foundation and report after report concluding there is a high correlation around these stops and higher rental displacement and that is enough to create a fair argument that these shuttles maybe having a significant environmental impact. that should trigger an eir which the city can do a full analysis of those impacts and are they significant and what can we do to mitigate them. is there enough of a nexus to require a fund for low and income housing moderate. i think this company would welcome the opportunity to do so as with the workers. unless we do the ceqa review, we won't know. >> under case law do you have examples of where this low standard where expert testimony simply gave a ruling

that displacement had occurred and that further review need to occur? >> not on this. it is set forth in the ceqa regulation appendix g subsection 12. the 710 freeway project is probably best known case on displacement where there is a direct displacement where the the neighborhood was bulldozed. this was different. i think we have enough expert testimony to establish an argument to establish that it requires further review. >> my next question was on the classic exemption and you said that this is for scientific research project. our office has been able to pilot pedestrian safety and bike safety efforts in our district

both on sixth street and folsom street on this time of exemption where we are studying removal of parking or car lane to but in a bulb out or put in an actual painted stripe bike lane to study as we move forward with a larger eir and redesign process for safety on those streets. the way you argued it seems that those types of pilots do not deserve those types of exemptions. i was hoping you would comment on it or how you would distinguish? >> i think this is a significant difference between this program and those. this one is illegal, those are not. >> there is nothing in what you quoted in the guideline that you can do the data

collection as long as it's not illegal activity. >> true. there is the case law like in tahoe case, a federal district court case. it is publiced. the glams case which is not published. both held that illegal activity cannot form the ceqa baseline and also those significant improvements, i think it would be difficult to find any expert that there is a fair argument that those have significant impact on the environment. whereas here, the emissions from the buses, the pedestrian safety and the noise impacts, experts have calculated those that would exceed significant thresholds. >> would you be able to define how you would exceed those ceqa thresholds. i agree, i think there is a difference from a lay terms standard to

a citywide pilot project on shuttle buses. i in intuitively understand that but how you would explain that in a legal argument how would you differentiate between those two types of exemptions if you say it was plainly for a scientific project that would draw the line between water testing and shuttle bus programs, is there something that you would articulate to the two. one of the arguments being made on the other side if you don't uphold this exemption, you are threatening other pilot for our city that makes it dangers for our pedestrians and cyclist. we are having this long-term study process to determine what is going to move forward best permanently. >> honestly, i haven't looked

closely at those other class six exemptions. class six is somewhat usable compensation. i think the city might use those under class one which is no possibility of any significant environmental impact and then it would be up to an expert to say that there is a significant impact and it would have to exceed numerical thresholds. the difference here is we have experts who have calculated that the impacts of this program exceed a numerical threshold that has been established for ceqa purposes by our regulatory agencies. >> my last question was on the supplemental letter we got yesterday on case law river

clammest. i was hoping that you could talk about that? >> it's not authority but it is in the administrative record. i think he got it right. he did a thank -- thorough job as the typical of judge goldsmiths where it is allowable to do an illegal pilot on this baseline. but there was a kwoerey. there's no way to put it back. in this case, you can put it back. the city could just start enforcing the law. that's like more like the lake tahoe case where there were illegal

buoys in lake tahoe. and the court said you can't not enforce the law and put a bunch of buoys in and say that's the baseline. that is entirely reversible. the buses are moving around. they can say don't use the red zone anymore. >> one of the arguments against the tahoe cases that it rested on the national environmental protection act versus ceqa. why would you use that case to support your argument here today? >> thank you. i love that question. lake tahoe is our best client. it didn't rest on neeb a. they have their own planning exact. it is called an eis which sounds like nip

a, but it has to comply with ceqa and nip a. the court analyzed both laws and it's very very similar. >> you think the court was clear on that ruling. i didn't read that ruling but you think the court was clear in that ruling that their definition of baseline applies to both ceqa and nipa. >> the court based that on the entire regional law which must comply with ceqa and nipa. >> but did not clarify? >> it wasn't crystal clear. >> back to my final question, back to the other case that was referred in this case, the airport. the fact case. in

this case they actually did allow illegal activity to include in the baseline. it seemed the county did the have authority to permit or not permit the expansion of the airport. how would you distinguish this from the fact case? >> well, frank fat owns a very popular restaurant where all the politicians have lunch. it's a funny case. but it was a permanent, basically baseline was a permanent change to the environment kind of like river watch. the airport was expanded illegally, the run ways were on the ground and they have been there for a long time and already some enforcement action and they ak gsh acquiesced to it. we don't

