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 motion because of supervisor mar not being her he's been looking this issue for a number of most since december 18th findings of last year. he anticipated this hearing but certainly he would want to take

part in the vote. i'll make the motion to back up that motion and hopefully, we'll have all of us here to weigh if in on the issue. there's discussion about the appellants going to the court of appeals to decide this it makes sense we're all part of the decision >> colleagues on the motion to continue any discussion? should we vote on the motion to continue? >> i'll vote on the motion to continue chiu. supervisor farrell. supervisor kim. commissioner tang. supervisor wiener.

supervisor yee. supervisor avalos. supervisor breed. supervisor campos. there are 4 i's and 6 months further discussion on the underlying items supervisor farrell >> we are focused on a pilot

program for 18 months. it's not going to be a panacea. we need to take in my opinion a long view here in san francisco about what we are going to do with the shuttles and also our general workforce in this city. this program is going to do so many things that it's going to further inform what we do in the future and further review an analysis after that. as i listen to the comments i hear a lot of the tension that we hear quite a built in san francisco and and in my opinion that appeal and i think general discussion of blaming the "unquote" google bus is misdirected.

this is an attack in years of underdevelopment in our city and we have a drastic supply and demand of housing in our city. it's something that we are addressing but it doesn't happen over night and to me that is what the discussion has evolved into. to me what we are doing when you hear the public comment and i think some people make light of it, when we hear terms of princess of displacement and gentrification, to me that's not funny. that's disrespecting a dial that we are having here as the board of supervisors and what staff has worked on. as a legislator i don't appreciate that and i think it's disrespectful to what has happened here and to demonize workers in one industry and the technology

industry, that's crazy, these are san franciscans. we want in tolerance, we need to bridge gaps in our city and creating further divide and distraction is not what i want to see. what we are having as a city talking about the taxing industry and these shuttles have come about because the people that live and work in san francisco. only 20 percent of them leave our city limits because there wasn't enough transportation options for them. if we had more public transportation options they would be taking them. from my perspective the public sector and we have to do a lot more

investment here in our city, when it doesn't meet the demands of our residents innovation happens around them. we need regulate in the right way and we need to embrace it to make sure how it has a positive effect in our daily lives and how to enable what they want to work to do in our neighborhoods. to me it's critically important and contrary to where this dialogue is going on this discussion. you know, from my perspective this pilot program is doing more to collect more data and design for the long-term in san francisco. i appreciate the arguments on the other side. we talked a lot about it and we are going to have further votes tonight and in law legislation about housing. but to attack this pilot program is kind of the symbol of what's happening here in san francisco and to me it's completely misdirected. i'm going to

make a motion to move forward item no. 20, and table items 21 and 226789 >> we have a motion by supervisor farrell and wiener. >> mr. wiener? >>supervisor scott weiner: yes. i was thinking about this hearing when i was a kid in the 1970s when in the concept of van pooling when it was becoming big because of the gas prices in the 70s, it was all about van pooling. don't drive in your own car and do these van pools. that's something that we wanted. and so. if we want people to get out of their cars we have to give them options. the fact is and i agree with supervisor farrell right now in terms of the regional transit

connections in the bay area, it's not adequate. the fact that san francisco we are not a little citadel in the bay area. we don't have a remote with alligators in san mateo county border. we are completely inter connected with this region. we are one regional economy. so the fact is that people do live in one county in the bay area and they commute to another. they live in san mateo county and san francisco and/or vice versa or back and forth from the east bay. between san francisco and san mateo county, the connections aren't good enough. we all really want to make cal train better. but cal train doesn't have the capacity that it's over capacity now. the connections to cal train are not good enough. in terms of getting people so they can actually take the train down there.

and we should be welcoming companies that want to provide alternative transportation for their employees at no cost to taxpayers. we've seen the stats, the number of cars it takes off the road, the reduction in greenhouse gases. this is a huge benefit for our region. and, you know you can't say that you support the shuttles, but don't support their ability to actually pick people up and drop people off. you can't have one without the other. let be very clear about what we are hearing tonight in the context of ceqa and there have been a lot of non-ceqa elements made here. the argument is that these shuttles should not effectively be able to pick

people up on drop people off because if they are not going to be able to do it at the muni bus stops, where are they going to do it? they are going to have to do it in the middle of the streets, no one wants that and they are going to have to use white zones where in some places and not other places. we'll to have create other white zones and that won't go over well or do as suggested that everyone has to go to the terminals and then we have a reduction of people taking the shuttles. these workers, they are san franciscans and they live here and for decades and decades san franciscans have lived in our city and communicated to -- commuted to the peninsula

and now these people are able to take the shuttles. you only have to look at the 101 southbound in the morning or in the afternoon and know that these shuttles are the connections in these terms are a drop in the bucket. you look back and forth a lot of people are doing this. many real san franciscans are commuting down to the peninsula. that's what these buses help facilitate. you know, to tag these buses with our housing crisis, i think is not only isn't unfair but much more significantly than that, it absolutely misses the mark in terms of why we have housing crisis and it does a disservice to addressing that. if we got

rid of the shuttles about a thousand people would move to be closer to work. to suggest that it would even touch the exploding prices in the city i think is absolutely inaccurate. we need to focus not only attacking these shuttles but solving our housing problems. so in terms of some of the specific ceqa issues, i do believe the categorical exemption was correctly issued. i want to thank the planning department for it's work and the mta for it's work. this as we discussed this is an absolutely a tiny system in comparison to muni to compare it to the transit effectiveness project. i just think it's not a good comparison. this is a very very different thing. in terms of the pedestrian and noise and pollution problems, again, looking at it in the context

of all of the traffic in this city of hundreds and hundreds of thousands of vehicles that are in this city that come into this city to suggest that these shuttles have bike or pedestrian or pollution impacts that even marginally move the dial beyond the huge amount of traffic that we already have in this city, i just don't think that is a good argument. i also want to know and this did come up earlier in terms of the bike plan in particular. we've seen what i think is a v -- very very unfortunate trend, not just in san francisco but in california but we as a state are growing by 2.1 million