You are on page 1of 33

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

RICHARD T. DRURY (Cal. Bar No. 163559) MICHAEL R. LOZEAU (Cal. Bar No. 142893) REBECCA L. DAVIS (Cal. Bar. No. 271662) CHRISTINA M. CARO (Cal. Bar. No. 250797) LOZEAU | DRURY LLP 410 12th Street, Suite 250 Oakland, CA 94607 Tel: (510) 836-4200 Fax: (510) 836-4205 E-mail: richard@lozeaudrury.com rebecca@lozeaudrury.com Attorneys for Petitioners and Plaintiffs SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO COALITION FOR FAIR, LEGAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL TRANSIT, a non-profit unincorporated association; SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION LOCAL UNION 1021, an organized labor union; SARA SHORTT, an individual; and ELIZABETH ALEXANDER, an individual, Petitioners and Plaintiffs, vs. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, a municipal corporation; BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, governing body of the City and County of San Francisco; PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, a public entity; SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING DEPARTMENT, a public entity; MAYOR EDWIN M. LEE, in his official capacity; SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL TRANSPORTATION AGENCY, a public entity; BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL TRANSPORTATION AGENCY, a public entity; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Respondents and Defendants. Case No.: VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Pub. Res. Code 21000, et seq.; Code of Civil Procedure 1094.5, 1085) Dept: CEQA Case

1 VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL TRANSPORTATION AGENCY, a public entity; ALTRANS- TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION, INC., a California corporation; APPLE, INC., a California corporation; BAUERS INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION, INC., a California corporation; BLACK TIE TRANSPORTATION LLC, a California limited liability company; COMPASS TRANSPORTATION, INC., a California corporation; EL CAMINO CHARTER LINES, INC., a California corporation; GENENTECH, INC., a Delaware corporation; GOOGLE, INC., a Delaware Company; HORIZON COACH LINES PAYMASTER LLC, a California limited liability company; MCCARTHY COOK & CO., a Delaware corporation; MCLEAN CONSULTING SERVICES INC., a California corporation; MERCURY TOURS, a California corporation; MOBILITY PLUS TRANSPORTATION LLC, a California limited liability company; PENINSULA TRAFFIC CONGESTION RELIEF ALLIANCE, a joint powers authority; PURE LUXURY LIMOUSINE SERVICE, a California corporation; REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, governing body of the University of California; RIDEPAL, INC., a Delaware corporation; ROYAL COACH TOURS, a California corporation; the SAN FRANCISCO HEALTH COMMISSION, a public entity; SAN FRANCISCO MINIBUS CHARTER CO., a suspended California corporation; SFO SHUTTLE BUS COMPANY, a California corporation or corporate subsidiary; TRANSMETRO, a California corporation; WILLIAMS SONOMA, INC., a Delaware corporation; and ROES 1 through 100, inclusive, Real Parties in Interest and Defendants.

2 VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Petitioners and Plaintiffs COALITION FOR FAIR, LEGAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL TRANSIT, SAN FRANCISCANS AGAINST DISPLACEMENT, a non-profit unincorporated association; SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION LOCAL UNION 1021, an organized labor union; SARA SHORTT, an individual; and ELIZABETH ALEXANDER, an individual, (collectively, Petitioners) petition this Court on their own behalf, on behalf of their members, on behalf of the general public and in the public interest pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) 1094.5 and Public Resources Code (PRC) 21168, or, in the alternative, pursuant to CCP 1085 and PRC 21168.5, for a writ of mandate, and for declaratory and injunctive relief directed to Respondents and Defendants the CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, a municipal corporation; BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, governing body of the City and County of San Francisco; PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, a public entity; SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING DEPARTMENT, a public entity; MAYOR EDWIN M. LEE, in his official capacity; SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL TRANSPORTATION AGENCY, a public entity; BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL TRANSPORTATION AGENCY, a public entity; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, (collectively, Respondents or City), and Real Party in Interest and Defendant SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL TRANSPORTATION AGENCY (SFMTA). Petitioners are informed and believe, and thereupon allege, that real parties in interest to this action may include ALTRANS- TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION, INC., a California Corporation; APPLE, INC., a California company; BAUERS INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION, INC., a California Corporation; BLACK TIE TRANSPORTATION LLC, a California limited liability company; COMPASS TRANSPORTATION, INC., a California Corporation; EL CAMINO CHARTER LINES, INC., a California Corporation; GENENTECH, INC., a Delaware Company; GOOGLE, INC., a Delaware Company; HORIZON COACH LINES PAYMASTER LLC, a California limited liability company; MCCARTHY COOK & CO., a Delaware Corporation; MCLEAN CONSULTING SERVICES INC., a California Company; MERCURY TOURS, a California company; MOBILITY PLUS

3 VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

TRANSPORTATION LLC, a California limited liability company; PENINSULA TRAFFIC CONGESTION RELIEF ALLIANCE, a joint powers authority; PURE LUXURY LIMOUSINE SERVICE, a California Corporation; REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, governing body of the University of California; RIDEPAL, INC., a Delaware Corporation; ROYAL COACH TOURS, a California corporation; the SAN FRANCISCO HEALTH COMMISSION, a public entity; SAN FRANCISCO MINIBUS CHARTER CO., a suspended California Corporation; SFO SHUTTLE BUS COMPANY, a California corporation or corporate subsidiary; TRANSMETRO, a California Corporation; WILLIAMS SONOMA, INC., a Delaware corporation; and ROES 1 through 100, inclusive, (collectively, Real Parties). By this verified petition and complaint (Petition), Petitioners allege as follows: INTRODUCTION 1. Petitioners bring this action to challenge the April 1, 2014 decision of Respondent

Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Franciscos (Board) approval of the proposed Commuter Shuttle Pilot Program (Shuttle Project or Project) proposed by the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA), and issuance of a categorical exemption for the Project, illegally exempting the Project from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Pub. Res. Code (PRC) 21000, et seq. In doing so, the Board voted to uphold the January 21, 2014 decision of the Respondent Board of Directors of the SFMTA approving Resolution No. 14-023: (1) issuing a categorical exemption for the Project, (2) approving the Project, and (3) amending Division II of the Transportation Code to authorize the Project, and the decision of Respondent San Francisco Planning Department finding the Project to be exempt from CEQA review (collectively, the Project Approval). 2. The Shuttle Project establishes a pilot permit program to authorize certain private

commuter shuttle buses to stop in bus stops designated for San Franciscos Municipal transit system (MUNI) for the purpose of loading or unloading passengers, and establishing a fee for such permits, and penalties for permit violations. These shuttles are closed systems that provide service to a specific population and are not open to the general public. 3. Prior to Project Approval, most private commuter shuttle buses were acting

4 VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

illegally, using public bus stops (MUNI stops) to load and unload passengers in violation of State law and the San Francisco Municipal Code. MUNI stops are designated by a red curb, which prohibits parking and stopping by private vehicles, including commuter shuttles. 4. On an average weekday, these illegal commuter shuttles (Illegal Shuttles) have

more than 35,000 boardings per day, on more than 350 shuttle vehicles, and use more than 200 MUNI stops around the City. 5. The City has allowed these Illegal Shuttles to operate illegally. While California

