CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
SMALL BUSINESS COMMISSION
City Hall, Room 400
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place San Francisco, CA 94102
MEETING MINUTES
Monday, January 29, 2007 5:30 PM
Small Business Commissioners:
Jordanna Thigpen, President
Michael O'Connor, Vice President
Florence Alberts, David Chiu, Gus Murad, Dr. Raye Richardson, Richard Ventura
Executive Director – Agnes Briones Ubalde
Commission Secretary – Martha Yañez
Members Absent: None
Call to order:
Item 1 - ROLL CALL
The Small Business Commission met on Monday, January 29, 2007 in special session. The meeting was called to order at 5:40PM. Commission Richardson arrived at 5:52PM.
Item 2- GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT
Rolf Mueller, a long time small business community member said that he has been attending these meetings for 10 years now and said he would appreciate it if the commissioners could get here on time.
Item 3 – COMMISSIONER'S REPORT
None
Item 4 –STAFF REPORT
None
Item 5 – DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE PROPOSED GEARY BOULEVARD BUS RAPID TRANSIT STUDY
Zabe Bent, Senior Transportation Planner with the Municipal Transportation Agency and Project Manager for the Geary Bus Rapid Transit Study said the study looks at Geary which is a top transit corridor spanning the entire Northern part of the City. She said it carries 50,000 riders per day, but said it lacks reliable rapid transit service. She said their efforts are looking at evaluating the BRT system as a way to improve transit on Geary, while improving the neighborhoods surrounding Geary and served by Geary. She said the study is being done by the Transportation Authority in cooperation with the MTA and many other organizations both private and public, and said that they are also lucky to be working with six community based organizations who have been instrumental in helping them broaden their reach in the community, particularly reaching out to folks who might not normally be part of the transportation planning process, adding that they have been able to bring more people to the table including a more divers communities. She said the focus of the study has two parts, one which looks at Market to the Ocean looking at transportation benefits and particularly pedestrian safety and streetscape, and focusing on Van Ness to 33rd for an analysis for a dedicated lane for buses. She said that what they are looking at for the study are what the features of BRT would be on Geary, what it will look like, and whether or not those features are feasible, what are the impacts and whether or not they would benefit the area and would the project be justified. Furthermore she said they are trying to understand the specific alternatives, are there some that are more promising than others or some that lack merit and thus should not be further entertained and so forth. She said that BRT alone has many different features and is a combination of urban design treatments and technology, stating that the most prominent feature is the dedicated lane, which is a traffic lane that is dedicated to buses only, for which there are no tracks or special treatments for. She said another component is the transit signal priority, stating that it is a way for the buses and traffic signals to communicate with each other, allowing buses to hold the green light open when a bus approaches an intersection rather than having it stop at a red light only then proceed to the intersection to pick up the passengers. She said another component is the high quality stations and platforms, stating that they are looking at investments such as improved shelters and real time information or next bus, and community maps so that folks will know what are the attractions in the surrounding area. Other improvements she said include the low floor buses that will help improve travel time by speeding up the time it takes to board for people with disabilities who would be able to walk or roll themselves on the bus. They are also looking at streetscape improvements and improvements to the pedestrian environment. She said that there are 25 cities around the world that operate BRT systems and said that the reasons for having BRT on Geary are many including pedestrian safety, problems with reliability and mainly delayed service due to traffic congestion or bunching. She said that since they are nearing the end of their study they would like to re evaluate and try to figure out how to proceed. She said that what they discovered is that there are many options for BRT on Geary, most of which are feasible. She said that BRT can offer significant transit performance and can provide faster travel times, increased reliability, and a more comfortable ride, adding that with low operating costs, they can expand the time and span of service into later in the evening or match that of light rail service. She said that a lot of people are concerned with loss of parking and other concerns, stating that a lot of the impacts could be mitigated. She said that they have done an analysis to try to figure out how to mitigate some of the impact concerns and said that they have looked at 5 alternatives overall, the first two are not BRT and the others are. The two that are not BRT are different designs and involve different technology. She said they compared these against each other to see what the impacts vs. benefits could be for each. She said the first one is the baseline alternative, the