survey that you just cited more than two-thirds of them said that even if the shuttles disappeared tomorrow they would stay in san francisco and half of them would brave that awful community -- commute on the 101. given that, is it your contention that these people who are on these shuttles are actually not real san franciscans? that's aah! it reads and the statements you just made, that's how it's sounds. single family >> that is what is on the ceqa section g-12 that it will replace a number of existing population replacement of construction elsewhere. the place for them being displaced ground 0 is 65 percent

latino, overwhelmingly of color. those people are being displaced. that is recognized by ceqa. we saw this on the fillmore redevelopment when the city was trying to urban renewal and displaced a population. these are serious impacts. there is mitigation available in terms of housing and low and moderate funds. whether these residents are city of san city san franciscans or not. i'm from chicago. i live now in west portal. people come in. every new wave of immigrants is rejected by the old. that's how things go.

>> that doesn't make it right. >> i'm saying it's a natural thing, but when the government takes action that will result in mass displacement of people which this will. ceqa requires that that impact be analyzed and mitigation measures adopted and implemented. >> my next question is going to be about whether these shuttles are cause a displacement that we are all concerned about and the displacement is happening and goes well beyond the communities described as happening in my district as well that we see because of the explosion of housing prices with significant displacement and we are all concerned about addressing the housing issues that have caused that displacement. i do think that just because it's the tradition of whether it's human innate -- nature or san francisco themselves and that they are causing the

problems are to blame i think it has nothing to do with ceqa. what we are talking about displacement and what we are seeing and concerned about, i have a few questions. in terms of the shuttle program, my understanding is that 80 percent of the shuttles at issue that are part of this program are not shuttles that go between san francisco and the peninsula, but shuttles that operate exclusively within the city. ucsf, kaiser, academy of arts, levis, san francisco general, gap, williamson ma. why doesn't your brief talk about the 80 percent of the shuttles that are within san francisco,

unless i missed something, the exclusive focus has been on the 20 percent that go down to the peninsula? >> because the 20 percent that have the impact that we are complaining about. the one, inter city shuttles, academy arts, the white zones, that is legal. the shuttles is 1/4 of the long distance shuttles and they don't have the same impact on air pollution. many of them run on gas and not the same amount of diesel fuel and because they are smaller and shorter, they don't have the same interference. almost all of those that we are talking about excluding displacement do not exist. it's the inter city buses causing this ceqa impact.

>> if the inter city within san francisco? >> yes. the long distance shuttles are causing the impact of the streets, pedestrian safety that we are talking about. >> even though 80 percent of the rider ship of the intracity shuttles that you have more vehicles some which use white zones and muni stops those are not causing gentrification, not causing noise pollution and not giving people cancerous. in fact, when you look at the gentrification issue, some of those institutions and companies i just read, i'm sure that they rival a lot of these companies in terms of what they are paying a lot of their workers. the health care industry has some very highly compensated people as well as

levis and gap and it's your position that only the fact that tech workers living here is causing gentrification and only the tech shuttles that are causing the noise and cancer problems. i don't understand that distinction except under what i talked about before that these are somehow not real san franciscans and we want them out of the city. >> i never said that. you are putting words into my mouth. these tech workers are like any others in the city and have the right to live where they like. when the government takes an action like ceqa, that what we are saying. the intra city shuttles don't have the impact to move them. it's

a different kind of impact than a shuttle that's taking someone down to mission bay and back home into their home in the city. >> i think that statement you just made shows exactly what this is about. that was an extreme stereotype of people working in that industry. let's talk about whether these shuttles are actually responsible for the displacement that we are all very concerned about. so, as i understand it from the mta, of the 35,000 daily boardings and as i understand it it's not the number of riders. most people will take a round trip and board on one end and to go back home. of that 35,000 number of boardings each day, 20 percent approximately are from the shuttles that are taking people down to the

peninsula. mta tells me it's about 6500 daily boardings of intracity bussing approximately 250 riders are making a round trip. now, as you also have indicated before according to the mta's data, if the shuttles were to go away about 30 percent of the people surveyed of the riders wouldn't make the trip anymore. now, of course some of those people as you mentioned which would get a different job or work from home, they would continue to

-- let's say 30 percent moved down to the peninsula. 30 percent of 2550 riders is an a little of about a thousand people in your best scenario leaving san francisco and move into peninsula. put that in context of a population of increase of 75,000. is it your position that those 1,000 tech workers leaving san francisco and move to the peninsula is going to have a significant impact in terms of reducing displacement in san francisco? >> yes. and the reason is that ceqa recognizes that impacts

are cumulative. you can never say all the pollution in the bay area is because of chevron or shell. it's cumulative impact that comes from many sources. the budget and legislative analyst report recognizes that this is one impact that is contributing to gentrification in san francisco and it's a localized one. you will hear testimony from others who have done mapping and say 4 blocks of google stops property values have appreciated much faster than in other locations. in other words the google stops themselves are having a market impact on rent appreciation in there by displacement into highly localized ill -- impact. people don't walk to their google shop. when you