Vehicle Code 22500 prohibits use of MUNI stops by private vehicles and requires a minimum fine of $100, the City is not actively enforcing the state law against the Illegal Shuttles. Inconsistent with this provision of state law, the Shuttle Project allows Illegal Shuttles to obtain a permit that would allow shuttles to use over 200 designated MUNI stops for a fee of only $1 per stop, per day. 6. As part of the Project, the City plans to solicit input from shuttle service providers

and the public about which stops to include in the Project. SFMTA would then select approximately 200 Muni stops for shared use. 7. A shuttle bus program that involves 35,000 daily boardings, 350 vehicles, and

over 200 stops, requires CEQA review to determine the environmental impacts of the program, to determine ways to mitigate those impacts, and to analyze alternative routes, vehicles and fuels that would minimize the impacts of the Project. Indeed, the City is currently conducting CEQA review for SFMTAs own Transit Effectiveness Project, which involves re-routing certain MUNI lines and other measures. (http://www.sfmta.com/projects-planning/projects/tep-transiteffectiveness-project.) 8. Nevertheless, while the City is conducting full CEQA review for MUNIs own

Transit Effectiveness Project, the City at the same time decided to exempt the private Illegal Shuttles entirely from all CEQA review. Rather than preparing an EIR (or even a negative declaration), Respondents instead issued a Notice of Exemption for the Shuttle Project. 9. In exempting the Shuttle Project from CEQA review, the City relied on the Class

6 Information Collection categorical exemption (14 CCR 15306). The Citys decision to

5 VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

exempt the Shuttle Project from CEQA review based on the Class 6 Exemption was inconsistent with the terms of the exemption and was not supported by substantial evidence. 10. The Class 6 Exemption, on its face, is not applicable to the Project because the

Project does not meet the criteria for the exemption because the Shuttle Project involves much more than mere information collection, including changing the location of shuttle stops and authorizing activities currently illegal under State law. 11. Respondents reliance on a categorical exemption to approve the Project was also

improper because substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that the Project will result in significant environmental impacts, including air pollution, impacts to pedestrian and bicyclist safety, delays to public transportation systems, and displacement of low and moderateincome members of the community that live and work in areas near proposed shuttle stops. These types of environmental impacts do not usually occur as a result of information collection activities. 12. By failing to perform any CEQA review of the Project, by issuing a categorical

exemption for the Project, and by adopting amendments to the San Francisco Transportation Code in a manner inconsistent with the California Vehicle Code, Respondents failed to proceed in a manner required by law. PARTIES Petitioners and Plaintiffs 13. Petitioner and Plaintiff COALITION FOR FAIR, LEGAL AND

ENVIRONMENTAL TRANSIT (Coalition), is a non-profit unincorporated association based in the City and County of San Francisco, and comprised of San Francisco residents who are concerned about gentrification and displacement in San Francisco, which is fueled in part by the Illegal Shuttles. Coalition members have watched as long-time low and middle-income residents of San Francisco have been displaced by wealthy technology workers, many of whom ride the Illegal Shuttles to and from work in the South Bay. The Coalition is concerned about the failure of the City to conduct CEQA review for the Shuttle Project to analyze and mitigate impacts including displacement, air pollution, pedestrian and bicycle safety impacts and other impacts.

6 VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Members of the Coalition presented comments to the Board of Supervisors requesting review of the Project under CEQA. The interests of the Coalition are unique, will be directly impacted by the Project, and are not adequately represented by other parties. 14. SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL UNION 1021

("SEIU Local 1021"), is a non-profit public and private service employees' union with over 6,000 members living in the City and County of San Francisco. SEIU Local 1021 is concerned that its members are being forced out of the City in part as a result of Illegal Shuttles. SEIU Local 1021 is also concerned that its members are being exposed to air pollution, pedestrian and bicycle safety risks, and other impacts of the Shuttle Project. SEIU Local 1021 and many of its members urged the City to conduct CEQA review of the Shuttle Project to analyze and mitigate these impacts. The interests of SEIU Local 1021 members are unique and will be directly impacted by the Project. Their interests are not adequately represented by other parties. 15. Petitioner and Plaintiff SARA SHORTT is a concerned citizen who resides in the

City and County of San Francisco, California. Ms. Shortt presented written and oral comments to the City during the administrative process on the matters being challenged in the Petition. Ms. Shortt is deeply concerned with the impacts of the Shuttle Project, including displacement of low and moderate income persons, air pollution, pedestrian and bicycle safety risks, and interference with MUNI buses. Ms. Shortt urged the City to conduct CEQA review of the Project to analyze and mitigate these impacts. 16. Petitioner and Plaintiff ELIZABETH ALEXANDER is a concerned citizen who

resides in the City and County of San Francisco, California. Ms. Alexander has a direct and beneficial interest in Respondents compliance with the laws bearing upon approval of the Project. Ms. Alexander has been and will be directly and adversely affected by Respondents approval of the Project and the significant and unmitigated environmental impacts relating to the Citys illegal approval of the Project in violation of CEQA. Ms. Alexander is concerned about displacement of low and moderate income workers and residents of San Francisco as a result of the Illegal Shuttles. She is also concerned about exposure to air pollution, pedestrian and bicycle safety risks, and other impacts of the Shuttle Project.

7 VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Respondents and Defendants 17. Respondent and Defendant CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO (City

and County) is a municipal corporation in whose jurisdiction the proposed project will be located, with its headquarters in San Francisco, California. The City and County has principal responsibility for determining whether projects within its jurisdiction are consistent with the City and Countys General Plan, Land Use Ordinances, and other applicable laws. 18. Respondent and Defendant BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE CITY AND

COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO (Board) serves as the legislative body of the City and County of San Francisco for the planning and provision of services related to public needs and the requirements of state laws. As the elected representatives of the people of San Francisco City and County, the Board establishes overall city and county priorities and sets policy. Respondent Board is the governing body of the City and County and is ultimately responsible for reviewing and approving or denying the Project. The Board and its members are sued here in their official capacities. The Board voted on April 1, 2014 to approve the Project and to exempt the Project entirely from all CEQA review. 19. Respondent and Defendant PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY AND

COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO (Planning Commission) is a commission of the City and County of San Francisco, with jurisdiction to approve prior to issuance all permits and licenses dependent on, or affected by, the Planning Code administers by the Planning Department. Planning Commission members are appointed by the Mayor and the President of the Board of Supervisors to help plan for growth and development in San Francisco, and advise the Mayor, City Council and City departments on San Francisco's long-range goals, policies and programs on a broad array of issues related to land use, transportation, and neighborhood planning. Additionally, the Planning Commission has specific responsibility for the stewardship and maintenance of the San Francisco's General Plan. The Planning Commission and its members are sued here in their official capacities. 20. Respondent and Defendant SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING DEPARTMENT

