Accessory Dwelling Unit Amendments [Board File No. 180268]

2018-004194

29comments

22in person

7emails

2hearings

dashed lines mark hearings · supportopposenot recorded · dot size = comments that day · click a dot to jump to the comment

Hearings

approved continued denied / withdrawn · 2 hearings · hover a marker for the date and outcome

Comments by hearing (29)

expand all · collapse all · comments with recorded text are listed first

2018-06-07 · 13 comments · 6 / 3

Westside = Best Side! · email · 2018-06-07 · support · source packet

Support for 2018-004194PCA, [Board File No.180268]
Dear Supervisors and Commissioners, Please find attached our letter of enthusiastic support for the proposed ADU legislation to be discussed at this week's Planning Commission and at next week's Land Use and Transportation Committee. We ask that you please approve this item. Thanks for your time, Giovanna Guevara Westside = best side! community organizer

Chris Shaffer · email · 2018-06-07 · support · source packet

Please support ADU legislation
Dear Supervisors and Planning Commissioners, I am a renter in the Sunset and I want to express my support for the ADU legislation sponsored by Supervisor Katy Tang (2018-004194PCA, [Board File No.180268]). Please approve it! Thanks, Chris Shaffer 1524 18th Ave San Francisco, CA 94122

Ozzie Rohm · spoken · 2018-06-07 · oppose

Effectively up zoning

Michael Murphy · spoken · 2018-06-07 · oppose

Failure to comply with state law

Georgia Schuttish · spoken · 2018-06-07 · neutral

Affordability issue

Rose Wilson · spoken · 2018-06-07 · oppose

Street tree planting for ADU "fee-out" provision unclear. Amend to say: there *shall* be assurance that appropriate number of trees be planted within a reasonable amount of time (e.g. 90 days). Converting non-living space (e.g. garages, tool sheds, etc.) to living space causes impacts to enjoyment on neighbors' properties. Amend code so neighbors *shall* be noticed for conversions. Fill-ins of existing… show more

Dillon Casey · spoken · 2018-06-07 · support

Support

Kristy Wong · spoken · 2018-06-07 · support

Support

Stan Hayes · spoken · 2018-06-07 · neutral

no text recorded

Anastasia Yovonapolous · spoken · 2018-06-07 · neutral

no text recorded

Theresa Flandrich · spoken · 2018-06-07 · neutral

no text recorded

Jeremy Schaub · spoken · 2018-06-07 · support

no text recorded

Katherine Howard · spoken · 2018-06-07 · support

no text recorded

2018-06-14 · 2 comments · 2 / 0

Patrick Wolff · email · 2018-06-14 · support · source packet

ADU Legislation Support
Dear Supervisors and Planning Commissioners, I am a renter/homeowner in the Sunset/Parkside/etc. and I want to express my support for the ADU legislation sponsored by Supervisor Katy Tang (2018-004194PCA, [Board File No.180268]). Please approve it! Thanks, Patrick Patrick Wolff Email: [email removed] Cell: +1 [phone removed]

