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

people we are going to have to do something about this. we see ceqa impede transit investment and transit advances whether it's a shuttle program or all man or public transportation project. we are seeing the california environmental quality act being used to delay and defeat public transit and transportation projects that will lead to cleaner air and will get cars off the road. we should not contribute to that trend with that appeal. this appeal does not have merit. we should address the problems facing our city without pretending with somehow requiring an eir with this pilot program is going to do anything to solve our problems. i would be supporting the motion. >> supervisor chiu? >> thank you. let me first start by thanking all the

members of the public who have stuck around for 7 hours. i want to thank you for your input and comment or mr. drurey to stand in the case and those who support this appeal. we all know we are in an affordability crisis. the represent is too damn high and we know that commuter shuttles have been this debate. this is not what the ceqa appeal is about. upholding this appeal is not going to do anything to address our affordability crisis and we need to address the cost of housing and not be distracted by symbolic conflict. our job tonight is to assess whether this project will have a significant impact on this project. and it's clear this pilot makes things better, not worst. the $1 fee

is not adequate. i wish we can increase this fee. that's not what's before this appeal. from the environmental standpoint. it's moving 45,000 vehicles a day, 5,000 metric tons a year. i believe with the advocates of these communities we need to support pilot programs to improve our transit systems and if these shuttles were prohibited at least half of the passengers would drive alone in the cars. if we had these cars. with that i will not be supporting the appeal today and look forward what other colleagues have to say. >> supervisor cohn? >>supervisor malia cohen: thank you very much. thank

you everyone for participating in the discussion tonight. i think i made it clear about how uncomfortable i am about the legalities issues about skirting the law. i made it pretty clear about my dissatisfaction around the state law that governs how to $1 fee was assessed. i think what's very interesting is that how absent largely the tech companies are in this discussion. yes, sf city is here, representing x number of tech companies. but i just want to remind folks remember several years ago when we were debating the twitter issue how this hall was crawling from twitter when they wanted something. i think it's important because before we learn to live to -- together we need to make sure that all

of our stakeholders come and join us. speaking at mayor's office is not even half of the equation but developing relationships with each one of the members here so that the companies can better understand the culture of the neighborhoods that which we represent. and want to acknowledge that the akkad ex-was correctly issued and thanks mta for that. i also want to take a moment to address some of the comments that were said. i found some of he is the offensive and disrespectful. references about, equating this moment in time of that we are dealing with technology or the google buses and the annihilation

of the gross interpretation of a historical account. i find it also interesting that we are discussing literally mission has been gentrified and we have the gentrified being gentrified. that is more of a description of what's happening. in order to continue to further this conversation about the cost of livingston, i -- living, i think we need to again -- reassess the middle to low income housing as well as public housing. i would continue to champion to have this conversation together and not separate when we are talking about public housing, we need to talk about middle

income, all of the crisis. there are people in need and it's a life or death issue. thank you. >> supervisor kim in ? >>supervisor jane kim: thank you. last i check there were latinos living in the mission and some said they were getting evicted this year. i do believe there is the gentrification of the again -- trifrs. i do think there are valid arguments as to why people have issues with shuttle buses. i listed a couple of them before. they are incredibly large. they are intimidating and some of our

neighborhoods with narrow streets, they have a hard time turning. they block bike lanes, they sometimes force pedestrians out into traffic in order to board muni and they actually do delay muni. i think there are a ton of valid arguments made about why shuttle buses can be problematic and also there is benefits to having shuttle buses. if they had a shuttle bus 10 years ago they would have gotten in the bus and not in the car themselves. i don't think it's worth while for us to say that it's no the a valid conversation. it's a very valid conversation. the issue is the pilot program. i wish that was what we are voting on today because there is a ton of things we would like to see to make that pilot program stronger and i think

even outlined in the discussion today there wasn't enough public participation in the process of developing this pilot. i think we could have done a lot more on restricting the type of streets that these shuttle buses were allowed on and restricting the type of about us stops and addressing a bla report to finding a parking lot where the shuttle buses can congregate. i think this lacks some leadership. that's why people are unhappy as to this issue before us and other people discussing the enforcement issue that until november mta wasn't enforcing shuttle buses stopping in the

red zone meanwhile we ticket everybody else. i don't want just say individuals but even ups trucks and a ton of different large vehicles that also get ticketed on a regular basis. i heard some grumbling as to why they get all of these tickets and a certain class of large vehicles don't. i think that's just a lot of the frustration that you are hearing today. and there is a cost to this program and beyond the muni delays, walk and bike lanes and safety, something that was articulated in the bla report which i never thought about was the impact of these heavy vehicles on our roads. as explicated by the report, the average commuter shuttle is 54,000 pounds to 62,000 pounds and this has 8,000 more stress to

