the disagreement had to be with the contract issue that's different. also even if you accepted the excited condition at the baseline and they told you they do know what the baseline is that's the problem they said that the agree didn't have substantial evidence to support their baseline so even if we accepted the illegal situation at the baseline the mta has milled they're developing a whole new network of appeals court shuttle networks. this is with an was an ironic change but clearly one hand so not talking to the other the stopped are changing in not a status quo also the city a change the law most important the city has amended the

transportation code to make it legal for business to to the at the shuttle stops this will increase the number of shuttles operators the number of shuttles stops and finally as the subsequential evidence there was let's talk about the budget analyst report even if i don't believe our experts p are experts this program is having impacts on road derargs >> thank you very much colleagues, any questions to any of the parties. supervisor campos >> thank you, mr. president, i don't have any questions for appellant i do want to ask the budget and administrative analysis through the chair people know i'm a big fan of

harvey rose and his team we're fortunate to have information is mr. rose in terms of just understanding some of the facts that a that a that are implicated here you talked about the citations that were with the section of code we're talking about. and can you a little bit that a little bit you look at the period of january 1st to february 25, 2014, because i want to know morning more or less to the extended we're not enforcing the citations how much is money is the city leaving open the table

>> members of the board and everyone i'd like to mr. ring with the harmonies of liberty; so to address our question. >> thank you. >> the citation from january 1st naivete to 2014 there were 13 thousand 85 citations issued of which 45 were issued to shuttles that being the enter city shuttles. >> what percentage is that. >> it's .3 percent. >> so less than one percent. >> a thirsted of one percent.

>> correct. >> can you tell me about how much the city gets per citation my the citation fee is 2. >> i pledge allegiance to the flag and $71 whenever a vehicle refuses the citation. we had a number wyoming be the illegal stops would be $1.1 million a day that's assuming 4 thousand 21 stops from sfmta the stops that occur in a day. >> assuming that they had enough traffic officers to issue the so i guess for the life of the pilot how much money is the city choosing not to collect in the

citations. based on the $1 million a day for the 18 most period i'm not doing it calculations off the top of my head it's substantial >> maybe you can make that and come back to us. >> they would get a citation again and again. we assume that behavior with change after a southern amount of citations but if not well >> in a given day 3 hundred and via million. >> it's 3 hundred and 65 million. >> do you have a sense of how

it is that thought 13 hundred - 13 thousand citations optional fyi were to the shuttles how does that happen. >> we required mta and the police department about their policy for issuing citations most develops said they don't have a policy issuing citations to shuttles but i would somewhere is in both case it's proitsz with the parking control officers making the citations of the seriousness of the violations relative to the other dudes they have to perform and a similar response was provided by the police department. they juggle with with their other responsibilities >> maybe i can ask that

question of muni director reiskin can you explain of the 13 thousand citations issued a few were for the shuttles. >> i don't believe we have good data to know how many the citations have gone to the shuttles we don't know the companies that are operating the shuttles so we don't have any roadway as i understand to look through the citation data to contribute them to the shuttles but who this number is correct i can't speak to the percentage of the citations to the uses. >> mr. rose members to clarify the data the fyi that we got were from the mta and the police

department who didn't originate the citations. >> 45 were issued to the shuttles was there a policy not to cite the buses. >> there was not. >> what is it a priority to cite those buses how does that happen. >> it's not a priority as the gentleman said we have i can't any public comment? speak to the police department but we have priorities for the police department this is not one of them, no distribution to prioritize this particular mode

embodiment >> the why wouldn't sites with respect to that not be a priority. >> we've received complaints we do enforce based on the complaints around the traffic improvement that's complaint based i accept those numbers come from the sfmta i don't think we have good understanding looking at the data but it's exactly the ad hoc nature of enforcement that we acknowledge is not meeting the muni riders which is the reason for the