look at craigslist that says 2 blocks away from the google stop. at premium marketing and it has a very significant impact on those locations particularly clustered from the mission district. my comment about denny's. i apologize but i don't because there are summaries that reasons that people choose to live in san francisco. most of them are quality of life and we have wonderful entertainment and restaurants that you don't generally find in the suburb. that was a shorthand way of saying that. but it's true, that is why a lot of creative tech workers many of whom are friends of mine, by the way, and my children go to school and their children go to the same schools. i have nothing against that, but when there

is a government action, a ceqa requirement is done. >> maybe there were more studies attached about gentrification and dynamics and causes of gentrification. one of the theories any other that has been studied is that transit in some sense can cause gentrification because people want to live around transit and we are a transit for city and want people to use transit and we find that when you have a good and usable transit hub people want to live around that and that can lead to higher property values." so is it worry position that if transit service or transportation service in general whether it's a

freeway or transit service, if transit service is improved to make it easier to get from one part of the bay area to another part of the bay area, does that mean that the potential gentrification of packets of that transit improvement need to potentially trigger an eir. so, example, let's say a shuttle disappears tomorrow and at the same time muni and cal transdo what we have been begging for years. that muni increases it's service to have more frequent service to get people from different parts of san francisco via bus to cal train faster whether it's faster service on the -- to get there or faster service on a number of the other established lines to get this. we are going to put more buses on there and make it a better

service to make it an easier connection and at the same time finally cal trains electrifies and cal train adds more vehicles and so we have a much better connection. so the shuttles disappear but it's still easy for these technology workers to live in san francisco and make those quick connections and get to their homes down in silicone valley. does that raise a ceqa concern around displacement to cal train and muni and say this is a ceqa problem because you are going to cause these technology workers to want to live in san francisco and we are making it too easy for them to get to work. >> absolutely. i don't want to mins words but everyday when the government does a transit program or fremont or san francisco muni program, they

do an eir. the eir analysis all the impacts including air quality, including growth, what is called growth inducing impact. will it increase growth in springs when bart opens a station there. what are the mitigations for that. how do we account for that? that's what we do everyday. that's what san francisco is doing today for the transit program. why should google shuttles be any different. >> if muni lines are coming every 45 minutes and decides to add more buses on that route and is more usable and easier for getting people around, that could trigger eir? >> it is doing that now. >> i'm talking about adding more buses on it, they have to do a full eir to do that and

they have to take into account whether adding more buses on that muni line is going to displace people. >> ceqa is triggered to create a fair argument that there is going to be a significant impact. in your single line, i downtown that line would increase displacement -- or cancerous risk. however this one does. we have expert testimony showing that these little emissions from these buses alone is above the ceqa significance threshold for cancer. there is a cancer risk plume around the stops within hundreds of residential properties because these buses run on diesel. a ceqa or eir, would say can you run them on

hybrid something that muni invested in that are hybrid or electrical buses. why can't they be? >> how about making it so traffic flows better on the 101 make it easier for workers to get to san francisco and get down the peninsula. you say that is displacement? anything that makes it easier to get around the bay area, any type of transportation improvement to make it easier to get around the bay area has issue of displacement. >> every project in san francisco road wide has had an eir. >> i'm not saying road wide. any argument, if we make it too easy for people to get around then we are going to

cause displacement and it's going to cause ceqa displacement. >> i only know one way to do that. that's to widen the road. any road had an eir and analyzes air pollution and they come up with mitigation measures. let me clarify, ceqa doesn't mean stop the project. it means study the project before you take action and when you take action and impose measures with eyes wide open. do it smart and figure out a way to benefit the residents in this city most and minimize the impacts that means funding for low and moderate income houses and whether that means emission for buses and do it with full knowledge before you take

action. >> my final has to do with traffic noise cancer pedestrian arguments around these shuttles. it's your contention that these shuttles have these impacts in terms of bike pedestrian safety issues and bike lanes and giving people cancer because of pollution and noise and so forth. so, the question is, in the context of all of the auto traffic in san francisco, if my memory serves we have around 350,000 registered vehicles in san francisco and you add on top of that the many many vehicles that come into city from the east and north and south bay there is a huge amount of traffic in this city. in the context, do you know what percentage of the pollution or noise or cancer

risk is being caused by these shuttles which are a very tiny percentage of vehicles in san francisco everyday? >> the noise analysis looked at the analysis and looked at the background noise and concluded that the buses are significant. on the air pollution impact, dr. paul rose felt did the same analysis and concluded from the diesel emissions of the buses alone exceeds the ceqa approval for the analysis. we are not talking about a drop in the bucket. >> do you know what the personal is? i assume you would put that in your brief if you knew what it was. we are talking about a hundreds of thousands of trucks, cars, suv's and every kind of vehicle that we have. all of that and you had these buses which are very very tiny