Greg Soltis · email · 2018-06-14 · support · source packet

Support ADU legislation
Dear Supervisors and Planning Commissioners, I am a homeowner in the Sunset, and I want to express support for the ADU legislation sponsored by Supervisor Katy Tang ((2018-004194PCA, [Board File No.180268]). Please approve it! One of the best ways to grow housing availability is to take advantage of what we already have, or can easily add on to! Thanks, -Greg Soltis The Federal Transit Administration ~FTA~, San… Dear Supervisors and Planning Commissioners, I am a homeowner in the Sunset, and I want to express support for the ADU legislation sponsored by Supervisor Katy Tang ((2018-004194PCA, [Board File No.180268]). Please approve it! One of the best ways to grow housing availability is to take advantage of what we already have, or can easily add on to! Thanks, -Greg Soltis The Federal Transit Administration ~FTA~, San Francisco County Transportation Authority (SFCTA , and San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA~, have prepared the Final Environ- mental Impact Statement (EIS)/Record of Decision (ROD) for the Geary Corridor BRT Project, in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, 23 CFR 771.125 et seq. The Draft EIS/Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was available for public review and comment from October 2 through November 30, 2015. The Final EIS is now available for public review. It contains a full analysis of the expected environmental effects of the project and responds to all comments received on the Draft EIS/EIR. The ROD is the final Federal action to complete the NEPA process. The purpose of the Geary Corridor Bus Rapid Transit Project (Project) is to improve transit performance, improve pedestrian conditions, and enhance transit access along the 6.5 mile Geary corridor between the Transbay Transit Center and 48th Avenue. The Project includes dedicated transit-only lanes, increasing the frequency of the 38 Rapid (BRT) service, providing enhanced bus stations with amenities, and making pedestrian infrastructure improvements. The EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and four build alternatives including Side-Lane BRT; Center-Lane BRT with Dual Medians and Passing Lanes; Center-Lane BRTwith Consolidated Bus Stops, Dual Medians, and No Passing Lanes; and the Hybrid Alternative/Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA . The Hybrid Alternative/LPA includes center-lanes between Pafm Avenue and 27th Avenue (inbound /28th Avenue (outbound , and side-lanes throughout the remainder of the physical infrastructure improvement limits between Market Street and 34th Avenue. It would construct 33 new Rapid (BRT) stations (16 inbound,17 outbound) with improved amenities. SFMTA is responsible for designing, implementing, and operating the Project and will continue public outreach and engagement activities. To stay informed of project progress, visit www.sfmta.com/geary. WAYS TO OBTAIN THE FINAL EIS Electronic copies of the Final EIS and ROD are available for download at www.gearybrt.org. Printed copies of the Final EIS and ROD are available to view at the San Francisco public libraries listed below as well as atthe Planning Information Center and they also maybe requested from SFCTA at the addresses shown below: <U+2022> Main Library Branch 100 Larkin Street, San Francisco <U+2022> Anza Branch Library 550 37th Avenue, San Francisco <U+2022> SFCTA Front Desk 1455 Market Street, 22nd Floor, San Francisco <U+2022> Planning Information Center,1660Mission Street, San Francisco <U+2022> Richmond/Senator Milton Marks Library Branch 3510 9th Avenue, San Francisco <U+2022> Western Addition Library Branch,1550 Scott St., San Francisco For more information about how to access a copy of the Final EIS and ROD, please contact SFCTA at [email removed] or [phone removed]. 311 Free language assistance/~, a A ~~J / Ayuda gratis con el idioma / 6ecnnaTHa~ nonnou..46 nepeeo,gyNKoe / Tra giup Thong dich Mien phi /Assistance linguistique gratuite C1 FTA / ~~~ q q~#~ / T~ ~o~ zl ~a / Libreng tulong para sa ;~- ~ ~ wikang Filipino / s~~5~f7~d~a~v~~J~i~us~~~~~~~~~id~~~i~l~a~u / ~J~P~ ~sJ ~pJzl~~ I~J,r~~'0 zb U.S. Department Of Transportation Federal Transit Administration REGION IX 90 Seventh Street Arizona, California, Suite 15-300 Hawaii, Nevada, Guam San Francisco, CA 94103-6701 American Samoa, [phone removed] Northern Mariana Islands [phone removed] (fax) Mr. Edward D. Reiskin Director of Transportation San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency 1 Van Ness Avenue San Francisco, CA 94102 RE: Record of Decision for the Geary Corridor Bus Rapid Transit Project Dear Mr. Re~1ci~.~ The Federal Tr"ansit Administration (FTA) has completed its review of the public and interagency comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Geary Corridor Bus Rapid Transit Project. In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and consistent with, 23 USC 139 (n)(2), FTA has issued the enclosed single document consisting of the Final EIS and Record of Decision (ROD) fox the Project. If the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) or San Francisco County Transportation Authority (SFCTA) contemplates any change to the Project, SFMTA or SFCTA must notify FTA immediately and refrain from taking any action related to the proposed change until FTA has determined what, if any, additional environmental analysis is necessary, and that analysis has been completed and approved by FTA. For example, if SFMTA or SFCTA wishes to make a change to the mitigation measures in the Final EIS, the ROD, or a change to the Pxoject that would cause new or changed environmental or community impacts not presented in the Final EIS, then SFMTA or SFCTA must notify FTA in writing of the desire to make a change. Any such change will be reviewed in accordance with FTA environmental procedures (23 CFR 771.129-130) on supplemental documentation. FTA will detez7nine the appropriate level of environmental review for this or any other proposed change (i.e., awritten re-evaluation of the Final EIS, an environmental assessment of the change, or a supplemental EIS), and the NEPA process for this supplemental environmental review will conclude with a separate NEPA determination or, if necessary, with an amendment to this ROD. Please make the Final EIS and ROD and supporting documentation available to affected government agencies and the public. Availability of the document should be published in local newspapers and should be posted on the Project website. The document also should be provided directly to affected government agencies, including the State Inter-Governmental Review contact established under Executive Order 12372. We look forward to continuing to work with you to bring this important Project to fruition. Should you have any questions, please contact Ms. Mary Nguyen, Environmental Protection Specialist, at (2I3) 202-3960. Sincerely, Edward Carranza, Jr. ~ Acting Regional Administrator RECORD OF DECISION BY THE FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION on the Geary Corridor Bus Rapid Transit Project in San Francisco, California Decision The Federal Transit Administration (FTA), pursuant to Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 771 and Title 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508, has determined that the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and related federal environmental statutes, regulations, and executive orders have been satisfied for the Geary Corridor Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Project (the project) in San Francisco, California. This Record of Decision (ROD) applies to the Hybrid Alternative/Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) consisting