alternative they will compare all other ones to, and said they include improvements that will happen even if they don't do BRT, such as transit signals, low load buses, inter Geary improvement project, and standard bus stops. The second alternative will have all of the basic alternatives described in the base line alternative, with the addition of a dedicated lane during peak hours in the peek direction (eastbound in the morning and westbound in the evening), possible bus stop removal or consolidation, bus management strategies to help enforce bus timing, and perhaps longer bus stops so that both the limited bus and the regular bus can pull up to the same stop as opposed to having to wait, as well as increased enforcement of the bus lanes. She said that the other three alternatives, 3, 4 and 5 are all BRT alternatives and said that the major difference between them is the location of the dedicated lane and additional improvements like streetscape and landscaping. She said that in all three BRT alternatives there are two lanes of travel for autos and one for the bus in either direction. Alternative 3 has a curbside dedicated bus lane and thus would continue to create conflicts between autos needing to park or make right turns and buses. Alternative 4 would have a center running BRT with two platforms or mediums, one on either side, and Alternative 5 would also have a center running BRT, but with one large center platform with the dedicated BRT on either side of the center platform, which would serve to shield passengers from traffic. She said that all BRT options, or alternative 3, 4, and 5 would provide increased landscaping, pedestrian safety, and a more comfortable ride, as well as be more reliable, and said that Alternatives 4 and 5 would result in increased parking from the conversion of the existing bus stops at the curb into parking spaces. She reported that for each of the alternatives they did a rigorous set of analysis to figure out what the impacts were, adding that people continued to ask what the travel time differences are and what they will be once BRT is implemented. She reported that for Alternative 1 the travel time for the local bus is 32 minutes and 26 minutes for the limited bus. She reported that Alternative 2 and 3 would be very similar due to the curbside option and peak hour aspect of the Alternative 2, and said that Alternatives 4 and 5 would be significantly faster because the conflict between buses and cars would be removed as a result of the center dedicated BRT. She said that even though BRT is being proposed for the current riders, they do expect to see rider ship increase due to the increased reliability that all alternatives will provide. Another consideration is comfort and the wait time, stating that the center platform option would likely provide the best wait time and comfort level. She said that a large part of the improvements is to increase pedestrian safety and said that they plan to improve cross walks by making them more visible and adding more countdown crosswalks. She said that another concern they have heard is the diversion of traffic on Geary due to the dedicated lane and said that they are finding that people will use other streets nearby, adding that the diversion only amounts to 1 to 2 cars per minute, which is not a significant increase. Yet another concern is the construction impact, stating that it would be similar to a road resurfacing project, adding that the construction itself is very low impact, and not at all like light rail or subway construction. She said that they are looking at doing the construction in segments, so potentially 4 blocks in less than 3 months. Cost is also a concern of many she said, adding that folks wonder if it is affordable. She said that the estimated total construction cost is between 105 and 115 million dollars, excluding Masonic and Fillmore because of the level, which will require more cost analysis, stating that the total project cost could be closer to 150 million dollars. In terms of funding she said that 50 million dollars would come from Prop. K funds, and potentially 75 million from a federal program called Small Starts, adding that this gets them closer to the 150 million they are anticipating to spend. She said that working with the Geary Citizens Advisory Committee and others they were able to come up with a goal for the project and looked at how all the different alternatives fair against those goals. She reported that Alternative 2 fares the best in terms of neighborhood livability and commercial vitality, but not so much in terms of rider ship because she said they found that only 22 commuters ride Geary on average during peak hours. On the other hand BRT fared well both in reliability and rider ship improvements. She said that they found that because so many people use Geary buses all day long, and because of the improvements it will provide, BRT service provides the best options. She concluded by stating that they will present their finding to the CAC in the spring and to the full Board thereafter. If the study goes forward she said that the next step would be an environmental impact report that would provide more detailed analysis, and location specific analysis. Finally she said that at the end of that process would come a decision whether or not to implement BRT, and said that if that were to be the decision construction could begin in 2010 and have the first phase up and running by 2011. She took questions and comments from