have a set of permanent shots and set of shuttle terminals. i think that is the difference between river watch and lake tahoe and clams and whether there is a base on a real fact on the ground or just a lack of enforcement. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. colleagues. any further questions to the appellant. thank you, mr. drurey. with that why don't we hear public comment from the members of the public which a support the appellant. what i would like to do is start with the ceqa appellants themselves. i would like to call mr. short, if there are

others who would like to speak, please lineup. every public member will have 2 minutes to speak. >> can i pass these out? >> yes. our clerk will come and circulate them. >> okay. thank you very much. my name is alexandra goldman, a city planner and i wrote the report on google shuttles in san francisco. according to my research and the literature the buses are having an impact on rental prices in san francisco and that's what i would like to summarize for you today. my research focused on five shuttles stops which you can see here on this map.

it compared rents within a walkable distance to the shuttle stops and i found that rents close to the shuttle stops are rising faster than rents outside the shuttle stops up to 20 percent as faster. my research is focused on transit development which shows that rental prices near transit investments tend to go up. does this mean that the city should stop investing in transportation. it provides a public good for people. what we are looking at this in situation creates a private good but a public rising of prices and negatively impacting people in that way. these companies should be held

responsible for offsetting the negative they create. additionally the housing marketing economics agree with my research. when they talk about the cost of housing and transportation combined because the further you live away from your job and grocery store, the more you have to pay to get there. this eliminates the cost of transportation for an already reasonably well group of people it's not surprising at all that the shuttles would be attracting more people for rent and driving rent up in san francisco. >> i have an equi -- quick question. in your study did it include the shuttle stops across the city? >> no. we focused on 5 shuttle stops. >> how did you select the 5 stops. >> mostly i looked at the

high area of renters and we looked at tenant issues when i was doing this research. >> do you know how many shuttles stops there are in this city? >> i'm guessing 50. maybe someone has a better guess. >> the other stops that are around the city they are in residential areas as well? >> generally, yes. >> so these areas they are in they are also homes, single family homes? >> yes. there are some single family homes. >> do you know the areas where there is a correlation of single family homes being sold? >> i can only speak to rent. i don't know anyone studying the impact of housing prices. that would be interesting to look

at. >> thank you. >> next speaker? >> before i start. i would like to say that i have answer to your questions. >> we don't want to stop buses. we want to minimize impacts on muni and mitigate their safety rest. until they are able to measure the employable, the mta schumann force the law to regional buses to continue to operate the buses. the planning department opposes out appeal because the commuter appeal is part of the existing environment. but their proposed baseline is invalid because of illegal activity allowed by mta's willful failure to stop in muni's

zone and this directly relates to muni which has an environmental impact and caused by the buses is another indication that a categorical exemption is invalid. i would like to refer to sightable and public authority. in the tahoe decision the district court held an agency may not escape it's duty by ignoring that duty and presenting the result by incorporated into the environmental baseline. therefore we call on you to up hold the appeal. the baseline for this categorical exemption is invalid because if it's based on the mta's willful failure to enforce the existing laws. >> next speaker? >> good afternoon,

supervisors. i'm sarah short. for the record, i don't like to eat at denny's either. i'm a resident of valencia street in san francisco living for 16 years. i live where the shuttle buses roll by one after another. and 24/7 and there are indeed significant impacts of this pilot project. so to have the planning department and mta declare that there are none not only goes against my lived experience as a resident, but feels like a slap in the case considering the very clear reality of the rapid displacement occurring near the shuttle stops. i know a little bit about displacement

too from my work at the housing rights for san francisco. the project which allows for the continuance of this illegal use of muni stop by these shuttles will continue the problem of the rampid displacement and you will hear from the anti-eviction mapping project about that. never mind my experience as a resident of the high traffic google bus zone. and never mind public sentiment which you will hear represented today and clearly hold the buses cause teacher's -- harm to our community. what we are here today talk about is the fair argument for the reasonable possibility that there are significant impacts. and we have provided --

