of the public that wish to appeal any aspect of this report who will have up to two minutes to speak. from then i will ask dpw staff to step in the hall to have a conversation with any public to see if we can amicably review this and i will ask dpw staff to come back later in the meeting, likely after one or both of the special orders to give a final report back. dpw. >> excuse me, mr. president. >> yes, if you could please read the items 37 and 38. >> thank you. pursuant to a motion no. m-14-0 94, approved on june 10th, 2014, the board of supervisors will convene a committee of the whole for items 37 and 38. a public hearing to consider objections to a report of assessment costs submitted by the director of public works for sidewalk and curb repairs through the sidewalk inspection and repair program. >> let's now hear from dpw. >> thank you. my name is robert kwan, i'm

with the department of public works. this report is for properties inspect and had notified and repairs made and invoiced by the city under the sidewalk inspection and repair program from april 2013 through april 2014. during that period the department inspected and repaired sidewalks and curbs along city blocks and portionses of the marina, lower pacific heights, western addition, cal hollow, potrero hill, lake street district, bernal heights, golden gate heights, outer sunset, hayes valley, telegraph hill, lone mountain and claire don heights issuing 3,97 2 notices to repair and [speaker not understood] which goes to city agencies and, and private utility companies at a cost of

1,5 56,754 dollars for notices to repairs ~, $1,6 49,387 for [speaker not understood] for a total of $3,206,141. [speaker not understood] invoices were sent out to property oresctionv of which 1,528 property owners paid allowing the city to recover ~ $1,290,360. the balance of the property owners elected to have the cost of the sidewalk repairs placed on their property tax or otherwise have not paid the city in a timely manner. in this report there are 217 properties with outstanding invoices totaling $2 27,575.

>> thank you, mr. kwan. unless there are any questions to dpw staff, let's now hear from members of the public that wish to contest any aspect of the appeal. what i'd like to ask you to do is line up on the right-hand side of the chamber, starting with you, sir. please feel free to step to the mic. and i would ask every member of the public, you have up to two minutes, if you could state your name, your address, the basis for your appeal, and once you're done feel free to take a seat and i'll ask you to meet with mr. kwan outside in the hallway. let's hear from the first speaker. >> my name is tom chan ~ and i received a notice on the building address 5 20 through 524 filbert street. all three of those units ~ are tenant occupied, they're not owner occupied. no one ever received any invoice for any work being done and, therefore, we have no way of knowing what to pay or who to pay. we're perfectly happy to pay it. we just never received an

invoice. >> thank you. next speaker. my name is dana chu, i'm one of the property owners [speaker not understood] in san francisco. like the gentleman before me, we did not receive any notice nor amount or an invoice regarding the item of of repairs. we don't know when it was repaired, how much was repaired and what the cost. if the dpw could let us know how much is due and owing and when this was -- when the work was performed, be happy to pay. and i would recommend in the future that they make better efforts to notify and clarify what work is going to be done. in the notice here it says that there is a reference to the work and the amounts that are charged and it's not available anywhere either online or attached to the notice of the hearing today. >> thank you. next speaker.

yes, my name is tom [speaker not understood]. my spouse and i live and own 21 79 [speaker not understood] avenue. we actually purchased our house in 1999. when we moved in, we were told that the large chinese elm on the sidewalk was actually maintained by the city of san francisco. a couple years ago the roots on the elm tree actually broke through the sewer pipe that go from our house to the city water system. we figured since the pipe is in our driveway we had to fix it. that cost us $55,000. [speaker not understood] any damage from the tree. we did additional research and actually found out that the city of san francisco is not allowing [speaker not understood] these kind of trees due to all the damage caused by its invasive root system. we were not overly surprised when the invasive root system of the tree caused damage to

the city sidewalk. we were, however, surprised when we received a notice from the city that we would have to pay for the damage that the tree the city had put in, had agreed to maintain and the city now says should never be put in again due to its invasive root system. imagine if the city had hired someone who had agreed to maintain something it sold to san francisco, and that person then said, we're not doing it any more. i doubt the city would [speaker not understood] on that. or someone causes damage to the city by driving their car through a city door and demanded the city fix it, again, i doubt the city would go for that. [speaker not understood] a hearing on this matter at public works. [speaker not understood], discussion unusual because [speaker not understood] kinding i shouldn't have gone to the hearing, which seemed kind of weird.

