CENTER-LANE BRT WITH LEFT-SIDE BOARDING AND SINGLE MEDIAN

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 4 WITH DESIGN OPTION B

LPA (COMBINES ALTERNATIVES 3 AND 4)1

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Operation

No impact. No impact.

The proposed project would decrease automobile VMT and associated greenhouse gas emissions compared to baseline conditions, and it would cause a beneficial global warming impact.

No impact.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

No impact.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

No impact.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

No impact.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

No impact.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Cumulative

No cumulative impacts.

No cumulative impacts. Transit projects, like the proposed project, reduce the volume of cars resulting in overall reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

No cumulative impacts. No cumulative impacts. No cumulative impacts.

No cumulative impacts.

No cumulative impacts.

Biological Environment

Construction

No impact. Less than significant impact with mitigation.

Less than significant impacts to trees and nesting birds would result from temporary construction activity the disturbance of bird nests during breeding season. Mitigation measures will avoid disturbance of protected bird nests during breeding season, and require measures to preserve tree health during construction. Mitigation measures are required to address potential impacts to trees and nesting birds during project construction.

Mitigation Measures: M-BI-C1: Best Management Practices (BMPs) identified in tree protection plans and tree removal permits resulting from the preconstruction tree survey will be implemented to preserve the health of trees during project construction.

M-BI-C2: Disturbance of protected bird nests during the breeding season will be avoided. Tree and shrub removal will be scheduled during the non-breeding season (i.e., September 1 through January 31), as feasible. If tree and shrub removal are required to occur during the breeding season (i.e., February 1 through August 31), then the following measures will be implemented to avoid potential adverse effects to nesting birds:

A qualified wildlife biologist will conduct preconstruction surveys of all potential nesting habitats within 500 feet of construction activities where access is available. Exclusionary structures (e.g., netting or plastic sheeting) may be used to discourage the construction of nests by birds within the project construction zone. A preconstruction survey of all accessible nesting habitats within 500 feet of construction activities is required to occur no more than 2 weeks prior to construction.

If preconstruction surveys conducted no more than 2 weeks prior to construction identify that protected nests are inactive or potential habitat is unoccupied during the construction period, then no further mitigation is required. Trees and shrubs within the construction footprint that have been determined to be unoccupied by protected birds or that are located outside the no-disturbance buffer for active nests may be removed.

If active protected nests are found during preconstruction surveys, then the project proponent will create a no-disturbance buffer (acceptable in size to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife [CDFW]) around active protected bird and/or raptor nests during the breeding season, or until it is determined that all young have fledged. Typical buffers include 500 feet for raptors and 50 feet for passerine nesting birds. The size of these buffer zones and types of construction activities restricted in these areas may be further modified during consultation with CDFW, and it will be based on existing noise and human disturbance levels at the project site. Nests initiated during construction are presumed to be unaffected, and no buffer will be necessary; however the “take” (e.g., mortality, severe disturbance to) of any individual protected birds will be prohibited. Monitoring of active nests when construction activities encroach upon established buffers may be required by CDFW.

Less than significant impact with mitigation.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Less than significant impact with mitigation.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Less than significant impact with mitigation.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Less than significant impact with mitigation.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Less than significant impact with mitigation.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Biological Environment

Operation

No impact. Less than significant impact.

Less than significant impacts would result from removal of existing trees and landscaping. Build Alternative 2 would result in the removal of some median and sidewalk trees within the project limits. Replacement trees would be planted. Benefits of mature tree canopies would be reduced until new plantings mature, and replacement trees would not offer the same width canopy of many existing trees due to the OCS clearance requirements. The project would offset these impacts by planting more trees in the Van Ness corridor than currently present, resulting in less than significant impacts.

Improvement Measures: Potential disturbance to migratory birds during project construction and tree removal is discussed in Section 4.15.11, Construction Impacts. To minimize impacts from removal of existing trees and

Less than significant impact. Same as Build Alternative 2. Replacement trees would be planted in the median. Sidewalk trees would not be affected under this alternative. Benefits of mature tree canopies would be reduced until new plantings mature, and replacement trees would not offer the same width canopy of many existing trees due

Less than significant impact.

Same as Build Alternative 3.

Less than significant impact

Build Alternative 4 would result in the removal of approximately 64 median trees, or 15 percent of median trees within the project limits. Sidewalk trees would not be affected.

Less than significant impact.

Same as Build Alternative4.

Less than significant impact.

The LPA would result in the removal of approximately 90 median trees, or 82 percent of median trees within the project limits. Approximately 95 new median trees

1 The summary of impacts and mitigation for the LPA includes all impacts and mitigation that would pertain to the LPA with or without incorporation of the Vallejo Northbound Station Variant into the project design.

Executive Summary Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project Final Environmental Impact Statement/ Environmental Impact Report

S-16 San Francisco County Transportation Authority July 2013

Table S-1: Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

ENVIRONMENTAL AREA/ IMPACTS

NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 2: SIDE-LANE BRT WITH STREET PARKING

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 3: CENTER-LANE BRT WITH RIGHT-SIDE BOARDING AND DUAL MEDIANS

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 3 WITH DESIGN OPTION B

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 4: CENTER-LANE BRT WITH LEFT-SIDE BOARDING AND SINGLE MEDIAN

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 4 WITH DESIGN OPTION B

LPA (COMBINES ALTERNATIVES 3 AND 4)1

landscaping, the following improvement measures and permit requirements would be incorporated into project design for each build alternative, including Design Option B:

IM-BI-1: In compliance with local tree protection policies, mature trees shall be preserved and incorporated into the project landscape plan as feasible. Planting of replacement trees and landscaping will be incorporated into the landscape plan as feasible (also refer to mitigation measure M-AE-3, addressing aesthetic/visual impacts).

IM-BI-2: A certified arborist will complete a preconstruction tree survey to identify protected trees that will be potentially impacted by the proposed project, and to determine the need for tree removal permits and tree protection plans under San Francisco Public Works Code requirements.

IM-BI-3: In compliance with the Executive Order on Invasive Species, E.O. 13112, the landscaping included in the proposed project would not use species listed as noxious weeds.

to the OCS clearance requirements. The project would offset these impacts by planting more trees in the Van Ness corridor than currently present, and implementation of Improvement Measures IM-BI-1, IM-BI-2 and IM-BI-3 listed under Build Alternative 2, resulting in less than significant impacts.

Replacement trees would be planted. Benefits of mature tree canopies would be reduced until new plantings mature, and replacement trees would not offer the same width canopy of many existing trees due to the OCS clearance requirements. The project would offset these impacts by planting more trees in the Van Ness corridor than currently present, and implementation of Improvement Measures IM-BI-1, IM-BI-2 and IM-BI-3 listed under Build Alternative 2, resulting in less than significant impacts.

would be planted.Sidewalk trees would not be affected. Benefits of mature tree canopies would be reduced until new plantings mature, and replacement trees would not offer the same width canopy of many existing trees due to the OCS clearance requirements. The project would offset these impacts by planting more trees in the Van Ness corridor than currently present, and implementation of Improvement Measures IM-BI-1, IM-BI-2 and IM-BI-3 listed under Build Alternative 2, resulting in less than significant impacts.

Biological Environment

Cumulative

No cumulative impacts.

No cumulative impacts. No cumulative impacts. No cumulative impacts. No cumulative impacts.

No cumulative impacts.

No cumulative impacts.

Cultural Resources

Construction

No impact. Less than significant impact with mitigation.

Less than significant impacts would occur to significant historic and architectural properties. Excavation work would occur within the Van Ness Avenue ROW, where there is a low probability of uncovering significant archaeological deposits. Implementation of mitigation measures is required to address potential impacts to archaeological resources and human remains that may be encountered during project construction.

Mitigation Measures: M-CP-C1: Focused archival research will identify specific areas within the APE that are likely to contain potentially significant remains. Methods and findings will be documented as an addendum to the 2009 survey and sensitivity assessment (Byrd et al., 2013). Research will be initiated once the project’s APE map is finalized identifying the major Areas of Direct Impact (i.e., the stations and sewer relocation). Many documents, maps, and drawings cover long stretches of Van Ness Avenue, while other locations may be researched if documents indicate potential sensitivity in adjacent areas.

The Addendum Survey Report will include the following:

A contextual section that addresses the development of urban infrastructure along Van Ness Avenue, as well as widening and grading activities along the thoroughfare. This overview will provide a basis for evaluating potential resources as they relate to the history of San Francisco and to its infrastructure.

Documentary research that identifies the types of documents available for the identified station locations: street profiles for grading, street widening maps showing demolished building sites, utility work plans, and others as appropriate. This will include researching various archives and records of public agencies in both San Francisco and Oakland (Caltrans).

Less than significant impact with mitigation.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Less than significant impact with mitigation.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Less than significant impact with mitigation.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Less than significant impact with mitigation.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Less than significant impact with mitigation.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

1 The summary of impacts and mitigation for the LPA includes all impacts and mitigation that would pertain to the LPA with or without incorporation of the Vallejo Northbound Station Variant into the project design.

Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project Executive Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement/ Environmental Impact Report

San Francisco County Transportation Authority July 2013 S-17

Table S-1: Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

ENVIRONMENTAL AREA/ IMPACTS

NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 2: SIDE-LANE BRT WITH STREET PARKING

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 3: CENTER-LANE BRT WITH RIGHT-SIDE BOARDING AND DUAL MEDIANS

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 3 WITH DESIGN OPTION B

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 4: CENTER-LANE BRT WITH LEFT-SIDE BOARDING AND SINGLE MEDIAN

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 4 WITH DESIGN OPTION B

LPA (COMBINES ALTERNATIVES 3 AND 4)1

Locations apt to have historic remains present within select areas of the APE (i.e., not removed by later grading or construction).

A cut-and-fill reconstruction of the entire APE corridor, comparing the modern versus mid-1800s ground surface elevations, to fine-tune the initial prehistoric sensitivity assessment, and refine the location of high-sensitivity locations where prehistoric remains may be preserved.

Relevant profiles and plan views of specific blocks to illustrate the methods used in analyzing available documentation.

Summary and conclusions to provide detailed information on locations that have the potential to contain extant prehistoric archaeological and historic-era remains that might be evaluated as significant resources, if any.

Two results are possible based on documentary research:

No or Low Potential for Sensitive Locations – Major Areas of Direct Impact have no potential to retain extant archaeological remains that could be evaluated as significant resources. No further work would be recommended, beyond adherence to the Inadvertent Discovery Plan (M-CP-3).

Potentially Sensitive Locations – If the major Areas of Direct Impact contain locations with a moderate to high potential to retain extant historic or prehistoric archaeological remains that could be evaluated as significant resources, further work would be carried out, detailed in a Testing and Treatment Plan (see M-CP-2).

