Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    April 1, 2014 7:00pm-7:31pm PDT

7:00 pm
are real and they should be studied the cancer risks with dies dieselier than the foreheads talk about. their white washing entire community everybody whoet not making $200,000 a year and while the market rate is costly the political opposition those of us who fight for san franciscans the rendered and the seniors and people with disabilities working people the the lgbt community the young people we are strong. (clapping.) >> thank you. again i would remind the members of the public we have a rule in the board
7:01 pm
chamber not to express clear expression. >> thank you jessica with the senior and disability action we port this today we're concerned about pedestrian safety and displacement on protecting community and seniors and we come to fight for the premuni and we'll keep fighting and thank you to the supervisors that have come out to help us win the fight it's not right we're talking about those buses not having a proper review of the impacts on the city while at the same time people with disabled and seniors can't afford afford to get around. >> any other members of the public wish to speak. >> i'm nicholas i'm grateful to
7:02 pm
share my own point of view what is happening in san francisco is horrible the white people are ethnicly clarence san francisco. we've lot 4 percent of our african-americans we are desecrating the latinos and yet as much as i hate to say this our board president is the prince of this adjudication our gay representative is the queen or king of ethic cleansing and you should take full credit but the white people ethnicly cleansing the black and brown people where do you go when you've been out of the mission
7:03 pm
where does the mission culture rupture? how come our african-americans supervisors are not on the front lines? campos thank you. supervisor avalos thank you those are the heros of the lgbt and black and brown folks not the white people the queen of ethnic cleansing are the prince of adjudication i personally love our want and emphasis parents it became to me to see this to my own truth. thank you >> thank you. >> next speaker. >> there is there any public comment no support of appellants. okay. seeing none at this time let's go to a presentation by the planning department
7:04 pm
>> thank you supervisor chiu and good evening to members of the board i'm sarah jones i'm the environmental review officer from the planning department joining me that jenny and others. staff from sfmta including director reiskin is here to give a presentation and to respond to questions about the project itself. the planning department found the pilot plan exempts on 2014. the sfmta board of directors approved the 18 month pilot plan an january 21st an appeal was filed on february 14th accounting. the planning department has prepared a written response. p on that day the appellants
7:05 pm
filed a written brief that passes the code submittal so a second request was insinuated. my presentation is going to summarize our responses primarily the second request. the issue for a categorical not to deny the appeal or to over turn the departments decision and return the project to the planning department. p the issue is not about the merits of pilot program itself. a little bit about existing conditions and the proposed project today, there 3 hundred shuttle buses and mta estimates
7:06 pm
25 thousand muni ridership. and intercity riders are 80 percent of the total and regional are 20 percent they're using white zones and currently they're not permitted to us the bus zones. the pilot program is to explore the shared use of muni stops not faxing others stops. the pilot program will operate as follows: sfmta will solicit accident applications and establish operational requirements and track compliance my effect in essence of the shared stop system and use that information to shape a proposal for long term managed if it's desired that long term program will be subject to its
7:07 pm
own environmental review. the process of denying a project is an important and complex one for an agency. sometimes real world experimental informational garter is part of that process and sequa provides a way to do on ground work without getting caught to do an endless review to define the project that is subject to environmental review. that way that sequa provides is the classic exemption under the sequa guidelines. i'm going to quote from the sequa guidelines pr class 6 is for basic data collection research and experimental management and reelevation activity that don't result to
7:08 pm
damage to the environmental resources. those are for environmental researches and for study for a public agency has not adapted or fund. there are exemption where a project affects a hazardous or critical resource and a general exception for usually circumstances. for any analysis sequa speefz that a prospered project must reviewed against the physical setting and all case law supported the physical settings. the project being elevated is experimental management of shuttles the shuttle buses themselves are not the project but all types of curb space represents the baseline which this pilot program was elevated
7:09 pm
for the ability to apply the classics tmgs so our decision was based on the following the proposed pilot program includes experimental management and study that will help to formulate a long term program under class 6. there recent no maps and hazardous concerns effected and no direct are indirect significant impacts due to the experimental regulation of shilts. turn to the issues raised by appellants the appellant first of all, has not provided a fair agreement for for seeable impacts under sequa. the appellant insinuated information one or more the
7:10 pm