(Planning Department) is a local agency of the City and County of San Francisco. The

8 VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Planning Department provides guidance and oversight to the SFMTA on all CEQA environmental review processes. The Planning Department issued a Categorical Exemption on January 9, 2014, finding the Project exempt from CEQA review under CEQAs Class 6, Information Collection categorical exemption (14 CCR 15306). The Planning Department and its members are sued here in their official capacities. 21. Respondent and Defendant MAYOR EDWIN M. LEE (Mayor Lee) is the chief

executive officer and the official representative of the City and County. The Mayor has responsibility for general administration and oversight of all departments and governmental units in the executive branch of the City and County, as well as coordination of all intergovernmental activities of the City and County. The Mayor has oversight over the City and Countys determination of whether projects within its jurisdiction are consistent with the City and Countys General Plan, Land Use Ordinances, and other applicable laws, including the Shuttle Project. Mayor Lee is sued herein in his official capacity. 22. Respondent, Real Party in Interest, and Defendant SAN FRANCISCO

MUNICIPAL TRANSPORTATION AGENCY (SFMTA) is a local governmental agency of the City and County of San Francisco, overseeing the MUNI, parking and traffic, bicycling, walking and taxis. The SFMTA is the lead agency (the public agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project) for CEQA purposes. On January 8, 2014, under the authority delegated by the Planning Department, the SFMTA determined that the Project was exempt from environmental review pursuant to 14 CCR 15306 as a Class 6, Information Collection categorical exemption. The SFMTA is also the Project Applicant and is listed as the Project Applicant on the Notice of Exemption filed by the Board of Supervisors following Project approval. The SFMTA and its members are sued herein in their official capacities. 23. Respondent and Defendant BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SAN

FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL TRANSPORTATION AGENCY (SFMTA Board) is a policymaking body appointed by the Mayor that establishes the policies by which the SFMTA operates, and that has the authority to approve the SFMTA budget and set SFMTA policy. On

9 VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

January 21, 2014, the SFMTA Board adopted Resolution No. 14-023, which included: (1) SFMTAs approval of the Project; (2) approval of the January 8, 2014 SFMTA determination that the Project is exempt from environmental review pursuant to the Class 6 exemptions (14 CCR 15306; (3) approval of the January 9, 2014 City Planning Department concurrence with SFMTAs CEQA Determination (CEQA Concurrence); and (4) the approval of a motion to suspend Article 4, Section 10 of the SFMTA Board of Directors Rules of Order regarding published notice for implementation of the Project; and (5) amending Transportation Code, Division II to authorize the Shuttle Project. The SFMTA Board and its members are sued herein in their official capacities. 24. Petitioners do not know the true names and capacities, whether individual,

corporate, associate, or otherwise, of Respondents and Defendants Doe 1 through Doe 10, inclusive, and therefore sue said Respondents under fictitious names. Petitioners will amend this Petition to show their true names and capacities when the same have been ascertained. Each of these respondents is the agent and/or employee of Respondent County, and each performed acts on which this action is based within the course and scope of such Respondents agency and/or employment. Additional Real Parties in Interest 25. Real Party in Interest and Defendant ALTRANS- TRANSPORTATION

MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION, INC. (ALTRANS) is a California corporation with its headquarters in San Jose, California. ALTRANS is a Transportation Demand Management company that specializes in the development and implementation of Vehicle Trip reduction Program services. Petitioners are informed and believe and thereby allege that ALTRANS currently operates commuter shuttle buses in and around the City and County of San Francisco and may apply for a permit under the Project. 26. Real Party in Interest and Defendant APPLE, INC. is a California Company, with

its headquarters in Cupertino, California. Petitioners are informed and believe and thereby allege that Real Party in Interest and Defendant APPLE, INC. currently operates its own commuter shuttle buses in and around the City and County of San Francisco and may apply for a permit

10 VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

under the Project. 27. Real Party in Interest and Defendant BAUERS INTELLIGENT

TRANSPORTATION, INC. (BAUERS) is a California Corporation with its headquarters in San Francisco, California. BAUERS is a luxury ground transportation company. Petitioners are informed and believe and thereupon allege that BAUERS currently operates commuter shuttle buses in and around the City and County of San Francisco and may apply for a permit under the Project. 28. Real Party in Interest and Defendant BLACK TIE TRANSPORTATION LLC is a

California Limited Liability Company that provides limousine and shuttle services. Petitioners are informed and believe and thereupon allege that BLACK TIE TRANSPORTATION LLC currently operates commuter shuttle buses in and around the City and County of San Francisco and may apply for a permit under the Project. 29. Real Party in Interest and Defendant COMPASS TRANSPORTATION, INC.

(COMPASS) is a California Corporation with its headquarters in South San Francisco, California. COMPASS is a provider of corporate-sponsored employee commuter shuttle services in the San Francisco Bay Area. COMPASS is owned by SuperShuttle, a subsidiary of Veolia Transportation. Petitioners are informed and believe and thereupon allege that COMPASS currently operates commuter shuttle buses in and around the City and County of San Francisco and may apply for a permit under the Project. 30. Real Party in Interest and Defendant EL CAMINO CHARTER LINES, INC. is a

California Corporation headquartered in South San Francisco. EL CAMINO CHARTER LINES, INC. provides charter buses for the San Francisco Bay Area. Petitioners are informed and believe and thereupon allege that EL CAMINO CHARTER LINES, INC. currently operates commuter shuttle buses in and around the City and County of San Francisco and may apply for a permit under the Project. 31. Real Party in Interest and Defendant GENENTECH, INC. is a Delaware

Company, with its headquarters in South San Francisco, California. Petitioners are informed and believe and thereupon allege that Real Party in Interest and Defendant GENENTECH, INC.

11 VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

currently operates its own commuter shuttle buses in and around the City and County of San Francisco and may apply for a permit under the Project. 32. Real Party in Interest and Defendant GOOGLE, INC. is a Delaware Corporation,

with its headquarters in Mountain View, California. Petitioners are informed and believe and thereupon allege that Real Party in Interest and Defendant GOOGLE, INC. currently operates its own commuter shuttle buses in and around the City and County of San Francisco and may apply for a permit under the Project. 33. Real Party in Interest and Defendant HORIZON COACH LINES PAYMASTER

LLC (HORIZON) is a California limited liability company. HORIZON is a fully owned subsidiary of TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. dba MARYLAND TMS, INC., a Maryland corporation. Petitioners are informed and believe and thereupon allege that HORIZON currently operates commuter shuttle buses in and around the City and County of San Francisco and may apply for a permit under the Project. 34. Real Party in Interest and Defendant MCCARTHY COOK & CO. is a Delaware

corporation, with offices located in San Francisco and Los Angeles, California. Petitioners are informed and believe and thereupon allege that MCCARTHY COOK & CO. currently operates commuter shuttle buses in and around the City and County of San Francisco and may apply for a permit under the Project. 35. Real Party in Interest and Defendant MCLEAN CONSULTING SERVICES INC.