during the hearing, the hearing officer told me that everything was fine until i received [inaudible]. >> thank you very much, sir. thank you very much. you'll have an opportunity to speak to the dpw staffer. sir, everyone who comes to the board chamber, you have two minutes to speak. we'll have to keep that rule with everyone. i appreciate it. thank you. sir, your microphone has been turned off. you'll have an opportunity to speak with the dph staff. next speaker. next speaker. thank you very much. my name is jacqueline [speaker not understood], i live in [speaker not understood] bernal heights. [speaker not understood] the sidewalk inspector was carrying out the work in front of my house. i asked what was going on. i was told my sidewalk needed to be repaired. and i was told i had the

following choices. the city could do the work and charge me, i could have my own contractor do the work, but i would need to get a permit that would cost $500. i could do the work myself and follow the guidelines from the paperwork i was given. then we discussed what needed to be repaired and i was told the cracks were quarter inch wide or more would need to be filled. my sidewalk was basically in good condition with some small cracks. i would say some of the cracks had been marked were less than a quarter of an inch and i proved it with a ruler. so, now the cracks were wider he, i was told i could do the work myself ~. i told them i would and was given a deadline the next week and purchased the materials and completed the job. at a later inspection i was told that none of the work was acceptable. at this point i felt pressured to have the work done by the city's inspectors, but i had also noticed that some of the sidewalks on my block were much

worse, in much worse condition and had not been marked at all. this made me question the professionalism of the inspectors. i was also told that the tree outside of my house was buckling the sidewalk and i would be billed for the work by ann arborist. no work was done by ann arborist, but i was billed for that. i was charged and the bill was removed. my total was [speaker not understood]. i was then charged an additional 12% administration fee. there was never mention the total now is 1,22 1.50. i paid 5 49.50 of that. i am of a limited income so i have no choice in the matter, was forced into paying the city's contractors to pay something that i was already adequately repaired. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. my name is [speaker not understood]. i live at 1567 42nd avenue.

like the speaker before me i saw my sidewalk was being repaired. i moved in 15 days prior to that. it was a little surprising [speaker not understood]. the cost is small. it's a little over $400, but it's more the principle of the pacific loan pool company that actually owned my house, not paying for this. and someone like myself who is on a limited income having to pay for it. so, again, the notice to repay to pacific pool on august 16, our closing date was on 10-5. the repair occurred on 11-16-2013. the adjustment had been on november 1st. and i'm asking that this be paid for by pacific loan or for them to be accountable and not us. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker.

my name is gail mel ton. i live at 225 and 2 27 andover street. [speaker not understood]. they sent us a bill which included two items, which was tree root pruning and tree basin bricks for $590, neither of which was necessary nor which the city did. so, we asked them to remove those two items and we would pay the bill. they said they would send an inspector to make sure our tree did not require the pruning or that the backfill had not been done. nobody ever came out, so, we waited for them to come and verify the amount. and the next thing we got was the notice about this hearing. so, we just wanted those item removed and then we'll be happy to pay it, but we don't want to pay the 12% administrative fee as well. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker.

good afternoon. my name is rp gordon from [speaker not understood] san francisco 94 11 2. i did not receive the information ~. i would like to not have to pay the administrative fee as well and [speaker not understood] i'd be more than happy to do that and take care of it. thank you. >> next speaker, please. my name is [speaker not understood], last name is maladian. i live at 329 contera street in san francisco. sometime in september 2013 i had a major accident. [speaker not understood], crushed my pelvic bones, cut my bladder and everything. i end up in the hospital. after six days i was taken to

-- i had to go to a rehab center. and then when i came back after one month the work was done already. but i've noticed the vent was smelling and it was overflowing. so, i called the department and they said they're going to send somebody to check, but they never did. so, i called the water department emergency, they came in. they had to break the vent outside and then they had to put pressure just to open up the cement. it was clogged up. but they told me this would happen again so you better call department again. so, i called them a second time after one month and they said, we have your information on the list. we're going to send somebody, but they never did. but from that time until now i have to go ahead with time and press on, push water in there just to unclog this.

so, i think they should come and fix their problem. i cannot live with smelly [speaker not understood] sewage. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. supervisor avalos, do you have a comment you want to make? >> i was planning to [speaker not understood], but i just want to make sure that when dpw representative speaks with the community members here, the real common thing i'm hearing is people didn't expect to get administrative fees or some of them didn't get information about what fees are being put on. seems to me thats was the concern, that is the case. i want to make sure dpw is responsive to the concerns when they're raised when they meet outside the board chamber. >> thank you. next speaker. my name is john plant. i live in bernal heights at 10 20 cortland avenue. we received a notice that we were going to have some sidewalk repair in front of our

house. they showed up in a few days later and started work. we were kind of surprised. they did the work and then a few days later, we notice that there was like an overwhelming amount of [speaker not understood] completed. [speaker not understood], its was nasty and glowtion. we had to call 311. they came out and fixed it. it happened 20 times we had to call 311. there was sewage in our street from the work dpw had done. finally they got a camera down there after 20 times and they found out they had left the [speaker not understood] of towels and tools in the pipes. kid kept getting sick. it was gross. it was awful. there was environmental damage. they told us in a written paper we have, that they are at fault for the clogging of the pipes. they did come out and fix it, but like any contractor, i would not pay for such shody work. so, thank you for your consideration.

