> david pillpail. i was going to make a joke about low income streetcar rental fees but i'll skip that. i have no concern about the modification. income is an seqa issue. the item proposes to revise fees that were just adopted in the budget but this is a separate action, the may 1st deadline for the budget has passed. this is separate from the budget approval. it's a stand alone item and this was actually proposed as i understand after the budget was adopted. so the seqa review that was associated with this item was back from february in connection with the over all budget. did not detail out the fees, include the specific set of proposals. i don't think that the prior approval covers this item and i would likely contest this via an appeal to the board of of supervisors. the february seqa review was not a blanket approval. the agency can't just say any change to fees and fares is covered under 15273. the planning department has to conquer in that and actually needs to review the proposed fee changes. s

single speaker, david pillpail. >> staff is going to want to hear this as well because this is also an seqa issue. do you want me to proceed? >> chairman brinkman: yes, please. >> so is seqa issue here, you already heard from the cac they disagree with the staff recommendation. the issue is this is in any opinion not a minor change to a structure applicable to class one exception. these vehicles are 45 -- are more than 45 years old and the checklist does not so indicate. it marked the other box. the agency just leased space for vintage streetcars to be moved from morin. these are streetcars that could be so moved. i thought that in order to dispose of such streetcars that the agency first had to declare them surplus under the administrative code. the calendar item caption doesn't say declaring them surplus. i'm not sure that the action is within the scope of what is described here. i was also assured that any disposal of such cars would be consistent with a vintage car policy that would be preve pres to the cac and i understand has not been. the calendar item does reference something r

. >> david bill -- david pillpail followed by eddie. >> on this item that was a very interesting presentation by john haley. i think i'm neither in support nor in opposition. i would likely support this but i was not clear from the staff report what is implicated here, whether that he has were existing motor coaches, trolly coaches or some combination. i couldn't tell the term electric high drid -- hybrid vehicles. it's confusing to me. i did not understand how there was supposedly no seqa issue, how this is not a project. it seems to me like this policy change would have positive but somewhat dramatic facility fleet feel guideway. definitely neighborhood policy and staffing impact on the agency and the city and to suggest that didn't constitute a propresident oba project if you're making a policy choice to procure only a certain type of vehicles going forward and that that doesn't have impact surprises me. so, again, wasn't clear what vehicle types this implicates, how this relates to the fleet plan that's a component of the capital improvement plan and the capital budget. i think that this