again and how the buses are on narrow streets i honestly didn't understand what this looks like until i went to noah valley one day i saw this goifk double decker bus trying to turn a tight corner on 24th i was stunned those buses are able to transverse our streets. the politely could have begun further you could have prohibited any stops where there are bus lanes this is what come out of the budget analyst report. i think there's a lot of things that could have begun on beyond what's brought before us and love us are unhappy i know we're not voting on the program some

of us are frustrated but i thought i'd get that out there. on the cost recovery issue you know the dial report that $496,000 allocated the first 12 months of the program how did that number come about why is it furiously for us, to enforce the program to make sure they're not using another bus stops there's flexibility around cost recovery that i'm not sure that mta is limited to $1.7 million for the cost recovery we can have enforcement everywhere there are pcos ticketing folks who get on the bus for free and we can't have more improvement officers to make sure that the shuttle

operators are complying that the program (clapping.) >> thank you chair kim through the president. it the costing for the pilot is bones our best guess on the information of the cost we would occur to have the pilot. as what we initiate the pilot if he find some assumptions were not correct we'll adjust our costs according. having important pcos at more locations will cost more not bringing money to the city we can't generate money for the city but to take a reasonable stimulate of what we thought would cost us to manage the program

>> why did it not mean we have pcos throughout the city to look at the program. >> this is our best estimate to manage the program. >> what would the labor cover how many pcos and how often? so what is $496,000 cover >> the labor that's involved for improvement we asked our enforcement tomato tame what would it take to enforce the program and they give us an estimate and i admit i don't recall the numbers the enforcement officers but they're limited by the number of enforcement officers they have. we can't hover new officers for

a 18 month grant >> why. >> because we're challenged to hire i believe we have a staff log i'll defer to the direct. >> i'll stop i'll say that i think you could have given more to the labor portion of the cost recovery piece and have many more pcos officers to justify the pilot program. i think you ethics i'm questioning whether the $1.70 million is enough to regulate the program. so a couple of things a classic exemption i want to know how many climatic exemption didn't does the city go out and the perimeter of the exemptions >> we give i don't know the

exact number of how many have been given over time. we do give about half a dozen a year for non-pco projects so those are, you know, very commonly supported by sfmta. and then we issue them for boeing projects and other activities that be being now and then by the public utilities commission throughout their lens so up towards i'm going to estimate 20 per year. projects that quality for that exemption. it's not we do track exemptions by class within our system so it's something that is a difficult to get exactly numbers on. the perimeters of these o the exemption are defined in sequa

so if it's fitting the distinction of a project in sequa doesn't result in hazardous or critical conditions relative to mapped resources then, you know, doesn't dang substantially damage the environmental resources and explicit result in significant impacts to unusual circumstances we don't have perimeters of size or nature of the project their inclusively given to projects in san francisco so if a project qualities for one it wouldn't get it but you public, private projects are not persuade by the a public body so they wouldn't

be subject to a approval by the public body so not through sequa >> are there guidelines through sequa that restrict projects based on size. >> yes. there are sequa has 33 different classes of exemptions some of them a reciprocated by size the most common we give are for class 1 which is existing facilities and changes to existing falls their those are defined by sis and new construction is defined by size. but cellular calls 6 is not designed by size >> no. >> is there at many point when i study i'm not sure this is a question for you or the city attorney. at what point is it not eligible

for the class exemptions >> it would be if we looked at the possible effects even for the smallest project that is submited for the at the level of service impacts so it's role is due to exactly what sequa says when is the circumstances surrounding where the project is happening. >> the appellant stated that for the pilots i'd mentioned often 6th street two blocks from howard and the bicycle lane motive have been approved do you agree with that. >> we didn't elevate it but i don't know if it would have

quality for the class exemptions. >> so they did quality for the class of exemption. >> is there any case law that is grand as a class 6 exemption. >> deputy city attorney yesterday there was no case law i checked this morning to see if something new had come down. >> the baseline so that's come up several times. i am going to ask about the by an implicit it's come up so the sfmta is moving forward with the pilot to gather information that