the commissioners and the public. Commission Chiu thanked Ms. Bent for her presentation and asked about the construction impact, stating that if he is doing the math correctly it will take about 3 years for the entire project based on the 6 to 8 weeks for 3 to 4 blocks, questioning why in other parts of the document show a project time of 5 to 7 years. Zabe Bent responded stating that this includes the environmental phase, essentially now to 2010 when construction is projected to start if this moves forward, but she said that they are anticipating the actual construction to go as quickly as 1 to 2 years. Commission Chiu asked Ms. Bent to talk about the parking situation and how they might mitigate impacts during construction on any particular block, specifically, what can be done for the merchants that will be impacted. He also asked her to elaborate on the section that speaks to the potential business benefits and economic multipliers. Zabe Bent responded stating that unfortunately they do not have a concrete answer to the question of mitigating impacts, but said that it would be looked at more closely during the environmental impact review phase. She said that they are however committed to maintaining at least one travel lane open at all times, and finding different ways of lessening the impact of parking loss during construction. With regard to the economic multipliers she said that they believe that the project is an economic benefit because of the level of investment. Furthermore she said that because of the improvements and reliability, they believe Geary will be more of a destination location but said she did not have actual numbers to prove this. Commissioner Richardson asked about an update on her comment at the previous meeting where she asked about the feasibility of monorail, stating that it would be ideal to look into it. Zabe Bent responded stating that she did not have an update on the feasibility of monorail because she said it is not something they are considering at this time. She said there is no money for a monorail in their 30 year expenditure plan, thus they have not looked at monorail. She said that monorail would be a larger impact than BRT. Commissioner Richardson said perhaps, but said that the impact would not be as great to the merchants as street level construction. Ms. Bent admitted she was not very familiar with monorail construction but said that with any project they would need to allocate space for staging and the actual construction. Commissioner Richardson asked if the MTA would consider including a budget for the purpose of compensating businesses for loss of business, stating that 8 weeks is a lot of time for small business, adding that whatever plan gets adopted should take this into consideration. She also pointed to Market Street as an example of what can happen to businesses that are impacted, stating that it has yet to recover form the metro construction. Zabe Bent said that she understood that 8 week could be a long time for a business, but said that this is not something that the agency has done in the past and would likely not consider doing now. Commissioner O'Connor expressed his concerns with the idea that the project seems to be focused on the commuters needing to get from end to end, when in fact there are the people in the neighborhood that just need to run their errands, go shopping etc. He said it almost seems that there ought to be two systems, one for commuters and one for neighborhood residents. Ms. Bent said that they are trying to address all these things while improving neighborhood conditions such as livability and more. Commissioner Murad agreed that the budget should include a budget to compensate businesses for loss of business due to the project. He suggested working out a plan with the contractor so that they work at night and in the early morning so as to minimize impacts to business community. Zabe Bent again said that they are not considering compensating businesses because it has not been their policy, and said that they are looking at various construction options. Commissioner Ventura asked if during the EIR the Commission would be able to look at measuring the impact to businesses, and suggested adding a cost benefit analysis to the EIR. He also asked if they could include an economic impact study as part of the EIR. Zabe Bent said that they would do a cost benefit analysis but said she could not speculate how detailed it will be or if it could be part of the EIR. Commissioner Alberts echoed Commissioner Ventura's request for an economic impact study and said that she was not prepared to accept the notion that because an economic impact study or cost benefit analysis has never been done before as part of the EIR process or in general, that it can not be done. She said she supports and understands the long term benefits of such a project, but said it is not realistic or tangible for small businesses. She expressed concern over the proposed 6-8 week timeline stating that 6 to 8 weeks could easily become 16 weeks, not to mention the potential and likely ongoing loss of business due to work in nearby segments which make it difficult to access businesses in the vicinity. She suggested that they apply a business loss insurance model that would allow them to perhaps compensate merchants for loss of business such as the FEMA disaster model. Zabe Bent said that they are looking to mitigate the problems including improved policies to get some benefits to