is a California Company, with its headquarters in Campbell, California. Petitioners are informed and believe and thereupon allege that MCLEAN CONSULTING SERVICES INC. currently operates commuter shuttle buses in and around the City and County of San Francisco and may apply for a permit under the Project. 36. Real Party in Interest and Defendant MERCURY TOURS is a California

corporation located in South San Francisco, California. Petitioners are informed and believe and thereupon allege that MERCURY TOURS currently operates commuter shuttle buses in and around the City and County of San Francisco and may apply for a permit under the Project. 37. Real Party in Interest and Defendant MOBILITY PLUS TRANSPORTATION

12 VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

LLC is a California limited liability company with its headquarters in Martinez, California, that provides passenger transportation services. Petitioners are informed and believe and thereupon allege that MOBILITY PLUS TRANSPORTATION LLC currently operates commuter shuttle buses in and around the City and County of San Francisco and may apply for a permit under the Project. 38. Real Party in Interest and Defendant PENINSULA TRAFFIC CONGESTION

RELIEF ALLIANCE is a public agency organized as a Joint Powers Authority governed by a board of 18 elected officials, one from each of the 17 Alliance member cities and the County of San Mateo, California. Petitioners are informed and believe and thereupon allege that PENINSULA TRAFFIC CONGESTION RELIEF ALLIANCE currently operates commuter shuttle buses in and around the City and County of San Francisco and may apply for a permit under the Project. 39. Real Party in Interest and Defendant PURE LUXURY LIMOUSINE SERVICE is

a California Corporation, with its headquarters in Petaluma, California. Petitioners are informed and believe and thereupon allege that PURE LUXURY LIMOUSINE SERVICE currently operates commuter shuttle buses in and around the City and County of San Francisco and may apply for a permit under the Project. 40. Real Party in Interest and Defendant the REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF

CALIFORNIA (REGENTS) is the governing body of the University of California. The REGENTS govern the University of California, including the San Francisco campus of the University of California (UCSF). Petitioners are informed and believe and thereupon allege that UCSF currently operates commuter shuttle buses in and around the City and County of San Francisco and may apply for a permit under the Project. 41. Real Party in Interest and Defendant RIDEPAL, INC. is a Delaware corporation,

with its headquarters in San Francisco, California. Petitioners are informed and believe and thereupon allege that RIDEPAL, INC. currently operates commuter shuttle buses in and around the City and County of San Francisco and may apply for a permit under the Project. 42. Real Party in Interest and Defendant ROYAL COACH TOURS is a California

13 VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

corporation, with its headquarters in San Jose, California. Petitioners are informed and believe and thereupon allege that ROYAL COACH TOURS currently operates commuter shuttle buses in and around the City and County of San Francisco and may apply for a permit under the Project. 43. Real Party in Interest and Defendant the SAN FRANCISCO HEALTH

COMMISSION is the governing and policy-making body of the San Francisco Department of Public Health, and manages and controls the City and County hospitals, including the San Francisco General Hospital and Trauma Center. Petitioners are informed and believe and thereupon allege that San Francisco General Hospital and Trauma Center currently operates commuter shuttle buses in and around the City of San Francisco, and may apply for a permit under the Project. 44. Real Party in Interest and Defendant SAN FRANCISCO MINIBUS CHARTER

CO. is a suspended California corporation, with its headquarters in San Francisco, California. Petitioners are informed and believe and thereupon allege that SAN FRANCISCO MINIBUS CHARTER CO. currently operates commuter shuttle buses in and around the City and County of San Francisco and may apply for a permit under the Project. 45. Petitioners are informed and believe, and thereupon allege that Real Party in

Interest and Defendant SFO SHUTTLE BUS COMPANY is a California corporation or corporate subsidiary, with its headquarters in San Francisco, California. Petitioners are informed and believe and thereupon allege that SFO SHUTTLE BUS COMPANY currently operates commuter shuttle buses in and around the City and County of San Francisco and may apply for a permit under the Project. 46. Real Party in Interest and Defendant TRANSMETRO is a California corporation,

with its headquarters in Sam Francisco, California. Petitioners are informed and believe and thereupon allege that TRANSMETRO currently operates commuter shuttle buses in and around the City and County of San Francisco and may apply for a permit under the Project. 47. Real Party in Interest and Defendant WILLIAMS SONOMA, INC. is a Delaware

corporation, with its headquarters in San Francisco, California. Petitioners are informed and

14 VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

believe and thereupon allege that WILLIAMS SONOMA, INC. currently operates commuter shuttle buses in and around the City and County of San Francisco and may apply for a permit under the Project. 48. Petitioners do not know the true names and capacities, whether individual,

corporate, associate, or otherwise, of Real Parties and Defendants Roe 1 through Roe 100, inclusive, and therefore sue said Real Parties under fictitious names. Petitioners will amend this Petition to show their true names and capacities when the same have been ascertained. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 49. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to CCP 526 (injunctive

relief), 1060 (declaratory relief), 1085 (traditional mandate), and 1094.5 (administrative mandate); PRC 21168 and 21168.5 (judicial review under CEQA). The Court has jurisdiction to issue declaratory relief pursuant to CCP 1060 and injunctive relief pursuant to CCP 525 et seq. 50. Venue is proper pursuant to CCP 393 (actions against public officers), 394

(actions against a city, county or local agency), and 395 (actions generally) because the Respondents include a local agency of the State of California, and public officers of a local agency of the State of California. Venue is proper in this Court because the causes of action alleged in this Petition arose in the County of San Francisco and the Project will occur within the County of San Francisco and the environmental impacts of the Project will be acutely felt within the County. (CCP 393, 394, 395; Cal. State Parks Foundation v. Super. Ct. (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 826.) 51. This petition is timely filed within all applicable statutes of limitations. This

action is timely under CEQA because it is filed within 35 days of the Notice of Exemption filed by the City, and within 30 days of the Countys April 1, 2014 decision upholding the SFMTAs Project Approval. (PRC 21167(b), (c), (e); 14 CCR 15112(c)(1).) 52. Petitioners performed all conditions precedent to filing this action by complying

with the requirements of PRC 21167.5 by serving prior notice of the complaint in this action. A copy of the written notice and proof of service is attached as Exhibit A to the Petition in this

15 VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

action. 53. Pursuant to PRC 21167.6(b), Petitioners have elected to prepare the record of

proceedings in this matter, and are simultaneously filing their notice of intent to prepare said record of proceedings with this complaint. A true and correct copy of Petitioners Notice of Intent to Prepare Record is attached to this complaint as Exhibit B. 54. Petitioners will provide notice of this action to the Attorney General of the State

of California, by serving a copy of this Petition along with a notice of its filing, as required by PRC 21167.7 and CCP 388. 55. Petitioners have no plain, speedy or adequate remedy in the course of ordinary

law unless this Court grants the requested writ of mandate to require Respondents to set aside their exemption determination, approval of the Project, and amendment of the Transportation Code in violation of State law. In the absence of such remedies, Respondents decision will remain in effect in violation of state law. PREEMPTION OF PROJECT BY STATE LAW 56. The California Vehicle Code preempts the Shuttle Project, and the Citys adoption

of the Project violates the California Constitution. 57. According to the Citys own Budget and Legislative Analyst (BLA) and City

