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. this is where most people hair is green, blue, red. we're not living in the dark ages. we're coming into the new

millennium. one day it's not going to hurt without having the meter maids. most people that are issued tickets on the meters, they're not getting revenue through cash, it's through swap. so, one day without swap it's not going to hurt you. thank you very much. >> thanks. next speaker. ladies and gentlemen of the audience and directors, good afternoon. for the record, my name is emil lawrence. i've been a resident of the city and county of san francisco for 40 years, 43 to be exact. i've been locked in this charade on the budget analysis for the sfmta. i want the pros and conses are

for metering on sunday. i'm a taxi driver in san francisco and i'm regulated by the sfmta. they don't allow taxis to raise and lower their taxis to raise their fees any day but they allow ubers to do so. they allow an instant cab to do so. they raise the signage by 6% on an annual basis while they shrink taxi driver performance and income by 30 to 70% on given days. we have an agency here that is technically out of control, a out of control from the performance office [speaker not understood]. their performance is 55, 50%. [speaker not understood]. the whole muni transportation system should be sold outright to google. then we'd get on-time performance without a problem. they're competing with taxis today.

they're competing with buses today. and they're competing with delivery systems today. and the mayor supports it. he supports it on both sides. the issue here we have today is the sfmta qualified to manage this glowing and growing bureaucracy that sucks up money nonstop faster than their expenses. and at the same time is growing faster than it has the ability to pay for it all. i bring this to your attention because i've been a taxi driver 16 years and i've watched all of it. i thank you for your time in this matter. hello, my name is matthew [speaker not understood]. i'm hoping you're having a good day today. i agree with some of the concerns raised before, but i also believe that the publicis item should -- public users should be run and owned by the

public, not by some private entity. that's an aside. now i'm here because i have ridden the san francisco municipal transportation agency bus line since i moved here in february and i am a native. i have raised this issue directly on the seventh floor [speaker not understood] and i finally put in a sunshine ordinance whatchama-call-it, to get this information to get to the bottom of it. i've gotten on those buses. ifill gotten on those train cars. i was told by an operator i am not allowed to do ti was told by another operator i have a legally allowed to be new [speaker not understood] on this bus system. it is not funny. it's my right and this is what i personally believe in. there are [speaker not understood] who would love to get on the trolley car system or any of the buses, but

they're not allowed to because the operator does not feel comfortable to it. so, i could you guys give me something in writing that states i'm legally as is every nudist in this city, free to ride a funded and nonfunded area. i'd like to be insight of city hall to [speaker not understood]. i've been kicked out. please get down to the bottom of this and please get it in writing because this is ridiculous how i'm being treated and how my fellow [speaker not understood] are being treated. thank you, and have a good day. >> next speaker. good afternoon, mr. president, members of the board. i had not planned on saying anything, but the more i listened at the colloquy between the appellants and the

representatives from the meeting, i felt compelled to issue one word at least. there are a number -- my name is [speaker not understood] phillips and i live in the western addition. there are a number of faith communities [speaker not understood] if you out law some day parking. we simply must have access to get around that area and to man othererv. to uphold the man's decision would be a testimony to the nation and san francisco that san francisco is truly [speaker not understood] to all persons living in the city. thanks for the consideration. have a great day. >> any other members of the public wish to speak? please step up. ~ good afternoon, president chiu and members of the board. i'm chris bowen and i'm a member of the broad based

coalition of san franciscans who want to restore transportation balance in san francisco. we are circulating an initiative [speaker not understood] calling for restoration free parking on sundays, holidays and [speaker not understood]. if anyone is interested to learn -- >> mr. bowman, you know you're not allowed to [speaker not understood]. i'll get to the point. on behalf of our coalition, i urge the board to reject the appeal for you. first, the appellants are trying to do an end run around the trolley by not [speaker not understood] the decision of the sfmta board. rather they are repealing the planning commission's decision [speaker not understood] to

reverse the decision that the sfmta board suspend sunday meters for two years. second, the c-e-q-a determination report weren't required to the imposition of sunday meters, why would it be required now for the suspension of sunday meters? there seem to be some confusion on the part of the appellants and when is the c-e-q-a determination should be made the need for ceqa determination defies logic. yes, greenhouse gases are emitted when people have to circle around the block to find parking and shopping it districts. how greenhouse gas is emit ped [speaker not understood] because of sunday shoppers used to park free in san francisco on sundays now drive up to 20 miles round trip to westlake [speaker not understood] where parking is free and literally available. suddenly the appeal is about merit. i urge you to reject it to

restoration of free sunday parking in san francisco. >> next speaker. hi, mary eliza with csf and [speaker not understood]. good afternoon, supervisors and public. i just wanted to be here to represent all the people who are not here today who have filled out the the [speaker not understood] sfmta request and i wanted to bring to your [speaker not understood] and extending hours of enforcement in the neighborhoods. and thank you very much. all the supervisors have agreed to that. our second request was that you staff enforcing sunday parking meters. so, we're here to request that you deny this appeal and do that. and then we'll get a rowedv to a request later which i know

you're familiar with. we hope you can [speaker not understood] this appeal. thank you. >> supervisor avalos? >> thank you. wanted to follow-up with some questions or really one question i have. first a statement. it's kind of ironic when there was a discussion about repealing sunday meters at the mta board, it was all in context of the vlf going to ballot. yet we don't have the vlf going to ballot. i have a resolution approving the mta budget. i'm not sure [speaker not understood] line items or not, but there is a whereas clause that discusses sunday metering. so, if the mta board decides to eliminate enforcement, packing meetings on sundays including time limit for parking, a meter sunday, [speaker not understood].