>> thank you very much. next speaker. >> thank you. i'm a san francisco resident. my union represents non-public workers and i'm the organizer. san francisco is becoming a tail two of cities. this isn't a cultural war. this is a numbers war. the number on my paycheck is far less than the studio apartment. the workers

that provide these services. over 160,000 san franciscans ride muni every single day. a healthy of wealth companies should not be allowed to come into our city for a fraction of the public rider ship and ask the rest of us to step aside. san francisco has worked hard to create public transit corridors. this allows public private corporation is infrastructure that created years with no study of the impacts for the public system itself. we demand that any study look at the impacts of the public transportation system as well as propose an an alternative for increasing the public transportation structure. lastly i think it's unbelievable that there has been a muni give away at the same time that muni is coming

after our workers asking four # -- for our workers to pay into their health care to take wage freezes. >> thank you. next speaker. >> hello. i'm with the harvey milk lgbt union, the city tells us this takes time. we neat to -- need to complete an eir. when we are working for working class, the city tells us this takes time. we need complete an eir. when it takes time to build bike

lanes. the city tells us this takes time an we need an eir. now we are told that this would employee 200 muni stops and a vehicle that weighs over 31 tons. those of us in the community have come to expect and accept the it takes time answer to many of our most pressing concerns and we are frustrated to learn that this project time is suddenly not an issue. in issuing this categorical exemption in ceqa. a program that has so controversial subject to countless community protest -- ought to score the saechl

-- same process. we are asking for fairness to go through same process that all department of transportation. >> good evening, i'm a resident of san francisco. i'm with the pissed off voters. i have to fight with these buses to get my daughter to school. they are almost running me over and take our lives. i have seen a family of bikers to

almost get hit by these buses. i would like you to get to my neighborhood in the morning and see me try get my daughter to school with the buses. muni comes and we have to wait. yes, i'm pissed off. they need their own stops. i'm in a residential neighborhood and it is dangerous for me and my family and this community. >> if i can remind the folks that we have a rule to not express support or opposition to statements and please direct your comments to the entire board. that is another rule that we do not direct comments to individual is supervisors. i ask you to respect that. >> good afternoon, supervisors, my name is darren anomaly and i represent the non-profit workers. i have a

few things to say about this issue. my job is right off guerrero but i have to pass by valencia and when i pass these google shuttles they cause a lot of congestion in the morning when people are trying to get to work and they can't because the buses are in the way. i have seen people riding their bikes almost get hit by these buses and i have seen pedestrians crossing the street and being literally blind to traffic because these monstrous buses are so big. that's a major concern. i'm also concerned with the fact that this pilot program, what does that mean, how long is this supposed to go on as

pilot, when is it supposed to be something legitimate happening. i was born and raised in san francisco and now i live in the peninsula and eye -- i have to commute 60 miles a day. i would love to live here but i can't afford it. i think they need to pay their fair share. >> next speaker. >> good afternoon, executive director of the housing alliance in san francisco. a couple years ago i begged you all to do a study of the job housing nexus before the tax give away. i told you what out of pandera's box it was going to leash and that is lack of

planning. you have to understand that it's the poor people of working class that suffer from the board of supervisors. i have a 63-year-old african american who was able to supplement his income with a little benefit. a tech company came in and closed that locally owned business down and he's lost his job. he's packing from his hotel right now moving in the rain on the bus. he's moving into a shelter. he's got nothing going on. that's what happens when you make bad decisions. also i'm concerned about the creeping jim crow that is in filtrating our city that if you are a mostly

white tech worker, you get to go in. but if you are of color you have to go to the back of the bus. you are displaying now the by your words but your outcome. i ask you to judge me by the outcomes. please respect us enough to have your words and action match. if you are care about displacement and care about poor people, then you need to act like it and the lady that does protest too much. >> hello supervisors. i'm struggling with the impact of the 2 dozens private shuttles and ignored by the mta

concerning those impacts and from the environmental review. 2 years ago the mta gave itself an exemption for the 500 parking meetings and this was a pilot program. we challenged that and within 2 days after filing the challenge, the mta rescinded the program and apologized to the neighborhood sand we -- saying we won't do that again. when eir exemption are challenged in court. you need to be mindful of that. second, the argument that you need this pilot program to study the effects of these existing shuttle buses is really just about 100 percent backward.

that's what an eir does. this isn't a ground for your study. that is the data that you have for studying the effects to date. that's important because you have multiple studies of the current shuttles. the muni partners program has been studied. you have plenty of data, you have plenty of impacts on it. you don't need something new. that i say dodge to legalize the current program through the backdoor and avoid compliance with the law and have companies not pay their fair share. >> supervisor campos has a question. >>supervisor david campos: i know you live in potrero hill. ca