pilot. >> i know i have comments so i want to have a final question for mr. rose. of the 13 thousand citations who received those citations do you have a sense of who those were issued to >> supervisor campos i would say from the information most of them are to private vehicles. >> the residents? >> residents or anybody driving in san francisco that's illegal stopping in a bus zone. >> thank you. >> supervisor avalos. >> just a question for the gentleman. i feel like i've been flying the dead horses business for awhile

we've been talking about the ruling about, you know, court of appeals could you go deeper into that >> it's complabltd i admit. the tahoe case is a federal district court case and published those are contrary to what the city attorney said are authority if their published unlike state courts the ethnic district is unpublished it reversed the trial court but the district court i have it downloaded the ethnic district >> i've been hearing the ethnic court rolled not against the

baseline but from the city attorney side it swept up the baseline. >> the ethnic district decision is not it's short in the first paragraph they agree with the district court the t rp a had no basis for the legal opinion so the agency decided not to use the police as the baseline so it till came out right to the plaintiffs and the illegal activity was not the baseline. the other decision a state supreme court decision a that's not published so it's not citeable but it's right, in fact, that's the court we're going to we're going cross the

street to superior court it might be a smarter just he agreed that illegal activity for failure to enforce the law is not right and the cases which were unpermitted activity so, in fact, there was a failure to get a permit for the airport expansion and neither would be illegal it wasn't illegal to have an airport there or a stone inquire it's illegal under state law to park a public bus in a red zone it's flat out illegal and the city attorney sdapsz around it. my next question is from the

city attorney side you're talking about as through the state law is contrary the red zone is not to be parked in >> the state law vehicle code it 25 hundred has two exemptions red zones are only for public buses or one the common carrier that's defined to be a bus that anyone can get on so the ac transit could a pay for the fair. the other exception are school buses they're not common carriers that's it there's no exception for private anything

you have to change the state law to make that exemption it's preempted by the stale there's no sequa case or tahoe combat case that says an illegal conditions what about loud. especially even if if it were the city a changing the baseline theirs going to have a a whole new pilot program so the baseline is changing also and mta expressly allows any operator to stop in the red zone and they're making it legal under city code at least our traffic engineer said there will be private operators seeking the permits they can stop in the private zone and increase the

amount of stops and not raising in and out of the stops and there are be invariably more buses condoning the traffic. the evidence the cities own budget and legislation analysis is saying this is having impacts on the pedestrian survivalist on muni transportation and slowing down muni buses and there's is a correlation of displacement as well. you think the passenger side folks you got to listen to our own budget analysis >> supervisor wiener. >> thank you since i have a question for the budget and

legislative analysis you stated it looks like now i have a few questions for you. so the gentleman and allen said the budget analysis concluded that the shuttles were creating problems for bicycle pedestrian and so forth. and see i'm looking on page 2 the second page bullet on the package the bicyclists and disabled passengers have not been expensively assessed but the public has submitted complaints and it seems different than the definite active statement from the legislation analysis praupt

these impacts have occurred >> sure fred from the budget analysis office. what you read are, in fact, the conclusions we assessed the impacts in different areas one of the areas we were reviewing with the pedestrian biologist safety there's wasn't a set of data we could present in our report so we used the observations that have been reported to sfmta and our site it is not a comprehensive settlement to the bicycle safety issues. in looking at the reports relating to pedestrian bicyclists and pedestrian safety issues did you looked at the impacts of the muni buses on

those safety issues or trucks or cars or other vehicles >> did scope of this analysis was the impact shilts shuttles. >> in terms of viewing this this is not a criticism is analysis you performed was not placing any safety issues for shilts in context or comparison with other vehicles to see if it's an issue or not. >> we certainly presented it that way if we had the information i'm not opposed to that the primary objective was the identify the impacts of the shuttles. >> in also in assessing little impacts did you we heard before

if the shuttles disappear according to two surveys half of the shuttle riders would drive single occupancy cars to the pen cul-de-sack suicidal i, you know, there's a range of people on the shuttle but if there's 50 people people on the shuttles 25 cars open the road to compare the impacts whether the biologist safety or pedestrian safety. >> if those people were in cars what the impacts we reported the benefits of those people not driving but they're not the flip side. so there could be some spoke of pedestrians or safety impacts if we had cars instead of shuttles >> right if everyone on the

shuttle drove a car obviously that would be impacted. >> or half of them. and speaking about the benefit in the report the reasonable shurltd benefits include a reduction in vehicle million traffic of 43 miles a year and a reduction in green house gases >> supervisor campos. >> thank you, colleagues. i want to make a couple of points about the appeal. >> colleagues do we have my or any our questions of city staff i'd like to stop this hearing.

