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.

it was an april fools joke of a vote that the sfmta rolled back sunday meters. they prematurely voted to repeal sunday meters by the future bond money and not invoke the november 2014 ballot measure funds. it is responsible to depend on funding that may or may not be available [speaker not understood]. it is disappointing after the give away the mayor has dropped his support for [speaker not understood]. there are [speaker not understood], and it's time to stop playing chicken with public safety. it's not just the league and other transit advocates that show the environmental and traffic benefits to san francisco. sfmta's own data proves that enforcing metered parking on sunday was good for the city. and sfmta studied published in december 2013 that after sunday metering, drivers were able to find a parking spot twice as fast as before. the sfmta is trying to use

loophole in the environmental quality act to try to avoid the legal requirement to analyze the environmental impacts of repealing sunday meters. they claim it is part of the entire budget and it is necessary to balance the books. but how does the sfmta give away $11 million and balance their budget. they can't hold sunday meters hostage by saying the entire budget is dependent on it. this is a clear abuse of the exemption c-e-q-a allows for cases when agencies need to raise fees and meet their operating expenses. a c-e-q-a budget exemption should not be used to mask political decisions. the league of pissed off voters ask that you revoke metered parking -- i'm sorry, revoke meters parking -- the decision to revoke metered parking on sundays. and if the board of supervisors gets in on this, maybe it's time to delete transit first from the city charter. thank you.

good afternoon, tom [speaker not understood] executive director of livable city. i guess one of the questions you might be asking yourself is why does sfmta manage parking in the city? why do they have meters at all and why do they enforce meters? if you have listened to sfmta over the past decade as to why they manage parking, why we need variable pricing, why we need meters and so on, they say it's not about revenue. it is about intelligent management of parking. it's about reducing and cusping departments of neighborhood. all the traffic that results from that. [speaker not understood]. they say it's about sub poderthing neighborhood businesses and a thriving retail economy in neighborhoods. to give you an example, chicago when sunday meters were revoked, the merchants had been lobbying to get it back. so, they said it's essential to preserving neighborhood

vitality, making sure [speaker not understood]. [speaker not understood]. people distracted, people making lots of right turns has implications for collisions and for traffic conflicts in our neighborhoods. but double parking and bike lanes and bus stops, et cetera, reduces safety, causes congestion that impacts muni and so on and so on. they have made the case over the years, there is a whole body of evidence that says there is reasons to do parking management. now sfmta is saying, no, this is purely [speaker not understood]. the only impact is budgetary and none of those environmental impacts exist. we say that's not true, there are huge environmental implications for how we manage parking in our city. yanking out an entire parking program unfunded has an environmental indication that was shown up as mr. brooklyn talked about. [speaker not understood]. you will see they found all of these environmental benefits from managing parking in this

way, doesn't that mean those environmental benefits go away. no, it does ferment [speaker not understood]. thank you. >> next speaker. hi, there, my name is [speaker not understood], and i'm the interim chair of the san francisco transit riders union, and i'm here to ask you to bring back sunday parking meters. and i'm doing that to you specifically because you are an elected body. we had a situation where i was part of the san francisco transit -- the mayor's transportation task force and we all voted to have the bls happen and also the bond. unfortunately the mayor decided this wasn't a good time to have vlf and that was against the wishes of the people he put together that were not elected to have the vlf come on board for 2014. the sfmta board voted to repeat sunday parking meters and they

voted to repeal it because they not elected. they are appointed by the mayor. so, they're in a situation by the mayor. a lot of them were in a difficult matter which they knew almost every sfmta board member that i spoke with was thery think, certainly for congestion and pollution and for better transit and even for better -- for small businesses and for safety was to have the sunday parking meters. but they could not -- a board that was appointed by the mayor against [speaker not understood] wishes. so, we come to you today [speaker not understood] as folk who have not been appointed but elected by the people of san francisco to make the right choice, and the right choice is to bring back sunday parking meters, to take the one-third of time that people spend circling looking for

parking out of the equation on sunday [speaker not understood] equation on monday through saturday and to make a better san francisco for all of us. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. good afternoon, supervisors. my name is nicole snyder and i'm here with walk san francisco. i'm here to talk about the support the sunday parking meters appeal for two main reasons. the first is around funding and the fact that this $11 million wasn't -- didn't go through -- didn't go through the proper c-e-q-a channels and sunday is critically needed right now for safety projects, for the mta budget, the blf movement to fund over $13 million in vision zero projects over the next two years and unfortunately as other speakers have mentioned, that has been pulled. we are hoping that they will be supplemental [speaker not understood].