of dedicated center- and side-running bus travel lanes and related facilities along the Geary corridor, as described in the Geary Corridor Bus Rapid Transit Project Final Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS), dated June 2018. FTA served as the federal lead agency under NEPA. The San Francisco County Transportation Authority (SFCTA) served as the joint lead agency under NEPA and the local lead agency for environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) was a responsible agency under CEQA. SFMTA will implement and operate the project. SFMTA would seek financial assistance from FTA for the project. SFMTA is also a joint lead agency under NEPA. If FTA provides financial assistance for the final design or construction of the project, the project must be designed and built as presented in the Fincal Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the ROD. Any proposed change must be evaluated in accordance with 23 CFR Parts 771.129-130 and FTA must approve the change before the agency requesting the change can proceed. Background The purpose of the project is to enhance the performance, viability, and comfort level of transit and pedestrian travel along the Geary corridor. The 6.5-mile-long Geary corridor is a primary east-west arterial and transit spine in the northern half of San Francisco, California. T'he Geary corridor includes Geary Boulevard between 48th Avenue and Gough Street; Geary Street between Gough Street and Market Street; O'Farrell Street between Gough Street and Market Street; and various blocks of Market, Fremont, Beale, Mission, and First streets that comprise bus routes to and from the Transbay Transit Center. The Geary corridor is a major thoroughfare, and it accommodates more than 50,000 daily person trips via public transit; auto volumes up to 44,000 vehicles per day; and tens of thousands of daily pedestrian trips. SFMTA currently operates four bus routes along the Geary corridor: the 38 Geary, the 38 Geary Rapid (38R), the 38 Geary A Express (38A~, and the 38 Geary B Express (38BX) routes. Improvements are needed to promote ridership and to improve competitiveness of transit against other travel modes. Moreover, the wide travelway and high vehicle speeds of the Geary corridor create unfavorable pedestrian conditions, especially west of Gough Street and throughout the Richmond District. The Geary corridor's existing street and streetscape environment do not provide ahigh-quality transit passenger experience. The project would implement BRT service along the Geary corridor with dedicated bus- only lanes, higher-frequency bus service, new BRT stations, improvements to pedestrian features, and upgrades to traffic signals including fiber-based transit signal priority (TSP) to optimize bus service. Physical roadway and lane changes are proposed between Market Street and 34th Avenue, while bus service amenities and improvements would be provided along the Geary corridox from the Transbay Transit Center to 48th Avenue. Planning for the Proiect Three studies documented planning for the project. These studies include the Geary Corridor Bus Rapid Transit Study (May 200?) (Feasibility Study), the Geary Bus Rapid Transit Alternatives Screening Report (May 2009) (Screening Report) and the Geary Bus Rapid Transit Design Options Screening Report (January 2014). These reports built upon one another in developing, evaluating, and screening designs for individual segments of the Geary corridor, combining designs by segment into alternatives for the corridor, and identifying design constraints and performance tradeoffs. These planning studies provide support for the local agencies' recommendation for the alternatives that were carried forward into the environmental process. See below "Alternatives Considered" for more detail. Alternatives Considered The Feasibility Study evaluated the feasibility of three different conceptual design BRT configurations in the Geary corridor, as well as two "no build" non-BRT options. The BRT configurations considered in the Feasibility Study were "Side BRT" (with side-running bus- only lanes); "Center BRT with 2 Medians" (center-running bus-only lanes with passenger platforms on dual medians); and "Center BRT with 1 Median" (center-running bus-only lanes with a single central boarding platform in a central median). The two "no build" non- BRT options included "basic transit priority" such as TSP, low-floor buses, and some real- tizne information, consistent with system-wide improvements by SFMTA; however, no BRT improvements included. The second "no build" alternative was the "basic plus transit priority" which assumed a dedicated transit lane in peak directions, plus possible stop consolidation, bus management strategies, enhanced street line management, longer bus stops where needed, and bus bulbs at the busiest stops. The Feasibility Study found the three BRT configurations to be potentially feasible and each would result in different transportation benefits. The study did not eliminate any of the three BRT configurations, and each of the "no build" alternatives were found feasible. However, the "no build" alternatives offered less benefit and less transit performance improvement than the BRT configurations. SFCTA continued alternatives development and screening between 2009 and 2014, including two key screening steps. The first screening step was SFCTA's 2009 Screening Report, which examined the three BRT configurations plus both of its no build options from the Feasibility Study. The Screening Report also introduced an additional alternative with a new BRT configuration and several non-BRT options such as peak-period bus-only lanes, all day bus-only lanes, and surface and underground rail options. The Screening Report considered ten corridor-wide configurations or service alternatives, plus six alternatives specific to the area east of Gough Street. The Screening Report more closely examined how the various configurations could work in different portions of the Geary corridor, and further noted that any corridor-wide configuration could be composed of segments featuring one or more of the various configurations studied within. The Screening Report dismissed from further consideration several configurations found to have fatal flaws (ineffective, infeasible, and/or prohibitively expensive to construct). Six alternatives were put forward for further consideration: three BRT configurations (side-running BRT, center-running BRT with side platforms/dual medians, and center-running BRT with center platforms), two minimal action alternatives, and the No Build Alternative. The second screening step focused on particularly challenging areas of the corridor, such as at Fillmore Street, where the Geary corridor is a depressed, multilane roadway, and at Masonic Avenue, under which the Geary corridor traverses a tunnel. SFCTA published its findings in the 2014 Geary Bus Rapid Transit Design Options Screening Report. This report screened out numerous options for the Fillmore and Masonic areas and helped inform the development of the Hybrid Alternative. Discussion of alternatives eliminated from further consideration may be found in Chapter 10 of the Final EIS. After the consideration of these planning efforts and the public input received during scoping for the project, the following alternatives were carried forward in the analysis of the Draft EIS/EIR: <U+2022> No Build Alternative <U+2022> Alternative 2 <U+2014>Side-Lane BRT <U+2022> Alternative 3 <U+2014>Center-Lane BRT with Dual Medians and Passing Lanes <U+2022> Alternative 3-Consolidated <U+2014>Center-Lane BRT with Dual Medians, and Consolidated Bus Service <U+2022> Hybrid Alternative/LPA <U+2014>Incorporates Elements of Alternatives 2 and 3-Consolidated No Baild Alternative The No Build Alternative represents the baseline scenario if none of the proposed Build Alternatives were implemented. Under the No Build Alternative, physical infrastructure and transit service in the Geary corridor would remain unaltered except fox changes associated with other City projects described below that are either planned or programmed to be implemented in the Geary corridor by the year 2020. The yeax 2020 is considered the opening year for all alternatives because it is the earliest year by which any of the Build Alternatives could be expected to be fully operational; therefore, it is also the most reasonable year for the No Build Alternative as a basis of comparison. The No Build Alternative includes wireless TSP; bus stop amenity improvements such as shelter enhancements, bike racks, decals, redesigned flag signs, and transit poles outfitted with solar-powered lanterns; new, low-floor biodiesel-electric hybrid buses; pavement maintenance/ rehabilitation; new or upgraded traffic signals at various locations; and pedestrian improvements including new countdown signals, curb ramps, 14 new pedestrian crossing bulbs, and high-visibility crosswalk striping. The No Build Alternative incorporates the existing side-running bus-only lanes in the easternmost portion of the Geary corridor, on most of Geary and O'Farrell streets between Market and Gough streets. The No Build Alternative also assumes the incorporation of proposed bus-only lanes on Beale, Fremont, and Mission streets, south of Market Street to be completed as part of the separate Transbay Center District Plan. The No Build Alternative includes the improvements planned under the City's Transit Effectiveness Project (TEP) (now called Muni Forward) that have already been implemented or will be implemented in the Geary corridor by 2020. Build Alternatives As detailed in Section 2.2.3 of the Final EIS, the build alternatives propose a common set of transit, pedestrian, and roadway improvements including: fiber-based TSP between 25tH Avenue and Gough Street, bus service at more frequent intervals (see Table 2-3 in Final EIS), additional vehicles with low-floor design, new BRT stops, enhanced local stops, bus only lanes, and bus bulbs. The build alternatives differ primarily in their bus-only lane configurations (center-running versus side-running) along various portions of the Geary corridor. The different configurations are shown in Figure 2-1 of the Final EIS and described below. Alternative 2 <U+2014>Side-Lane BRT._ Alternative 2 includes new side-running bus-only lanes in the Geary corridor, primarily between Gough Street and 34th Avenue. BRT buses would operate in dedicated side-ruruiing bus-only lanes, replacing the existing outside travel lanes of the Geary corridor, next to the existing curbside parking lane that would remain at most locations. Between 34th and 48th avenues, no bus-only lanes would be constructed; all buses would operate in mixed-flow lanes. Alternative 3 <U+2014>Center-Lane BRT with Dual Medians and Passing Lanes. Alternative 3 proposes new side-running bus only lanes between Gough and Laguna streets. At Laguna Street, side-running bus-only lanes would transition to center-running bus-only lanes west to 27th Avenue. At 27th Avenue, bus-only lanes would transition again from center-running to side-running; side-running bus-only lanes would continue to 34th Avenue. A bus passing lane at local bus stops would enable BRT buses to pass local buses that are stopped to load and unload passengers. The center- lane design would include filling in the Fillmore underpass and reconfiguring the Masonic tunnel for a BRT stop. Alternative 3-Consolidated <U+2014>Center-Lane BRT with Dual Medians and Consolidated Bus Service. Alternative 3-Consolidated would implement a largely similar bus-only lane configuration between Laguna Street and 27th Avenue; however, BRT service would replace both 38R and 38 Local services as a new consolidated service, eliminating the need for bus passing lanes. Hybrid Alternative/LPA. The Hybrid Altemative/LPA combines elements of Alternative 2 and Alternative 3-Consolidated. This alternative includes new side-running bus-only lanes primarily from Market Street to Palm Avenue; then center-running bus-only lanes to 27th Avenue in the eastbound direction and 28th Avenue in the westbound direction. At 27th Avenue (inbound) and 28th Avenue (outbound), center-running bus-only lanes would transition to side-running, and continue west to 34th Avenue. Between 34th and 48th avenues, no bus-only lanes would be constructed; all buses would operate in mixed-flow lanes. The Hybrid Alternative/LPA is illustrated in Attachment 1 of the ROD. The Draft EIS/EIR identified the Hybrid Alternative as the Staff-Recommended Alternative. As noted in Final EIS Section 2.1.1, SFCTA and SFMTA, primarily in response to public comments on the Draft EIS/EIR, incorporated s~ minor modifications into the Hybrid Alternative: 4 1) Retention of the Webster Street pedestrian bridge; 2) Removal of proposed BRT stops between Spruce and Cook streets (existing stops would remain and provide local and express services); 3) Addition of more pedestrian crossing and safety improvements; 4) Addition of BRT stops at Laguna Street; 5) Retention of existing local and express stops at Collins Street; and 6) Relocation of the westbound center- to side-running bus lane transition to the block between 27th and 28th Avenues SFCTA released a Final EIR for the Geary BRT project on December 9, 2016. The SFCTA Board of Commissioners adopted the Hybrid Alternative with five minor modifications as the LPA on January 5, 2017 and SFCTA issued a Notice of Determination (NOD) on January 6, 2017. The sixth minor modification was subsequently added and analyzed in a CEQA addendum; the SFCTA Board took an approval action on June 27, 2017. The SFMTA Board unanimously approved the project and concurred with the LPA, including the six minor modifications on July 18, 2017. SFMTA issued a NOD on July 25, 2017. Description of the Proiect This ROD identifies the Hybrid AlternativeJLPA, with the addition of the referenced six modifications above, as the NEPA Preferred Alternative (or Preferred Alternative) as described in Chapter 2 of the Final EIS. The Preferred Alternative would provide BRT service with a combination ofside-running and center-running bus-only lanes as well as within mixed-flow travel lanes along different segments of the 6.5-mile Geary corridor, as depicted in Attachment 1 to this ROD. The Preferred Alternative would feature a total of 27 westbound and 24 eastbound BRT stops between 48th Avenue and the Transbay Terminal. The Preferred Alternative would remove 8 westbound and 12 eastbound stops that currently provide local, Rapid, and/or Express service(s). Environmentally Preferable Alternative The "environmentally preferable alternative" is the alternative required by 40 CFR Part 1505.2(b) to be identified that causes the least damage to the biological and physical environment and best protects, preserves, and enhances historical, cultural, and natural resources. The Hybrid Alternative/LPA was identified as the environmentally preferable alternative. The Hybrid Alternative/LPA results in the greatest reduction in greenhouse gas emissions (carbon dioxide emissions) by 2035 of any of the project alternatives. While both the Hybrid Alternative/LPA and Alternative 3-Consolidated would have the greatest beneficial air quality impacts in terms of reduced operational pollutants and emissions, the Hybrid Alternative/LPA would have less short-term construction impacts relative to Alternatives 3 and 3-Consolidated because the