businesses. Commissioner Thigpen said with all due respect for the federal government, looking to the FEMA model might not be a good suggestion. However she did say she heard about mitigation efforts offered to businesses along 3rd Street and asked if there were any details about that and how that was able to take place. Ms. Bent said that she would have to look into it and said she did not know about it. Commissioner Richardson asked if anyone had surveyed the businesses on 3rd Street since the reconstruction and wondered what the actual construction time impact was and was curious about the rent rates as well, did they change. Ms. Bent said that her agency had not surveyed businesses on 3rd to her knowledge and said she did not have any info on that. David Heller, President of the Geary Boulevard Merchants Association thanked the Commission for having this presentation and said that they have been working on trying to secure an economic impact study for a couple years and have been ignored. He said that he would like to look back on other projects in the area and talked about a PG&E cable project in which 4 blocks turned into 8 block segment because they had to allow space to prepare traffic for the work ahead and after. He said as a result you loose a lot more parking than originally anticipated, not to mention the impact this has to businesses along the corridor. He said that these cables will need to be relocated to prepare for BRT, stating that BRT can not go in on top of cables and said that this is not accounted for. Furthermore he said that they are here opposed to the project because it was not properly vetted, stating that the CTA claims that 70% are in favor of BRT, stating that it is not true, adding that the community has been railroaded by BRT. He said that they supported Prop. K to improve Muni and pedestrian safety, not to propose BRT, stating that they never thought supervisors or others would sneak in the paragraph that calls for BRT/Light Rail Ready. He said they can not do BRT unless it is light rail ready, and said they have lawyers that would be very happy to come to town and help them with one of the biggest lawsuit that it has every seen, adding that this is not the way they want to resolve this. Merv Silberberg said he spoke at our meeting in December on this issue but said he was not able to speak to all the issues and said that he experienced the same thing during the Muni Metro project on Market Street, stating that his parents had a business in the Tenderloin near Market and said that the neighborhood never fully recovered form the redevelopment work that took place there, and the conversion of buildings to residential housing, stating that this removed the commercial aspect of the area. He said that experience will tell us that the project will take longer than anticipated and double the cost. Furthermore he said that o one has considered the customers of the businesses on Geary Street, stating that the majority of customers are auto oriented, not bus oriented, and said that the project smells of redevelopment, adding that they want to build 20 story buildings that local people will not profit from, but rather out of town developers just looking to make a profit. Howard Epstein, a resident of the Richmond District for over 30 years said that he is a customer that shops on Geary and said he usually uses his automobile to get around in the neighborhood. He said he remembers when they pulled the tracks out of Geary Street as well as when they put the cables in stating that both projects caused a big mess in the neighborhood. He said this project will have the same effect. He said the best alternative is the one with no parking morning or afternoon to allow buses to get by easily. He said road construction projects do not have a good track record of coming in on time and on budget. He said that the equity issue that was brought up in the presentation bothered him because it suggested that people who do not take the bus during peak hours have a longer wait time, stating that BRT will not change that. Furthermore in terms of the jay walking problem, he said you could find people jay walking on any given block in any given business district in San Francisco and BRT will not change that either. He urged the Commission to urge the MTA to do the less expensive alternative. Dr. Ron Konopaski thanked the Commission for hosting the meeting and said that he lived in the district for 36 years and said that the district supervisor is known for his hair brained ideas, of which this is one. He said the presentation was very slick, what he called Madison Avenue type. He said the same one was shown to the people of the Richmond District to get them on board, but said it is a total fraud. He said nothing has been said about how this will impact the neighbors and what it will cost them, or the long term effects, adding that BRT is a bad idea. Rolf Mueller, a resident of the Crocker Amazon for past three yeas said that he has seen what happened on 3rd Street and read the article that said the project when 168 million dollars over budget and did not do oversight, stating that they had to tear down a number of stops because they were either to low for the street car or too close. He said that while he is in favor of doing something to increase public transit reliability, but said that his concern is that the city has no idea how to oversee theses projects. Furthermore he said that these bureaucrats have not even talked to the small