deteriorating the roadway than the average suv. now i also understand in the bla report that it's not allowed in our recovery. it's not sometime maet could have calculated. there are cost to having large commuter shuttle bus programs in the city. i think where i'm caught toed is the exemption that was granted to this program. due to the nature of it being a pilot program and being granted a classic exemption, i feel a lot of conflict around how to vote on this decision. our office depends on these types of exemptions to get pedestrian safety and bike safety pilots approved and get into placement into the ground a lot faster. i see a distinction between bulb outs on sixth street and 5 blocks of bike lanes on folsom and

citywide shuttle pilot program but there is nothing in the class six exemption that talks anything about size criteria when evaluating whether a pilot program can get an exemption or not. and i will just be really direct. i don't know the to see any of the pilots that we are proposed to ensure that we have vision zero in the city threatened because there is some question on whether we can give out this type of exemption. that is ultimately where my decision is coming today. i have a lot of issues with the program novz in and of itself. i think we can make better political decision when it comes to the city. it's being sensitive to people and being sensitive to our residents and what the climate is today and the impact they are feeling

specifically from shuttle buses and not just displacement. it's both. so that is to say on this decision. i really think this is an issue that is more appropriate for the ballot than an appeal for environment ceqa determines. >> supervisor wiener? >>supervisor scott weiner: thank you, i appreciate supervisor kim's remarks about when the buses that when you go down the street that it may not seem the most appropriate. one of the things i should have been more emphatic about before is the fact how important this is that we are actually going to have regulations for the first time. ms. payne can confirm if this is correct. i'm going to

assume that my direct produces a large number of concerns about the buses. i got a lot of communication from constituents about whether or not this is the right street to go down or every conceivable kind of return. i want to thank ms. payne for working with these facilities and telling them no the to use this street or stop anymore. although effective it's been ad hoc because we have 1 person doing this work. this program will allow us to have real regulations to talk about things whether it's the size of the bus or which bus stops they use or which routes they are using. we've never been able to do that kind of comprehensive look before. i think this will in the end improve things. and as i understand it there will be a

public process around the stops and other aspects of the pilot. i think there will be a very very robust process in terms of setting up the system and we will for the first time have a regulations in terms of trying to reduce some of the impact on our neighborhoods. >> supervisor campos? >>supervisor david campos: i agree with the most persuasive argument by planning has been this idea, this fear that somehow if you grant this appeal that everything else is in jeopardy. i think there is a reason why it was set up that way because i think it is, you know, the appeal of some of the other projects is so large that i think the hope is that it will make sure that it leads to the result that the agencies want. i just

respectfully disagree with that approach. because i think at the end of the day we have to base this appeal on the merits that are before us and i do think there are ways in which we can distinguish some of these other potential appeals and i actually think that what's likely to happen here if this appeal is denied as it looks like it's going to be, i think that there will be a legal victory for the appellants in court because of the insufficiency of the evidence and the rational that has been presented. and what i would say is that i wholeheartedly agree with what has been said about the issue of tech workers. we could not in anyway demonize tech workers. they are san francisco residents. what i have in perspective is this,

is that i don't think that wanting to work with the tech industry means that you completely rollover and give them everything they want or even beyond what they are asking for. i think that working with the tech industry means precisely what had been said which is you treat them as san franciscans. but the problem with this pilot is that you are actually treating san franciscans unequally. you are saying that a group of san franciscans can get special treatment and that the laws are not going to be enforced against them. as much as we want to say that it's okay to do that, i think fundamental problem with the way city hall has approached this issue is the same fundamental problem the way city hall has approached a lot of other issues whether it's america's cup, whether it's the twitter tax break, it's basically

about a small group of people behind closed doors coming up with a deal and then presenting it to the public after the fact without any input from the public before the specifics of the deal are finalized. so as long as we keep doing that, we are only going to be exacerbating the tension that is between that is out there. i don't think this helps the tech industry and in fact i think the best thing we can do for the tech industry is to treat them the same way we treat all of san franciscans. i think this is going to be a problem because it's only going to make things worse and i think it's a fundamental mistake and i think we are going to look back at this decision today not too long from today unfortunately and regret what we are doing because it's

simply not the way that san francisco should be treating all of it's residents. >> supervisor yee? >>supervisor norman yee: thank you. hard to follow. i have the same conclusion as many of us of my colleagues here in regards to the configuration of the pilot project itself. it could have been to me a much better pilot project. and, i appreciate supervisor kim's remarks. to me this whole issue has been about ceqa issue. i'm actually kind of glad we are going to have some kind of pilot project to start looking at many of the issues brought up today. it's going to be 18 months hopefully it won't be an eternity. one of these i'm

going to emphasize is i'm in total agreement as regards to the size of the buses. they are humongous and when we look at the pilot project and come up with more permanent regulations that you look at the size of the buses and limit the weight or whatever it takes to have these companies that operate these buses to be much more manageable in terms of the size and how it would fit into san francisco. that's really the main point i want to make in that particular issue. when i see these buses parked in the bus zones or they are double parked outside of the bus zones it does endanger our pedestrians and bikers and so forth. >> supervisor kim? >>supervisor jane kim: i apologize. i want to make a

comment to maet that i hope to see some regulations and hope to take some of the feedback tonight and have the outcome we want to see. i hope i made that clear and i want to see that happen in the 18-month program. the last thing i want to say one last issue that has come up with the commuter shuttle buses that i hope employees are not just shuttling programmers, but also janitors and cafeteria workers. that's the equity issue i hear often about those shuttle buses that it's just as important to make. >> any final comments? colleagues? it is 10:35 madam clerk. please call the role. >> city clerk: we have a motion to prove item 20, table 21,