Hybrid Alternative/LPA does not include the intensive construction activities required to fill the Fillmore Street underpass and reconfigure the Masonic Avenue tunnel roadway. With the implementation of mitigation, the alternatives would have no adverse effects to environmental topic areas, except for transportation. All Alternatives would result in adverse impacts to signalized intersection level of service. Although Alternative 2 would result in the least amount of adversely impacted intersections (5), the Hybrid Alternative follows closely with the second fewest number of intersections (8) that are adversely impacted in 2035. Considering the Hybrid Alternative's better long-term operational air quality impacts, when compared to Alternative 2, the Hybrid Alternative is the environmentally-preferable alternative. Basis for Decision FTA weighed the ability of the project alternatives to meet the purpose and need, the economic and technical feasibility of the project alternatives, the environmental effects of the alternatives, local agency decision-making subsequent to publication of the Draft EIS/EIR, and public comments on the Draft EIS/EIR and submitted following the close of the review period of the Draft EIS/EIR (December 10, 2015, through July 11, 2017). Based on these factors, FTA has determined that the Hybrid Alternative/LPA meets the stated purpose and need as outlined in Chapter 1 of the Final EIS. Improve Transit Performance. The Preferred Alternative would impxove transit travel time, reliability, and ridership along the Geary corridor. By 2035, transit service on the Geary corridor would operate at faster speeds and be more reliable than Local and Rapid buses operating under the No Build Alternative. The Preferred Alternative would increase transit ridership to approximately 95,000 daily riders in 2035 (compared with approximately 77,000 under the 2035 No Build Alternative conditions or approximately 50,000 under year 2012 conditions). By 2035, the Preferred Alternative is projected to have a 21 percent to 23 percent travel time savings and a greater than 20 percent reliability improvement over the No Build Alternative. Improve Pedestrian Conditions and Pedestrian Access to Transit. The Preferred Alternative would improve pedestrian safety by providing 77 additional bulbs for a total of 91 pedestrian crossing bulbs, high-visibility crosswalks, signal upgrades, and protected left- turn signals, among other enhancements. The Preferred Alternative would further enhance pedestrian crossing safety by increasing the number of intersections at which vehicles have protected left toms (i.e., vehicles may only turn with a lert-turn arrow) while reducing the number of intersections at which vehicles have permissive left turns (i.e., vehicles may turn left with a green signal provided there is no conflicting oncoming traffic and/or pedestrian crossing). Enhance Transit Access and Overall Passenger Experience. The Preferred Alternative would improve passenger experience by improving vehicle travel time and reliability of transit. The new BRT stops would include amenities such as shelter enhancements, bike racks, decals, redesigned flag signs, and transit poles outfitted with solar-powered lanterns, which would help improve the passenger experience. The Preferred Alternative would also help to reduce overcrowding along the Geary corridor which would improve riding conditions. Heavily used transit stops near Market Street and Japantown axea would see improved loading area to improve passenger volume and the overall passenger experience. Public Involvement and Outreach SFCTA, in coordination with SFMTA, undertook a comprehensive outreach effort to inform the public about the environmental scope and alternatives development, including three public scoping meetings, meetings with both aproject-specific Geary BRT Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) and Geary BRT Technical Advisory Committee, and numerous stakeholder meetings. Informational materials were disseminated through mailings (electronic and postal), advertisements and fliers on buses, and advertisements in community newspapers. The project mailing list includes more than 23,000 persons. The Geary BRT CAC provided a sustained public forum for community input with more than 30 bimonthly meetings held since inception. SFCTA and SFMTA met with more than 40 local organizations and interest groups during preparation of the Draft EIS/EIR, with additional follow-up meetings after Draft EIS/EIR publication. Copies of the Draft EIS/EIR were available for public review during normal business hours at the SFCTA front desk, 1455 Market St., 22nd floor, San Francisco, CA. Copies were also available for public review in several libraries near the Geary corridor. SFCTA posted the Draft EIS/EIR for public review on its website at: http://www. sfcta.or~/geary-BRT-draft-eis-eir SFCTA, incoordination with SFMTA, also posted the NOA on its website, sent paper copies of the NOA to over 2,000 interested and nearby property owners along the Geary corridor, posted it at bus shelters along the Geary corridor, and published it in seven local newspapers. SFCTA also mailed copies of the NOA to all individuals who had requested to be notified of the availability of the Draft EIS/EIR. SFCTA posted Facebook ads and Nextdoor messages to announce the public comment meeting, targeting people using the Facebook and Nextdoor applications who live and/or work near the Geary corridor. In communities with high numbers of people who do not speak English, information was provided in multiple languages (Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Russian, Spanish, Filipino, and Vietnamese) including bus cards, bus shelter advertisements, the project fact sheet, newspaper advertisements, and email communications. During the public review period for the Draft EIS/EIR, a public meeting was held on November 5, 2015, at Saint Mary's Cathedral in San Francisco. The public comment period for the Draft EIS/EIR, originally scheduled to end on November 16, 2015, was extended to November 30, 2015. To allow for potential postal delays, the agencies accepted any comment received by December 9, 2015. During the public comment period, a total of 263 different agencies, organizations, and individuals provided a total of 249 comment communications via letters, ennails, comment cards, and oral comments at the November 5, 2015, public meeting. Comments on the Draft EIS/EIR highlighted several key areas of public concern such as the range of alternatives studied, project costs, construction effects, and parking. Chapter 8 of the Final EIS documents the public outxeach efforts conducted subsequent to publication of the Draft EIS/EIR. Appendix L of the Final EIS includes responses to comments received. Although the Draft EIS/EIR had been prepared as a combined document to meet the requirements of both NEPA and CEQA, the federal and local lead agencies prepared separate final environmental documents. To this end, SFCTA published a Final EIR for the project on December 9, 2016. SFCTA's publication of the Final EIR occurred via notifications in multiple formats and languages similar to those used for the Draft EIS/EIR, including a radius mailing along the corridor. SFCTA posted the Final EIR for public review on its website at: hitp://www. sfcta.or~/~earv-corridor-bus-rapid-transit-final-eir Determinations and Findings Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR Part 800 The area of potential effect (APE) contains 53 historic properties that are currently listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or are eligible for NRHP listing. The proposed improvements would occur within the public right-of-way. There