there is no guarantee of that. so, pulling out additional funding from an already stretched budget makes implementing your [speaker not understood] commitments very challenging. [speaker not understood] from what i understand this was not adequately reviewed through c-e-q-a. the second reason that i'm here today is because when cars are circling looking for parking without a metered system that reads two pedestrian injuries that leads to collisions t the more traffic we have circling, the more likelihood there is for collision and frustration on behalf of drivers as well. we want to create a system, inherently safer for everyone and not looking at the environment and the health and injury impacts of removing these meters is something that needs to be discussed and something that we need to further investigate. so, thank you.

>> thank you. next speaker. hi, my name is henry penn. i'd like to implore you guys to support the appeal of the c-e-q-a appeal for removing sunday meters, but the city keep sunday meters [speaker not understood]. it reduces pollution saleslady in neighborhoods like the low-income communities. especially since they don't have adequate access to transit. one example of how funding [speaker not understood] has helped, the black i live on today on fund days, usually there are no cars at all parked outside my house. historically when sunday meters have not been in effect, there is not a single space outside my house at all. my family, we own a car, but we don't drive a lot. and when we do, it's taken us a very long time, three hours to

find a parking spot. so, sunday meters will definitely help all the drivers, will help all the transit riders, [speaker not understood], it's actually more safe for them. thank you. >> thank you. are there any other members of the public that wish to speak in this portion of public comment? okay. at this time why don't we now turn over to the city departments who will have 10 minutes to describe the grounds for their determination that this project is exempt from environmental review. mr. reiskin. >> good afternoon, president chiu, members of the board. i'm [speaker not understood] reiskin, [speaker not understood] of the mta. i'd like to start by saying the mta took a very deliberative process over the last two months to develop its operating and two-year capital budget. it's one like every other budget that's developed in the city and elsewhere, really reflects a lot of different decisions and a lot of different trade-offs, but one

that i believe in sum is a very strong budget in terms of advancing the city's transportation, environmental, and safety goals. some of the highlights of the budget include a 10% increase in muni transit service. increased funding [speaker not understood] to help muni work better in the streets, implementation dollars for vision zero, bike and pedestrian safety improvements as well as other improvements in the right-of-way. the continuation and really making permanent the free muni for low and moderate income youth program as well as funding to initiate free muni for seniors and people with disabilities program. so, i do believe it's a very strong budget. i appreciate that there's frustrations over numerous provisions in the budget particularly one regarding sunday meter enforcement. i do believe the appropriate c-e-q-a analysis and the

determination was made and i do believe on balance it is a very strong budget that will advance the transportation safety and environmental goals of the city. and with regard to the c-e-q-a determination, i'll ask my planning colleagues to elaborate on that point. but we are eager to implement this budget, so, i encourage you to direct this appeal so we can do so. >> thank you. let's hear from planning. >> good afternoon, president chiu, board of supervisors. joan [speaker not understood] of planning staff and c-e-q-a exemption coordinator. the california environmental quality act public resources code or c-e-q-a provides a number of exemptions where c-e-q-a review is not required. there are two kinds of exemptions. a statutory exemption and a categorical exemption. statutory exemption has an absolute quality not shared by

[speaker not understood] exemptions. [speaker not understood] is not subject to c-e-q-a even if it has the potential to significantly affect the environment. statutory exemptions [speaker not understood] specified classes of projects. statutory exemptions are used for many city department budgets. that include adjustments to rates, fees, or other charges. california public resources code section 2 108 b8 and c-e-q-a state guidelines section [speaker not understood] total fares and charges provides the statutory exemption from environmental review for the establishment, modification, structuring, restructuring, approval of rates, tolls, fares and other charges by public agencies, which the public agency finds are for the purpose of meeting operating expenses or obtains funds to maintain service within the existing areas.