understands the scope of the project so the 18 most allowing us to collect date it's not going to impact our by an because we don't believe it will impact the current environmental companies how do we know what those are what's united states baseline how do we know that >> we obviously have a lot of, you know, a lot of statements of the problem as i understand it and then knows basic oiktsz those shelters are, in fact, existing as well as the background work insinuated by sfmta but the key thing nothing about the project that you can it would demonstrately increase

the number of shuttles open the street or the locations at which the shilts are picking up there's nothing about the prong that would change at the physical nature of what is happening around shuttles because of what mta is trying to do is say, you know, let's define what those are identify the new shared minnesota stops. now, of course, the shuttles could keep using the stop locations that are not minibus zones as they are now. this is really a awning project you can't pin any specific changes to, you know, even in a situation that's relatively fluid because the project is not

proposing any physical changes >> but we can't guarantee increase not an impact we can't guarantee more shuttle buses won't appear because we're talking about legalization for sometime at the port earlier. is there nothing to say that more shuttles won't opt into the one dollars program and including a number of the buses it used the white zones because of the ticketing >> you know that's a concern we don't have any evidence to support. the flip side of the program is that it it is imposing limits on the shuttle and that could easily serve as a disincentive

to the shuttle opportunity to use the red zone legally particularly in the improvement has been as minimal as the testimony suggests. you know, there's just as much looked like the program is an d disincentive >> so it's okay for us to be speculative too in assuming there won't be further environmental impacts for a classic exemption for a pilot program. >> sequa says you can't assume there's impacts based on speculation you need to support our conclusion so there's got to

be demonstrative prove or foreseeable impacts and sequa has a say over a direct impact that's directly connected to something proposed by the project. >> so when issuing a class 6 exemption we're not required to insure there isn't going to be a greatest impact from the pillow program. >> we're required to insure there are not unusual circumstances the whole idea of a categorical is on the whole would not be exterminated did expectation is no that the won't result in significant books. there are situations for unusual circumstances that render it

with sufficient impacts. in the case of this project we're talking about a passenger vehicles operating in an ushering setting it's not a unusual circumstances around the activity >> so to ask the question we should have to identify it florida there are unusual circumstances but we don't have a guarantee of a greater quack beyond today, we don't know. >> the reason i'm hesitanting we need to make sure there are not unusual circumstances but

that has to be based on evidence but we're not obligated to consider whether or not there would be any possible impacts on even those that don't have sundown evidence to impact. >> back to the case law i'll go back to lake tahoe the appellant stated the district report was silent on how they defined baseline. on whether they have referring to the abstinence under sequa could you respond to that our deputy city attorney >> deputy city attorney marla the tahoe case is not relevant to our sequa it's a federal

district case it's trillion level case in court when it was piloted to the ethnic circuit they overturned it because the appellants relied on its not part of the lion of the cases we need to rely on her it's as state law cases. so it's not part of the lineup of the cases and more often the addict opinion was overturned so the ethnic district court of appeals decided they're not going to state it puts improper to include illegal existing conclusions as part of the baseline analyze. instead what they found is the agency hadn't made use of

abstinence so it's arbitrary and capricious to do that that's consistent that the lion of california cascades we need to look at. sequa requires we look at the exist conditions as they exist open the ground today and compare to what's prupd on the project. here we're heard testimony today and the planning department and the sfmta talked about those shuttles open the street we are compare that condition to the proposed project which is the forgotten o information gathering and you know short term permitting program so you compare those two things >> first of all, i had trouble finding the ethnic circuit position. >> it's not published because it was unpublished.

the district opinion cannot be. one case the appellant case from 2002 addressed whether or not to consider the existing conditions as as part of the baseline conditions.

you've asked me about the other two cases. the appellant said i'm sorry if i'm not getting that correct but under the sequa the the appellant is stating that's are relevant to this case that sequa was considered 0 and were silenced on the definition of whether or not there was activity to the baseline do you have a response to the assertion >> your legal advice the only case law that the board of supervisors can rely on to support the determination is that sequa is the body of law we need to rely on. so that's when -