The Phase I addendum report will be submitted to the SHPO for review and concurrence prior to initiation of construction.

M-CP-C2: The Testing/Treatment plan, if required, would provide archaeological protocols to be employed immediately prior to project construction to test areas identified as potentially significant or having the potential to contain buried cultural resources. If such areas might be unavoidable, mitigation measures would be proposed.

For historic-era resources, work would initially entail detailed, focused documentary research to evaluate the potential significance of any archaeological material identified during initial research that might be preserved. Significance would be based on the data-potential of possible remains applied to accepted research designs. Two results could ensue:

No Potentially Significant Remains. If no locations demonstrate the potential for significant remains, no further archaeological testing would be recommended.

Potentially Significant Remains. If any locations have the potential to contain significant remains, then appropriate field methods will be proposed, including compressed testing and data-recovery efforts. Testing will be initiated immediately prior to construction, when there is access to historic ground levels.

Should a site or site feature be found and evaluated as potentially significant, mitigation in the form of data recovery will take place immediately upon discovery should avoidance of the site not be possible.

If required for prehistoric resources, a Treatment Plan would identify relevant research issues for resource evaluation, and pragmatic field methods to identify, evaluate, and conduct data recovery if needed. This could include a pre-construction geoarchaeological coring program or a compressed three-phase field effort occurring prior to construction, when the ground surface is accessible.

The procedures detailed in the Treatment Plan would be finalized in consultation with the SHPO.

A Phase 2 Test/Phase 3 Mitigation report will document all testing and data-recovery excavation methods and findings.

M-CP-C3: If buried cultural resources are encountered during construction activities, pursuant to 36 CFR 800.13, construction would be halted and the discovery area isolated and secured until a qualified professional archaeologist assesses the nature and significance of the find. Unusual, rare, or unique finds—particularly artifacts or features not found during data recovery—could require additional study. Examples of these would include the following:

Any bone that cannot immediately be identified as non-human

Any types of intact features (e.g., hearths, house floors, cache pits, structural foundations)

Artifact caches or concentrations

1 The summary of impacts and mitigation for the LPA includes all impacts and mitigation that would pertain to the LPA with or without incorporation of the Vallejo Northbound Station Variant into the project design.

Executive Summary Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project Final Environmental Impact Statement/ Environmental Impact Report

S-18 San Francisco County Transportation Authority July 2013

Table S-1: Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

ENVIRONMENTAL AREA/ IMPACTS

NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 2: SIDE-LANE BRT WITH STREET PARKING

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 3: CENTER-LANE BRT WITH RIGHT-SIDE BOARDING AND DUAL MEDIANS

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 3 WITH DESIGN OPTION B

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 4: CENTER-LANE BRT WITH LEFT-SIDE BOARDING AND SINGLE MEDIAN

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 4 WITH DESIGN OPTION B

LPA (COMBINES ALTERNATIVES 3 AND 4)1

Rare or unique items (i.e., engraved or incised stone or bone, beads or ornaments, mission-era artifacts)

Archaeological remains that are redundant with materials collected during testing or data recovery and that have minimal data potential need not be formally investigated. This could include debitage; most flaked or ground tools, with the exception of diagnostic or unique items (e.g., projectile points, crescents); shell; non-human bone; charcoal; and other plant remains.

Diagnostic and unique artifacts unearthed during construction would be collected and their origins noted. Artifact concentrations and other features would be photographed, flotation/soils/radiocarbon samples taken (as appropriate), and locations mapped using a GPS device.

Upon discovery of deposits that may constitute a site, the agency official shall notify the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and any Indian tribe that might attach religious and cultural significance to the affected property. The notification shall describe the agency official’s assessment of National Register eligibility of the property and proposed actions to resolve the adverse effects (if any). The SHPO, Indian tribe, and Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (the Council) shall respond within 48 hours of the notification. The agency official shall take into account their recommendations regarding National Register eligibility and proposed actions, and then carry out appropriate actions. The agency official shall provide the SHPO, Indian tribe, and the Council a report of the actions when they are completed.

The above activities could be carried out quickly and efficiently, with as little delay as possible to construction work.

The methods and results of any excavations would be documented, with photographs, in an Addendum Report. Any artifacts collected would be curated along with the main collection. Samples would be processed in a lab and analyzed, or curated with the collection for future studies, at the discretion of the project proponent.

If major adjustments are made to the final project design, a qualified professional archaeologist should be consulted before work begins, to determine whether additional survey, research, and/or geoarchaeological assessments are needed.

M-CP-C4: If human remains are discovered during project construction, the stipulations provided under Section 7050.5 of the State Health and Safety Code will be followed. The San Francisco County coroner would be notified as soon as is reasonably possible (CEQA Section 15064.5). There would be no further site disturbance where the remains were found, and all construction work would be halted within 100 feet of the discovery. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the coroner is responsible for contacting the California Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours. The Commission, pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 would notify those persons it believes to be the most likely descendants (MLD). Treatment of the remains would be dependent on the views of the MLD.

Cultural Resources

Operation

No impact. Less than significant impact.

Less than significant impacts would occur to significant historic and architectural properties. No impacts to archaeological resources would result during project operation. Mitigation measures M-AE-2, M-AE-3, M-AE-5, and M-AE-6, presented in Section 4.4.4 and in this table under Aesthetics/Visual Resources, ensure compatibility of the BRT project with historic elements such as the Civic Center Historic District.

Less than significant impact.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Less than significant impact.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Less than significant impact.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Less than significant impact.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Less than significant impact.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Cultural Resources

Cumulative

No cumulative impacts.

No cumulative impacts. No cumulative impacts.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

No cumulative impacts.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

No cumulative impacts.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

No cumulative impacts.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

No cumulative impacts.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Section 4(f) Resources

Construction

No direct or constructive use.

No direct or temporary use.

Project construction would not result in direct or constructive use of Section 4(f) resources. No direct or constructive use.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

No direct or constructive use.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

No direct or constructive use.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

No direct or constructive use.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

No direct or constructive use.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Section 4(f) Resources

Operation

No direct or constructive use.

No direct or constructive use.

The proposed project would not result in direct use or constructive use of Section 4(f) resources.

No direct or constructive use.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

No direct or constructive use.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

No direct or constructive use.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

No direct or constructive use.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

No direct or constructive use.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

1 The summary of impacts and mitigation for the LPA includes all impacts and mitigation that would pertain to the LPA with or without incorporation of the Vallejo Northbound Station Variant into the project design.

Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project Executive Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement/ Environmental Impact Report

San Francisco County Transportation Authority July 2013 S-19

Table S-1: Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

ENVIRONMENTAL AREA/ IMPACTS

NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 2: SIDE-LANE BRT WITH STREET PARKING

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 3: CENTER-LANE BRT WITH RIGHT-SIDE BOARDING AND DUAL MEDIANS

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 3 WITH DESIGN OPTION B

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 4: CENTER-LANE BRT WITH LEFT-SIDE BOARDING AND SINGLE MEDIAN

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 4 WITH DESIGN OPTION B

LPA (COMBINES ALTERNATIVES 3 AND 4)1

Section 4(f) Resources

Cumulative

No impact. No impact. No impact.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

No impact.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

No impact.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

No impact.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

No impact.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Geology/Soils/ Seismicity/ Topography

Construction

No impact. Less than significant impact with mitigation.

Mitigation measures are required to avoid slope instability impacts during project construction.

Mitigation Measures: M-GE-C1: All cuts deeper than 5 feet must be shored (AGS, 2009a). Shoring design of open excavations must be completed in consideration of the surcharge load from nearby structures, including an examination of the potential for lateral movement of the excavation walls as a result. The following construction BMPs related to shoring and slope stability will be implemented:

Heavy construction equipment, building materials, excavated soil, and vehicle traffic shall be kept away from the edge of excavations, generally a distance equal to or greater than the depth of the excavation.

During wet weather, storm runoff shall be prevented from entering the excavation. Excavation sidewalls can be covered with plastic sheeting, and berms can be placed around the perimeter of the excavated areas.

Sidewalks, slabs, pavement, and utilities adjacent to proposed excavations shall be adequately supported during construction.

Less than significant impact with mitigation.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Less than significant impact with mitigation.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Less than significant impact with mitigation.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Less than significant impact with mitigation.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Less than significant impact with mitigation.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Geology/Soils/ Seismicity/ Topography

Operation

No impact. No impact.

The project would not result in soil erosion, and project design would avoid potential seismic hazards. There are no substantial geologic hazard impacts that would not be fully addressed by design requirements.

Improvement Measures: IM-GE-1: Localized soil modification treatments will be performed as needed at locations where station platforms would be located in areas of fill or areas mapped as a liquefaction area. Such soil modification may include soil vibro-compaction or permeation grouting.

IM-GE-2: Fill soils will be overexcavated and replaced with engineered fill as needed in areas where proposed project structures would be located in areas of fill or in liquefaction zones.

IM-GE-3: Deeper foundations will be designed for station platforms and canopies located in areas of fill or areas mapped as a liquefaction area, as needed.

No impact.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

No impact.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

No impact.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

No impact.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

No impact.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Geology/Soils/ Seismicity/ Topography

Cumulative

No cumulative impacts.

No cumulative impacts. No cumulative impacts.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

No cumulative impacts.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

No cumulative impacts.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

No cumulative impacts.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

No cumulative impacts.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Hazardous Waste/ Materials

Construction

No impact. Less than significant impact with mitigation.

Mitigation measures are required to avoid and minimize hazardous materials exposure during project construction.

Mitigation Measures: M-HZ-C1: A Worker Site Health and Safety Plan will be created with the following components, in response to potential recognized environmental conditions (RECs) identified in the Phase II review or other follow-up investigations, and results from preconstruction lead-based paint LBP and aerially deposited lead (ADL) surveys specified in Sections 4.8.3 and 4.8.4:

A safety and health risk/hazards analysis for each site task and operation in the work plan;

Employee training assignments;

Personal protective equipment requirements;

Medical surveillance requirements;

Air monitoring, environmental sampling techniques, and instrumentation;

Safe storage and disposal measures for encountered contaminated soil, groundwater, or debris, including temporary storage locations, labeling, and containment procedures.

Emergency response plan; and

Less than significant impact with mitigation.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Less than significant impact with mitigation.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Less than significant impact with mitigation.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Less than significant impact with mitigation.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Less than significant impact with mitigation.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

1 The summary of impacts and mitigation for the LPA includes all impacts and mitigation that would pertain to the LPA with or without incorporation of the Vallejo Northbound Station Variant into the project design.