mta supposed fiscal year 2015-2016 capital budget includes other items, changes to other mta fares, fines, rates and charges. mr. reiskin touched on other thing that the budget included as well as the elimination of parking meter enforcement on sundays. there was no discretev action taken by the mta board to eliminate fund meter inspections. this decision was made as part of the overall agency budget as outlined by the nta. the mta [speaker not understood] under public resources code [speaker not understood] and c-e-q-a guidelines 15.on march 27 and the plaid concurs with that decision. mta approved the agency's budget april 15, and on may 13

we got an appeal of the statutory exemption. planning department prepared a written response dated june 9th which you have before you and a supplemental letter which was received yesterday [speaker not understood] to our responses to the appeal letter and our supplemental letter. >> thanks, joy. good afternoon, president chiu, members of the board. andrea contarter as planning department staff. [speaker not understood] the supplemental letter submitted yesterday late in the afternoon. first, the appellants claim parking meter enforcement on sundays does not qualify for an exemption under c-e-q-a. as summarized in the department's response the project that is subject to an overview under c-e-q-a is mta's approval of their operating and capital budget. any change in revenue from the meters is a part of mta's budget.

mta issued a statutory exemption for the approval of their budget. many enterprise agencies in our city use this exemption for their budgets as well. the statutory exemption applied here was rates, tolls, fares and charges which joy explained, and that, again, covers the modification, restructuring and approval of these charges by public agencies that are for the purpose of meeting operating expenses, obtain funds for capital projects. mta's budget identified sources of revenue for the agency expenditures and determined how decreased revenue from eliminating programs like sunday meters would be offset by increases in other revenue sources. the restructuring appropriately fits within the statutory exemption. therefore, mta's budget approval meets [speaker not

understood]. the appellate rate -- that the board consider the appeal as applicable to only sunday meters, and should not apply to [speaker not understood] because it reduces revenue and that is why it can't be necessary for meeting capital and operating expenses. however, c-e-q-a does not allow for such segmentation. the department has addressed this in a written response, the elimination of sunday meter fees was approved by the mta board within the overall budget consideration. the rates, tolls, fares and [speaker not understood] is not limited to individuals and itemized charges. it allows for restructuring of charges in general. secondly, the appellants [speaker not understood]. the department responded to this concern in our submittal. mta adopted a resolution with written findings that fees, fares, rates and charges in

attachment a are necessary to meet mta operating expenses including employee wages and benefits, or to purchase and lease essential supplies and material. the supplemental letter contends it is not specific enough to clearly indicate that the elimination of sunday meters was part of the budget. mta addressed this in a written response to the appeal and to reiterate, these findings satisfy the requirements for findings under c-e-q-a. the third concern, it does not itemize elimination of sunday parking and is thus inadequate. the department's response to this concern is that the findings made apply to the entire 2015-2016 operating and capital budget. attachment a, the revenue sources only. for sunday parking will not be listed, but with revenue sources because clearly no

revenue is generated from the parking. even though sunday parking results in a loss of revenue, other revenue sources will increase. overall the modification of restructuring rates and fares from all charges. and, thus, as a whole, they anticipated operating expenses. next appellants claim that free sunday parking will have environmental impacts that must be examined under c-e-q-a. this includes traffic and air quality impact. the department's response to this concern is that under c-e-q-a we are not required to examine the environmental effects because loss of revenue is part of the budget restructuring, which is wholly exempt from c-e-q-a by statute regardless of potential environmental impacts. with the statutory exemption, mta is not required to further analyze environmental impacts.

finally, the appellants claim that mta's decision violates the city's general plan and charter and in essence, the merits of the project are not relevant as to whether mta correctly issued a statutory exemption. the project's desirability does not determine whether it qualifies for statutory exemption. supervisors, the vote before the board is whether to uphold the determination the sfmta budget is within the statutory exemption and to deny the appeal or to overturn the determination and return to agency's two-year budget with findings directing their action, thank you. >> supervisor avalos. >> thank you. i'm just, you know, trying to see if there is a way to poke through some of the air tight evidence i just heard. and a couple things that i'm trying to kind of understand.

this idea of the overall budget for the mta and where there is segmentation about sunday metering, i think i just heard there is no line item for free sunday meters. but i imagine in the current fiscal year budget there is a line item for the number of days, at least, that metering can go on. there is a [speaker not understood] that applies for sunday metering as well. there is part of the budget that does include a decision that is specific about sunday metering. is that correct? >> through the chair to supervisor avalos. all of our revenue projections for every line that accounts for numerous different factors. so, in terms of thing like parking meter revenue, we're looking at all of the expected changes from the one fiscal

year to the next in terms of increases and decreases and any demand. so, if you're asking what are the basis for the number of hours of unmetering [speaker not understood]. >> you codified in your budget, a vote up and down on the budget, but they also make -- the mta unlike the board of directors can make amendments to budgets, they can recommend increases and decreases, certain forms of revenue that they vote on it. is that correct? >> they really don't vote by line item. as i said, every budget is made up of hundreds of thousands of decisions and a proposed budget.