~ shoddy work. so, thank you for your consideration. [speaker not understood]. i don't speak english very good. i prefer to speak spanish. a few months ago you -- i don't know how to say that [speaker not understood].

[speaking through interpreter] >> sir, if you'd like to take some time to translate, you're welcome to do that. yes. my name is alex chan. i live with martha menendez at

[speaker not understood] excelsior district. we under the program and what was going on. basically i think our issue that the deal or the negotiation with dpw is not what we agreed to. so, i think we'll try to resolve that with the dpw staff members. but we have the documents to kind of justify our argument here. thank you. >> okay, thank you very much. and if you would like us to get a translator, we're happy to do that as well. thank you. next speaker. good afternoon, my name is jackie olson and i reside in excelsior district. 700 avalon, and we had received a notice last year that sidewalk repairs were required, which we had completed and paid

the contractor to do. now we received a notice saying that there's a public hearing that we're going to do the work. the inspector told us they would be back to inspect the work we had completed. we never heard from anybody and don't know why we're receiving this notice. so, i would appreciate some help. thank you. >> [speaker not understood]. you can share that with dpw officer, of your case today. okay, thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. good afternoon, board. like to take a minute to thank the board for the recent support of the new urban agricultural rezoning ordinance -- >> excuse me, sir. this is on the hearing that we have. i'm here on the matter --

the [speaker not understood] tenant representing my land lady claudia orient height, thank you. i'm the master tenant at [speaker not understood] vienna street. and 7 months ago the neighborhood was told to make repairs, sidewalk repairs and tree trimming. my land lady decided to have the city contractors come and do repair work at the -- at our house. we're charged for work that wasn't done. we don't have a tree, not had a tree on our sidewalk for god knows how many years. we were charged for root removal work. so, i'd appreciate the board's help with that. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. hello, my name is [speaker not understood] r and i live at 1 108 [speaker not understood] avenue. we received notice that i have to repair the sidewalk.

i started to contract a company. i was already in contact with the company to do the work and two days prior the company from the city hall come over and did the work. the company before was going to charge me $3,000 and now i'm receiving a bill for $7,000 from the city hall. i don't know why a professional company with permits from city hall would charge less than city hall is [speaker not understood]. they left all my plans. i called the supervisor three times. the third time they're saying the person to remove it, but they didn't remove it completely. they said they will come back and never came back. what they did, they have a [speaker not understood] already. while they were doing the work, they were so damaged by the sidewalk and they did repair it. i called the supervisor as well and let them know. another thing, when they told

me they were [speaker not understood], they were not on the way. i asked what was going to be charged, and they said no, especially for me because i want to make sure that no extra charge were coming over. examine now they are charging me more than a thousand dollars for that work. thank you very much. >> thank you very much. are there any other members of the public that wish to speak in this hearing? seeing none at this time, what i'd like to do is request mr. kwan from dpw staff if you want to stand up so everyone can see who you are and for all members of the public that wish to speak with him and bring your situation to his attention, if you could please follow him outside of the board chamber, probably in about half an hour, 45 minutes, he will let us know whether these issues have been resolved and we will go from there. thank you very much. colleagues, while waiting for folks to walk out, i understand that supervisor wiener --

supervisor wiener, you want to rescind item 8. okay, supervisor wiener would like to rescind item 8. could i have a second to that motion? second by supervisor mar, without objection. that item will be rescinded. [gavel] >> and supervisor wiener. >> i thank you, mr. president. i'd like to move to continue the item to july 8th. >> okay. so rather than the 15th which is what we >> no. erctionvly voted on if we can move it to the eighth, seconded by supervisor kim, colleague, can we take that motion to continue without objection? that shall be the case. [gavel] >> and with that why don't we now go to our first 3:00 p.m. special order. madam clerk, could you call the items related to the sfmta to your capital and operating budgets appeal. >> items 29 through 32 comprise the special order of 3:00 p.m. for public hearing of persons interested in the san francisco municipal transportation agency's determination that the sfmta fiscal year 2015 through 16 two-year operating and