>> even when they consider sequa. >> right. >> i think that needs to be explained. if the tahoe resemble body needs the sequa and that's the case before the federal district court we considered that but why not been able to use their definition? there you two reasons first it's a trial court kinds when it was sent to the appellant court they reversed it >> they said it was arbitrary but they didn't say it was either okay or not okay they were silent on it they sent it back to the revokable body. the only reason i bring up the

ethnic - 9 circuit court >> the reason the ethnic circuit court of appeals sequa law is the case law from the state court that's what's relevant to our decision we need to look at here what do the state court of appeals say and the we don't have any california supreme courts. >> okay. thank you. okay.

i will end my questions for now and supervisor campos >> i'll remind you, we have not heard in the project sponsor that will be forthcoming. >> i'll defer my questions i know there's probably members of the public that wyoming want to speak on that. >> director reiskin our presentation. >> good evening members of the board and public. i appreciate the tint as our sfmta director we're charged by side board of supervisors policy we've been tripod in the industry educator to advance the

city's charter of employee shuttles that are the proposed pilot subject are a form of permit that at least on their face is vance the cities policy consistent with virtual policy. however, as i've said we've heard very clearly and well articulated before i many speakers and public in the past there are effects that those shuttles are having that are not supportive of our policy goals liquor details on muni to name a significant one for us. so that's exactly the reason why we're proposing to bring structure to this as a means of elevating this transit system to development a regulatory benefit

to capture the good while eliminating the bad so allowing the politely to proceed it will allow to us build the regulatory framework to bring order to the system that right now is visually unregulated will give us the ability to regulate the impacts the positive and negative ones. i know there wish many larger issues her i appreciate that this board is doing to he'd the larger issues but we know what's before us there is the adequacy and the appropriateness for the review for this politely this exemption is one we use to elevate the pedestrian and other projects that's a valuable tool

to test to develop the policies and programs. i thank you i'd like to take this opportunity and ask ms. pain to quickly walk you through did program chevy covered it and we'll answer questions >> thank you members of the board of supervisors. as a presentation could you, i don't know who to direct it question to. before i start i'll say there are slides i'm going to go quickly through since we've covered the content but i'll be happy to return to if you feel they demand additional attention. the counterpart shuttle shoekt as not new to san francisco it

enthat you see shuttles that i employers and institutions such as medical a building and developments. we're not tubing tour buses or site car lifts arrest taxis or party buses but shuttles there are two operational markets in san francisco or serving intrust the shuttle sector that xhoipz about 80 percent of the shuttle and the recreational shuttle. the sector is to large our counter approach is not sustainable we ago with what many people have appointed the conditions are questionable by the need a solution and we're putting forth our proposed solution one we want to test to

insure as we move forward as the manager and stewards are suggesting we move forward we want to establish clear policies that impact and capture and take advantage of the benefits that the shuttle sector provides. the work that we've done and this pilot that's been approved by our board was informed by the department of transportation authority their board adapted in 2011 which called open sfmta to do regulation of the shuttle sector. i'm not going to reiterate the conflicts that we ail know are take place on the streets under

the current existing conditions only to say that counterpart have unloading and loading in the city and half are in muni but also i mentioned in the question and answer section conflicts are not hatch everywhere that there are southern kinds of stops with few identified conflicts. the shuttle sector also delivers benefits ic f international our revokable transportation agency conducted a survey of shuttle riding to identify their finding without the shuttle many shuttle persons would ride alone and to

get to the shuttles which of them have gotten rid of the cars because of the access to the shuttles 43 miles are reduced because of the shilts and green house gases a reduced and from any cf we have a representative hereafter my presentation they can answer questions. we used the following principles to guide our presentation first, the safety of all yours that's our number one priority and making sure that the shuttles do a.d. verizon affect the operations it includes we're