number in comparison. i would think if you had that number you would have put it in or if it were at all favorable. >> it is not in there and, the cancer is 800 in a million. it's 1.5 percent. which is the significant threshold is 10 in a million. we are above the significant threshold that has been adopted by our agencies. if you don't like that threshold, the bay area air district, take issue with them. that's the threshold adopted throughout cal kachl california. >> in terms of the bike and pedestrian problem you talked about blocking by lanes and

other problems caused by the shuttles, as you were taking off some of those problems, i was thinking of i see the same exact things with muni buses and trucks. maybe i can take you through my district 1 day and we can see all the vehicles that park in bike lanes, yes, you are absolutely right that these shuttles. i have seen that happen and seen it far more often happen with cabs and trucks and other vehicles as well. we know that muni, it's a very common complaint in the city that muni buses don't pull all the way in the bus stops. my question for you in terms of bike and pedestrian impacts, how is this at all different from the problems that we see all throughout the city all day everyday in terms of buses and trucks and other vehicles that do cause very very real problems for bikes and pedestrians? >> first off, 14,000 of us

got tickets for parking in those muni zones. these google buses got 10 or 40. there is a clear differentiation of enforcement. i think it's a poor argument to say the problem is already bad so it's okay if we make it worse. >> the problem is not that it's bad, the problem is that we are going to single out this tiny set of vehicles and workers and say they are different. it's not the shuttles that are arguing. we are going to make it this one group. that's the fundamental problem with what i think that you are arguing. >> i want to put an exclamation point to this. i have no problem with the workers. they are causing growth and bringing wonderful things to the city and creating jobs. that's great.

i'm saying when a government takes and action with environmental impact, ceqa is required to minimize those impacts on the city and residents of the city and maximize the benefits of the programs and this may mean chargeing the shuttles more than a dollar to load more than a hundred people to load them when i have to pay $2 just for myself. at what point do we mitigate the impacts and you can't do that unless you do ceqa review. you can't mitigate the impacts and have mitigation measures and alternatives that would reduce the impact to the project unless you do ceqa review. if muni has the do it, why should this private illegal program not have to follow the same rules. >> i think it's apples and oranges what you are talking about. i appreciate the responses. >> thank you. >> supervisor campos? >> >>supervisor david campos: i

learned not to get in an argument with you. just a couple of points. i want to be clear about what you are saying because for any lay person there may be confusion about what the appeal is about. as i understand it just to be very clear you are not trying to stop the shuttles from functioning in this city. >> correct. >> the only objective if we are going to have a pilot that the environmental impact should be studied? >> correct. before the government takes action, not after. >> okay. can i talk to you a little bit about the displacement issue because assumptions about whether or not displacement is happening and the questioning whether displacement wasn't happening but my understanding is that there was a recent piece of information provided by the

anti-eviction mapping project. i don't know if you have seen that. >> yes. >> can you talk a little bit about that, what that is? >> absolutely. sit possible to project on this? >> it is. sf gov tv, can you hit the projector? >> this shows that 69 percent of no fault eviction have occurred in 4 blocks of these shuttles stops. these shuttles stops have an impact on no fault eviction. they weren't doing anything wrong. they just got evicted. these shuttles, you can look by

craigslist how the rents -- >> do you know of analysis issue? >> no. but the report did. the report was just released yesterday. that report concludes that there is evidence that the shuttle buses are having an impact on displace many and causing rents to rise. there is significant evidence. one of the authors of those studies alexander goldman is here to talk about her research to show that resents have risen faster around the shuttle stops. >> to comment on whether or not the class fixed exemption is met here, can you talk a little bit about the way in

which the mta is describing this pilot which the way that it reads is simply about data collection but as i understand it there is more than just data collection happening. these shuttles are transporting people and doing these other things. can you address that issue? >> correct, class six is a funny exemption. it's call information and data collection for experimental management. it's clearly, if you look at other classic exemptions and there is absolutely no reported case law under class six. it's kind of a wild west exemption, but perhaps not for long. the other exemptions that have been granted have been for real research where we are taking water samples or digging test wells. that's what the exemption is for. if they were just running around the city taking air samples, that will be information collection exemption. here it's not just information collection, the city's

actually proposing to amend the city's transportation code to make legal what is currently illegal. it's currently a violation of the state vehicle code for a private bus to stop in a public bus stop. the mta has amended the transportation code to make it legal in the city of san francisco. i think that's preempted. i they the city's law cannot violate the higher state law. regardless, this city is taking this legal action which will have a significant impact. although, the city is also proposing to change the location of many of these stops. that is not just information collection, that's moving the desk chairs around. the court's have construed ceqa exemptions very narrowly which in the cast ak lake got

leveled in an earthquake and they said we are going to do a ceqa exemption and build higher and the courts said you can't do a ceqa exemption because you are not building it the way it was. once you go outside the narrow scope of the exemption, the exemption doesn't apply anymore. here the city is changing the law and changing the location of the stops, transit, we've got transit engineer tom bror hard who says those changes alone will increase the number of shuttles, increase amount of traffic, increased amount of pedestrian impacts because many operators don't want to operate illegally. but they will operate once the city makes it legal to do so. >> if i may, when someone is cited, what