that feeds to us and allows us to do several things. target our enforcement as we can see where shuttles are going that aren't ar loued or where they're stopping that isn't allowed. it also allows us to do ought iting. when they apply for a permit, they're going to tell us here's how many of these stop events we're making. we need to keep them on a seamless data in auditing their stopping. students will help us do good planning. having all of these vehicles on the street feeding us data about speed of travel and we can be able to see where there are delays that are recurrent. that helps inform us as we try to manage the system better for everyone and we, as you know, are trying to get similar data for taxis and we have on board data from muni, but this really adds an important layer to our

information as a transportation system manager. obviously they'll have to pay citations and where it requires pay all your citations before the program starts, you'll have to comply with existing traffic laws. enforcement is an important component as you can imagine. all pcos, all parking control officers and muni inspectors will be trained and able to issue citations for compliance. they will also be -- the program will pay for dedicated pcos during peak hour who will be working on overtime, so not redirected from other services to focus on shared zones and nonshared zones to make sure there is compliance. as the program ramps up there will be a high ened level of enforcement to ensure that only those buses with the permit are stopping in the allowed zones and that neither they nor any of the other shuttles that don't have a permit are

stopping at any of our other muni zones. and as i mentioned, the on board placard is an important tool for our enforcement officers to be easily see what's allowed and what's not allowed. as a pilot we are testing this idea that sharing can work. so, evaluation is critical. we'll be looking at transportation system impacts and benefits. we'll be looking at the environmental benefits. we'll be looking at compliance with permits. we'll be getting feedback from our muni operators, from the shuttle operators themselves, from residents and neighbors in the areas where these are where the stops are. and we'll be looking at the true cost so that if the agency and the city decides to make this pilot permanent or decides to revise it in some way, we have actual information about costs accrued as opposed to our estimates, our best estimates

right now. i do want to mention that there was an error in the calendar item or inconsistency. in the overview of the calendar item, it mentioned the environmental clearance was for no project, but in the text and the resolution and in the pilot overview, it mentioned that it's a categorically exempt project because of its status as a pilot and that is what is accurate. so, i just want to be clear i know it wasn't consistent and my apologies for that. so, today the board is being asked to take action on two things. one is amending the transportation code to create the shuttle permit program. and then the second is to adopt the detailed outline of what it would take to implement this pilot that's in the attachment that you have as part of your agenda item. the next steps, if you choose to move forward, would be to

request proposals for stops from the operators and to ask for residents' input and muni operators' input on specific street conditions, specific stop information. we would then be spending a few months evaluating all of these stops and all of this information and our goal is to approve a network and that would be done by an sfmta hearing officer, and do the processing by june and launch the program in july. within 18 months the pilot would be complete by december 2015. and that is my overview. >> thank you very much. very comprehensive. excellent presentation, ms. payne. appreciate that. we have been joined by two members of the board of supervisors who i know wish to address us. supervisor scott wiener is here. [speaker not understood], supervisor wiener just before we hear from the public.

good afternoon, supervisor wiener. >> thank you, and thank you, directors, for allowing me a moment to speak. and also for all of your work on this important issue. i'm here today in strong support of the staff recommendation relating to employee shuttles. and when you look at the district that i have the honor of representing, district 8 including the castro and noe valley, parts of the mission, glenn park, et cetera, i can't say this for sure, but district 8 certainly is at the high end in terms of usage of our streets and muni stops by employee shuttles, by riders of those shuttles who live in the district. and also probably people who sometimes get a little frustrated with the routing of the shuttles and the usage of the stops. so, in a lot of ways we've been in the middle of this issue,

and i know my predecessor, bevan dufty was in the middle of it so i'm trying to take a very balanced approach here. this is long overdue in terms of the agency taking a very comprehensive look at the route, at the usage of the bus stops and making sure there is good both administration and enforcement. i want to give a lot of credit to carly payne. we work a lot with her on specific complaints in the district and she has done an absolutely phenomenal job working with the shuttle providers, working with residents who have expressed concerns in trying to come up with solution. but it's not good enough just to have onex lent employee who is trying to hold things together. you need to have a program in place that is funded. and this proposal will do that. so, i strongly support it. i think it's important to back up. and despite haltssome may say, it is absolutely the case,

these shuttles are part of our goal to be a transit first city. >> would you care so expand on that? >> thank you. we know that no matter how good muni is, and i know it's going to get better as we really start prioritizing investment in the city over time, no matter how good it is it does not meet everyone's needs. when you look at people living in san francisco, particularly commuting the work in the city, that is not a new thing. people have commuted from silicon valley. they've done it over years. now they can do it by shuttle. some people on the peninsula can jump on caltrain and not work for them. some people with one or two muni bus connections between caltrain, taking caltrain, then maybe having to find the bus or the shuttle to get from there to where they're working, that can quickly become a 2 to 3 hour commute each way and those