Attorney, under the State Vehicle Code, stopping and loading or unloading passengers in a bus zone is illegal for any buses other than those operated by Muni or other transit systems so authorized by SFMTA. 58. The prohibition against private shuttles and vehicles stopping in bus zones is

codified in Division 11, Chapter 9, Section 22500(i) of the California Vehicle Code: No person shall stop, park, or leave standing any vehicle whether attended or unattended, except when necessary to avoid conflict with other traffic or in compliance with the directions of a peace officer or official traffic control devise, in any of the following places: (i) Except as provided under Section 22500.5, 12 alongside curb space authorized for the loading and unloading of passengers of a bus engaged as a common carrier in local

16 VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

transportation when indicated by a sign or red paint on the curb erected or painted by local authorities pursuant to an ordinance. 59. Common carriers in local transportation, as cited in the Vehicle Code

22500(i) above, are not defined in the Vehicle Code. However, the Public Utilities Code defines common carriers as entities that provide transportation to the public or any portion thereof for compensation. This definition appears to exclude shuttles as they are not available to the public for compensation but are restricted to private groups such as a companys employees in the case of regional commuter shuttles. 60. Vehicle Code 21 provides: Except as otherwise expressly provided, the provisions of this code are applicable and uniform throughout the State and in all counties and municipalities therein, and no local authority shall enact or enforce any ordinance on the matters covered by this code unless expressly authorized herein. 61. Vehicle Code 42001.5 imposes a minimum $250 fine on a person convicted

of violating Vehicle Code 22500. Vehicle Code 42001.5(b) provides that the fine cannot be suspended, except that the court can waive anything above $100, meaning the minimum fine allowed under state law is $100. 62. Article XI, 7 of the California Constitution provides that A county or City may

make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws. 63. The California Supreme Court has specifically held that cities (including charter

cities) may not enact ordinances that violate the State Vehicle Code. OConnell v. City of Stockton (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1061, 1074. 64. The Shuttle Project expressly allows private shuttle operators to stop in public bus

stops if they make a payment of $1, an action that is expressly prohibited by State law. 65. Since the Shuttle Project is illegal under State law, the City is without power to

authorize the Project. By amending the Citys Transportation Ordinance, the City attempted to

17 VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

make legal activities that are illegal under State law, and in doing so violated the State Constitution. 66. By approving the Project and amending the Citys Transportation Ordinance, the

City failed to proceed in a manner required by law.

CEQA LEGAL BACKGROUND 67. CEQA mandates that the long-term protection of the environment . . . shall be

the guiding criterion in public decisions throughout California. PRC 21001(d). 68. CEQA is intended to provide the fullest possible protection to the environment.

CEQA requires that a lead agency prepare and certify an EIR for any discretionary project that may have a significant adverse effect on the environment. (PRC 21002.1(a), 21100(a), 21151(a); 14 CCR 15064(a)(1), (f)(1), 15367 (lead agency is the public agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project).) [CEQA] requires the preparation of an EIR whenever it can be fairly argued on the basis of substantial evidence that the project may have a significant environmental impact. (No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 75; see Friends of B Street v. City of Hayward (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 988, 1002; PRC 21080(c)-(d). ) The fair argument standard establishes a low threshold for requiring the preparation of an EIR. (No Oil, Inc., 13 Cal.3d at 75; Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 310.) 69. Impacts to human health are significant under CEQA. A project has significant

impact under CEQA if it will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. (PRC 21083(b)(3).) 70. The purpose of an [EIR] is to provide public agencies and the public in general

with detailed information about the effect which a proposed project is likely to have on the environment; to list ways in which the significant effects of such a project might be minimized; and to indicate alternatives to such a project. (PRC 21061; see also 21002.1.) An EIR serves not only to protect the environment but also to demonstrate to the public that it is being protected. (14 CCR 15003(b).) The EIR process protects not only the environment but also

18 VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

informed self-government. (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 392.) The EIR process will enable the public to determine the environmental and economic values of their elected and appointed officials thus allowing for appropriate action come election day should a majority of voters disagree. (People v. County of Kern (1974) 39 Cal.App.3d 830, 842.) 71. A project is the whole of an action directly undertaken, supported, or

authorized by a public agency which may cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. (PRC 21065; 14 CCR 15378(a).) For this reason, CEQA is concerned with an actions ultimate impact on the environment. (Bozung v. LAFCO (1975) 13 Cal.3d 263, 283.) CEQA requires environmental factors be considered at the earliest possible stage . . . before [the project] gains irreversible momentum, (Id. at 277), at a point in the planning process where genuine flexibility remains. (Sundstrom v. Mendocino County (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 307.) 72. CEQA identifies certain classes of projects, called categorical exemptions, which

are exempt from the provisions of CEQA. (PRC 21084(a);14 CCR 15300, 15354.) Categorical exemptions are certain classes of activities that generally do not have a significant effect on the environment. (Id.) Public agencies utilizing such exemptions must support their determination with substantial evidence. (PRC 21168.5) 73. Exemptions to CEQA, are narrowly construed and [e]xemption categories are

not to be expanded beyond the reasonable scope of their statutory language. (Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish & Game Com. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 105, 125.) A reviewing court must scrupulously enforce all legislatively mandated CEQA requirements. (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Bd. of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 564.) 74. In addition to the limitation that categorical exemptions be narrowly construed,

CEQA also provides an unusual circumstances exception to categorical exemptions. CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2, subdivision (c) provides, A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. [A] categorical exemption represents

19 VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

a determination that a particular project does not have a significant effect on the environment. (PRC 21084.) It follows that an activity that may have a significant effect on the environment cannot be categorically exempt. (Mountain Lion Foundation, 16 Cal.4th at 124.) 75. The test for whether a project presents unusual circumstances is whether the

circumstances of a particular project (i) differ from the general circumstances of the projects covered by a particular categorical exemption, and (ii) those circumstances create an environmental risk that does not exist for the general class of exempt projects. (Azusa Land Reclamation Co. v. Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 1165, 1207.) 76. In determining the existence of an unusual circumstance, courts look to whether

additional environmental risks are presented by the proposed project. (Assn for Protection of Envtl. Values v. City of Ukiah (1991) 2 Cal. App. 4th 720.) Additionally, the scope and size of a project can be a potential unusual circumstance. (Voices for Rural Living v. El Dorado Irrigation Dist. (2012) 209 Cal. App. 4th 1096, 1108-14). 77. Erroneous reliance by the City on a categorical exemption constitutes a

prejudicial abuse of discretion and a violation of CEQA. (Azusa Land Reclamation Co. v. Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 1165, 1192.) 78. Under CEQA, abuse of discretion is established if the agency has not proceeded

in a manner required by law or if the determination or decision is not supported by substantial evidence. (PRC 21168.5.) Substantial evidence is defined as enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached. (14 CCR 15384(a).) Substantial evidence includes facts, reasonable assumptions predicated on facts, and expert opinion supported by facts; however, it does not include argument, speculation, or unsubstantiated opinion or narrative. (PRC 21080(e), 21082.2(c).) 79. Respondents are proceeding with implementation of the Shuttle Project.

