an problem would begin. so -- so how can you -- without the approval of the m.t.a. board of directors. not only that how can you set it up without meeting with concern with this local? until today, i received the -- what is it called? the employee parking proposal. this is the first time i seen it. i have issues with it. not only that, i hope you have seen this -- this paperwork. they talk about 2000. we're in 2011. when they say the privilege of tree parking encourages employees to drive alone, let it

be [unintelligible] 3:00 this the morning. some of us get up late at night. we got 24/7. but still the process has been violated and we demand that you stop this nonsense. we need to meet and confirm on issues. if this is a good example that including the board has been bypassed. >> mark gonzalez. >> good afternoon, president nolan and board of directors. i agree with the previous speakers. the workers that repair the vehicles come in at all hours of the night. we prepare the cable cars and -- when the system stops at 2 or 3:00 in the morning. no way for the employees to go there. but a bigger problem yet at our contract this past practices has

parking available in it. it is not a meet issue, it is contractual. we signed the contract. it is the contract they signed which they seem to do regularly and don't want to meet with us over the things they sign in the contract, then that's a bigger problem. the signed contract that says people have parking. and then to ignore that and employees coming in all hours of the night and day that -- that don't work those hours and can't afford to live in the city. i wish the guys could live on cesar chavez and enjoy the things you presented today. they can't afford it. they live outside the city and have to commute in. it is not like they could come together and meet in one place or anything like that. they work all kind of different shifts in different areas. i wish you guys would respect that and look at that. >> thank you. next speaker. >> the last speaker on this

matter. >> thank you, directors. the -- i understand that the parking comes with the -- with the union contract. if you don't honor your union contract, this is really improper use of political process. this is not the place -- you don't say, we -- we signed our names over there but over here we're going to work it out some other way. that's just rotten. the other thing i like to point out is that -- the wording of this item is boilerplate. it is not possible to read this and know that you're talking about taking a parking place away from people. it sounds like you're trying to charge for space that is yours. that sounds reasonable. if it doesn't sound like what -- what it says, then what you have is -- is a wicked cipher with no difference between word and deed. i really am disappointed to see

this kind of boilerplate put in front of the public. thank you. >> there's one more. >> good afternoon. >> good afternoon. thank you so much. members of the board of directors. my name is kevin luse. i'm business representative with local number six. regarding item 13, speaking in opposition. as far as equitable treatment goes, we say if we charge the public for parking, why don't we charge the employees that provide parking to the public? as far as -- as far as the reason why they should -- public transit employees should be treated differently is they don't have a choice. as far as transit first policy, we encourage the public to utilize transit.

as an employee you may not have the selection, due to the fact that you're off, off peak as it relates to your ability to travel to work. that is an exceptional and unusual circumstance as it relates -- in my mind as it relates to transit employees in particular. in addition if you're a city employee who provides public education at unified or community college sdefwrict, you don't have to pay to park. if you're employed by the city and county of san francisco, the city doesn't seek two extract revenue from you to provide the public service. yet if you're a public transit employee, you're expected to be held to the public standard versus the other similar situations of public employees. with respect to collective bargaining agreements, i believe that the terms of the collective bargaining agreements will trump, i suggest if you haven't got an opinion from council --

counsel you seek that. and then also look for a cost-benefit analysis. if it hasn't beep done as it relates to -- been done, cost to install, implementation. the impact on adjacent neighborhoods, because you're going to have impacts on adjacent neighborhoods as it relates it -- relates to -- >> that it? >> yes. >> i guess you have something to talk about. >> thank you, chairman knollalen. the speakers have raised a number of good points here. in fact what the m.t.a. board is being asked to vote on today is in fact a modification of -- to the transportation code, which will prohibit any nons.s.m.t.a. property on a s. is s.m.t.a. property unless it pays $55 for a violation. that's a narrow description of what we're being asked to adopt