people are not going to do that. they are going to get it in their cars and increase congestion on our streets, make our streets less safe. and increase congestions on our free ways. these shuttles are providing a valuable service for many residents of this city who depend on them to get to work every day and for this city in terms of reducing the number of cars on our roads. i know that there is a lot of frustration and anxiety in this city now around the cost of housing. and i share that frustration and anxiety. i work with constituents every day, people who are being evicted, people who are concerned that they will be evicted, people who are concerned about what their future holds in this city in terms of being able to afford to live here. we need to all recommit every day to addressing the structural housing problems and housing affordability problems in this city. we need more housing. we need more affordable housing.

we need stronger protections against eviction and displacement and we all need to be commit today work towards that. blaming employee shuttles, blaming tech workers is not a solution to our housing problem. if those employee shuttles went away tomorrow, we would still have a housing affordable crisis on our hands. so, we need to stop demonizing these shuttles and these tech workers who are simply trying to get to work, and we need to work and recommit ourselves to addressing our housing crisis. so, i urge you to support this proposal today. >> thank you, supervisor wiener. supervisor campos? (applause) good afternoon, supervisor campos. >> thank you very much, mr. president, commissioner, director reiskin. i want to begin by agreeing with supervisor wiener on a couple of points. i think it is important that we're not pointing fingers and trying to vilify people. i think that he we as a city

need to figure out a way of bringing people together, and i do think there is a lot of common ground between the tech workers and the communities like the one that i represent and the mission that they're moving into. and i think it's really important for us to have a dialogue to find that common ground. i also want to agree that there is a service that is definitely being provided by these shuttles and that what we want to do is to make sure that whatever happens here, that we don't end up in a situation where people that are taking these shuttles end up driving to work. i think it is definitely important for us to acknowledge that service. i also think that it's really important for us to understand that this proposal is a long time coming and it's good that the proposal has come forward. that said, i want to issue a different perspective. i think that not vilifying the tech workers doesn't mean that we don't have a real and frank conversation about the impact

that these shuttles are having. i think that there are people within the tech industry who they themselves will tell you that what this proposal is asking, we're asking that they pay a dollar a bus stop as much as it is a first step, it's a proposal that simply does not go far enough. and the problem that i have with this proposal is also the way in which it's being presented, public input and the input of the communities being impacted is being sought after the fact. i think that we should have a dialogue, a meaningful dialogue between the tech industry and these communities before we actually start talking about the substance of a proposal. so, i urge you today to send this proposal back to the drawing board to create an opportunity for the tech -- you gave supervisor wiener more time, if you can give me a little more time. >> i was going to say that. >> so, give this tech industry and these communities the

opportunity to have a real conversation not only about the impact on muni, but also the fact that there is arguably an impact that is happening -- that is having on housing costs. i think that working with the tech community means respecting them and giving them the opportunity to be a part of the solution. i think this proposal exacerbates the problem, it doesn't solve it. thank you. >> thank you, supervisor. (applause) [cheering and applauding] >> before we start public comment, we'll ask members of the board if they have comments. vice-chair breslin? >> a clarifying comment for ms. payne. good presentation. i know one of the questions that has been brought up which supervisor campos brought up was the $1 per stop event per day. some people are saying why so little, isn't it worth doing more? is it my understanding of your presentation the first step during this pilot project, the pilot project will help us gather what the transportation impacts are, what we can

address are the transportation impacts, could this go up? [speaker not understood] could this charge go up? >> there are several parts to speak to. we will be tracking the costs of administering and delivering all of the services of the program. we are limited to doing cost recovery. and, so, that means -- and i'm sure the city attorney's office can give a more legal definition than i can. but as we understand, it means the costs associated with providing this permit and administration it and evaluating the program -- >> just to be clear, in a parking permit process administered by the city, we are limited by state law, not our own choice, not the

supervisorses, to cost recovery. if there was a political desire for the city to charge more for these permits or make money from them we can't do that because of state law. [speaker not understood]. if you can help and clarify. my understanding is with permit parking we are limited to cost recovery and our staff has determined this price for the permit by determining what the cost of enforcing the program would be. >> director, through the city attorney's office, indeed, the city is not free to fit any rate that it may wish to for these permits, and that these permits which are related to a cost recovery basis by state law. >> right, the same issue we encounter in rpp programs. >> i guess one more question. what has been brought up, is it worth the city doing an extra study to document greater impacts or that still wouldn't make a difference, we would still be limited by state law