Implementation of the Project will irreparably harm the environment in that the Project will commence and/or continue to release pollution and degrade air quality without adequate mitigations, and present risks to pedestrian and bicycle safety, and result in displacement of

20 VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

members of the community without sufficient mitigations and management practices in place, resulting in significant environmental impacts to Petitioners and their members. A temporary restraining order and preliminary and permanent injunctions should issue restraining Respondents from proceeding with the Project relying upon the exemption.

CEQA STATEMENT OF FACTS 80. The City abused its discretion and violated CEQA by exempting the Shuttle

Project from environmental review. 81. On January 21, 2014, the SFMTA Board of Directors approved the Project and

adopted a Notice of Exemption (NOE), contending that the Shuttle Project was exempt entirely from all CEQA review pursuant to the Class 6 Exemption (14 CCR 15306) for Information Collection activities. The CEQA Guidelines state: Class 6 consists of basic data collection, research, experimental management and resource evaluation activities which do not result in a serious or major disturbance to an environmental resources. These may be strictly for information gathering purposes, or as part of a study leading to an action which a public agency has not yet approved, adopted, or funded. (14 CCR 15306.) 82. On April 1, 2014, the Board of Supervisors approved the Project by affirming the

SFMTA Boards Approval Action, including the determination that the Project is exempt from environmental review. The City approved the exemption on the basis that the project consists of basic data collection, research, experimental management, and resource evaluation activities which do not result in a serious or major disturbance to an environmental resources. (Board NOE, p. 2.) 83. The Class 6 Information Collection exemption, on its face, is not applicable to the

Shuttle Project because it is not an information collection activity, and because the Project will result in a serious or major disturbance to an environmental resource. 84. The Shuttle Project goes far beyond mere information collection. Common

examples of Class 6 exemptions include scientific research projects involving test wells, water

21 VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

quality surveys, and similar limited research projects. 85. The Citys own guidance document, Categorical Exemptions from CEQA,

provides that the Information Collection exemption is for the most part non-physical, but it also includes such activities as test borings; soil, water, and vegetation sampling; and materials testing in facilities and structures. (Categorical Exemptions from CEQA, Revised and Adopted by the San Francisco Planning Commission, Resolution No. 14952, August 17, 2000, p. 13.) 86. In contrast to these basic information collection activities discussed in the Citys

CEQA guidance document, the Shuttle Project is a full-scale commuter shuttle program involving over 200 stops throughout the City, having more than 35,000 boardings each day. 87. By approving the Project under the information collection exemption, the City

violated CEQAs mandate that categorical exemptions are construed narrowly and are limited to their terms. (Castaic Lake Water Agency v. City of Santa Clarita (1995) 41 Cal.App.4th 1257, 1268.) 88. Furthermore, on its face, the Class 6 exemption does not apply if the activity will

result in a serious or major disturbance to an environmental resource. (14 CCR 15306.) Expert analysis in the record supports a fair argument that the Project has significant impacts on air quality, cancer risk, traffic, pedestrian and bicycle safety, and displacement. As such, the Class 6 exemption does not apply by its own terms. The Citys decision to exempt the Shuttle Project from CEQA review based on the Class 6 exemption was inconsistent with the terms of the exemption and not supported by substantial evidence. 89. Not only does the Class 6 exemption not apply based on its terms, the exemption

is also inapplicable to the Project because an activity that may have a significant effect on the environment cannot be categorically exempt. (Salmon Protectors v. County of Marin (2004) 125 Cal.App.4th 1098, 1107.) 90. Even assuming, arguendo, that the Shuttle Project did fall under the terms of the

Class 6 exemption, CEQAs unusual circumstances exception prohibited use of a categorical exemption. A categorical exemption cannot be used for an activity where there is a reasonable

22 VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. (14 CCR 15300.2(c).) 91. The Project is not exempt because there is a fair argument that the Project will

have significant impacts due to unusual circumstances. 92. The Shuttle Project is unusual because of the scale and type of project, and

because it presents additional environmental risks not normally caused by information collection projects. 93. Specifically, collecting data does not usually involve the moving of more than

350 shuttle vehicles, having more than 35,000 boardings every day. The scale of the Shuttle Project is an unusual circumstance, in that it is larger than many transit programs for small cities. The Shuttle Project is also an unusual circumstance because the Project is illegal under State law. 94. Further, it is an unusual circumstance that the Shuttle Project will produce air

pollution, increase cancer risks, have the potential to displace low and moderate-income workers, and impact pedestrian and bicyclist safety. Most information collection projects, such as soil, water and vegetation sampling, do not have these impacts. 95. Basic data collection and resource evaluation activities are normally

performed by professional staff, and usually provide data from which environmental decisions can be made. Usually, such activities do not have significant environmental impacts. 96. Substantial evidence in the record demonstrates that there is a reasonable

possibility that the Shuttle Project will have a significant effect on the environment due to these unusual circumstances, thereby precluding reliance on the Class 6 Exemption. Air Quality Impacts 97. The City failed to analyze the potentially significant emissions of diesel engine

exhaust produced as a result of the Shuttle Project. An EIR must analyze the health consequences that necessarily result from the identified adverse air quality impacts. (Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th at 121920.)

23 VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

98.

Atmospheric scientists from Soil, Water, Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE)

conducted a detailed analysis of diesel engine exhaust generated by the Shuttle Project. SWAPE analyzed six different exposure scenarios involving various bus idle times and distances from the buses to nearby residential properties. According to SWAPE, residents living near shuttle stops will experience an increased cancer risk of approximately 12 per million as a direct result of the Shuttle Project. This increase exceeds by 20% the Bay Area Air Quality Management Districts (BAAQMD) CEQA significance threshold for airborne cancer risks of 10 per million. 99. Certified traffic engineer Tom Brohard, PE, concluded that the Shuttle Project is

likely to increase idle times, which would in turn produce greater emissions of diesel engine exhaust. Currently, shuttle operators often attempt to clear MUNI red zones quickly to avoid substantial tickets. Since the Shuttle Project purports to make it legal for private shuttles to block public bus stops, the shuttles are likely to stop and idle at the bus stops for longer periods of time. 100. Since the Shuttle Project will create a cancer risk that exceeds the formally

adopted BAAQMD CEQA significance threshold, this impact must be analyzed under CEQA so that mitigation measures can be developed. Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety 101. Despite substantial evidence in the record, the City failed to analyze the risks to

pedestrians and bicyclists presented by the Shuttle Project. Human Impact Partners, a non-profit public policy research organization, prepared a detailed analysis of the Project, and concluded that it will have significant adverse impacts on human health related to pedestrian and bicycle safety. 102. The large commuter shuttles often block MUNI stops, bike lanes, and cross-

walks, forcing pedestrians boarding buses and crossing streets into traffic lanes. Substantial evidence in the record demonstrates that this has resulted in increased pedestrian and bicycle safety impacts that must be analyzed and mitigated under CEQA.