it's coming soon. [speaker not understood]. so, it seems like there has been a real, you know, vote, decision, and not just looking at the entirety of the budget, but there are references to line items here that the mta board voted on. we also have not just meeting operating expenses certainly but there has been a service increase that the mta has implemented the next fiscal year which i think is very commendable. we know we helped the mta to actually meet that, but there is rejection of that $11 million. it seems like we don't really have the real basis for, i believe, a statutory exemption in this case. so, i will be voting with the appellants. i expect i'll be voting in the minute art. >> before we continue on, i did

want to give appellants an opportunity to do final rebuttal. you have up to three minutes. >> thank you l. i'll just make a couple quick points ~. briefly, the san francisco bicycle coalition had sent a message supporting the appeal to the board of supervisors. please check your e-mails. with regard to the legal arguments that have been presented by the other side, i'd like to address two things. one is that, yes, the statutory exemptions, the question is are they properly invoked. the statutory exemption has specific readings which i'll read from. [speaker not understood] an exemption under this statutory exemption is claimed, setting forth with specificity, [speaker not understood], which is the exemption code that we're looking at. and the question there is have

the agencies done so? well, attachment a says it has an itemized list that is being exempt. the attachment a to the budget coffers only revenue sources. so, a i'd from being em [speaker not understood] an aye itemized list that doesn't include the decision. the difficulties for the purpose of [speaker not understood] attachment a is really a decision. [speaker not understood] figure out what the c-e-q-a exemption is applying to. the second point i want to make from the legal side is it appears the mta would like this to be considered an appeal of the entire budget. there is rarely necessity under c-e-q-a for the board to do so. you can treat this as an appeal of the c-e-q-a decision to cease sunday meter parking. k-5 by the planning commission that has you have to look at

the whole [speaker not understood]. projects were being proposed with 10,000 units and the agencies were trying to segment that project into different pieces the idea of looking at the project as a whole was designed to protect the environment, it was designed as a shield so agencies couldn't avoid -- agency couldn't shish you your project [speaker not understood] within an overall budget proposal. the other thing is on my letter that i submitted yesterday, there are a number of cases there on page 4 of the discussion of why the board has the discretion to treat this as a limited appeal, object to decision on sunday meter parking. the last point i would make is my colleague has mentioned that free muni for youth is an important initiative that they support and i believe there's a number of ways to avoid having to go through the same process

that is here under c-e-q-a, that their data grid exemptions are common sense subjections, [speaker not understood] avoid the process. thank you. >> thank you, kiloton. ~ colleagues. any final questions to any of the parties involved today? seeing none, this hearing is held and is filed. is there a motion? supervisor wiener. >> thank you, mr. president. i want to thank the departments and also the appellants not just for being here today [speaker not understood], but also for the incredible work that i know the folks who are here today do argue on a basis to try to improve san francisco. as i mentioned before, we worked together on those issues and sometimes frequently it's been an uphill battle. as i mentioned at the beginning, this is -- this appeal is not about whether

members of this board would like sunday meters or don't like sunday meters. this is not about the vlf. we all have a lot of us and develop these issues this is whether they applied a statutory exemption to its decision to no longer enforce sunday meters. i won't repeat some of the questions that i asked to the appellant before. i do think that the appellant's lawyer did the absolute best job that he could do in trying to turn what is a policy disagreement into a c-e-q-a argument. i don't think anyone could have made that argument any better than the appellants' attorney did, but i think that it is pretty clear that this is not a c-e-q-a issue. the statutory exemption was correctly granted regardless of what thing of a substantive policy decision.

and my concern is there are times when it's tempting as a member of the board of supervisors, if you agree on a policy level, you can say [speaker not understood]. there are times this board has done this over the past i think 12 or 13 years, at least the [speaker not understood] will come to the board of supervisors. it doesn't matter. that affects that appeal and i'm done with it. i'm very concerned to say if we [speaker not understood] cannot [speaker not understood], it would start a broad precedent and we would see appeals around all sorts of decisions around fees and reductions and so forth. and we would end up probably seeing higher levels of c-e-q-a review. mr. tyler mentioned negative

declaration. negative declaration, it's a big deal. that is not such an easy thing to do. they are expensive. they are lengthy. we went through a negative declaration on the lois park renovation and it added a year and a half to the project and cost a lot of money. and so that's not a reason to do c-e-q-a review if it's required. but i think rejecting a correctly statutory exemption because one might disagree with the underlying policy decision and trying to force it into a higher level of c-e-q-a review has profound i ~ implications not just for this issue, but others that mta and other agencies deal with situations around fees and fines and fares and so forth. and, so, i have tremendous respect for the appellants as a legal matter. i believe we have a responsibility to apply c-e-q-a consistently and consistent with state law.