to actually the cost of administering this program? >> if i may, if we can identify costs that are associated with use of the muni bus stops that we're permitting the use of, any costs we identify, we can recover costs for. so, the -- one of the purposes of doing the pilot, as ms. payne stated, was to better identify what those costs are. if there are other costs that we identify that we're not capturing, we can adjust as we go and we can use that to inform recommendations that we have to go forward. it's possible that in the course of doing so, maybe we would find that undertaking some sort of nexus study would be worthwhile beyond that in order to charge more than the cost of the program would require a vote of the people of san francisco. >> thank you. thank you, ms. payne. >> directors? let's begin the public hearing. please call -- >> mr. chairman, directors,

there are a number of people who are in room 408 and, so, i will read five speaker cards ahead to allow people to enter the room and speak. if people far away could be listening for their name. we'll start with andrea long. edward mason. crystal schultz. dinetra r tanko. and izumi torre. >> good afternoon. good afternoon. i've lived in the mission since 2006 and [speaker not understood]. i've been fortunate to work in san francisco. i don't need to spend hours on a bus to get to work. many people, including myself, find the best opportunities outside the city.

the regional transportation have failed these workers. some who don't need cars and some who wish they didn't need to. do you know who else it isn't people who are taking up space [speaker not understood]. i encourage the city to not only experiment with the program to address the issue with commuter buses, but to work with other municipalities to find a regional solution to a regional problem. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> edward mason. crystal schultz. damitra voytenko. [speaker not understood]. and steve [speaker not understood]. >> good afternoon. [speaker not understood], california transportation authority entered a strategic analysis report at the request of supervisor dufty issuing a draft report september 17, 2009, [speaker not understood]. [speaker not understood] june 28, 2011. this should question the

two-year delay and also considering the cost recovery of these california transportation arevery [speaker not understood]. pole language, placards should be displayed on all four sides of the bus providing the bus number and unique bus number invisible across the street lane boulevard. the streets are defined as narrow. i'd like a definition of narrow. is 24th street narrow or wide for the large city buses that operate there? the application form has the hours of peak hour application until 8:00 p.m.. buses operate till 10:00 and 10:30 in the evening. eligibility. the plan needs clarification because it says operation compliments, but does not duplicate transportation services. you can take the bart to fremont or the express 180 bus

[speaker not understood] along shoreline and charleston is available on transit. this plan is over five years late and will eliminate the continuous restriction on guerrero street. and it eliminates the morning double parking lay overs between copper and 25th obstructing the [speaker not understood]. mass live life work in the bay area [speaker not understood] entrepreneurial spirit exposed by the south bay leadership group. the innovation includes to [speaker not understood] both built in coupertino. >> thank you. next speaker. >> crystal stotts. [speaker not understood]. >> good afternoon. good afternoon, thank you very much. my name is crystal schultz.

i'm a engineering manager at google. and i wanted to thank you for this opportunity and say my opinions alone. i just wanted to come down and speak on this issue. i've lived in san francisco since 2005. i moved here from minnesota to san francisco, like many people, for hundreds of years moving to san francisco to seek a better life. i came here to take a contract job with google. [outburst] >> hold on just a second. [pause] >> okay. >> you're on pause, so. [pause]

>> okay, go ahead, please. sorry. so, i just wanted to say that not everyone at google is a billionaire. like many people 10 years after the fact, i'm still paying off my student loans. i moved to the mission because i am a pedestrian and don't own a car and i moved to the mission because there are two bart stations. i walk everywhere on the weekend and i have relied on the shuttle since i've moved to san francisco. this is a choice, i know, to live in san francisco and commute to mountain view, but i wouldn't have it any other way. i see it as that i work in mountain view and i live in san francisco. i travel to new places in the world where the very rich and the very important well this off from each other and it dee

rich them from a certain cultural understanding and life. i would say that i'm in favor of this pilot and i really hope that you consider it. if the tunnel system shuts down tomorrow, i would figure out a way to get to work, but i'd say that i do work on map data and i see the map data you have in your two previous presentations. it's google map data, so, i do need to get to work on that so you'll have more than one google map. thank you. >> danitra [speaker not understood]. [speaker not understood]. steve [speaker not understood]. [speaker not understood]. and daniel recollecter. >> good afternoon, sir. good afternoon. thanks a lot for allowing me to talk to you today. my name is [speaker not understood]. i am a resident of san francisco since 2010. 2. i consider myself very privileged to live in san

francisco. i'm raising my family here. we have two kids. my daughter is just out of kindergarten. i'd like say that i'm a shadow writer. i work for google. i think we use shadow writers from both sides in a way. as citizens, we obviously want the public resources to be used to the best. but as shuttle riders, we don't necessarily see a luxury shuttle. it's not a luxury. it's a theme that gets us to work hopefully 3-1/2 hours daily. the wi-fi is chit kg otherwise our workdays would spend 10, 11 hours. i would like nothing more than to jump in a nice transportation making to my office in a reasonable time. it is not the case today.