Executive Summary Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project Final Environmental Impact Statement/ Environmental Impact Report

S-20 San Francisco County Transportation Authority July 2013

Table S-1: Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

ENVIRONMENTAL AREA/ IMPACTS

NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 2: SIDE-LANE BRT WITH STREET PARKING

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 3: CENTER-LANE BRT WITH RIGHT-SIDE BOARDING AND DUAL MEDIANS

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 3 WITH DESIGN OPTION B

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 4: CENTER-LANE BRT WITH LEFT-SIDE BOARDING AND SINGLE MEDIAN

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 4 WITH DESIGN OPTION B

LPA (COMBINES ALTERNATIVES 3 AND 4)1

Spill containment program.

M-HZ-C2: Procedures will be included in the project Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to contain any possible contamination, including protection of storm drains, and to prevent any contaminated runoff or leakage either into or onto exposed ground surfaces, as specified in Section 4.15.8, Hydrology and Water Quality Construction Impacts.

M-HZ-C3: Necessary public health and safety measures will be implemented during construction.

Hazardous Waste/ Materials

Operation

No impact. Less than significant impact with mitigation.

Mitigation measures are required to reduce or eliminate hazardous materials-related impacts from ADL, LBP and nearby database listed, hazardous materials sites.

Mitigation Measures: M-HZ-1: Phase II review, or follow-up investigation, for identified recognized environmental conditions (RECs) will be conducted prior to construction, including:

Field surveys of identified RECs to verify the physical locations of the REC sites with respect to the preferred build alternative project components and proposed construction earthwork, and observe the current conditions of the sites.

A regulatory file review for each identified REC to determine the current status of the sites and, if possible, the extent of the contamination.

If the aforementioned field survey and file review reveal a likelihood of encountering contaminated soil or groundwater during project construction, then a subsurface exploration will be conducted within the areas proposed for construction earthwork activities. The subsurface investigation will be conducted within the project limits, adjacent to, or downgradient from the REC sites. If soil profiling reveals contaminant concentrations that meet the definition of hazardous materials, then the project contractor will be required to address the management of various hazardous materials and wastes in the Construction Implementation Plan, consistent with the federal and state of California requirements pertaining to hazardous materials and wastes management.

M-HZ-2: Soils in landscaped medians that will be disturbed by project activities will be tested for ADL according to applicable hazardous material testing guidelines. If the soil contains extractible lead concentrations that meet the definition of hazardous materials, then a Lead Compliance Plan to be approved by Caltrans will be required prior to the start of construction or soil-disturbance activities. If lead levels present in surface soils reach concentrations in excess of the hazardous waste threshold, then onsite stabilization or disposal at a Class 1 landfill may be required, which will be specified in the Lead Compliance Plan.

M-HZ-3: Paint used for traffic lane striping and on streetscape features, including the OCS support poles/streetlights, will be tested for LBP prior to demolition/removal to determine proper handling and disposal methods during project construction. If lead is detected, then appropriate procedures will be included in the Construction Implementation Plan to avoid contact with these materials or generation of dust or vapors.

Less than significant impact with mitigation.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Less than significant impact with mitigation.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Less than significant impact with mitigation.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Less than significant impact with mitigation.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Less than significant impact with mitigation.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Hazardous Waste/ Materials

Cumulative

No cumulative impacts.

Less than significant impact with mitigation.

Mitigation Measures M-HZ-C1 through M-HZ-C3 would avoid significant, cumulative impacts from hazardous materials exposure during construction of the proposed project and other planned projects in the vicinity.

Less than significant impact with mitigation.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Less than significant impact with mitigation.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Less than significant impact with mitigation.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Less than significant impact with mitigation.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Less than significant impact with mitigation.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Water Quality and Hydrology

Construction

No impact. Less than significant impacts.

Compliance with permit requirements and standard best practices would avoid significant impacts to water quality during construction.

Improvement Measures: IM-HY-C1: Preparation and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) during project construction will minimize or avoid significant impacts to water quality. Completion of an SWPPP for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit will be required for construction of each build alternative and for earthwork activities under the No Build Alternative, such as the OCS support pole/streetlight replacement and repaving activities. The SWPPP will address water quality impacts associated with construction activities, including identification of all drainage facilities

Less than significant impacts.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Less than significant impacts.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Less than significant impacts.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Less than significant impacts.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Less than significant impacts.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

1 The summary of impacts and mitigation for the LPA includes all impacts and mitigation that would pertain to the LPA with or without incorporation of the Vallejo Northbound Station Variant into the project design.

Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project Executive Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement/ Environmental Impact Report

San Francisco County Transportation Authority July 2013 S-21

Table S-1: Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

ENVIRONMENTAL AREA/ IMPACTS

NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 2: SIDE-LANE BRT WITH STREET PARKING

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 3: CENTER-LANE BRT WITH RIGHT-SIDE BOARDING AND DUAL MEDIANS

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 3 WITH DESIGN OPTION B

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 4: CENTER-LANE BRT WITH LEFT-SIDE BOARDING AND SINGLE MEDIAN

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 4 WITH DESIGN OPTION B

LPA (COMBINES ALTERNATIVES 3 AND 4)1

onsite, placement of appropriate stormwater and non-stormwater pollution controls and best management practices (BMPs), erosion and sediment control, spill response and containment plans, inspection scheduling, maintenance, and training of all construction personnel onsite.

The SWPPP will specify how construction-related stormwater impacts can be mitigated throughout the project site through practices such as:

The appropriate treatment of overflow stormwater during construction, including inlet protection devices, temporary silt fencing, soil stabilization measures, street sweeping, stabilized construction entrances, and temporary check dams.

Lining storage areas.

Proper and expeditious disposal of items to be removed, such as landscaping, curb bulb waste, existing bus stop shelters, and demolished OCS support poles/streetlights and signal poles.

IM-HY-C2: Any construction work that impacts the combined sewer system (CSS) will require coordination with the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC), and construction-related activities shall conform to the “Keep it on Site” guide (SFPUC, 2009).

IM-HY-C3: If groundwater is encountered during project excavation activities, the water will be pumped from the excavated area and contained and treated in accordance with all applicable State and federal regulations before being discharged to the existing local CSS. A batch discharge permit from SFPUC will be required prior to commencement of discharge to the CSS.

Water Quality and Hydrology

Operation

No impact. No impact.

The project would slightly increase pervious surface area and improve drainage and runoff water quality.

Improvement Measures: IM-HY-1: Landscape areas provided by the project will be designed to minimize and reduce total runoff. The overuse of water and/or fertilizers on landscaped areas will be avoided.

IM-HY-2: Opportunities to incorporate stormwater management tools set forth in the San Francisco Better Streets Plan will be investigated for implementation as project design progresses. Streetscape geometry, topography, soil type and compaction, groundwater depth, subsurface utility locations, building laterals, maintenance costs and safety, and pedestrian accessibility will be major considerations in determining the feasibility of implementing stormwater management tools. Permeable paving, infiltration planters, swales, and rain gardens will be considered.

IM-HY-3: In compliance with the City Integrated Pest Management Policy (City Municipal Code, Section 300), prevention and non-chemical control methods will be employed in maintaining landscaping in the Van Ness Avenue corridor, including monitoring for pests before treating, and using the least-hazardous chemical pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers only when needed and as a last resort.

IM-HY-4: Proposed BRT stations will be equipped with trash receptacles to minimize the miscellaneous waste that may enter the storm drain system and clog storm drains or release pollutants.

No impact.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

No impact.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

No impact.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

No impact.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

No impact.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Water Quality and Hydrology

Cumulative

No cumulative impacts.

Less than significant impact.

Compliance with permit requirements and standard best practices would avoid significant cumulative impacts to water quality during construction of the proposed project and other planned projects in the vicinity.

Less than significant impact.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Less than significant impact.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Less than significant impact.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Less than significant impact.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Less than significant impact.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Land Use

Construction

No impact. Less than significant impact.

Construction would not change land uses or displace properties. Construction planning would minimize nighttime construction in residential areas and daytime construction in retail and commercial areas, as part of the Traffic Management Plan (TMP) implementation. The temporary removal of colored parking spaces during project construction is discussed under Community Impacts – Construction, below.

Less than significant impact.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Less than significant impact.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Less than significant impact.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Less than significant impact.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Less than significant impact.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Land Use

Operation

No impacts No impacts No impacts No impacts No impacts No impacts No impacts

Land Use

Cumulative

No cumulative impacts.

No cumulative impacts. No cumulative impacts. No cumulative impacts. No cumulative impacts.

No cumulative impacts.

No cumulative impacts.

1 The summary of impacts and mitigation for the LPA includes all impacts and mitigation that would pertain to the LPA with or without incorporation of the Vallejo Northbound Station Variant into the project design.

Executive Summary Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project Final Environmental Impact Statement/ Environmental Impact Report

S-22 San Francisco County Transportation Authority July 2013

Table S-1: Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

ENVIRONMENTAL AREA/ IMPACTS

NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 2: SIDE-LANE BRT WITH STREET PARKING

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 3: CENTER-LANE BRT WITH RIGHT-SIDE BOARDING AND DUAL MEDIANS

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 3 WITH DESIGN OPTION B

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 4: CENTER-LANE BRT WITH LEFT-SIDE BOARDING AND SINGLE MEDIAN

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 4 WITH DESIGN OPTION B

LPA (COMBINES ALTERNATIVES 3 AND 4)1

Noise and Vibration

Construction

No impact. Less than significant impacts.

Increases in noise and vibration at some locations would be temporary and are thus considered a less than significant impact. Project construction would comply with the City Noise Ordinance.

Improvement Measures: Mitigation measure M-CI-C6 presented in Section 4.15 and in this table under Community Impacts provides a program for accepting and addressing noise and other complaints during project construction. To further reduce noise and vibration impacts during construction, the following best practices, identified as improvement measures, would be implemented:

IM-NO-C1: Project construction will implement best practices in equipment noise and vibration control as feasible, including the following:

Use newer equipment with improved noise muffling and ensure that all equipment items have the manufacturers’ recommended noise abatement measures, such as mufflers, engine covers, and engine vibration isolators intact and operational. Newer equipment will generally be quieter in operation than older equipment. All construction equipment should be inspected at periodic intervals to ensure proper maintenance and presence of noise control devices (e.g., mufflers and shrouding).

Perform all construction in a manner that minimizes noise and vibration. Utilize construction methods or equipment that will provide the lowest level of noise and ground vibration impact.

Turn off idling equipment.

When possible, limit the use of construction equipment that creates high vibration levels, such as vibratory rollers and hammers. When such equipment must be used within 25 feet of any existing building, select equipment models that generate lower vibration levels.

Restrict the hours of vibration-intensive equipment or activities, such as vibratory rollers, so that annoyance to residents is minimal (e.g., limit to daytime hours as defined in the noise ordinance).

IM-NO-C2: Project construction will conduct truck loading, unloading, and hauling operations so that noise and vibration are kept to a minimum by carefully selecting routes to avoid passing through residential neighborhoods to the greatest possible extent.

IM-NO-C3: Perform independent noise and vibration monitoring in sensitive areas as needed to demonstrate compliance with applicable noise limits. Require contractors to modify and/or reschedule their construction activities if monitoring determines that maximum limits are exceeded at residential land uses per the City Noise Ordinance.

IM-NO-C4: The construction contractor will be required by contract specification to comply with the City noise ordinances and obtain all necessary permits, particularly in relation to nighttime construction work.

Less than significant impacts.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Less than significant impacts.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Less than significant impacts.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Less than significant impacts.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Less than significant impacts.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Noise and Vibration

Operation

No impact. No impact.

BRT operation would not increase noise and vibration; it would operate a less noisy fleet of diesel-electric hybrid and electric-powered vehicles than exists today. Noise levels along Van Ness Avenue and the parallel Franklin and Gough streets would remain below FTA and Caltrans impact criteria.

Improvement Measure: IM-NO-1: Upkeep of roadway surface will be maintained throughout project operation to avoid increases in BRT noise and vibration levels.

No impact.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

No impact.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

No impact.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

No impact.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

No impact.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Noise and Vibration

Cumulative

No cumulative impacts.

Less than significant impact.

Control measures IM-NO-C1 through IM-NO-C4 would be implemented to minimize noise and vibration disturbances at sensitive areas during construction. Project construction would comply with the City Noise Ordinance to avoid significant impacts during construction of the proposed project and other planned projects in the vicinity. Construction phasing would be coordinated with these projects to minimize construction-related impacts to sensitive receptors.

Less than significant impact.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Less than significant impact.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Less than significant impact.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Less than significant impact.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Less than significant impact.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Population and Housing/Growth

Construction

No impact. No impact.

Project construction would not lead to unplanned growth in the Van Ness Avenue corridor or the larger region, nor would it displace housing.

No impact.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

No impact.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

No impact.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

No impact.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

No impact.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

1 The summary of impacts and mitigation for the LPA includes all impacts and mitigation that would pertain to the LPA with or without incorporation of the Vallejo Northbound Station Variant into the project design.

Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project Executive Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement/ Environmental Impact Report

San Francisco County Transportation Authority July 2013 S-23

Table S-1: Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

ENVIRONMENTAL AREA/ IMPACTS

NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 2: SIDE-LANE BRT WITH STREET PARKING

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 3: CENTER-LANE BRT WITH RIGHT-SIDE BOARDING AND DUAL MEDIANS

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 3 WITH DESIGN OPTION B

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 4: CENTER-LANE BRT WITH LEFT-SIDE BOARDING AND SINGLE MEDIAN

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 4 WITH DESIGN OPTION B

LPA (COMBINES ALTERNATIVES 3 AND 4)1

Population and Housing/Growth

Operation

No impact. No impact.

The project would not lead to unplanned growth in the Van Ness Avenue corridor or larger region, nor would it displace housing.

No impact.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

No impact.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

No impact.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

No impact.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

No impact.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Population and Housing/Growth

Cumulative

No cumulative impacts.

No cumulative impacts. No cumulative impacts. No cumulative impacts. No cumulative impacts.

No cumulative impacts.

No cumulative impacts.

Public Services

Construction

No impact. Less than significant impact with mitigation.

Less than significant impacts to public services would result from construction activities, such as temporary rerouting and loss of on-street parking. No sidewalk closures would be required. These impacts would cause temporary inconvenience to area residents, businesses, and people traveling through the corridor. Mitigation measures M-CI-C1 through M-CI-C7, described in this table under Community Impacts, would minimize impacts to Civic Center facilities and other public services during project construction.

Less than significant impact with mitigation.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Less than significant impact with mitigation.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Less than significant impact with mitigation.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Less than significant impact with mitigation.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Less than significant impact with mitigation.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Public Services

Operation

No impact. No impact.

The BRT would not result in the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities and would not hinder service rations and response times. The project would benefit community facilities with improved transit access.

No impact.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

No impact.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

No impact.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

No impact.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

No impact.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Public Services

Cumulative

No cumulative impacts.

Less than significant impact with mitigation.

Mitigation Measures M-CI-C1 through M-CI-C7, described in this table under Community Impacts, would lessen potentially significant, cumulative impacts to community facilities and government services during construction of the proposed project and other planned projects in the vicinity.

Less than significant impact with mitigation.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Less than significant impact with mitigation.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Less than significant impact with mitigation.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Less than significant impact with mitigation.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Less than significant impact with mitigation.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Transportation and Circulation

Construction

No impact. Less than significant impact with mitigation.

Circulation impacts during construction due to lane closures, short-term detours, and reduced speeds would be temporary and are considered a less than significant impact with implementation of mitigation measures. All construction activity will be carried out in compliance and accordance with the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), and applicable regulations of the SFPUC and San Francisco Department of Public Works (SFDPW) Bureau of Street Use and Mapping (BSM), and SFMTA Regulations for Working in San Francisco Streets Blue Book.

Mitigation Measures: M-TR-C1: Temporary conversion of parking lanes to mixed-flow traffic lanes will be implemented to generally maintain two open traffic lanes in each direction and minimize traffic impacts.

M-TR-C2: A contraflow lane system, including elimination of left turns in either direction along Van Ness Avenue, will be implemented during daytime construction under Build Alternative 2 to enable two lanes of mixed-flow traffic to generally remain open in each direction during construction and minimize traffic congestion on Van Ness Avenue. Appropriate signage and temporary traffic signals will be used to guide drivers, augmented by flagmen as needed.

M-TR-C3: Plan required closures of a second mixed-flow traffic lane and detours for nighttime or off-peak traffic hours as feasible, and as in conformance with approved noise requirements.

M-TR-C4: Maintain one east-west and north-south crosswalk leg open at all times at all intersections.

M-TR-C5: Install sufficient barricading, signage, and temporary walkways as needed to minimize impacts to pedestrians and bicyclists.

M-TR-C6: SFMTA will coordinate with GGT as part of the Transportation Management Plan (TMP) to plan temporarily relocated transit stops as needed, and minimize impacts to GGT service. M-TR-C7: Implement a TMP to minimize delay and inconvenience to the traveling public, including a public information program and wayfinding to provide local businesses and residents with information related to the construction activities and durations, temporary traffic closures and detours, parking restrictions, and bus stop relocations.

Less than significant impact with mitigation.

Same as Build Alternative 2, except a contraflow lane system would not be required for Build Alternative 3; therefore, Mitigation Measure M-TR-C2 would not apply.

Less than significant impact with mitigation.

Same as Build Alternative 3 without Design Option B.

Less than significant impact with mitigation.

Same as Build Alternative 3.

Less than significant impact with mitigation.

Same as Build Alternative 3 with Design Option B.

Less than significant impact with mitigation.

Same as Build Alternative 3.

1 The summary of impacts and mitigation for the LPA includes all impacts and mitigation that would pertain to the LPA with or without incorporation of the Vallejo Northbound Station Variant into the project design.

Executive Summary Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project Final Environmental Impact Statement/ Environmental Impact Report

S-24 San Francisco County Transportation Authority July 2013

Table S-1: Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

ENVIRONMENTAL AREA/ IMPACTS

NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 2: SIDE-LANE BRT WITH STREET PARKING

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 3: CENTER-LANE BRT WITH RIGHT-SIDE BOARDING AND DUAL MEDIANS

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 3 WITH DESIGN OPTION B

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 4: CENTER-LANE BRT WITH LEFT-SIDE BOARDING AND SINGLE MEDIAN

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 4 WITH DESIGN OPTION B

LPA (COMBINES ALTERNATIVES 3 AND 4)1

Transportation and Circulation Operation

No impact. Significant impact (to traffic). 2

The project would not significantly impact traffic conditions on Van Ness Avenue. Traffic congestion on streets parallel to Van Ness Avenue would receive increased traffic that has diverted from Van Ness Avenue. Traffic impact significance findings for the near-term and horizon years follow.

Less than significant impact (to traffic).

Less than significant vehicular traffic circulation impacts would result in Year 2015 at the following intersection:

Gough/Green

South Van Ness/Mission/Otis and Duboce/Mission/Otis/US 101 Off-Ramp

Less than significant vehicular traffic circulation impacts would result in Year 2035 at the following intersections:

Gough/Green Gough/Clay Mission/South Van Ness/Otis Mission/Duboce/Otis/US 101 Off-Ramps

Van Ness/Pine

Significant impact (to traffic). 2

Significant impacts that may not be mitigated would result in Year 2015 at the following intersections:

Gough/Hayes

Franklin/O’Farrell

Significant impacts that may not be mitigated would result in Year 2035 at the following intersections:

Gough/Hayes Franklin/Pine Franklin/O’Farrell Franklin/Eddy Franklin/ McAllister

Mitigation Measures M-Traffic Management Toolbox

Develop and implement a traffic management toolbox to raise public awareness of circulation changes; advise drivers of alternate routes; and pedestrian improvements. Toolbox actions will include:

Provide driver wayfinding and signage, especially to assist infrequent drivers of the corridor who may not be aware of alternate routes, such as along the Larkin/Hyde and Franklin/Gough corridors. Coordinate with Caltrans to develop the driver wayfinding and signage strategy as part of mitigation measure M-TR-C5. Continue to monitor traffic after construction and during project operation.

Public Awareness Campaign and Transportation Management Plan (TMP) during and after Project Construction. As discussed as part of mitigation measure M-TR-C7, the TMP will implement a public awareness program of wayfinding during construction and will coordinate the public information program with regional agencies, including Caltrans and GGT. Continue to monitor traffic after construction and during project operation.

Pedestrian Amenities at Additional Corridor Locations. After construction, during project operation, monitor travel in the corridor to identify additional locations for pedestrian improvements based on a combination of pedestrian and vehicle volumes, infrastructure capabilities, and collision history.

Less than significant impact (to transit).

No significant impacts to transit would result. While one transit line that cross Van Ness Avenue would experience increased delay, this delay would not result in significant impacts to service reliability and travel time. BRT service would substantially improve transit service on Van Ness Avenue.

Less than significant impact (to nonmotorized transportation).

No significant impacts to nonmotorized travel would result. While transit stop consolidation would

Significant impact (to traffic). 2

The project would not significantly impact traffic conditions on Van Ness Avenue. Traffic congestion on streets parallel to Van Ness Avenue would receive increased traffic that has diverted from Van Ness Avenue. Traffic impact significance findings for the near-term and horizon years follow, including those impacts that are less than significant and those that are significant. Mitigation Measure M-Traffic Management Toolbox under Build Alternative 2 also applies.