we got direction back from the public forums and from mta board hearings that resulted in a final budget thats was brought to them, but they were not voting on individual lines ultimately in the budget. >> and then there is a discussion about whether to go forward with sunday or to repeal sunday metering. there was no vote for that discussion, there was just a discussion and it was already in the budget, there was no need to make any changes before them? there is continue a separate vote on the issue. there was plenty of discussion over newsome board meter p sunday metering other thing. i presented a budget the last budget i presented was april 15th. there's was never a separate vote on any other expect of the budget. ~ aspect of the budget. >> so, the board of directors,

the mta, by not making any changes, that was their, essentially, affirming the budget that was presented to them, they were [speaker not understood] they were repealing sunday metering. that's what their discussions were about, is that correct? >> i guess you could say in essence. our first board workshop february 4th to the public hearings on the board to the first budget hearing on april 1st, to april 15th, there was lots of feedback not just from board members, but from members of the public. it was my job to synthesize that feedback and convert it into proposed balanced budget for their consideration and that's what i did. so, i know the city has been through very intensive process over the past year and a half around looking at our capital budget, especially when it

comes to vehicle purchases and building the kind of infrastructure for our streets and sidewalks that would make muni more efficient, manage congestion, san francisco t-2030 process. a lot of that has been shown -- what was shown in that process, we have huge capital needs and including [speaker not understood] as well that are not entirely being fulfilled. i think it's several billion dollars, $10 billion overall that needs to be invested in the system on the capital side. but on the operation side, the city has not been meeting its targets around our untimed performance rates of 85%. clearly there are needs that we have that need to be addressed. part of that is revenue, part of that is vehicle maintenance, part of that is making sure our

operators are in place and paying for line staff. today's discussion has been about the repeal of sunday metering, it's about restructuring the budget. you know, i look at the exemption for statutory exemption, it's really about ensuring that in this case the mta would have adequate funds to meet the great challenges it has in its budget. but there has been a decision that has been made that is actually removing fund that it meet the great challenges it faces. so, to me restructuring doesn't [speaker not understood], reducing the amount of money and actually preventing the mta from meeting its operational needs, which was what the exemption was built for. [speaker not understood], for purpose it wasn't actually there to be used for.

and, so, there would be some type of intervention that should be applied. i hear the arguments. i hear restructuring is the basis for the argument for statutory exemption, but here i don't exactly think that it applies, especially knowing just how great the operational and capital needs are of the mta. >> i don't disagree with you in terms of the needs of the agency in the transportation system, both on the operating side and the capital side. there are dozens if not hundreds of revenue lines in our budget. we have fairly broad authority, the sfmta board has fairly broad authority to raise or lower most of them. we could raise fares significantly. we could raise other parking fees and fines significantly.

there were a number of different decisions that went into the budget. some of them were increasing revenue items, some of them were decreasing, such as some of our fare policy decisions, eni eliminating a customer service fee. in totality, the revenues would significantly increased and these two budget years and the exemption was really looking, as i understand, and consistent with the restructuring portion of the exemption was looking at the entire budget. >> i understand the argument about the entire budget, about removing significant amount of funds away from the mta budget in this case $11 million. when you still have supervisor norman yeedx, i think doesn't quite hold up for me, but i appreciate the explanation. >> colleagues, any further questions? ~ to the city staff? okay, at this time why don't we hear from individuals that wish

to speak on behalf of the real party in interest. >> thank you, mr. president. my name is christopher doll ~. and in spite of the phrases phlegm is tissue and torture greasement, i still would urge board members to support the amendment. the c-e-q-a is an expense we don't need to waste on a public facility that is going to be defunct in 15 years. we are all going to be riding in google's robo free because [speaker not understood] are being exchanged for google ads for the length of the ride. just think, members.

lightweight, fully electric, free rides in google bugs. we won't need buses in 15 years. thank you very much. >> thanks. next speaker. good evening, supervisors. my name is john fitch. i'm a native born of san francisco. i say san franciscans are [speaker not understood], pacified, pampered. you need remove that pacifier. sunday is a day of rest, and clearly everyone in this room needs one. every person in here need one to worship their god, whoever they praise. the [speaker not understood] needs their rest just like we do. and we sit here, we go back and forth. this is 2015.