24 VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Delays to Public Transportation 103. Despite substantial evidence in the record, the City failed to analyze the Projects

impacts on and delays to public transportation as a result of the Project. 104. Observations by a San Francisco County Transportation Authority consultant at

15 bus zones used by shuttles and MUNI vehicles found an average of .48 conflicts occurred every hour in which either a MUNI vehicle or a shuttle could not access the bus zone because they were blocked by the other. These and other impacts to the public transportation system must be analyzed and mitigated under CEQA. Displacement of People 105. A project has significant impacts requiring CEQA review if it will displace

substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing. (CEQA Guidelines, App. G, Section XII.) 106. The Shuttle Project is likely to displace numerous residents and commuters who

currently live, work, commute, and recreate in the areas proposed for Shuttle stops, and replace them with workers from the private technical companies sponsoring the shuttles, who are wealthier and less likely to come from communities of color. (See Kamala Harris, Attorney General, Environmental Justice at the Local and Regional Level, May 9, 2012.) 107. The record contains several studies, constituting substantial evidence that the

Shuttle Project results in displacement of low and moderate-income residents by higher-income shuttle riders, and that rents near shuttle stops rise much faster than in other areas. 108. From 2011 through 2013, 69% of no-fault evictions in San Francisco occurred

within 4 blocks of a known shuttle stop. 109. Alexandra Goldman of University of California, Berkeley, conducted extensive

research and concluded that Google Shuttles are driving up rental prices within a walking distance (half mile) of five of the shuttle stops. Goldman concluded that prices have risen much more steeply around Google shuttle stops than in other areas.

25 VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 110. On January 8, 2014, the SFMTA determined that the Shuttle Project was exempt

from environmental review under CEQA. On January 9, 2014, the City Planning Department issued a concurrence with SFMTAs determination that the Shuttle Project was exempt from environmental review under CEQA. 111. The SFMTA Board of Directors held a public hearing on January 21, 2014 to

consider approval and implementation of the Project, including approval of the SFMTA staffs determination that the Project was exempt from CEQA. 112. Petitioner Sara Shortt submitted written comments on the Project to the SFMTA

Board on January 21, 2014, providing that the Class 6 Exemption is inapplicable to the Project, and requesting the SFMTA Board conduct an environmental review under CEQA. 113. Following the hearing, by Resolution No. 14-023, dated January 21, 2014,

Respondent SFMTA Board resolved to adopt a categorical exemption for the Project, approve the Project, and amend Transportation Code, Division II to authorize the Shuttle Project, among other things (the Project Approvals). 114. On February 19, Petitioners filed a timely appeal (Petitioners Appeal) of the

SFMTA Boards Project Approvals to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. 115. Petitioners Appeal was scheduled for a hearing before the San Francisco Board

of Supervisors on April 1, 2014. 116. On March 21, 2014, Petitioners submitted extensive written comments to the

Board in support of Petitioners Appeal, supported by expert analysis, urging the City to require review of the Project under CEQA to analyze the Projects impacts on displacement, air quality, traffic, pedestrian safety, cancer, and other impacts, and to consider feasible mitigation measures and alternatives. Petitioners comments provided that exemption of the Project violated CEQA, and that the Project will have significant environmental impacts. 117. On April 1, 2014, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on Petitioners

Appeal of the Project Approvals. Petitioners appeared at the hearing and provided oral comments.

26 VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

118.

Petitioners also submitted additional written comments to the Board of

Supervisors prior to the hearing on April 1, 2014, supported by additional expert analysis, responding to a report issued by the San Francisco Budget and Legislative Analyst on March 31, 2014 (BLA Report) and a supplemental response letter issued by the Planning Department on March 31, 2014. Petitioners April 1, 2014 written comments noted that the BLA Report confirmed almost all of the points made by Petitioners in their March 21, 2014 comment letter. Specifically, the BLA Report noted that the San Francisco County Transportation Agency study reported that 23 percent of observed shuttle stops at 4th and Townsend Street blocked the bike lane at that location. (BLA Report, p. 2.) Petitioners also pointed out that the BLA Report noted that [c]orrelations between higher rents and higher property appreciation rates in areas adjacent to regional shuttle stops have been found in two recent studies. 119. Dozens of members of the public and Petitioners submitted oral and written

comments at and prior to the April 1, 2014 Board hearing. 120. Despite extensive expert evidence that the Project would have numerous

significant environmental impacts peculiar to the Project, and that a Class 6 exemption violated CEQA, on April 1, 2014, the Board voted to deny Petitioners Appeal. The Board adopted a Categorical Exemption for the Project and approved the Project based thereon, and upheld the SFMTA Boards Resolution No. 14-023. 121. On April 7, 2014, the City filed and posted a Notice of Exemption for the Shuttle

Project with the San Francisco County Clerk. The Notice of Exemption incorrectly determined that the Project will not have a significant effect on the environment. 122. Petitioners, other agencies, and other interested groups and individuals

participated in the administrative proceedings leading up to Respondents approval of the Project and exemption, either by participating in hearings thereon or by submitting letters commenting on the Project or exemption. Petitioners attempted to persuade Respondents that the environmental review exemption and approvals for the Shuttle Project did not comply with the requirements of CEQA, to no avail. Respondents approval of the Project, approval of the exemption, and failure to prepare an EIR for the Project is not subject to further administrative

27 VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

review by Respondents. Petitioners have availed themselves of all available administrative remedies for Respondents violations CEQA. 123. Petitioners have no plain, speedy, or adequate remedy in the ordinary course of

law within the meaning of CCP 1086, in that Respondents approval of the Shuttle Project and the associated exemption, and failure to prepare an EIR for the Shuttle Project, are not otherwise reviewable in a manner that provides an adequate remedy. Accordingly, Petitioners seek this Courts review of Respondents approval of the Project and exemption of the Project from CEQA, to rectify the violations of CEQA. 124. Unless enjoined, Respondents will implement the Project despite their lack of

compliance with CEQA, the Vehicle Code, and the California Constitution. Petitioners will suffer irreparable harm by Respondents failure to take the required steps to protect the environment. Declaratory relief is appropriate under CCP 1060, injunctive relief is appropriate under CCP 525 et seq., and a writ of mandate is appropriate under CCP 1085 et seq. and 1094.5 et seq. and under PRC 21168.9, to prevent irreparable harm to the environment. 125. CEQA contains a strong preference in favor of preparation of an EIR whenever

there is a fair argument that a proposed project may have significant adverse environmental impacts. 126. By approving the Project without analyzing it under CEQA, the City failed to

consider substantial evidence of significant environmental impacts related to the Project, and wholly failed to consider appropriate mitigation measures to reduce those impacts below significance. 127. Accordingly, Respondents approval of the Project and the associated issuance of

a Class 6 Categorical Exemption under CEQA must be set aside. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Writ of Mandate California Vehicle Code 22500 - CCP 1085. By All Petitioners and Plaintiffs Against All Respondents and Real Parties in Interest) 128. Petitioners hereby reallege and incorporate all of the above paragraphs as if fully