22. [roll call vote taken] chiu, farrell, tang, aye, supervisor wiener, aye, yee, aye, avalos, no. supervisor breed, aye, campos, no. there are 8 ayes and 2 nos. >> motion passes. >> colleagues at this time, if i can ask members of the public to please leave quietly. for the better or worst we still have a lot of about itself this tself -- business this evening. thank you for being here. why don't we proceed, are we ready to proceed back with item 15? i asked people to leave quietly.

if i can ask whoever that is record division -- device to please turn it off. okay. why don't we proceed on colleagues are we prepared to recall item 15? no. okay. let's continue on to item 17. madam clerk. >> city clerk: item 17 is an ordinance to amend the administrative code to designate the sheriff as the entity to assist county jail inmates with submitting an application for health insurance consistent with federal requirements. >> let's take a roll call

vote. >> city clerk: chiu, aye, cohn, aye, farrell, aye, supervisor kim, aye, supervisor tang, aye, supervisors wiener. aye, yee, aye, supervisor avalos, aye. breed aye, supervisor campos, aye. there are 10 ayes. >> ordinance is passed in first reading. >> item 18. >> city clerk: to appoint ronalder heart to the treasury oversight committee. >> can we do this same house same call? >> no. >> we need a roll call on this vote, or any discussion. roll call vote. >> city clerk: item 18. chiu, farrell, cohn, kim, aye,

supervisor tang, aye, supervisor wiener, yee, breed, no; campos aye. 9 ayes, 1 no. can i rescind the vote. >> yeah. we are tired. vote is rescinded. without objection. roll call vote. >> on item 18. supervisor chiu, aye, supervisor cohn, -- >> madam clerk. please continue the roll call. city clerk: mr. president it's inappropriate to skip the

supervisor. [roll call vote taken] cohn, tang, wiener, yee, supervisor avalos, aye, supervisor breed, no. campos, no. there are 8 ayes and 2 nos. >> motion is approved. item 23: city clerk: land use economic development committee an ordinance recognizing small business month to retro actively wave the fees for certain facade and improvements and affirming the planning department. >> [roll call vote taken] >> city clerk: chiu, cohn, aye, supervisor farrell, aye, supervisor kim, supervisor tang, aye, supervisor wiener,

aye, yee, aye, avalos aye, breed, aye, campos aye. there are 10 ayes. >> the ordinance is passed in the first reading. colleagues are we prepared to go back to item 15? yes? supervisor breed do you want to continue this after roll call and public comment? >>supervisor london breed: yes. >> can we take a vote on that. i would like to guess this discussion over with. it's 10:40 i'm losing it. can we get this vote through. relocation. >> okay, colleagues let's go back to item 15 and have some discussion about whether to continue this. >> i was going to motion to continue it to 1 week because it seemed like there were a

lot of moving parts that hadn't got set tled yet and it could take another hour before voting and it would be good to have a fresh perspective on it next week. >> is there a second to that. second by supervisors breed. can we take a motion without objection. without objection this item is donated 1 week to april the 8th. >> now. why don't we go roll call. city clerk: mr. president, to introduce new business. >> colleagues, today i'm introducing -- >> no. [ laughter ] >> colleagues, i'm introducing a hearing request about something that has been recentably brought to my attention about the remarkable proliferation about board of

supervisors, there have been 110 request shockingly in the first 3 months of 2014 we have introduced 900 hearing request. a 225 percent increase. now i'm not yet saying that this pro lifrgs is bad. i think we need to hear this issue. april fools. the rest of my items i will submit. >> thank you mr. president. >> city clerk: supervisor cohn? supervisor malia cohen: i have a very quick in memoriam. this is an i am memoriam that both supervisor wiener and i are offering. i ask that we adjourn this meeting in the most dedicated public parents that i have that had pleasure of working on the board. her

name was ms. dina fisher. she lost her 17-month battle with cancer and was a crusader for public education and banned to the in 2005 to save daniel webster elementary school when it was proposed for closure. she and several other parents stepped in and created the potrero residents education fund which is a 501c 3 non-proport supporting education and operates bilingual on two sites serving over 100 students 20 percent of which receive tuition assistance. dina was responsible for finding critical initial and follow-up on funding for two programs. play works and edge wood social services that provided portions of the most basic infrastructure needed to tu