business people that will be impacted by this. Janet Campbell, an architect living two blocks from Geary and Jordon Park said that she has 30 years of experience, having worked at MARTA, an agency similar to BART in Atlanta as a Planner. She said she worked on five station layouts and one major train station. At MARTA she said their main mission was to do no harm to the existing fabric of the city, adding that they paid residences and businesses that were effected, and said that they trained them as planners to understand what happens between stations, adding that no amount of aesthetics makes up for ready access issues. She said parking is key and you need to have 4 to 5 parking slots per 1,000 square feet of business and retail space, stating that this is in practically every planning code in the country, adding that this city's planning department has told her that they do not want any more cars in the city, and that the husband could have the car and the wife and kids do not need cars. She said that the worst thing in her opinion is the desire to destroy one block to build high rise housing, which she said does not work. Jack Reil a merchant on Geary said that in 1971 when they had to dig up the Masonic Trench at Fillmore, the merchants at that time had to deal with detours and ended up having to sue the city in order to get compensated. He said Geary was designed to be a thoroughfare, stating that Mayor Christopher called it the Great Wide Way . He said that he asked what happens to the people around that area when they fill the trench, stating that they don't have an answer to that question. Furthermore he said there are questions about the detours, stating that they will be added traffic on all the surrounding streets, not only California, and said that they haven't addressed those concerns either, stating that for those reasons the vote ought to be no. Daniel Abraham said that he would like to offer a different perspective, stating that he hails from LA where public transportation is non existent. He said he does not feel that there is a problem with the bus system here, adding that people that move to the Richmond know that there only way to downtown is via the bus and they are fine with that. He said he knew that moving there. He said he feels a sense of community in the Richmond which is due in part to the merchants and the services they provide to the people of the neighborhood. He said he believes that this sense of community that he feels will be threatened with BRT. Richard Warner, President of Jordan Park Improvement Association and CAC member, and a fifth generation San Franciscan said that he has lived through many of the city's transit projects including Bart, and said he fears that vehicular traffic will forever be changed, as well as the fabric of Geary, most importantly the merchants. He said that the merchants will never recover if the 30% parking is removed form Park Presidio to 30th, adding that those slots are used often and impact the lane of traffic. He said he is concerned that implementing BRT would in that case, cause the existing three lanes on to be funneled into one lane, which would have an impact on emergency vehicles needing to get through. He said it is a real fear of his. Mike Puente a business owner on Geary said that in May 2006, his business experienced a 50% loss of business as a result of some work that PG&E was doing on his block, adding that they were only there a week, but that was enough to impact his business significantly. He said he is very concerned with the impacts BRT will have on his business and said it might put him out of business. He said he has attended some of the meetings and said that he was aware that Mr. Heller and others had been calling for an economic impact study, but said that they continue to be told that they will not be doing one. He said that all that they have wanted from day one to an economic impact study that perhaps could be conducted by a third party that will lay out the impacts. Finally he said that in his opinion he did not feel that the project had been properly vetted with the true facts, stating that they have not clearly explained the projects and said that their assumptions are just that, adding that they have not provided any proof or data. Gaspare, a resident of the Richmond since 1979 and business owner for over 20 years at Geary and 28th said that every night he hears about parking problems from his customers. He said the presentation was sugar coated and is not a reality. He said if the city cares about businesses and residents of the Richmond, it will scrap this project, and said that they ought to put that money into building additional parking garages for residents, businesses, merchants and visitors. Furthermore he said that focus should be allocated to cleaning the neighborhood instead. He also said that his employees are feeling nervous about potentially loosing their job and said the construction time would go over the estimated 6 to 8 weeks. Leah Shaham, Executive Director of the Bicycle Coalition thanked the MTA staff for their work and the Mayor's Office for their support of the project. She said the city's biggest fault is not thinking city wide and said that the city is not doing enough. She said they are in favor of Geary BRT and expressed concern in hearing that folks think the Richmond is a auto oriented neighborhood. However, she admitted to driving out there because she said transit is so unreliable, making it difficult