following they came from a source of non-credentials and don't address the impact of the project itself and they contained erroneous suggestions they don't support a fair argument. the displacement points are - sequa only considers the physical impacts. many important concerns are raised but no one is caused by the pilot program. it's speculative to i doubt it any of the shuttles to the impacts as they relate to the proposal there are no physical impacts related to the proposed pilot program about the evidence supported doesn't show it and the analysis concludes that the
7:11 pm
isn't it true reservations for this 18 month project is not sixth for the impacts. the class of intimidation is applicable to exemption and the appellant has stated that class 6 is only limited to projects. there is absolutely no basis for to assertion. sequa only limits class six-hundred to limit mass critical resources and, in fact, 3 examples that were insinuated by appellant are four probative values efforts. we've issued the exemption in san francisco and a quick online search we did indicated any other jurisdictions use the classics 6 for problematic studies extensive. the appellant has misrepresented what sequa said about the need for eir in the case of public
7:12 pm
controversy, in fact, the oppose is true it's not simple the need for american people eir. in conclusion the department has found the proposed shuttle pilot will not have impacts directly or sdiblg. the appellant hadn't repudiated the project the project fails under the class 6 exemplification's and the shuttle politely program itself if the board upholds the appeal the shuttles will continue to operate until the project it proposed by mta. furthermore, any such review in our view would be hampered and it is unclear why the appellant
7:13 pm
is asking for the environmental review for data that would into effect support of the environmental review. for the reasons stated here the department recommended that the board uphold the amendments and deny the appeal >> thank you very much i'm going to ask the members - the members of the public to please be quote while we're license to the speakers. with that, supervisor campos >> mr. president, i certainly look forward to making sure that everyone has an equal opportunity to present their case. i do want to follow up on your presentation. because i have to say i find of the argument from planning to be circle last year in and a half
7:14 pm
are want to begin by asking you how it is that you can define the project that's simply about data collection when, in fact, the pilot as i understand is a 18 most pilot that allows 2 hundred stops it includes buses stopping at the 2 hundred stops and collecting people. so how is that a project that be only involves data collection? >> the buses that are stopping at the up to two hundred locations are already doing so from our purposes the project we're analyzing for the affects e effects is the spooks of the involved changes to the
7:15 pm
continues the sequa review is that the aspect that's involving change to existing conditions. we're elevated the project opposed by sfmta. it's up to the project sponsor to define what the project entails we then review that and the approving body approves the body as going through the public review >> there's 2 hundred stops proposed correct? >> no specific stops are proposed under the pilot. >> oh, okay. are are there stops that are currently not being used for they're not shuttles but could actually be new stops under the pilot.
7:16 pm
>> we have no basis for this assumption and that gets to the issue at hand the reasons that mta is undertaking those they have no certainly or regulate what stops are being used by shuttles. >> it that possible that the pilot will - >> i can't answer that question. >> let me ask the mta is it possible director reiskin that in fact the two hundred stops your using there will be new stops currently not being used by shuttles. >> good evening mr. president, and members of the board through
7:17 pm
the chair supervisor campos. yeah, it's our intent to elevate the potential stop locations within the 2 hundred and subject them to the public hearing process. >> okay in light of the fact the mta is seeing that the pilot could include now stops that are currently not being used by shuttles how can you say that the baseline is not being changed you're hearing from the agency something different could, in fact, be parted of the pilot and. >> we only had the project as proposed before us to analyze. so what we were analyzing the imposition of the project that i described it and as mta will
7:18 pm
describe it as the existing on the ground conditions the project itself which would identify those stops as one component of it and track the compliance with the stop network and with the operational protocols provided that in itself is not something we can contributed physical impacts to >> again, i building what is a distortion of what the defines of an existing condition is. it would be one thing in the pilot is saying we're allowing the stops that are being iced but the mta is saying there could be new stops not seeing any new shuttles i don't think that's the same i want to note
7:19 pm
that but i want to proceed to another point. the section that your referencing is the section 6 exemption says, you know, and you read it and it talked about data collection and research examiner data those will be strictly for information gathering purposes where to an action which a public agency has not approved adapted or fund those would be strictly this is clearly strictly means something more only that. how is it that p a pilot it involving shuttles picking up people and dropping them off it's not i mean can meet the definition of strictly for
7:20 pm
information gathering purposes? >> my first response is that there is a qualityer or as part of the study leading to an action so what the language of the sequa is saying it could be for a stand alone effort or part of a long term effort. the picking up and dropping off of passengers is not a aspect of the project that was succinct e subject to sfmta action. the aspect the project that was subject to sfmta approval and therefore the project we elevated under sequa was the permit program and the installation of gps tracking device and it should to be