i would like it to be the case at some point in the future. i would also like to say i'm a little surprised, i'm a little upset about the fact that the debate [speaker not understood] discussion from those people. i'm especially surprised that this even comes from a supervisor. i believe we are the same people. i mean, the difference between me and somebody else is perhaps i just can't muni to work. thank you. >> thank you, sir. next speaker, please. >> izumi torre. steve [speaker not understood]. danielle bricker and howard estrous. >> good afternoon. good afternoon, i live in san francisco about 40 years. i oppose to the $1 charge. i believe it's way, way, way too low. a few years ago i dropped off my husband at the front of city

light bookstore which is [speaker not understood]. he was driving, i'm in the passenger side. when he took off, i was in the process to move to the driver's seat. and the meet man came and started writing me a ticket. and i said, i told him i'm just leaving. literally he stopped me like this, and they gave me a ticket, over $100 ticket. it was way over $100, i believe. thank you. but i had to pay for it just for the one stop. and that's the way regular citizens in san francisco, if they are unlucky to be spotted by the middleman, that's lots of money they're paying. therefore, when the people stop

at the google bus at 24th, another point i want to say is i live at -- and at 24th and valencia, there are so many buses come in. at one time i witnessed the google bus was right there on 24th. muni bus came in right after that. and it couldn't park behind there because which means blocking the intersection. muni bus have to stop at wrong way -- and had to wait. people, it's tough for them for the muni -- >> thank you. thank you very much. next speaker. anyway, that was dangerous. >> thank you. next speaker, please. [multiple voices] >> [speaker not understood]. sue vaughan. daniel bricker, howard straus man. and [speaker not understood].

>> good afternoon. [speaker not understood] for united public workers. this is class warfare. this is not an accident. people talk like these billionaires, zuckerberg and these other companies that own apple. actually, there's no cover up. this has been going on for years. you admit this has been going on for years and you illegally deprive them of public space. who is paid? they should be owed a billion dollars. let's use that billion dollars for new housing, for working people. for l you're not talking about adding more public doses hiring bus drivers. that's off the agenda here. how about making a benny a bus. simple, a penny a able. the fact of the matter is there should be an investigation why there has president been enforcement of loss for these buses. you knew it was going on every

day. it's been going on for years. and you cover it up. why? you listen to conway, and [speaker not understood] the billionaires. there is no consumer advocate on this board. there is no one on this board i'm pearl developers and the billionaires who caused this crisis. this is capitalism, and you're trying to solve it to figure out who is coming and when they're coming. it's easy. you see them coming and going. it's not going to change. it's going to get worse with your proposal. that's why you should reject it. [speaker not understood] force them to put money [speaker not understood]. (applause) >> next speaker. >> steve vaughan followed by danielle ricker, [speaker not understood]. >> good afternoon. good afternoon, directors. my name is sue vaughan. i am speaking on behalf of

myself, but i am an active member of the sierra club and member of the catc. i urge you to he oppose this pilot program and policy and instead call for a full environmental impact report on the impact of the shuttle buses. i just finished reading the berkeley survey of the shuttle buses. this is a very one signeded survey. it focuses on the riders of the buses. it does bring up concerns that should be at the heart of the eir. one of the impacts on the private buses and muni in particular are the buses obstructing muni buses and riders. and are they undermining muni by difficult otherwise ride our public transportation system. are they diverting them by providing a free shuttle system? and to what extent are the

shuttles going to escalate in housing prices and evictions, thus forcing lower income san franciscans to move to car dependent suburbs. that's what's happening. it happened to a friend of mine. other questions should be addressed in an e-i-r would be the impact if they are ticketed, if the buses are ticketed for doing what they are doing now illegally. what are the air quality impacts of these buses versus if they used [speaker not understood] jobs and walked to work or took bus transportation. what is the impact of shuttle buses, car carriers and pick up anyone in access to muni bus stops. i remind you san francisco is experiencing redevelopment without a redevelopment agency through the frightening time to be an average low-income resident of san francisco. these buses are carrying -- these b