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 cae 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. the mta board has to look at it and vote in favor of exempting this particular action to stop sunday meter parking. [speaker not understood] through that process then take over, perhaps look at this more closely and come to an opposite conclusion. in closing, what i'd like to say is the only possible way that you can read from a legal standpoint that you could read this c-e-q-a exemption as applied, as the standard applies to the entire budget, and that's what happened here. mta looked at this decision.

i assume someone looked at it and said it doesn't specifically say exempt sunday metered parking. and it actually lowers revenue so they're only able [speaker not understood] c-e-q-a applies if we include it as a global exemption of the entire budget. that's not what the exemption was designed for. as most of you know, c-e-q-as was intended to be interpreted [speaker not understood], it was intended to be in favor of the public and gem enfull public disclosure of what is going on. so, with that i'm going to pass it on to my colleagues. thank you for your time and attention. >> mr. president? >> supervisor wiener. >> thank you. i just have some questions. so, thank you for the presentation and i appreciate the advocacy that's gone on around this and many other transit issues. i have enormous respect for the appellants in this case. i work with them all regularly on our joint quest to adequately fund public transportation system and have smart transportation as a policy in san francisco, which is sometimes a challenge.

but as you know and as you stated, this is a c-e-q-a appeal and there are times when c-e-q-a appeals come to this board and arguments are made on the merits or people think it's about the merits of the issue, sunday meter good or is it bad. of course that is not the issue before the board. the voters in 1999 took that power away from the board of supervisors and gave it to the mta board of directors and, so, that question about the merits of sunday meters is in the hands of the mta board of directors and we all can agree or disagree with the decisions that they make. so, i think it's really important just to emphasize that for the public. and, so, my question for you is what is the correct level of c-e-q-a review or c-e-q-a documents for this decision by the mta board of directors to eliminate sunday meters? what are you contending they should have done instead of issue the statutory exemption? >> well, at the very least they

should have done what they did in 2012 which is identify specifically that the c-e-q-a exemption was applied to sunday meter parking. >> have they put that -- was it an attachment a as it's called? did they put those three or four words on there, eliminate sunday meter enforcement, i guess that's four words, put that on attachment a, are you saying we wouldn't be here today? you would be satisfied with the c-e-q-a? >> no. there are two legal reasons why this appeal stands. that's one of them. the second reason is because the c-e-q-a exemption was designed for actions that help the operating expenses and are required to meet the budget. so, because this action lowers revenues, it's not necessary and the c-e-q-a [speaker not understood] -- >> that gets back to my original question, which is what -- what is the c-e-q-a level of analysis or what was the c-e-q-a document that the mta should have issued if not

this exemption, what are you arguing for? >> they should have said in their exemption, it specifically applies, and provide evidence for why the decision to stop enforcing metered parking on sundays helped meet operating expenses. >> what -- should it have been an e-i-r, negative declaration, [speaker not understood], what are you arguing they should have issued, what kind of document? >> i'm not argument that they couldn't have somehow done this within their resolution in the documents that they provided. that would depend on what they find and what the substantial evidence was provided there. but they would have had to make a decision. they would have had to look at what was being done and explained the rationale for doing so. >> i think whatever was listed in the attachment, for example, they made a decision which one can agree with or disagree with. you're saying the statutory exemption could apply? >> if they had made the correct

findings and they had correctly identified what it was applying to. >> and would you agree that a statutory exemption, unlike a categorical exemption -- statutory exemption, if something fits into that exemption, then it's exempt regardtionv of potential environmental impacts? >> yes, absolutely. >> c-e-q-a itself, the state legislature determines or the guidelines determine that it -- that there are certain decisions that are simply statutorily exempt from c-e-q-a? >> that's correct, i would agree. >> okay. now, you've relied at least in part on -- you argued this statutory exemption cannot apply in part because it is a reduction in revenue, not an increase. as i read the statutory exemption, i read it differently. it talks about modifications, restructurings. so, i know the mta and planning take the position that if you look at the overall fees and

all the different tickets and fees and other annoyances people deal with on a regular basis, that they have to look at all of that. but even if you look individually, the exemption does report on modifications and restructurings. i guess another question would be if mta were to lower fares, we're going to lower fares by 25 or 50 cents or as they've done, decide that a low-income use, senior, disabled are going to get free fares because of their economic circumstances, can those decisions rely on the statutory exemption? because that is also reducing fares, reducing revenue for -- obviously for other policy goals that the mta has. and, so, under your argument, wouldn't that also not be able to rely on the statutory

exemption? >> i think you had two questions there. the first one was statutory interpretation of the exemption. and i believe what you were asking is whether modification of revenues has to be increases or helping, a ~ assisting the operating expenses. all the case law that deals with the statutory exemption deals with situations where there are increases in revenue to the agencies revoking it. so, i do think that that's a narrow interpretation of that statute ~ and following c-e-q-a's mandates interpret thing as favorable as possible for the environment, that would be the correct interpretation. with regard to your second question, which was can this exemption ever apply to lower fees, i think that ties into it. but that would be a different case and you would have to look at what sort of other exemptions might apply. i think there's 33 categorical exemptions and newer statutory exemptions under c-e-q-a. so, it may not be what the

fares and rates exemption is the best one to use instead of other exam ifsv -- >> is it your position then if the mta decides to lower fares for everyone or for some people that that decision could not rely on this particular statutory exemption? >> i think i'd have to look at the specific circumstances, but i do think in this case that the decision to revoke sunday metered parking is clear need for a purpose that is not operating expenses. >> okay. >> so, just to add to that, the reason behind this decision was to appease drivers, because drivers complain it's because the mayor was not happy with this policy. that was a driving force and i think that's a nonexempt purpose. >> there are a lot of voters for different policy matters we can love or hate, but i ask this because the mta and other agencies are raising and lowering fees all the time. eliminating fees, creating,

raising, lowering, changing, and it strikes me that your argument, whatever it is on the public policy side of it, could create a precedent that could make it impossible to do that, relying on this particular exemption, which i believe the city relies on all the time. >> i think it would be important for the city to look at fares and rates exemption and decide whether there are others more apt to the situations. my sense is the adoption of fare changes and reduction does not adopt what we're seeing here [speaker not understood]. i'm sorry, i think that would be my answer. and then those two reasons, one of the reasons for this appeal is because they didn't identify it specifically. >> and the one final question. would an increase in muni fares be able to utilize the statutory exemption? when you increase muni fares, you're presumably going to reduce, potentially reduce rider ship and push more people

into their cars and create more greenhouse gases. so, if muni increases its fares, can they rely on the statutory exemption? >> yes, i believe so. that's what the purpose of this exemption is for, was when agencies had to get revenue in order to help meet operating expenses. >> so, even though that might be a negative environmental impact? >> that's right. a typical case, other cases dealing with thing like bus fare hikes, [speaker not understood] because it what designed -- the he courts have said this increases revenue for operating expenses so we're going to uphold -- >> why don't they make a joint increase it we're going to increase if for some people, decrease it for others, it's a net wash, but there is some lowering. are you saying they can only use -- the one decision, they can only use the statutory exemption for the increase but they have to find some other

exemption or [speaker not understood]? >> [speaker not understood] to appease drivers i think there would be a stronger argument. >> [speaker not understood]. >> no, appeasing drivers would not be an appropriate reason to invoke the exemption. >> a lot of decisions are made to appease different groups and that strikes me as a challenging basis to say the exemption doesn't apply. >> yeah, i mean, i think in combination of the entire scenario having the revenues go down, having the evidence that drivers are disgruntled and the mayor saying that nobody likes sunday metered parking and therefore the mayor wants to get rid of it, i think that shows strong evidence that the driving force behind this was not to meet the budget. >> thank you. and i say all of this as someone who has been very frustrated with some of the decisions that have been made, that of reduced transit funding.

so, but, again, i think i'm very focused on what c-e-q-a requires and doesn't require. thank you. >> thank you. >> counsel has three minutes left. good afternoon, [speaker not understood]. i speak to you on behalf of the san francisco drivers union which represents thousands of riders in the city. it is the same riders who will be paying for free sunday parking meters this year. that is what the planning department and sfmta says when they justify using the c-e-q-a exemption. they also claim a precedent the hastily added provision to the budget cannot be separated from the budget. don't fall for that trap. we are only appealing the repeal sunday meters, not the entire budget. please treat this as a no exemption for the sunday parking meter decision. the use of the statutory exemption violates the spirit and the letter of c-e-q-a. it was designed to allow muni

to avoid bankruptcy by raising more revenue in time of need. instead it is used for the express purpose to make it cheaper to drive in the city. you all know this. do not fall for the mayor's bait and switch just like the vehicle license fee. this is not an affordable [speaker not understood] measure. [speaker not understood] raising muni fares, making muni crowd and had less reliable, increasing congestion, making our streets less safe and hurting small businesses. as sfmta's own analysis shows. we urge you to uphold this exemption and let muni use the money to provide more and better service to more people. it is the right thing to do for the city. the environment [speaker not understood] right thing under the law. this is precisely what c-e-q-a was designed for. on the last note, i've spoken to my attorney and we specifically spoke about the free muni for youth issue. some [speaker not understood] support that. there are many other ways to

provide affordable transportation and he described to me many other exemptions they could have been using, including negative declaration. so, we do not think that this issue would apply to those actions. thank you. >> colleagues, any questions to the appellants? all right. at this time why don't we hear from members of the public that support the appellants. you have up to two minutes each. please step up. good afternoon, supervisors. i'm peter straus and i'm here with the transit riders union. i think supervisor wiener raised a number of interesting points which i hadn't thought about, but i think a key issue here is whether, in fact, there

is balance in the budget achieved or whether there is still a long-term deficit that needs to be addressed. i think one of the issues here, it's been alleged the suspension of sunday metering from c-e-q-a and substituting additional funds, there is no net impact. i think there's still sort of analogous to how you look at global warming. if we look at the over warming in 2015, while there's no massive flooding in 2015, but you can't allege that global warming does not have environmental effects because there is a long-term problem that has not been addressed and the issue here is that this represents the sunday metering represents a significant funding stream of particular importance that goes spot general fund, operating fund for long-term issues that have not been addressed.

i think you all realize there is a huge remaining deficit in long-term funding for muni, which has not been addressed just because 2015 happens to be a good budget year, you know. and substituting funds that are available this year does not solve a long-term issue. because of these long-term issues, i'll ask that you support the appeal. and i know that you're doing everything you can to support transit funding. i think that's something that needs to continue, but particularly in this year that we have moved away from the vehicle license fee. there are significant long-term impacts of removing this $12 million budget a year [speaker not understood]. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. good afternoon, supervisors. cynthia cruz here with the league of pissed off voters.