to get out there. She said she would visit more often with BRT and said she hoped the neighborhood would welcome transit riders, stating that there are thousands of them. She briefly mentioned Valencia Street, stating they heard a lot of the same concerns then, but said that business has shot up and only 4 businesses have said it has hurt them. Stephen Cornell of Polk Street Merchants asked where they anticipate the increased rider ship come from, stating that unless they plan to build more housing, where would it come from. He wondered why BRT is needed, stating that they are only telling half of the story, and asked why the overpasses at the intersection of Masonic and Fillmore have not been included in the project, adding that it could be a nightmare. He said that nothing should be done until those intersections are part of the project and they understand the impacts. He commented on the resurfacing projects, stating that he has experienced two similar projects in his neighborhood in the 30 years he has been there, and said it never works on time, taking much longer than planned creating a huge impact. Finally he expressed his frustration with the fact that an economic impact study is not part of the project given the fact that Geary is wall to wall businesses, stating that it would only be right to do it. Jim Maxwell, President of the San Francisco Council of District Merchants submitted a letter for the record and said that they drew it up last fall and it is an open letter. He said most of the issues have already been raised and said that the issue is much larger than just Geary BRT. He sad the issue has to do with the way small businesses are treated in the city. On the one hand you have Prop. I which promised than an economic analysis of proposed projects and legislation, which he said has not happened yet. He said that the Chamber of Commerce had to sue the city to make that happen, stating that here you have a huge project effecting 60 blocks and a lot of small businesses, not only those on Geary, but those in the surrounding areas. He asked the Commission to send a strong message to the MTA and the Board of Supervisors that this project should not go forward without an economic impact analysis. Gerald Hushakudo, with the Richmond Community Association and a long time resident of the Richmond since the 1970's. He said that the city's policy ought to be public safety first then transit. He said that within the city's transportation element of the general plan there is table 3, which is the guide to vehicle circulation and said that, which for Geary Blvd, says that Geary to the extend possible most east west travel shall be channeled on to this street to divert traffic from nearby residential streets. He said that this plan would do just the opposite. Furthermore regarding the information that was presented about traffic on the other streets, he said he would like to see the raw data on that because he said he did not believe it would be one vehicle per minute that would be diverted to the side streets, but rather much higher, particularly during peak hours. He said he worked in government before and said that they have money that they need to spend, but offered that it would be a different scenario if it was their pocketbook it affected.
Dave Snyder Transportation Policy Director for Spur said that he would like to confirm the 70% number of the people in favor of BRT, stating that the number came from the David Binder study, which is scientifically valid with an error margin of 5%. He said he believes BRT will be vastly important for small businesses along Geary, stating that it will be so much easier for people to get around and do business on Geary that it will help the businesses out there, and said in fact that he believes an economic impact study would show exactly that. He warned against asking for compensation, unless businesses are prepared to pay for the added benefits. On the construction impacts he said that the bus lanes are easy to build compared to rail. Commissioner O'Connor asked if bike lanes are par of the plan. Zabe Bent said that they are working with folks to determine if they will be included and if so how. Judy Birkowits urged the Commission to not recommend adoption of this at this time. Keith Wilson a resident of the Richmond and business owner on Geary thanked the Commission for the meeting on the issue. He said he walks and well as drives in the Richmond and said the city is already bombarding businesses with a number of mandates passed at the Board of Supervisors and said that this is the tip of the iceberg that sinks the ocean liner. He believed the wrong questions are being asked by the MTA, stating that they ought to be looking at how to get the best bang for the buck, not try to spend all the money they have just to have some fancy so called cartoon that will need to be maintained, when in fact the city doesn't do a good job of maintaining what it has. He said that he is in favor of improving Muni on Geary but said that it could be done well under 200 million, adding that you could essentially achieve the same with 40 million and not tear up the street, killing the small businesses. He said these are small businesses; they deserve the city's support. Rudyard Vance, a small business owner on Geary said that no one seems to care about them, stating that they have not even considered an economic impact analysis. He said he is an accountant so if this happens around tax time he will be