Less than significant impact (to traffic).

Less than significant vehicular traffic circulation impacts would result in Year 2015 at the following intersection:

Gough/Green

Duboce/Mission/Otis/US 101 off-ramp

Less than significant vehicular traffic circulation impacts would result in Year 2035 at the following intersections:

Gough/Green Franklin/Pine Van Ness/Pine Mission/Duboce/Otis/US 101

Off-Ramps

Significant impact (to traffic). 2

Significant impacts that may not be mitigated to a less than significant level would result in Year 2015 at the following intersections:

Gough/Hayes Franklin/O’Farrell Mission/South Van Ness/Otis

Significant impacts that may not be mitigated to a less than significant level would result in Year 2035 at the following intersections:

Gough/Sacramento Gough/ Eddy

Significant impact (to traffic).2

The project would not significantly impact traffic conditions on Van Ness Avenue. Traffic congestion on streets parallel to Van Ness Avenue would receive increased traffic that has diverted from Van Ness Avenue. Also, the elimination of all but two left turn opportunities off of Van Ness Avenue will result in an increase in drivers making multiple right turns in the project vicinity, causing some additional traffic on these adjacent collector streets. Traffic impact significance findings for the near-term and horizon years follow, including those impacts that are less than significant and those that are significant. Mitigation Measure M-Traffic Management Toolbox under Build Alternative 2 also applies.

Less than significant impact (to traffic).

Less than significant vehicular traffic circulation impacts would result in Year 2015 at the following intersection:

Gough/Green

South Van Ness/Mission/Otis

Duboce/ Mission/ Otis/US 101 Off-Ramp

Less than significant vehicular traffic circulation impacts would result in Year 2035 at the following intersections:

Gough/Green Gough/Clay Franklin/Pine Mission/Duboce/Otis/US

101 Off-Ramps

Significant impact (to traffic).2

Significant impacts that may not be mitigated to a less than significant level will

Significant impact (to traffic). 2Same as Build Alternative 3 without Design Option B. Mitigation Measure M-Traffic Management Toolbox under Build Alternative 2 also applies.

Less than Significant Impact (to traffic).

Same as Build Alternative 3.

Significant impact. 2

Same as Build Alternative 3.

Less than significant impact with mitigation (to transit).

Same as Build Alternative 3 without Design Option B.

Same as Build Alternative 3 without Design Option B.

Less than significant impact (to nonmotorized transportation).

Same as Build Alternative 3 without Design Option B, in addition to the following improvement measures:

IM-NMT-2: For Build Alternative 4, bus vehicle design should incorporate an intuitive seating space for users requiring level boarding that is easily accessible to both the front door on the right side and the door behind the operator on the left side.

IM-NMT-3: For Build Alternative 4, bus vehicle design should incorporate audible cues, such as stop

Significant impact (to traffic). 2

The project would not significantly impact traffic conditions on Van Ness Avenue. Traffic congestion on streets parallel to Van Ness Avenue would receive increased traffic that has diverted from Van Ness Avenue. Also, the elimination of all but two left turn opportunities off of Van Ness Avenue will result in an increase in drivers making multiple right turns in the project vicinity, causing some additional traffic on these adjacent collector streets. Traffic impact significance findings for the near-term and horizon years follow, including those impacts that are less than significant and those that are significant. Mitigation Measure M-Traffic Management Toolbox under Build Alternative 2 also applies.

Less than Significant Impact (to traffic).

Same as Build Alternative 3 with Design Option B.

Significant impact (to traffic). 2

Same as Build Alternatives 3 with Design Option B.

Less than significant impact with mitigation (to transit).

Same as Build

Significant impact (to traffic). 2

Same as Build Alternative 3 without Design Option B. Mitigation Measure M-Traffic Management Toolbox under Build Alternative 2 also applies.

Less than Significant Impact (to traffic).

Same as Build Alternative 3 with Design Option B.

Significant impact (to traffic). 2

Same as Build Alternative 3 with Design Option B.

Less than significant impact with mitigation (to transit).

Same as Build Alternative 3 without Design Option B.

Less than significant impact (to nonmotorized transportation).

Same as Build Alternative 3 without Design Option B.

Less than significant impact (to parking).

Same as Build Alternative 2, except 105 parking spaces would be removed along Van Ness Avenue. The same improvement measure as Build Alternative 2 would be implemented.

1 The summary of impacts and mitigation for the LPA includes all impacts and mitigation that would pertain to the LPA with or without incorporation of the Vallejo Northbound Station Variant into the project design. 2 These types of mitigation measures, while reducing localized traffic delays in the short term, may ultimately be found by the Authority Board to not be feasible due to policy conflicts, specifically the need to balance traffic circulation with pedestrian and transit circulation and safety. In addition, these engineering techniques function by

increasing automobile traffic capacity and are unlikely to be effective in the long term due to the risk of induced demand. Thus, a conservative worst-case finding of significant and unavoidable impact under CEQA is assumed (see Section 3.3.4).

Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project Executive Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement/ Environmental Impact Report

San Francisco County Transportation Authority July 2013 S-25

Table S-1: Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

ENVIRONMENTAL AREA/ IMPACTS

NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 2: SIDE-LANE BRT WITH STREET PARKING

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 3: CENTER-LANE BRT WITH RIGHT-SIDE BOARDING AND DUAL MEDIANS

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 3 WITH DESIGN OPTION B

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 4: CENTER-LANE BRT WITH LEFT-SIDE BOARDING AND SINGLE MEDIAN

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 4 WITH DESIGN OPTION B

LPA (COMBINES ALTERNATIVES 3 AND 4)1

increase the physical effort required to reach transit for some patrons relative to existing conditions, the average distances between stops are consistent with applicable Muni guidelines for rapid bus and light rail, and the project would offer pedestrian accessibility and safety benefits. The proposed project would not substantially change or degrade bicycle conditions.

Improvement Measures: IM-NMT-1: Include comprehensive wayfinding, allowing all users to navigate to and from the correct platform.

IM-NMT-4: Provide sufficient information to educate less-ambulatory passengers that board at BRT stations that they would need to exit through the front, right doors for stops outside the Van Ness Avenue corridor.

Less than significant impact (to parking).

The project would not have a significant impact on the transportation system from changes in parking supply. Build Alternative 2 would remove 33 parking spaces along Van Ness Avenue.

Improvement Measures: IM-TR-1: On-street parking will be created where bus stops are consolidated or moved to the center of the street.

IM-TR-2: Additional on-street parking will be provided where feasible by lane striping.

IM-TR-3: Infill on-street parking spaces will be provided where they do not exist today as feasible.

IM-TR-4: SFMTA will give priority to retaining color-painted on-street parking spaces, such as yellow freight zones white passenger loading zones, green short-term parking, and blue disabled parking.

IM-TR-5: Blue handicapped parking spaces will be designed to provide a curb ramp behind each space.

Gough/Hayes Franklin/O’Farrell Franklin/Eddy Franklin/McAllister Van Ness/Hayes South Van Ness/Mission/Otis

Less than significant impact with mitigation (to transit).

A potentially significant impact to transit service could occur in year 2035 due to vehicle crowding. The following mitigation measure is required to reduce this impact to less than significant:

M-TR-1: An additional vehicle will be added to the fleet as needed to provide additional service and reduce station vehicle crowding impacts.

Less than significant impact (to transit)

While some transit lines that cross Van Ness Avenue would experience some increased delay, this delay would not result in significant impacts to service reliability and travel time. BRT service would substantially improve transit service on Van Ness Avenue.

Less than significant impact (to nonmotorized transportation).

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Less than significant impact (to parking).

Same as Build Alternative 2, except 68 parking spaces would be removed along Van Ness Avenue. The same improvement measure as Build Alternative 2 would be implemented.

result in Year 2015 at the following intersections:

Gough/Hayes Franklin/O’Farrell Franklin/Market/Page

Significant impacts that may not be mitigated to a less than significant level would result in Year 2035 at the following intersections:

Gough/Sacramento Gough/Eddy Gough/Hayes Franklin/O’Farrell Franklin/Eddy Franklin/McAllister Franklin/Market/Page

Mission/South Van Ness/Otis

Less than significant impact with mitigation (to transit).

Same as Build Alternative 3 without Design Option B.

Less than significant impact (to nonmotorized transportation).

Same as Build Alternative 3 without Design Option B.

Less than significant impact (to parking).

Same as Build Alternative 2, except 31 parking spaces would be removed along Van Ness Avenue. The same improvement measure as Build Alternative 2 would be implemented.

announcements, of which door will open to avoid any confusion for passengers.

Less than significant impact (to parking).

Same as Build Alternative 2, except 45 parking spaces would be removed along Van Ness Avenue. The same improvement measure as Build Alternative 2 would be implemented.

Alternative 3 without Design Option B.

Less than significant impact (to nonmotorized transportation).

Same as Build Alternative 4 without Design Option B.

Less than significant impact (to parking).

Same as Build Alternative 2, except 13 parking spaces would be removed along Van Ness Avenue. The same improvement measure as Build Alternative 2 would be implemented.

Transportation and Circulation

Cumulative

No cumulative impacts.

Less than significant impact with mitigation.

Mitigation Measures M-TR-C1 through M-TR-C7 would lessen significant, cumulative circulation impacts during construction of the proposed project and other planned projects in the vicinity. These impacts would be temporary and are thus considered less than significant with mitigation. Cumulative circulation impacts during operation of the proposed project and other planned projects in the vicinity are accounted for in the Operations section.

Less than significant impact with mitigation.

Same as Build Alternative 2, except a contraflow lane system would not be required for Build Alternative 3; therefore, Mitigation Measure M-TR-C2 would not apply.

Less than significant impact with mitigation.

Same as Build Alternative 3 without Design Option B.

Less than significant impact with mitigation.

Same as Build Alternative 3.

Less than significant impact with mitigation.

Same as Build Alternative 3 with Design Option B.

Less than significant impact with mitigation.

Same as Build Alternative 3 with Design Option B.

1 The summary of impacts and mitigation for the LPA includes all impacts and mitigation that would pertain to the LPA with or without incorporation of the Vallejo Northbound Station Variant into the project design. 2 These types of mitigation measures, while reducing localized traffic delays in the short term, may ultimately be found by the Authority Board to not be feasible due to policy conflicts, specifically the need to balance traffic circulation with pedestrian and transit circulation and safety. In addition, these engineering techniques function by

increasing automobile traffic capacity and are unlikely to be effective in the long term due to the risk of induced demand. Thus, a conservative worst-case finding of significant and unavoidable impact under CEQA is assumed (see Section 3.3.4).3

Executive Summary Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project Final Environmental Impact Statement/ Environmental Impact Report

S-26 San Francisco County Transportation Authority July 2013

Table S-1: Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

ENVIRONMENTAL AREA/ IMPACTS

NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 2: SIDE-LANE BRT WITH STREET PARKING

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 3: CENTER-LANE BRT WITH RIGHT-SIDE BOARDING AND DUAL MEDIANS

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 3 WITH DESIGN OPTION B

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 4: CENTER-LANE BRT WITH LEFT-SIDE BOARDING AND SINGLE MEDIAN

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 4 WITH DESIGN OPTION B

LPA (COMBINES ALTERNATIVES 3 AND 4)1

Utilities and Service Systems

Construction

No impact. Less than significant impact.