this hearing has been closed >> i want to thank the staff and planning and mta and the budget and analysis and to thank all the members of the public on both sides of the issue who have been waiting partially for this hearing and i appreciate the fact that people have stayed through a pretty long hearing. i wanted to shire a couple of observations from me. and i want to begin by saying i agree with love of the comments by the people who spoke against the appeal in the sense the comments talked about the importance of the shuttle their keeping people from driving. all of that is true. a go friend henry was talking about the benefits that the shuttles provide and that's true. i certainly hope that the

shuttles continue to provide that transportation so that people are not driving that's not the issue for me. and but the issue is more what is the proper way for the city to regulate those shilts it's not whether they wish be her i want them her but what's the proper way i've made it clear open the substance of the proposal i believe the substance of the proposal is flawed i believe is dollar a bus stop is not enough and if we are voting on the merit i'll vote against it it necessity fair to have a situation where your charging a dollar a bus stop and then to those companies and you see what the afternoon san franciscan has

to deal with in terms of paying $2 to ride muni and if the citations are given to them they have to pay over $200 but the issue is sequa. it's based on what i see in terms of the sequa analyzed that's been done if i have problems with the pilot and i'm certainly prepared at this point to support of the appeal for a number of reasons one i believe the analysis provided by the planning around the category 6 exemption from my prospective is very circling last year in nature. i don't see how lane can say all we're talking about her is a mere explanation elevation when

that's an 18 month politely is transports people to and from locations in the city the idea that somehow we're only doing informational gather that's for me it flies. i believe that particular reason itself has acknowledged referencing the comments in the malice aforethought the baseline is changing. we don't even know where the stops are going to be. so the idea we're, you know, assuming that there will be no impacts when b we do know the location of those stops it doesn't that make sense. i have a fundamental problem with the fact that the appeals court at its core is allowing

certain individuals to break state law. and it's actually inironic the mta is sharing their charging for the pilot 1.6 million is limited by sailing and follow a straight and narrow interpretation of state law but at the same time when it comes to interpreting this section of the vehicle code state law is a disregarded. you can't have it both ways and on one hand say something and at the same time say we don't need to follow state law because that issue is not before us today. for the city in terms of selective enforcement of laws on the book pits problematic that

we have a situation based on what the budget and analysis panel is saying we have thorn or more than 13 thousand citations issued and those situations are going to private citizens when only 45 of them are going to the companies i don't see how something like that happens without some understanding that we're not going to enforce those citations against those folks. and while maybe there are merits to that i think as a city we need to make sure we treat everyone equally. and that there is no special treatment given to anyone whether it's positive or negative. i do think it sends the wrong mess if we basically tell the public when it comes to you we are going to issue citations and

enforce the law but not. i think that beyond that the problem fundamental problem we owe to them to hear what we have

to say i want to hear from the disabled rider and somehow this is not falling under sequa didn't make sense there are manifestations of that impact people have to get on the street a lot of things have to happen. unfortunately even though. i want to close by noting that supervisor mar is not here and have supervisor mar has indicated he would like to have a say in this vote so he has

asked that the vote be continued until he has an opportunity to do that so i make the motion to continue this vote to a week go the next time so we have a full compliment of the board it makes sense to wait that one week something as important as this requires every member of the board and in every district to have a say. supervisor campos has made another motion for the discussion. supervisor avalos >> i was going to make the motion to continue as well i know that many of our offices have talked about the portable motion to continue this