7:21 pm
reviewed under sequa and that was the project that sfmta board had authority over >> i'm sorry but i don't respectfully i think that belies with what's happening her. the pilot is simply not about collecting data the pilot involves people being picked up and taken to work. and so, you know, you can say rope what you said until your blue in the face it doesn't change the reality of 2 hundred stops where people are being picked up and dropped off at work. it doesn't change the reality >> well, the picking up people and dropping off people is not a situation particularly in a
7:22 pm
urban std that's an unusual circumstances that results in impacts under sequa. we're looking at this as a defined 18 month data gathering effort that was the project that was proposed to us for environmental review any further long term effort be it a policy or a physical changes at the bus stop over and over designation or lack thereof that is proposed as a permanent measure is subject to its own environmental review we'll consider the issues that are appropriate within that environmental review context >> okay. you heard from the mta director that, in fact, there maybe new stops that are currently not being used as
7:23 pm
stops new locations does that change our analysis in any way? >> i'm sorry, i didn't hear the middle part of your question. >> that the 2 hundred stops they're part of the pilot may include places where there are no places for constitutes but are new stops does that change our analysis. >> mta does not have a competitive inventory of stops being used by shuttles and there's no way to on that without designating stops for used by shuttles. identifying stops and moving them around is part of the experimental management effort that's been analyzed and proposed. again, i just respectfully
7:24 pm
disagree it's comical you're saying you don't know of the impacts because you don't know where the stops are going to be it belikewise the question how do you know there's no environmental impact since we don't know where the stops are going to be. let me ask you another question in the language of the section for the categorical exemption it talks about the elevation activity which does not result in a serious or major disturbance of a result i want to founded the process you have for the project does not result in a major disservice to an environmental resource let me ask you.
7:25 pm
if any muni riders interviewed were they interviewed as part that this analysis >> the mta harassed impaneled in a public effort to design this program they can speak to that. >> was there any interviews of muni riders in terms of the deciding who there was a serious major impact. >> supervisor campos through the chair. i'm not sure there was outreach to the operators for that specific question but in the process of developing the pilot we reached through all the aspects of the organizations of traffic engineers and the partners as well as the muni positions to understand what the potential impacts were and how we define the program
7:26 pm
>> again so i can clarify did you interview any muni riders? i'm sorry >> i'm sorry if i may. >> if you ride muni. >> i'm sorry if i may i'd like to have my staff speak to the substance of that. >> okay. >> good evening carli pain with the sfmta the project manager. i am ♪ communication with muni riders and other san franciscans very frequently about counterpart shuttles. i receive e-mails dribble and e-mails that members of the board of supervisors forward to me with concerns complaints and questions. and in that avenue i often am
7:27 pm
trying to resolve the problems but have been telling me here's our proposed solution that we agree there's a problem and the feedback is we're do glad sfmta is doing something and we've also been to public meetings to the sfmtas policy and governance committee and our citizen's advisory committee. in 2011 and 2012 describing the scope of the effort the information we've tried to collect and in 2013 here's the policy approach and again in 2014 here's the specific policy we've been to on the ta citizen's advisory committee and their plans and program committee describing the 2012
7:28 pm
and 2013, the for the >> let me ask it a different woo. eave heard and i see that as ground zero you talked about this where you visited people from the public >> we didn't have community meetings in addition spot politely we had a community meeting as part of the development of the staff network. >> but inometers in the castro or south of market before it was proposed. >> no, we didn't. >> in light of that how do you know since there's no communityometers how do he knows there's no serious or major disturbance to an environmental resource how do i know that. >> i'm going to defer to the planning department and the
7:29 pm
question of whether theres a serious or major disturbance whether it falls into the exemption class asking is one within the per view of the planning department and the environmental planning description of the department. the series or major disturbance is different than all the other language used in sequa and is specifically not saying any type of impact it is considered significant under sequa. the shuttle pilot program adds a temporary program involving detainment activity of moving vehicles within a network does not have a potential in and of itself to regulate the activity to result in lasting serious
7:30 pm
damage to any environmental resource that's the determination that we made on the basis of what was described in the project. there was nothing contributeables to the project that was described that will result in that level of damage >> let me ask it this way does the planning department building that the impacts on riders is a relevant analyze it doesn't matter what the riders think about this. >> the interaction of shuttle buses and riders is something to its something that will need to be considered under transportation analysis.