28 VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

set forth herein. 129. Article XI, 7 of the California Constitution provides that A county or City may

make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws. 130. The California Supreme Court has held that cities (including charter cities) may

not enact ordinances that violate the State Vehicle Code. (OConnell v. City of Stockton (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1061, 1074.) 131. Since the Project expressly allows private buses to stop in public bus stops, and

since this action is expressly prohibited by State law, the City policy is preempted by State law, and violates Article XI, 7 of the California Constitution. 132. Respondents exceeded their authority by amending Division II of the San

Francisco Transportation Code to establish the Shuttle Project because it violates Division 11, Chapter 9, 22500(i) and 42001.5 of the California Vehicle Code. 133. By approving the Project and amending the Citys Transportation Ordinance in a

manner that violates state law, the City failed to proceed in a manner required by law. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Violation of CEQA Illegal CEQA Exemption; CCP 1085, PRC 21168.5. By All Petitioners and Plaintiffs Against All Respondents and Real Parties in Interest) 134. Petitioners hereby reallege and incorporate all of the above paragraphs as if fully

set forth herein. 135. Respondents abused their discretion and failed to act in the manner required by

law by exempting the Shuttle Project from CEQA review by issuing a Class 6 categorical exemption for the Project. 136. The Respondents decision to approve the Project based on the Class 6 CEQA

exemption is inconsistent with the terms of the exemption and not supported by substantial evidence. The CEQA exemption does not apply on its face because the Shuttle Project is not merely an information collection activity, but rather involves the ongoing operation of a commuter shuttle transportation system with more than 35,000 boardings on more than 350

29 VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

vehicles, and use of more than 200 MUNI stops throughout the city every day. Additionally, the Class 6 Exemption also does not apply on its face because the Project will result in a serious or major disturbance to an environmental resource. 137. Respondents further abused their discretion and failed to proceed in a manner

required by law because the unusual circumstances exception prohibits use of a categorical exemption for the Project. 138. Substantial evidence in the record before Respondents at the time the Project was

approved demonstrated that the Project will have significant adverse environmental impacts due to unusual circumstances, including, but not limited to: the large scale of the Shuttle Project, the public safety risks to pedestrians and bicyclists, the air quality impacts of the Project, and the Projects potential to displace low and moderate-income individuals. 139. By exempting the Shuttle Project from CEQA review, Respondents abused their

discretion and failed to act in a manner required by law. 140. As a result of the foregoing defects, Respondents prejudicially abused their

discretion by issuing a categorical exemption for the Project and approving the Project in reliance on that categorical exemption. 141. Respondents adoption of the categorical exemption and approval of the Shuttle

Project must be set aside. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Violation of CEQA Inadequate Findings; CCP 1085, PRC 21168, 21168.5. By All Petitioners and Plaintiffs Against All Respondents and Real Parties in Interest) 142. Petitioners hereby reallege and incorporate all of the above paragraphs as if fully

set forth herein. 143. CEQA requires that a lead agencys findings for the approval of a project be

supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record. CEQA further requires that a lead agency provide an explanation of how evidence in the record supports the conclusions it has reached. 144. Respondents violated CEQA by adopting findings that are inadequate as a matter

30 VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

of law in that they are not supported by substantial evidence in the record, including, but not limited to, the finding that the Initial Study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the Shuttle Project is exempt from environmental review because the project consists of basic data collection, research, experimental management, and resource evaluation activities which do not result in a serious or major disturbance to an environmental resource. 145. As a result of the foregoing defects, Respondents prejudicially abused their

discretion by making determinations or adopting findings that do not comply with the requirements of CEQA and approving the Project in reliance thereon. Accordingly, Respondents approval of the Shuttle Project and the associated exemption must be set aside. PRAYER WHEREFORE, Petitioners pray for the following relief: 1. Interest to: a. Set aside all amendments to Division II of the San Francisco Transportation Code discussed in this Petition ab initio; b. c. d. Set aside the approvals of the Shuttle Project ab initio; Set aside the Notice of Exemption for the Shuttle Project ab initio; Vacate and set aside the approvals and resolutions adopting the Categorical Exemption for the Project and approving the Project; e. Set aside any and all other actions approving or granting any permits, entitlements, financing, or other approvals referring or related to the Shuttle Project unless and until Respondents have prepared, circulated, and considered a legally adequate CEQA document prior to any subsequent action taken to approve the Project; 2. For a preliminary and permanent injunction staying the effect of Respondents For a peremptory writ of mandate directing Respondents and Real Parties in

actions issuing a Notice of Exemption for the Project, approving any permits or other entitlements for the Project, and authorizing any financing for the Project pending the outcome of this proceeding.

31 VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

3.

For a writ of mandate directing Respondents to suspend any and all activity in

furtherance of the Project unless and until Respondents take all necessary steps to bring their actions into compliance with CEQA. 4. For a writ of mandate and a declaratory judgment declaring Respondents

approval of the amendments to Division II of the San Francisco Transportation Code allowing private buses to park in public bus stops to be null and void and contrary to law in violation of Division 11, Chapter 9, 22500(i) and 42001.5 of the California Vehicle Code and directing Respondents to vacate and set aside said amendments. 5. For a preliminary and permanent injunction directing Respondents and Real

Parties in Interest, DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and ROES 1 through 100, inclusive, to cease and refrain from engaging in any and all activities in furtherance of the Project unless and until Respondents take all necessary steps to bring their actions into compliance with CEQA. 6. For a preliminary and permanent injunction directing Respondents and Real

Parties in Interest, DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and ROES 1 through 100, inclusive, to cease and refrain from violating, aiding and abetting the violation of, or failing to enforce California Vehicle Code sections 22500 and 42001.5. 7. 8. For the costs of suit. For an award of attorneys fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 1021.5 and

any other applicable provisions of law. 9. For any other legal and equitable relief as this Court deems just and proper.

Dated: May 1, 2014

LOZEAU|DRURY LLP

____________________________ Richard T. Drury Rebecca L. Davis Attorneys for Petitioners

32 VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

VERIFICATION I, Elizabeth Alysabeth Alexander, am a Petitioner and Plaintiff in this action. I have read the foregoing Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and know its contents. The facts alleged in the above Petition and Complaint are within my own knowledge and I know these facts to be true, except as to matters alleged therein on information and belief. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct and that this declaration is executed on May 1, 2014 at San Francisco, California.

Date: May 1, 2014

________________________________________ Elizabeth Alysabeth Alexander Petitioners and Plaintiffs

33 VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF