there to be significant impacts related to level of service from the change in travel los angeles. the moving forward did not demonstrate any potential significant effects but we did feel that we there was a legitimate reason to see what was happening on the ground whether the desired results would occur and the undesired result would not occur we've used the class 6 exemptions that way and in which it allows us to see think 0 the ground efforts of trying something out there's concern about the possibility ever community investment & infrastructure commission to an action that leads to environmental impacts or concerns. so another example were also identified we've used it for the

early projects and we've being been using it on market street. to see if some of the changes on market street would again have the desire effects for vehicle traffic and the overly network and, of course, pedestrian safety and bicycle safety from reducing the vehicle traffic on right turns on market. a classic exception has not been challenged before the board of supervisors. we work with the project sponsor whether the sfmta or not sponsor to develop a program in our professional view fits within the class 6 exemption. one example of the project that

changed is sf park proposed to apply to existing motors and some new meters based on neighborhood concerns sfmta removed the new parking meters so the physical changes soccer field with that project from the projects that were proposed for the classic. the second question we heard from former supervisor he mentioned the sequa boing plan i can speak that that appeal used for environmental arguments to create more bike lanes was tragic we know that bike lanes bisexuals have a better impact than car he suggested something what is your reaction to the decision >> i didn't have the pleasure

of having worked on the bicycle plan at the time, but my understanding of the project the issues at hand in the bike plan were different it wasn't a pilot gathering information effort but a pilot as a permanent project. and so it was not asked her for a grace class 6. and second as the court determined there was a piece male and female issue involved the planning department was found to have split up related actions under separate environmental refunds there are there was a general rule exclusion for the entire framework and each bicyclist project was given another category there was a different

action involved. the third issue was the court found physical changes for the bicycle plan specifically were the physical impacts of those were not fully analyzed there's differences >> the final question supervisor campos wagons focused on the lack of enforcement can you respond to the argument that the appellant have laid out we shouldn't be comparison those regulations because of the fact it alleging involves a lack of enforcement. >> what i can say sequa makes it laser clear that you look at the existing physical conditions whatever they might be and whatever contribute to and case law around the issue all pushed case law supports that.

i'll ask the city attorney to address that >> deputy city attorney marla ms. jones is correct this year's several pushed cases specifically regarding what do we kuar in little rock part of the baseline this is related we compare what the environmental conditions are under the proposed project. the sequa guidelines are clear that you look at the environmental study should be studied at the time the project is proposed. there are a couple of different cases one that supervisor kim noted the sunset of sacramento an ongoing airport operation. that's been largely expanded

without a conditional use and the city was working without the required permits and they came to get the approval for correct the ill legitimate it the fact that the airport was large and accident court upheld the consultants use of the baseline including an existing illegal expansion of the airport because it found that sequa requires you longtime the existing physical environment and compare took to the project and because of that the city the county rather ♪ case had subject evidence for the expanding the larger airport. okay. thank you. we have a number of colleagues on the roster

>> thank you, mr. president. >> i want to condition with the questioning of ms. burns thank you for clarifying the california court of appeal or are the appellants talked about the two cases could you comment on those two cases and their relevance. >> the two cases they've cited in their papers it would be improper for the city to rely on those cases the river case i building is i don't have the full title it's the san francisco superior court kinds

under the law we're kuar in little rock sequa looking at the sequa guidelines what they say and what any appellant level published opinion say and that's the intoirt of the sequa law that we consider. this case is a trial court decision it's not considered law for sequa purposes and related on a federal case that's also a federal trial case that come out of the federal trial court a couple of years the climate case in 2011 i believe. and the district you court case was analyzing the effects of lake tahoe under the financial environmental act and the environmental impact that case concerned the but yes, sir.

without getting the proper permit they were going to regulate the both yes, sir. . the 9th circuit court of appeals hadn't reviewed did federal case they found that the problem with the tahoe recreational agency they didn't provide many substantial evidence. so the court sent the case back to the tahoe recreational agency and the ruling said the agency has discretion to determine the appropriate baseline. so it's a federal case not applicable to what's good

morning here it's a federal court that would be subject to state jurisdiction and the appellants didn't provide the latter citation and it was rejected. >> it doesn't note that the case had been reversed. >> so the appellants belief didn't know that handbag reversed and they didn't know that. >> and typically you'll know the case you've relied on will be substantially reversed. >> so just to be clear the climate case the appellants rely ouch that was a san francisco supreme court case that wouldn't rely on sequa. >> it would be improper to

consider on that part of the appellant level. >> so the spoisht case related open a federal decision that was substantially reversed by the court of appeals and the appellant doesn't know that. >> i have a question i don't know if it's for planning. thank you. i appreciate that you and that's what's the overall purpose of a pilot in making it sequa determination let's get back to the basics mates what's the purpose of the pilot project for the shuttle? >> charlie pain the purpose of

this pilot program is to took the information we have now which is incomplete and respond to the need of for regulation. we know there are problems in the street. people have articulated very clearly the current situation is not working but we don't feel like he can come up with the information so the pilots persian to test out the piloting in a certain way our our information indicates that sharing southern kinds of muni zones works without conflict their long enough for sharing our zones without immense frequently and they're on the

far side so what we're testing is really does sharing specifically select the muni zone reduce the impact of the consultant shuttles loading and unloading open bicyclists and people who no idea their muni bus to get to the curb to board and that's the over reaching purpose to inform a longer-term solution >> i probably want to bring up the mta golds is 0 ultimately have comprehensive regulars for the shuttles. >> yes. but this is a first step. >> so currently today does mta have enough data to with

confidence be able to implement that sort of comprehensive regulations. >> we don't but the information we have from shuttle rear view mirrors is in compliance s in format and some information we just don't have. we think this approach of sharing will work but we want to ground test it first >> as part of the pilot program the mta will be receiving the data from participating shuttle drivers. >> yes. in several ways first through the permitted circulation we'll be asking for information about their vehicles and asking for information for example, about the maim their vehicle is registered under there's there are questions from members of the board for

citations looking for that information we realize that many shuttle providers don't have their shuttles listed under their names so we'll be asking for that to track that you we're requiring that the shuttle providers have on board a gps system and we'll be specifically specifically what the gps added what frequently during their operations in san francisco to allow us the improvement and to better understand the activities and operations of the shuttle systems. so that data will ultimately forbode into the mta's consideration through the process in terms of what the best regulation is >> yes. >> okay. now supervisor campos had i think raised a

question with planning about i think if i'm interpreting it correctly suggesting not collecting data but those shelters are picking up people up and dropping people 06 i guess my question is can the mta collect data without having the shuttles operate and people getting on and off and generating is there another way to collect data. >> not that i'm aware of. >> it seems like if one acceptance and obviously will there are different views on the data collection it seem like you need the shuttles to operate. >> that's right. >> when we talk about control

impact environmental impacts again, the impacts just looking at the scale of the system. so my understanding is that muni has about seven hundred thousand board of supervisors a day right now >> yes. >> and my understanding is that the shuttle system that is the times it's operating in san francisco has been 30 thousand boardings a day. >> that's correct based on what we know. >> so the mta understanding the entire system has 5 percent of the entire muni system. >> that's the equivalent yes. >> given their focused on the shuttles cross the county line that go into san mateo county

than the inner city shuttles and the appellants lawyer i heard that apparently those impacts of the inner traffic city shuttles are dramatically lower if i heard him correctly so if we look at what the appellants are focused on the shuttles across the county line their 20 percent of the overall shuttles? based on on what we know yes >> based on what you know 65 or seven hundred thousand boarding vs. 65 thousand boardings a day for the cross county shuttles that's a little bit less than one percent of the daily boardings of muni. >> i'm not a quick calculator

but sure >> i think if my math is correct it's a little bit less than one percent i think it's reasonable to assume most people are going to be boarding twice a day one thought or half of the 65 hundred boardsing tape in san mateo county we're talking about probably about a little bit over 33 hundred boarding a day on the cross shuttles in san francisco. >> but the unleeds are in san francisco for the return trips. >> that's up to 675 hundred. >> exactly. >> so i guess thank you for that in terms of looking at impacts it seems like this scale a significant in terms of what

the actually size is. do you know how many muni stops in san francisco? >> my understanding is about 3 thousand. >> 3 thousand. okay >> we are going talking about a pilot program with 2 hundred stops. i think that's significant with there references to correction e t that's important to put things into prospective with boarding 3 thousand bus stops. so a question for ms. jones be there were a number of reports submitted by the appellants