Compliance with standard procedures will minimize the potential for damage to utilities, injury to construction workers, and proper completion of construction work.

Improvement Measures: IM-UT-C1: Construction work involving utilities will be conducted in accordance with contract specifications, including the following requirements:

Obtain authorization from utility provider before initiating work

Contact Underground Service Alert in advance of excavation work to mark-out underground utilities

Conduct investigations, including exploratory borings if needed, to confirm the location and type of underground utilities and service connections

Prepare a support plan for each utility crossing detailing the intended support method

Take appropriate precautions for the protection of unforeseen utility lines encountered during construction

Restore or replace each utility as close as planned and work with providers to ensure its location is as good or better than found prior to removal

Less than significant impact.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Less than significant impact.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Less than significant impact.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Less than significant impact.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Less than significant impact.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Utilities and Service Systems

Operation

No impact. Less than significant impact with mitigation.

Operation would not result in changes to utility demand and capacity. Some utilities would require relocation or modification for construction and to maintain access for utility providers to conduct maintenance, repair, and upgrade/replacement activities. These would result in less than significant impacts to utilities and service systems. Mitigation measures are required to avoid adverse impacts to utility systems and services.

Mitigation Measures: M-UT-1: BRT construction will be closely coordinated with concurrent utility projects planned within the Van Ness Avenue corridor.

M-UT-3: During planning and design, consideration must be given to ensure that the proposed BRT transitway and station facilities do not prevent access to the underground auxiliary water supply service (AWSS) lines. There must be adequate access for specialized trucks to park next to gate valves for maintenance. The gate valves must not be located beneath medians or station platforms.

M-UT-4: In situations where utility facilities cannot be relocated, SFMTA will create a plan to accommodate temporary closure of the transitway and/or stations in coordination with utility providers to allow utility providers to perform maintenance, emergency repair, and upgrade/replacement of underground facilities that may be located beneath project features such as the BRT transitway, station platforms, or curb bulbs. Signage for BRT patrons and safety protocols for Muni operators and utility providers will be integrated into this plan.

Less than significant impact with mitigation.

Same as Build Alternative 2, except the following additional mitigation measure would also be required:

M-UT-2: An inspection and evaluation of the sewer pipeline within the project limits will be undertaken to assess the condition of the pipeline and need for replacement. Coordination with SFPUC and SFDPW will continue and be tracked by Committee for Utility Liaison on Construction and Other Projects (CULCOP).

Less than significant impact with mitigation.

Same as Build Alternative 3 without Design Option B.

Less than significant impact with mitigation.

Same as Build Alternative 3.

Less than significant impact with mitigation.

Same as Build Alternative 3 with Design Option B.

Less than significant impact with mitigation.

Same as Build Alternative 3.

Utilities and Service Systems

Cumulative

No cumulative impacts.

Less than significant impact with mitigation.

Mitigation Measure M-UT-C1 would avoid significant cumulative impacts to utilities during construction of the proposed project and other planned projects in the vicinity.

Less than significant impact with mitigation.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Less than significant impact with mitigation.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Less than significant impact with mitigation.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Less than significant impact with mitigation.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Less than significant impact with mitigation.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Community Impacts

Construction

No impact. Less than significant impact with mitigation.

Less than significant impacts on the community would result from construction activities, such as temporary rerouting and loss of parking; these impacts would cause temporary inconvenience to area residents, businesses, and people traveling through the corridor. Construction phase impacts to the community will be mitigated with special provisions to control rerouting, noise and fugitive dust. The temporary removal of colored parking spaces during project construction would be addressed by M-CI-IM-1 (see Community Impacts Operation).

Mitigation Measures: M-CI-C1: A TMP that includes traffic rerouting, a detour plan, and public information procedures will be developed during the design phase with participation from local agencies, other major project proponents in the area (e.g., CPMC Cathedral Hill, Hayes Two-Way Conversion, and the Geary Corridor BRT projects), local communities, business associations, and affected drivers. Early and well-publicized announcements

Less than significant impact with mitigation.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Less than significant impact with mitigation.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Less than significant impact with mitigation.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Less than significant impact with mitigation.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Less than significant impact with mitigation.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

1 The summary of impacts and mitigation for the LPA includes all impacts and mitigation that would pertain to the LPA with or without incorporation of the Vallejo Northbound Station Variant into the project design.

Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit Project Executive Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement/ Environmental Impact Report

San Francisco County Transportation Authority July 2013 S-27

Table S-1: Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

ENVIRONMENTAL AREA/ IMPACTS

NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 2: SIDE-LANE BRT WITH STREET PARKING

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 3: CENTER-LANE BRT WITH RIGHT-SIDE BOARDING AND DUAL MEDIANS

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 3 WITH DESIGN OPTION B

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 4: CENTER-LANE BRT WITH LEFT-SIDE BOARDING AND SINGLE MEDIAN

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 4 WITH DESIGN OPTION B

LPA (COMBINES ALTERNATIVES 3 AND 4)1

and other public information measures will be implemented prior to and during construction to minimize confusion, inconvenience, and traffic congestion.

M-CI-C2: As part of the TMP, construction planning will minimize nighttime construction in residential areas and minimize daytime construction impacts on retail and commercial areas.

M-CI-C3: As part of the TMP, construction scheduling and planning in the Civic Center area will take into consideration major civic and performing arts events.

M-CI-C4: As part of the TMP public information program, SFMTA will coordinate with adjacent properties along Van Ness Avenue to determine the need for colored parking spaces and work to identify locations for replacement spaces or plan construction activities to minimize impacts from the loss of these spaces.

M-CI-C5: As part of the TMP public information program, SFMTA will coordinate with adjacent properties along Van Ness Avenue to ensure that pedestrian access to these properties is maintained at all times.

M-CI-C6. As part of the TMP, SFMTA’s process for accepting and addressing complaints would be implemented. This includes provision of contact information for the Project Manager, Resident Engineer, and Contractor on project signage with direction to call if there are any concerns. Complaints are logged and tracked to ensure they are addressed.

M-CI-C7. As part of the TMP, adequate passenger and truck loading zones will be maintained for adjacent land uses, including maintaining access to driveways and providing adequate loading zones on the same or adjoining street block face.

Community Impacts

Operation

No impact. Less than significant impact with mitigation.

Mitigation measures are required to minimize economic impacts on properties along Van Ness Avenue from parking removal.

Mitigation Measures: M-CI-IM-13: SFMTA will coordinate with all businesses that would be affected by removal of colored parking spaces, including short-term parking, to confirm the need for truck and/or passenger loading spaces and to identify appropriate replacement parking locations to minimize the impacts to these businesses.

M-CI-IM-23: SFMTA will apply parking management tools as needed to offset any substantial impacts from the loss of on-street parking, including adjustment of residential parking permits in the residential community north of Broadway, or SFpark, which is a package of real-time tools to manage parking occupancy and turnover through pricing (appropriate in areas of high-density commercial uses that rely on high parking turnover).

Less than significant impact with mitigation.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Less than significant impact with mitigation.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Less than significant impact with mitigation.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Less than significant impact with mitigation.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Less than significant impact with mitigation.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Community Impacts

Cumulative

No cumulative impact.

Cumulative impacts on community related and business activities from the loss of colored on-street parking spaces would be mitigated through the implementation of M-CI-IM-1 and M-CI-IM-2.

Same as Build Alternative 2. Same as Build Alternative 2. Same as Build Alternative 2.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Environmental Justice

Construction

No impact. No impact.

Project construction would not disproportionately affect low income and minority populations.

No impact.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

No impact.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

No impact.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

No impact.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

No impact.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Environmental Justice

Operation

No impact. No impact.

The proposed project would not disproportionately affect low income and minority populations.

No impact.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

No impact.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

No impact.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

No impact.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

No impact.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

Environmental Justice

Cumulative

No impact. No impact. No impact.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

No impact.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

No impact.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

No impact.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

No impact.

Same as Build Alternative 2.

1 The summary of impacts and mitigation for the LPA includes all impacts and mitigation that would pertain to the LPA with or without incorporation of the Vallejo Northbound Station Variant into the project design. 3 M-CI-IM-1 and M-CI-IM-2 constitute mitigation measures under NEPA and improvement measures under CEQA

ATTACHMENT F

Storm Water Data Report Cover Sheet

ATTACHMENT G

Pavement Strategy Checklist

ATTACHMENT H

Cooperative Agreement

Agreement 04-2450

for Design and Right of Way Phases of the Project

ATTACHMENT I

Operations and Maintenance Agreement

TR-04-3-SN03 DRAFT 5/5/14

1 n:\ptc\as2014\1000393\00923710.docx

OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT WITH CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

FOR BUS RAPID TRANSIT FACILITIES ON STATE ROUTE 101 THIS AGREEMENT, ENTERED INTO, AND EFFECTIVE ON the ___________ day of ________________, 2014, is between the STATE OF CALIFORNIA, acting by and through its Department of Transportation, referred to herein as “STATE,” and the City and County of San Francisco, referred to herein as “CITY.” STATE and CITY are together referred to herein as “PARTIES.” A. RECITALS 1. Under STATE issued Encroachment Permit No. ______________, CITY desires to construct

its Bus Rapid Transit (“BRT”) project, which includes, but is not limited to, dedicated bus lanes, passenger platforms, and landscaping, hereinafter referred to as “BRT FACILITIES,” on Van Ness and South Van Ness avenues (State Highway Route 101), within the City and County of San Francisco.

2. STATE and CITY previously entered into an Agreement for Maintenance of State Highways

in the City of San Francisco (the “Delegated Maintenance Agreement” or “DMA”), effective July 2, 2009, which provides for CITY to perform specified maintenance functions on State Highways (as defined in Section 24 of the Streets and Highway Code) within CITY’s jurisdiction.

3. This Agreement is separate from DMA. Reimbursement to CITY for expenditures related to

certain maintenance functions delegated to CITY under DMA and performed within BRT FACILITIES, which functions are specified in articles D(1), D(2), and (if applicable) D(3) below, will be through DMA. As used herein, DMA includes its successor agreements, if any.

4. PARTIES mutually desire to specify the respective operating and maintenance

responsibilities of the PARTIES with respect to BRT FACILITIES, in particular the maintenance functions to be performed by CITY, and to specify the terms and conditions under which such work will be performed.

5. DMA sets authorized total dollar amounts based on STATE’s standard level of service for

maintenance. CITY, if CITY desires, may perform maintenance to a higher level of service, but STATE will not reimburse CITY for work in excess of the authorized dollar limits established in DMA.

B. AGREEMENT In consideration of the mutual covenants and promises herein contained, it is agreed:

Preliminary Draft for Discussion Purposes

2

1. Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and incorporated by reference, consists of plan drawings that delineate the BRT FACILILTIES to be constructed within the STATE right-of-way, which will be the responsibility of the CITY to maintain upon completion of construction. When a planned future improvement has been constructed and/or a minor revision has been effected within the limits of the State Highway herein described, which affects the PARTIES division of maintenance, the STATE will provide a newly dated and revised Exhibit A, which, when executed by both parties, shall be made a part hereof by this reference to supersede the original exhibit as part of this Agreement.

2. CITY shall be responsible, including all costs related thereto, for operation, maintenance, protection, and repair of BRT FACILITIES. Said work at all times shall be conducted to assure safety and convenience of State Highway users. Said work and BRT FACILITIES shall be subject to random inspection by STATE as to safety conditions affecting STATE’s highway facilities, and CITY shall, upon notice from STATE that an unsafe condition exists, take immediate steps to correct such unsafe conditions. If CITY fails to perform after such notice from STATE, STATE shall immediately take necessary corrective action, and CITY shall be billed and shall pay all reasonable costs for such corrective work performed by STATE. CITY’s obligation to pay for the costs of such corrective work shall not apply if the unsafe condition is caused by STATE. Such inspection by STATE, if performed at all, does not relieve CITY of its responsibilities under this Agreement.

3. CITY shall maintain the areas designated in Exhibit A, which maintenance functions are

further described hereinafter in Section D. 4. Rights granted to CITY under this Agreement are restricted to maintenance and operation of

BRT FACILITIES. Any other use or presence by CITY or CITY’s authorized contractors not otherwise authorized by DMA or Permit No.__________________________ will require that a separate encroachment permit be issued to that party from STATE.

5. CITY shall not use or permit the public to use, without a separate encroachment permit

issued by STATE, BRT FACILITIES in any manner that will interfere with or impair the primary use of BRT FACILITIES as a bus transit facility.

6. STATE reserves its right to use those areas within STATE’s right-of-way occupied by BRT

FACILITIES for future construction, reconstruction, expansion, modification, or maintenance purposes without restriction or reimbursement to any party should BRT FACILITIES be reconfigured, removed or closed.

7. An encroachment permit from the STATE will be required for third parties if CITY

contracts out the maintenance of BRT FACILITIES to a contractor. Said contractor(s) shall be subject to the same inspections and responsibilities as specified herein for work performed directly by CITY.

8. CITY shall not erect signs of any kind within BRT FACILITIES, except such signs as may

be necessary or appropriate in connection with the operation of the BRT FACILITIES,

Preliminary Draft for Discussion Purposes

3

including permitted advertising signs, or that are otherwise required by law. Such signs shall not be attached to or painted on any STATE freeway structures or facilities except by prior written consent of STATE.

9. STATE, at its sole discretion, may provide CITY with 30 days advance notification for

STATE's maintenance work or 180 days advance notification for STATE's construction work effecting BRT FACILITIES traffic.

C. MAINTENANCE DEFINED Maintenance is defined in Section 27 of the Streets and Highway Code. D. MAINTENANCE FUNCTIONS Maintenance functions of the BRT FACILITIES are at CITY’s sole expense, unless otherwise specified, and are as follows: 1. PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE

CITY shall be responsible for pavement maintenance, such as, pothole repair, sweeping, and debris removal of the paved surface when necessary. STATE shall reimburse CITY for pavement maintenance in accordance with and up to the authorized expenditure for programs HM1A and HM1B in DMA for Route 101(b). CITY’s expenditures in excess of the authorized expenditures specified in DMA for programs HM1A and HM1B for Route 101(b) shall be at CITY’s own expense. STATE will not maintain or pay for the maintenance of any pavement surface painting or pigmentation, which will be at CITY’s sole expense.

2. LITTER AND GRAFFITI

CITY shall be responsible for maintaining bus lanes, platforms, and landscaping areas designated in Exhibit A in a condition free of litter, debris (including all broken glass), and graffiti. STATE shall reimburse CITY for litter removal in accordance with and up to the authorized expenditure for program HM2D in DMA for Route 101(b). CITY’s expenditures in excess of the authorized expenditures specified in DMA for program HM2D for Route 101(b) shall be at CITY’s own expense.

3. SIGNS

CITY shall be responsible for the maintenance and the installation of signage necessary for the direction and operation of BRT FACILITIES.

Preliminary Draft for Discussion Purposes

4

4. STRIPING

CITY shall maintain all striping and pavement markings required for the direction and operation of BRT FACILITIES traffic.

5. LIGHTING

CITY shall maintain electrical installations required for public safety located within BRT FACILITIES. CITY will maintain and pay 100% of maintenance and operations costs, including electrical energy costs, of lighting and electrical installations of BRT FACILITIES.

6. SAFETY DEVICES

CITY shall be responsible for the maintenance, repair, replacement, and cleaning of safety devices located within BRT FACILITIES, including gates, fences, railing, guardrails, and markers.

7. LANDSCAPING AND GARBAGE COLLECTION

CITY shall be responsible for all landscaping, hardscaping (which includes, but is not limited to, planter boxes and wood, concrete, brick, or stone median paving), curbs, irrigation, and garbage collection services at BRT FACILITIES.

8. PASSENGER PLATFORMS

CITY shall maintain shelters, benches, passenger platforms, and their appurtenances. CITY shall also maintain electrical connections to these shelters for the purposes of providing lighting and/or transit information displays. Advertising displays, if any, are subject to federal and state laws and regulations.

9. TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYSTEMS AND SAFETY LIGHTING

Except for transit and emergency vehicle preemption devices, which shall be maintained by CITY at CITY’s sole expense, CITY and STATE will participate in maintenance costs as provided under Program HM4K for Route 101(b) in Exhibit A to the DMA.

E. LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES:

Preliminary Draft for Discussion Purposes

5

1. Nothing in the provisions of this Agreement is intended to create duties or obligations to

or rights in third parties not party to this Agreement or affect the legal liability of any party to the Agreement by imposing any standard of care with respect to the maintenance of State highways different from the standard of care imposed by law.

2. Neither STATE nor any officer or employee thereof is responsible for any injury, damage

or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by CITY under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction expressly conferred upon CITY under this Agreement and arising by this Agreement. It is understood and agreed that, CITY will fully defend, indemnify, and save harmless STATE and all of its officers and employees from all claims, suits or actions of every name, kind and description brought forth under, including, but not limited to, tortious, contractual, inverse condemnation or other theories or assertions of liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by CITY under or in connection with any work expressly conferred upon CITY by this Agreement.

3. Neither CITY nor any officer or employee thereof is responsible for any injury, damage

or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by STATE under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction expressly conferred upon STATE under this Agreement. It is understood and agreed that, STATE will fully defend, indemnify, and save harmless CITY, and respective officers and employees thereof, from all claims, suits or actions of every name, kind and description brought forth under, including, but not limited to, tortious, contractual, inverse condemnation or other theories or assertions of liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by STATE under or in connection with any work expressly conferred upon STATE by this Agreement.

4. Labor Code Compliance: Prevailing Wages

If the work performed on this Project is done under contract and falls within the Labor Code Section 1720(a)(1) definition of a "public work" in that it is construction, alteration, demolition, installation, or repair; or maintenance work under Labor Code 1771, CITY must conform to the provisions of Labor Code Sections 1720 through 1815, and all applicable provisions of California Code of Regulations found in Title 8, Chapter 8, Subchapter 3, Articles 1-7. CITY agrees to include prevailing wage requirements in its contracts for public work. Work performed by CITY's own forces is exempt from the Labor Code's Prevailing Wage requirements.

5. Prevailing Wage Requirements in Subcontracts

CITY shall require its contractors to include prevailing wage requirements in all subcontracts funded by this Agreement when the work to be performed by the subcontractor is a "public work" as defined in Labor Code Section 1720(a)(1) and Labor Code Section 1771. Subcontracts shall include all prevailing wage requirements set forth in CITY’s contracts.

6. Insurance

Preliminary Draft for Discussion Purposes

6

(a). CITY is self insured. CITY agrees to deliver evidence of self-insured coverage in a form satisfactory to STATE, along with a signed copy of this Agreement.

(b). If the work performed under this Agreement is done by CITY’s contractor(s),

CITY shall require its contractor(s) to maintain in force, during the term of this agreement, a policy of general liability insurance, including coverage of bodily injury liability and property damage liability, naming the STATE, its officers, agents and employees as the additional insured in an amount of $1 million per occurrence and $2 million in aggregate. Coverage shall be evidenced by a certificate of insurance in a form satisfactory to the STATE and shall be delivered to the STATE with a signed copy of this Agreement.

F. EFFECTIVE DATE AND RIGHT TO TERMINATE This Agreement shall be effective once fully executed by both PARTIES and shall remain in full force and effect until amended or terminated at any time upon mutual consent of the PARTIES or until terminated by STATE for cause. Upon termination of this Agreement, CITY shall, at CITY’s expense, return BRT FACILITIES to a condition equivalent to the condition existing prior to the execution of this Agreement, or to a condition acceptable to STATE.

The PARTIES are empowered by Street and Highways Code sections 114 and 130 to enter into this Agreement and has delegated to the undersigned the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of the respective agencies and covenants to have followed all the necessary legal requirements to validly execute this Agreement.

Preliminary Draft for Discussion Purposes

7

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands and seals the day and year first above written.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

STATE OF CALIFORNIA Department of Transportation

MALCOLM DOUGHERTY Director

By: MOHAMMED NURU

Director of Public Works

NADER ESHGHIPOUR Deputy District Director, Maintenance

Approved as to form: DENNIS J. HERRERA City Attorney

Approved as to form:

by JOHN MALAMUT

Deputy City Attorney Attorney

Department of Transportation

Board of Supervisors Resolution No. _________ Dated: _______________ Attest: ______________________ Clerk of the Board

Van Ness AvenueBus Rapid Transit Study

Van Ness AvenueBus Rapid Transit Study

Van Ness AvenueBus Rapid Transit Study

Van Ness AvenueBus Rapid Transit Study

Van Ness AvenueBus Rapid Transit Study

Van Ness AvenueBus Rapid Transit Study

Van Ness AvenueBus Rapid Transit Study

Van Ness AvenueBus Rapid Transit Study

Van Ness AvenueBus Rapid Transit Study

Note for Sheet 9:Pavement striping and marking on northboundState Route 101 between Filbert Street andGreenwich Street will be determined duringBRT project design phase.