capital budget is statutorily exempt from the california environmental quality act. item 30 is the motion affirming the mta's determination. item 23 p1 is a motion reversing the determination by the sfmta. item 32 is a motion to direct the appropriation of findingsed in the reversal of the determination. ~ item 31 >> colleagues, before us we have the appeal of the environmental review exemption from the sfmta agency's fy 2015-2016 two-year capital budget. for this hearing we will consider the accuracy of the sfmta's determination that this project is statutorily exempt from environmental review. because this is a statutory exemption we were required not to look at whether the activity affectses in to the environment, as to categorical exemption, but whether it meets the exemption that is used. we'll hear from the appellants who will describe the grounds for the appeal. we will then hear public comment from individuals speaking on behalf of the

appellants. each speaker will have up to two minutes. we'll then hear from the sfmta and the planning department who will have up to 10 minutes to describe the grounds for their determination that this project is exempt from environmental review. we'll then hear from individuals speaking on behalf of the project sponsor and each member of the public will have up to two minutes to present. finally the appellant will have up to three minutes for arguments and rebuttal. why don't we proceed to the appellants. >> good morning, mr. president, supervisors. my name is [speaker not understood], transit riders system and [speaker not understood]. thank you for hearing our appeal. i know that c-e-q-a issues are not always a favorite and that transit decision are always difficult, but i hope i can enlighten you as to some of the factors and reasons why we brought this appeal and why the

decision to be overturned. i'll be brief in my comments. before i continue i would like hand out to the board of supervisors appeal letters of support that recently we received from the league of pissed off voters and also on behalf of walk san francisco. the third item here is a letter that [speaker not understood], the third item is a letter i sent to the board of supervisors yesterday just so you have a copy a a courtesy. i'd like to touch on three items. i did a little background on why this is important. i'll focus on the california community act or c-e-q-a, then a few comments before my colleague talks. this is an interesting case, i'll tell you why. because the san francisco mta decided to enforce sunday metered parking a year ago and it found that that practice was doing nothing but good things for the city. and then drivers started

grumbling, which is no surprise. the mta decided to reverse its decision and stop metered parking on sunday. [speaker not understood] 2013 mta produced [speaker not understood] all the benefits of muni parking on sundays. so, the sue is and why appellants are bringing this appeal, why does the mta produce a study in december, [speaker not understood], why did not they not reference or seek out that decision at all? [speaker not understood]. that considering the study is not an informed decision. briefly i want to talk about the impact before going to c-e-q-a because they're not in dispute here. it's very clear that the impacts of this decision to reverse metered parking on sunday will reduce revenue by where there is approximately, i

understand it, $11 million. we know that, it's not in dispute. it is also clear there will be negative impacts to the city. it will increase traffic congestion on sundays, everything that comes with that. greenhouse gases, pedestrian safety will be impacted. why is that not in dispute? the stud any 2013 actually finds that. that study, by the way, is on page [speaker not understood] of the record before you. i'd like to turn to c-e-q-a now. so, what's happening here in light of this decision go the direction it d. according to mta the decision to reverse meter parking on sundays is exempt from c-e-q-a. there is clearly an exemption [speaker not understood], but that doesn't apply here and let me tell you why. there's two reasons. the first reason is the fares and rates exemption under c-e-q-a, only applies to decisions designed to meet operating expenses.

this decision knows revenue. the bottom line of c-e-q-a is [speaker not understood] in the past they had to take actions because they had to meet operating expenses. therefore, the c-e-q-a exemption should not apply. the second reason which is even more clear-cut in my eyes, the agency specifically notes the basis for the exemption, what happens here is the agency pointed the public in the wrong direction. if you look at their exemption and the resolution that they passed they actually say it applies specifically to a number of items and what is referred to as attachment a. attachment a does not discuss the [speaker not understood] metered parking on sundays. and if that does president convince you that it doesn't comply with the statute, then if that's not enough, look at my letter on exhibit a where you see mta did in 2012.

when mta passed this resolution to start metered enforcement on sundays, they specifically said and quoted this exemption includes sunday metered -- with sunday meter parking metered enforcement, excuse me. so, that should leave some questions, board of supervisors. 2012 you had an exemption that coffers sunday metered parking. why is that? maybe that's the sort of thing that would lead the [speaker not understood] with the impression [speaker not understood] avoid looking at the december 2013 study. the other thing, and a few final comments here. the other thing the board i think should be aware of, why does this matter? is this just a c-e-q-a technicality? no, it's not. the mta is very clear about ha they're eting. members of the public can look at that and they can say wait a second, i don't think this is right ~. you should look at the december 2013 study.