expert reports and one of them was by someone rendering an expert opinion about air quality have you reviewed that report >> thank you scott wiener yes, i've reviewed the report and our in house air quality expert our decision is recognized recreationally and state wide when it comes to air quality we have expertise. this report had a number of assumptions that were built in that appeared to lead to conclusions that did not entirely accurately represent the impact of shuttles the city uses a model for the air quality

analysis that takes air quality into account and the screen analysis in this report. we presented new screening data as a full model analysis to our own work but it was really a different approach to analyze. ours is done with the approval of the air quality management district. this way purports a 70 year explore to the shuttle buses but the project was at hand we were noovld is an 18 month project so you couldn't extrapolate 70 years of explore from a 18 month project. there was questions about the stops and those are subject to regsdz for this program.

a really important point is the citywide basis modeling already overtakes those vehicles activity into accountant it's taken into accountant in our baseline analysis with the air qualities and impacts and measures. finally the results of the analyze were not consistent with other novels we've done with the air quality impacts. for example that was very out of scale compared to the health risks forcing the transbay transit center that has several buses a day my for 689s or analysis for the t e p one corridor an additional 4 hundred buses would have an book of less

than 10 in and million where some of the scenarios that the project sponsor found impacts higher than that i'm sorry the appellant not the project sponsor >> thank you after that. and i guess one more question i don't know if this is for director reiskin >> again talking about the impacts on the transportation system there's been reference to enforce on the red zone make them use the white zone instead. if we were to creatinine muni bus stops you have to work with the mta to get the permits for white zones to create those separate stops say for 2 hundred stops how many parking spaces would that take away.

if you look at the bus zones i know there's a range a number of parking spots in each the e extinct how many parking spots in san francisco would lose if we say no, not going to let you let's tech workers everyone loves the tech workers cannot use the muni spots and we're going to have to have you have our own way >> there are approximately 4 parking spot legislation for muni zone. so for 2 hundred that's 8 hundred parking spaces to be repurchased >> okay. great those are my questions

>> thank you scott wiener. supervisor cowen >> thank you very much. first, i want to just begin by saying i'm uncomfortable to learn about the legal immaterial will issues around the bus stops it is a double standard to the larger public. and i am uncomfortable with what seems like we're skirting part of the state law by not enforcing those buses shuttle buses moving into the red zones. i'm curious to know how flexibility is mta on the pilot program you have a proposal in front of us is there federal court in incorporate some of the concerns you've heard from the appellant tonight

>> thank you supervisor cowen and to the president. we went through a fairly expensive e extensive process to get to this point it ended u.s. bancorp up with the legislation egg and the board approved it from the transportation prospective many of the issues raised i apologize. i would here from the whole thing but in terms of concerns about those shilts from a it transportation prospective is exactly with the proposed pilot is aiming to address. i'm not sure i heard anything from the transportation prospective that will lead us to a different approach in terms of developing a program that is the purpose of the program to

address the transportation concerns we've heard from the members of the public tonight and been hearing from our staff >> i'm trying to gather is this set in stone. for example, you heard one dollar is insufficient in increasing that. i'm trying to understand a little bit better within the organization of mta if there's a willing in-laws to incorporate some of the feedback we've heard you've heard along the way your e-mails and the testimony tonight. i've taken notation and members of the board have taken notes we'll share them with you. is there an openness >> to the president again. the purpose of this pilot period is to gather any simple additional feedback. and modify as need to be either

the pilot or use that and will use that to develop a recommendation for more permanent regulatory framework that will be subject to the public process for the planning department they democrat. i don't recall hearing anything about the one dollar issue i'd love to have that dollar amount larger but we're constrained by the law >> we should skirt that law (clapping.) i welcome we've had one company step forward and in and out of funding from the mta i'll certainly welcome others but we don't have the legal authority to go beyond the one dollars

that's based on the program costs we thought to implement the pilot. but the pilot is to gather the information and come up with a recommendation that will make for a sustainable regulatory framework to deal with the shuttles >> my other question how do he settle on the one dollar how was that selected. >> what we did we looked at the costs we identified that would be associated with this program setting it up to get the administrative processes in police radios to goorth and monitor the pilot my to monitor the enforcements and do signage and basically, all the costs adding up the costs to