would be no right-of-way acquisition of any historic property. The Preferred Alternative would not result in direct or indixect adverse effects to any of the 53 historic properties within the APE as historic properties would retain overall integrity of setting, feeling, and association. There is a low potential fox excavation to encounter undiscovered buried archaeological resources. The ma~cimum expected excavation depth is 16 feet for light poles and potential underground sewer line relocations. Protocols for the discovery of unanticipated archaeological and paleontological resources are set forth in Section 4.5.5 of the Final EIS and Attachment 2 of this ROD. FTA determined that the Preferred. Alternative would have no adverse effect on historic properties, either historic architectural resources or archaeological resources, within the APE and the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) concurred with this finding in a letter, dated October 17, 2017, which is included in Attachment 3 of this ROD. Section 4(fl of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (49 U.S.C. 303 Section 4(~ of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (49 U.S.C. 303) is intended to avoid use through the permanent incorporation of land of public park and recreational areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic properties. The Preferred Alteznative would not result in the use of or permanent incorporation of any park or recreational Section 4(fl resources since the project would be located entirely within the existing Geary corridor or immediately adjacent sidewalk areas where no public parks or recreational facilities exist. The Preferred Alternative would make streetscape improvements in the viciniTy of four historic resources that are considered historic Section 4(fl properties: the "Golden Triangle" light standards axe eligible for the NRHP and thus treated here as a Section 4(fl property, the lighting standards associated with the Japan Center, the Auxiliary Water Supply System (AWSS), and the St. Francis Square Cooperative. The Preferred Alternative may require the removal and relocation of the Golden Triangle streetlights and Japan Center lighting standards, as well as components of the AWSS. The relocation these historic properties would be considered a direct use; however, these historic properties would retain overall integrity of setting, feeling, and association. Measures to minimize harm, such as avoidance, minimization, mitigation, and enhancement measures, were developed in coordination with the SHPO for these properties. With these measures, the Preferred Alternative would result in de minimis impacts to these historic resources. On October 17, 2017, SHPO concurred with FTA's Section 106 finding that the Preferred Alternative would have "no adverse effect" to historic properties. See Attachment 3 of this ROD. Temporary occupancy of historic resources may occur under the Preferred Alternative to accommodate construction. Any temporary occupancy would be short in duration (less than the time needed for construction), the scope of the occupancy is minor, neither permanent adverse impacts nor interference with protected features would occur and the land being used would be fully restored. SHPO has concurred that the Preferred Alternative would not result in any adverse effects to historic properties. Pursuant to 23 CFR Part 774.13(d), such temporary occupancies are so minimal so as to not constitute a use. Operation and construction noise or vibration would not result in a substantial impairment of the Section 4(~ properties. None of the historic properties require quiet as an essential feature. The Preferred Alternative would not result in a constructive use of Section 4( fl historic properties from other construction or operation of the Preferred Alternative. There are no previously known intact archaeological resources in the Geary corridor. If any archaeological resouzces are inadvertently discovered and are subsequently determined to be eligible for the NRHP and warrant preservation in place, a Section 4(~ evaluation would be conducted. Construction of the pedestrian bulbs would be located within intersections near four Section 4(fl recreational resources: the Japantown Peace Plaza and Pagoda, Hamilton Recreation Center and Playground, Raymond Kimbell Playground, and Sergeant John Macaulay Park. The Park Presidio path exists within the existing discontinuous greenway on the east side of Park Presidio Boulevard. None of the project infrastructure would be located within the park or recreational facility properties. The Preferred Alternative would not result in temporary occupancy of any park or recreational Section 4(~ properties. Construction activities that may occur adjacent to park and recreation locations are expected to be of short duration and construction noise levels are expected to be below the thresholds identified in FTA's Transit Noise and Vibration Assessment (2006). Operational noise from the Preferred Alternative would be below FTA noise thresholds. Therefore, pursuant to 23 CFR Part 774.150(5), the Preferred Alternative would not result in a substantial impairment to the activities, features, ox attributes that qualify these properties for protection under Section 4(~. No constructive use of Section 4(~ parks and recreational properties from construction or operation of the Preferred Alternative would occur. Section 6(~ of the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF~ Act Section 6(fl of fhe Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Act prohibits the conversion of property acquired or developed with LWCF funds to anon-recreational purpose without the approval of the Department of the Interior's National Park Service. Two parks <U+2014>Bush and Baker Mini-Park and the Willie "Woo Woo" Wong Playground <U+2014> located within a half-mile of the Geary corridor received funding from the LWCF and are thus Section 6(~ resources. However, the Preferred Alternative would not convert either of these properties to non-recreational use. Accordingly, no Section 6(~ properties are adversely impacted by the Preferred Alternative. Air Quality Conformity The Preferred Alternative conforms to the Clean Air Act Amendments (40 CFR Part 51) and the final Transportation Conformity Rule (40 CFR Part 93), as documented in Section 4.10.4.1 of the Final EIS. The Preferred Alternative was included in the regional emissions analysis completed by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) for the conforming Regional Transportation Plan (2017 RTP; Plan Bay Area 2040). This analysis found that the RTP and, therefore, the individual projects contained in the RTP are conforming projects and will have air quality impacts consistent with those identified in the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for achieving the national ambient air quality standards. The project was also included in the federal 2017 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). FHWA and FTA determined the TIP to conform to the SIP on August 23, 2017. In May 2014, the MTC Air Quality Conformity Task Force confirmed that the Preferred Alternative was not a Project of Air Quality Concern. This confirmation is included as Appendix G to the Final EIS. Endan er g ed Species Act No threatened, endangered, or other regulated or sensitive species and no sensitive habitats are known to occur within the Geary corridor. One federally threatened species <U+2014>the California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii) <U+2014> is known to occur within ahalf-mile of the Geary corridor; however, the location of this known occurrence is within Golden Gate Park, in which neither construction nor operation of the project would occur. No listed species, no suitable habitat, and no designated critical habitat are located within the Geary corridor. The Preferred Alternative would have no adverse effect to threatened or endangered species. Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act No natural surface water bodies, wetlands, or streams exist in the Geary corridor or its immediate vicinity. Pursuant to the mitigation measures, the Preferred Alternative will comply with Titles III and IV of the Clean Water Act and National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards during and following construction. A Notice of Intent would be filed with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) prior to construction. Prior to eonstrtzction of the Preerred Alternative, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be prepared and monitored with applicable Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control erosion and ensure against discharge of dirt and pollutants into storm drains. Accordingly, the Pxeferred Alternative meets the requirements of the Clean Water Act. Floodplain Management: Executive Order 11988 Executive Order 11988 and USDOT Order 5650.2, requires federal agencies to avoid to the extent possible the long-term and short-term adverse impacts caused by using and modifying floodplains, and to avoid floodplain development wherever there is a practicable alternative. The Preferred Alternative is not located within any 100- or 500-year floodpiain; therefore, no modifications to any established floodpla.ins would result from project implementation. The Geary corridor is not located within a mapped flood hazard zone. Accordingly, the Preferred Alternative will not result in adverse flood-related effects or floodplain encroachment. Executive Order 12898: Environmental Justice The analysis in the EIS was prepared in compliance with the Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low- Income Populations (February 11, 1994); the USDOT Order to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (LTSDOT Order 5610.2(a), May 2, 2012; and FTA's Circular 4703.1, Environmental Justice Policy Guidance for Federal Transit Administration Recipients (August 15, 2012). Over half of the Census Block Groups in the study area include environmental justice (EJ) populations. The majority of the study area includes Census Block Groups with high 10 percentages (over 50 percent of the population) of minority populations. The areas with Census Block Groups with the highest percentages of minority populations along the Geary corridor include the Western Addition, Downtown/Civic Center, Chinatown, and South of Market neighborhoods. Japantown and the Fillmore are parts of the Western Addition and the Tenderloin is part of the Downtown/Civic Center. Eighty-four Census Block Groups in the study area have a proportion of households with incomes that are 150 percent or less of the 2012 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) poverty guidelines that exceeds the percentage of such people in the City and County of San Francisco as a whole (21 percent as of 2012). Low-income populations in the study area are found scattered throughout the corridor, but are most prevalent in the Downtown/Civic Center (including the Tenderloin), South of Market, Chinatown, and Western Addition neighborhoods. After the implementation of avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures, the Preferred Alternative would not have adverse effects for construction and operation in all environmental topic areas except transportation. These topic areas include but are not limited to community impacts, noise/vibration, visual impacts and land use. The Preferred Alternative would not have any adverse effects in these topic areas; therefore, the Preferred Alternative would have no disproportionate adverse effects to EJ populations related to these topic areas. Following the implementation of avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures, the Preferred Alternative would result in adverse effects related to transportation. Six intersections would operate at an unacceptable level of service in partially EJ and non-EJ communities (defined fronn 2016 Census data. and two intersections would operate at an unacceptable level of service in entirely EJ communities. The traffic effects would be similar at the impacted intersections. Mitigation measures would be applied similarly in both environmental justice communities and non-environmental justice communities. In contrast, the No Build Alternative would result in 10 adversely impacted intersections in entirely EJ communities. Therefore, in comparison, the Preferred Alternative would not result in disproportionate adverse effects to envirorunental justice populations. The environmental justice communities along the corridor would also be the most proximate to the benefits of the project <U+2014>improved transit service, enhanced neighborhood access and mobility, and better transit reliability and connectivity. These transit access and mobility enhancements in environmental justice communities would offset the adverse effects of traffic that would occur. Other benefits include lower greenhouse gas emissions, decreased pedestrian crossing distances, pedestrian-scale lighting, median-width changes, and improved bus shelters and bulbouts. Taking both burdens and offsetting benefits into account, the Preferred Alternative would not have disproportionately high and adverse effects on environmental justice populations. Transportation Impacts The Preferred Alternative would result in adverse effects at the following eight study intersections (4 on-corridor and 4off-corridor) in the year 2035 and some in the year 2020: <U+2022> Parker Street and Geaxy Boulevard (2035) <U+2022> Laguna Street and Geary Boulevard (2020, 2035) <U+2022> Gough Street and Geary Boulevard (2020, 2035) <U+2022> Van Ness Avenue and Geary Boulevard (2020, 2035) <U+2022> California Street and Arguello Boulevard (2035) <U+2022> Califortua Street and Presidio Avenue (2035) <U+2022> Fulton Street and Stanyan Street (2020, 2035) <U+2022> Anza Street and Park Presidio Boulevard (2035) The Preferred Alternative would decrease the overall parking supply within one to two blocks of the Geary corridor by 3 percent (330 spaces). The Preferred Alternative would reduce public parking (on-street and off-street) in the Masonic Avenue area by 9 percent and in the Japantown/ Fillmore Street area by 4 percent. These changes in parking were found not to be adverse given the availability of nearby on- and off-street parking spaces. No feasible measures exist to reduce impacts from the Preferred Alternative at the above- identified intersections and tr~c effects at these intersections would be adverse. Additional information on avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures for traffic and parking effects are included in Attachment 2 of this ROD. Measures to Mitigate Adverse Effects All practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm have been adopted for the Preferred Alternative. The mitigation commitments are described in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Appendix M of the Pinal EIS and Attachment 2 of this ROD). Any change in such commitments from the description in the Final EIS will require a review in accordance with 23 CFR Parts 771.129-130 and must be approved by FTA. Edward Carranza, Jr. Acting Regional Administrator Federal Transit Administration, Region IX ,~~;~ ~ ~ zo ~a Date Attachment 1: Preferred Alternative -- Hybrid Aiternative/LPA Attachment 2: Mitigation Monitoring &Reporting Program for the Project Attachment 3: Section 106 Determinations and Findings 12show more