ATTACHMENT J

Transportation Management Plan Input Request and Data Sheet

State of California Business, Transportation and Housing Agency Memorandum To: Project File Date: January 29, 2014 From: Amir Sanatkar District Branch Chief, Design Peninsula Subject: PROJECT INPUT FOR TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATA SHEET Project Data:

PROJECT MANAGER – Caltrans Nandini Shridar 510-286-5568 PROJECT ENGINEER Conrad Kim Franchi (Parsons) 510-285-1567 DIST-EA: 04-3A270 PROGRAM: HB06 PROJECT COMMON NAME: Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit CO-RTE-PM (KP): 04-SF-101-PM T4.71/6.71 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit DETAILED WORK DESCRIPTION: Lane conversion to implement bus-only transit lanes CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE: $111.73 million PROJECT PHASE: PSR PSR/PR PSE %

Traffic Impact Description

A) The Project includes the following: (Check applicable type of facility closures) Highway or freeway lanes Highway or freeway shoulders Freeway connectors Freeway off-ramps Freeway on-ramps Local streets

B) Major operations requiring traffic control and working days for each

Operation Number of Working Days* Clearing and grubbing 20 Existing feature removal 40 Excavation of embankments construction * Structural section construction 120 Drainage feature construction 60 Structures construction * MBGR/Barrier construction 60 Striping 40 Electrical component construction 40 Other 20 Total days requiring traffic control 400

* Operations are not consecutive, and may overlap

Page 2 C. Project staging description and number of working days required per stage:

Stage Stage Description # of Working

Days Per Stage*

1 Remove Existing Curb Bulbs and Undertake Utility Work 60

2 Build BRT Station Platform Foundations 60

3 Construct Transitway 100

4 Conduct Intersection/Corner Work and OCS Support Pole/Streetlight Replacement

80

5 Finish BRT Stations 40

6 Curb-to-Curb Pavement Rehabilitation 40

7 Additional Infrastructure Elements 20

Total construction days 400 * Stages are not consecutive, and may overlap. D. Have you considered any construction strategies that can restore existing number of lanes?

Temporary Roadway Widening Structure Involvement? Yes No If “yes”, Notify Project Manager Lane restriping (temporary narrow lane widths) Roadway realignment (detour around work area) Median and/or right shoulder use HOV lane used as a temporary mixed-flow lane Staging alternatives (explain below)

Attachments

Title Sheet Typical Cross Section Layouts Staging or Traffic Handling Plan PSR-PR RUC Calculations

Conrad K. Franchi (510) 285-1567 Project Engineer (Parsons) Contact Phone Number Eva Ng (510) 286-6201 Project Design Engineer (Oversight) Contact Phone Number Amir Sanatkar (510) 286-8826 District Branch Chief, Design Peninsula

Contact Phone Number

TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATA SHEET

(Preliminary TMP Elements and Costs)

Co/Rte/PM SF/101/T4.71/6.71 EA 3A270 Project Engineer C.K. Franchi Project Limit Mission Street to Lombard Street Project Description Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit

1) Public Information a. Brochures and Mailers $10,000 b. Press Release $ c. Paid Advertising $ d. Public Information Center/Kiosk $ e. Public Meeting/Speakers Bureau $ f. Telephone Hotline $ g. Internet, E-mail $10,000 h. Notification to impacted groups

(i.e. bicycle users, pedestrians with disabilities, others…) $ i. Others $

2) Traveler Information Strategies a. Changeable Message Signs (Fixed) $ b. Changeable Message Signs (Portable) $195,000 c. Ground Mounted Signs $5,000 d. Highway Advisory Radio $ e. Caltrans Highway Information Network (CHIN) $ f. Detour maps (i.e. bicycle, vehicle, pedestrian...etc) $ g. Revised Transit Schedules/maps $ h. Bicycle community information $ i. Others $50,000

3) Incident Management a. Construction Zone Enhanced Enforcement

Program (COZEEP) (Local Officers) $210,000 b. Freeway Service Patrol $ c. Traffic Management Team $ d. Helicopter Surveillance $ e. Traffic Surveillance Stations

(Loop Detector and CCTV) $ f. Others (Towing) $

TMP Data Sheet (cont.)

4) Construction Strategies a. Lane Closure Chart $ b. Reversible Lanes $ c. Total Facility Closure $ d. Contra Flow $ e. Truck Traffic Restrictions $ f. Reduced Speed Zone $ g. Connector and Ramp Closures $ h. Incentive and Disincentive $ i. Moveable Barrier $ k. Others $

5) Demand Management a. HOV Lanes/Ramps (New or Convert) $ b. Park and Ride Lots $ c. Rideshare Incentives $ d. Variable Work Hours $ e. Telecommute $ f. Ramp Metering (Temporary Installation) $ g. Ramp Metering (Modify Existing) $ h. Others $

6) Alternate Route Strategies a. Add Capacity to Freeway Connector $ b. Street Improvement (widening, traffic signal... etc) $ c. Traffic Control Officers $350,000 d. Parking Restrictions $10,000 e. Others $

7) Other Strategies a. Application of New Technology $ e. Others $

TOTAL ESTIMATED COST OF TMP ELEMENTS = $840,000

PREPARED BY Conrad K. Franchi/Parsons; Eva Ng/Caltrans DATE 03/17/14 APPROVAL RECOMMENDED BY Ashween Shah DATE 03/17/14 District 4 Traffic Management

ATTACHMENT K

Risk Register

LEVEL 2- 3 - RISK REGISTER Project Name: 04-3A270 Project

Manager D4 Risk Manager Raoul Maltez Unit 0624

Status ID # Category Title Risk Statement Current status/assumptions Low High Low Most likely High Probable Low Most

likely High Probable Strategy Response Actions Risk Owner Updated Risk Rating

Retired 1 Environmental ED ApprovalROD not signed by August 2013 may delay final design activities

Retired 10% 50% $300,000 $0 $6,000,000 $0 30 0 720 0 Potential 2-year delay no longer a threat - document signed 12/20/13

MitigateTrack issues that may cause delays. 

SFCTA Mgmt 5/1/2014 Medium

Active 2 Organizational FTA Small Starts Process

Project may lose funds due to loss of competitive rating

Maintaining medium‐high rating

10% 40% $0 $37,500,000 $75,000,000 $9,375,000 0 0 720 0

Potential 2-year delay to find additional funding not a likely threat - Project is maintaining competitive status with ongoing funding allocations for project development

MitigateMonitor & maintain project effectiveness

SFCTA/SFMTA 5/1/2014 Medium

Retired 3 Design Golden Gate Transit

BRT design may not be compatible with Golden Gate bus operation

LPA selected to ensure compatibility

10% 40% $20,000 $260,000 $500,000 $65,000 0 0 60 0 Design changes may be required for compatibility with GG operations

MitigateHybrid Alternative LPA is compatible with GG operations

SFMTA Design 5/1/2014 Medium

Active 4 Design Design Exceptions

Design Exceptions may not be approved

Mandatory Exceptions approved April 2013. Advisory Exceptions approved July 2013. Supp. Fact Sheets may be required for changes in 30% design 

10% 40% $100,000 $550,000 $1,000,000 $137,500 0 0 180 0 May require design changes and additional work scope Mitigate

Maintain dialogue with Caltrans Design Reviewer

SFMTA Design 5/1/2014 Medium

Active 5 Design Design Standards HDM design standards may change

HDM standards trending to less restrictive

10% 70% $100,000 $200,000 $1,000,000 $80,000 0 45 90 18 May require design changes and additional work scope Mitigate

Maintain dialogue with Caltrans Design Reviewer

SFMTA Design 5/1/2014 Medium

Active 6 Organizational SFgo SFgo may not receive funding

Funding received ‐ risk currently dormant

10% 30% $0 $1,000,000 $5,000,000 $200,000 0 0 180 0 May need to identify additional funding source for required elements

TransferMonitor funding outlook for "parallel" projects

SFCTA Mgmt 5/1/2014 Low

Active 7 Environmental Design ChangesDesign changes may require additional environmental analysis

Determination on need for environmental revalidation to be made at 30% design level

25% 80% $25,000 $100,000 $250,000 $52,500 0 90 180 47 Additional environmental analysis, documentation Accept

Conduct environmental revalidation if warranted by design changes.

SFMTA Design 5/1/2014 High

Active 8 Construction HazMat Unexpected hazardous materials issues

Site Investigation Report completed November 2013 ‐ ADL and lead paint found

10% 90% $10,000 $75,000 $200,000 $37,500 0 15 30 8

Phase II Site Investgation completed, but unknown contamination may be encountered during construction

Accept

SFMTA/DesigStandard construction treatment for classification of excavated soils anticipated.

SFMTA/Design 5/1/2014 High

Active 9 Organizational Maintenance Agreements

Maintenance Agreement not executed due to unresolved assignment of responsibility

Final Draft MA awaiting execution

10% 90% $0 $250,000 $500,000 $125,000 30 100 365 100 SFMTA may need to take on additional maintenance responsibility

AvoidDraw up Term Sheet, prepare MOU.

SFCTA Mgmt 5/1/2014 High

Active 10 Organizational SHOPP SHOPP funding not available for paving

Project programmed in 2014 SHOPP

10% 40% $0 $2,000,000 $7,300,000 $500,000 Programmed funding may not be fully available in FY 2016/17 Avoid

Maintain proprity for 2014 SHOPP allocations

SFCTA Mgmt 5/1/2014 Medium

Active 11 Design Encroachment Permit

Unresolved designs, traffic mitigations

Ongoing discussions with Caltrans on design aspects. Traffic mitigations established per MMP

10% 40% $0 $100,000 $200,000 $25,000 0 90 180 23 Potential for delay in receiving encroachment permit due to unresolved MOT issues.

Avoid Resolve MOT issues SFMTA/Design 5/1/2014 Medium

Active 12 Design Construction Staging Approach

Proposed 3-block construction on simultaneous north and south segments may not be approved

Ongoing discussions with Caltrans on construction sequence/MOT aspects

10% 70% $0 $500,000 $1,000,000 $200,000 0 180 360 72 Potential for increased construction duration to reduce traffic impacts

AvoidResolve construction sequence/MOT issues

SFMTA/Design 5/1/2014 Medium

Risk Response

Van Ness Avenue BRT DIST- EA Nandini Shridhar

Risk AssessmentRisk Identification Probability Cost Impact ($) Time Impact (days)

Rationale