put out of business. He said the presentation is very slick, everything is positive about BRT, they want BRT, but he said there will be less parking, more traffic. He said the physics are not there so they changed the assumptions and didn't tell anybody. He said it is crazy and he doesn't understand it. Gillman Tolle told a story about the last time he went to the Richmond for dinner stating that he was in the Tenderloin and had a discussion about how to get to the Richmond for dinner with friends, stating that he suggested Muni but everyone else thought it would take too long to get there so they drove. He said they ended up driving around looking for parking for about half and hour and said that if service was more reliable he would definitely go out there more often. He said he is confident that an economic impact study, while it should have been included in the first place, would show that bus customers are customers too. Dr. Richardson a resident of the Richmond for 5 years said that the express buses don't really run on Geary anyway, stating that one of them goes all the way up Balboa and the other goes off onto Bush, and did not comprehend how there would be a facilitation of increased passengers with that being the case. John Bartas said that he has been observing things at city hall for four decades and said he is reminded of the Muni Metro project on Market Street, which adversely affected the area to the point where it has yet to recover. He said that the people of San Francisco voted for economic impact analysis of such projects, and said that the Commission has a responsibility and said that it behooves the Commission to take action and remind the Mayor's Office and the MTA that an economic impact study is essential to the Commission being able to perform it's responsibility on behalf of the small business community. He urged the Commission to adopt such a resolution. Commissioner Thigpen said that her business is located on Chestnut Street and said that the 2nd year she located there the street was resurfaced and it was not a good experience. She asked how the estimated construction time was derived. Zabe Bent said it was based on other BRT estimates in other similar projects and said it is just an estimate. Commissioner Thigpen asked why it is not feasible to do an underground tunnel with a couple of stops. She asked if other streets had been considered for the BRT instead of Geary, such as a residential street near by. Zabe Bent responded stating that construction time for rail is much longer than for BRT and the cost is much more as well. With regard to alternate streets, she said that Geary is the arterial street and is it the street that they want to improve, adding that morning commute is a problem. Commissioner Thigpen asked about landscaping stating that there are concerns that the landscaping will block the view of the merchants and wondered why they would propose anything that would block the merchants. She also asked why an economic impact study was not included in the BRT study, stating that it is essential to a feasibility study. Zabe Bent said that the study was a feasibility study and economic impact has not been included in these studies. Commissioner Richardson confirmed that monorail was not at all considered. Zabe Bent said that they were only looking at the feasibility of BRT, adding that monorail would be too impacted like light rail. Commissioner Chiu summarized the comments heard from both the public and commissioners alike and said that he believes folks are not opposed to the concept of BRT and said he could imagine a positive scenario of long term benefits outweighing the short term negatives, but said that the issue is that the details seems to be missing. He said that they seem to not have information on parking and other multiplier effects. He suggested that the Commission strongly urge the CTA to consider an economic impact study to look at the impact of the Geary BRT on small businesses.
Commissioner Chiu made a motion to strongly urge the CTA to consider doing an economic impact study/analysis of the type discussed herein and for he purposes of look at the impacts of the BRT on small businesses, stating that given that the project is projected to cost nearly $200 million, the Commission believes it is prudent to spend at least some amount on an Economic Impact Study to ensure that the project will have a positive economic impact on the relevant neighborhoods, as well as to mitigate any unnecessary impact on small businesses. Furthermore, due to the fact that the Commission heard support for an Economic Impact Study from both opponents and proponents of the Geary BRT project at their public hearings, the Commission believes that an Economic Impact Study will end unnecessary and divisive speculation about the project's impact. Commissioner Mural seconded the motion. Commissioner Thigpen offered an amendment that the Small Business Commission be involved in the drafting of the RFQ/RFP to select the consultant or person to do the Economic Impact Analysis. Commissioner Chiu accepted the amendment to his motion. Alberts seconded the amendment. The motion with the amendment stated herein was unanimously approved by the Commission.
Item 6- NEW BUSINESS
None
Item 7- GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT
None
Item 8- ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Ventura made a motion to adjourn. Commissioner Thigpen seconded. The meeting was adjourned at 7:38 P.M.