2018-06-21 · 12 comments · 9 / 2

Thomas Schuttish · email · 2018-06-21 · oppose · source packet

Commissioner<U+2019>s Packet for ADU legislation for June 21, 2018 Hearing
Dear President Hillis and Fellow Commissioners, I submitted this attached comment on the ADU legislation for your packet. I believe I was timely. I sent a pdf to Staff on Wednesday morning, June 13th. I delivered 15 copies to the Department<U+2019>s 4th floor reception desk that same afternoon. Here is my comment which was not in the actual online packet for ADUs, but is listed separately in the Supportin… show more

Katy Tang · spoken · 2018-06-21 · support

ADU legislative amendment

Janet Fowler · spoken · 2018-06-21 · support

Support

Tony Robles · spoken · 2018-06-21 · support

Support

Ozzie Rohm · spoken · 2018-06-21 · support

Amendment

Lisa Fromer · spoken · 2018-06-21 · support

Support

Laura Clark · spoken · 2018-06-21 · support

Tenant protection

Todd Mavis · spoken · 2018-06-21 · support

ADUs are awesome

Jeremy Schaub · spoken · 2018-06-21 · support

Support

Dylan Casey · spoken · 2018-06-21 · neutral

Additional amendments

Milo Trauss · spoken · 2018-06-21 · support

Support

Georgia Schuttish · spoken · 2018-06-21 · oppose

Issues and concerns George Wooding – ADU's Anastasia Yovanapolous – Tenants Jerry Drabbler – ADU Teresa Flandrick – Notification

2018-07-12 · 1 comments · 0 / 1

Rose Hillson · email · 2018-07-12 · oppose · source packet

File No. 180268, 2018-004194PCA) "Amendments to ADUs Requirements"
Dear Chair Tang and Members of the Board of Supervisors Land Use and Transportation Committee: The subject-referenced matter is scheduled to come before you at your July 9, 2018 meeting. Neighbors advocated strongly to retain notifications within existing timeframes for development projects in the recently passed ordinance commonly known as <U+201C>Process Improvements.<U+201D> Neighbors thank the Bo… show more

2019-06-27 · 1 comments · 0 / 1

John F. Sampson · email · 2019-06-27 · oppose · source packet

Proposed legislation severely restricting home renovation
I assume that as a member of the Planning Commission you recognize that the proposed legislation cannot have sufficient public benefit or necessity as it would excessively and contemptibly limit and interfere with a homeowners rights to the reasonable modification of their private property. Further it imposes on each homeowner who would like to reasonably renovate or remodel his/her home the burden of adding an addi… show more