here today. i'm okay with adopting that narrow language with the very important caveat and that's that the -- the motion would be amended as such that under no circumstances will this action by the board violate any collective bargaining agreement and is signed by the m.t.a. of the city and county of san francisco. >> second to that? >> seconded. >> discussion on the amendment? >> is there a staff reaction to that? is that acceptable to -- >> to the board. >> we're -- we're not in the business of -- of breaking contracts. >> you're just making explicit -- what we anticipate happening. >> make it explicit. >> absolutely. >> and the issues raised. >> to be a part of the motion. >> i just want to make sure that

doesn't give the impression that we assume that contract will complaint to have that parking in it going forward iner. tutey, but it would always be up for renegotiation. >> assume that's correct. >> that's correct. >> and the term of the existing agreements. >> it doesn't presuppose all of our contracts have such provisions. what director beach is saying underscoring if -- >> i didn'tcy if, i said we will not violate the terms of any collective bargaining agreement. >> it is not writing terms in an agreement that doesn't exist. >> or that will exist going forward. >> coming up the -- >> we have 22 different unions that are represented in the m.t.a. specifically in terms of debra, would you have that number of

the contract that is have language related to -- to parking and which ones the -- the number that don't. they have 20 collective bargaining agreements, we negotiate eight of those contracts. in reference to -- to the collective bargaining agreements that have language, i don't have the document in front of me. i would have to turn to staff to see if they have that readily available if you allow me to do that. i pool jice. i didn't bring that with me. in reference to -- in reference to mr. hughes comments regarding that contract, local six, i do know that's included in the contract. i also know that 144 in reference to mr. gonzalez when he made reference to the contract, it is included there. there's not a direct reference -- i know in regards to local 258. i do know that.

i can double back with you once again and provide you that information. i apologize, i don't have that forlede present with me to outline each and every one of the labor units. >> to be clear. i don't want to put words in director beach's mouth. i think we're on the same page. if a collective bargaining agreement has a provision for parking that we're not oning to that. this is adopted for those workers that do not have it in the contract. that's how i understand the amendment. >> it is but i want to make clear what we're voting on is only a penalty if a vehicle does not dismay a appropriate proof of payment. >> yes. >> we put this as part of the budget last year and i understand that people don't pay a lot of attention to it. it actually starts to happen. this is a clarification. i have to say though that i found it disappointing that that flier that -- that a couple of

gentlemen showed me, that flier that appeared last week, my mind the intent of the couple of weeks was that -- as a courtesy to the drivers and employees to get their input and see if there were extenuating circumstances that we didn't know about. to have that go out, to my mind, is an unfortunate mistake. i don't know if you talked about that at all, but because of his right, this body's decision to do this -- or not, and -- i think jump the gun on that at the very least. >> right. our original schedule was much sooner in the year then it got moved to february 1st. we continued it once again. it was clearly a situation where our managers who are -- are 1307bsible for those area -- responsible for those areas in parking, they understood we were moving forward february 1st based on the original board decision with the approval of the budget. i guess it did not filter down that we were debating and

discussing this issue. >> i wouldn't have a problem with it a week after or something. the whole point of the thing was to be respectful of our employees. to my mind that's not. i don't think there's malice behind it. it 150e78s that way. >> okay. >> -- nothing to say about that. >> [inaudible] >> great. >> chairman is lipping here this afternoon. >> okay director beach's motion. for the to stay together. >> my -- my motion is that under the terms of what the board is being asked to adopt today that under no circumstances will this violate any of the terms of current collective bargaining agreements. it does not preclude this item coming up for negotiation in the future. >> that's the motion. there was a second. so further discussion, all in

favor say aye. >> aye. >> and an amended resolution. is there a motion? >> i have that. where. as i understand it, this sort of authorizes you guys to enforce this. when i say that, i should be more specific. >> this just set the penalty for violation of it. it does not speak to whether you're going to do it or not. that action in terms of whether the board is implementing employee parking or not was made back at the approval of the budget. >> we did that in the budget. my question to this is now we're going to enforce this policy, if this passs with this penalty, the -- does staff have a plan to address the situation, where for example you have a mechanic who is working from 11:00 a.m. to 4:00 a.m., and these odd off-hour shifts. is that something that will be addressed as this plays out over time. maybe the better way to ask, what is your reaction to that specific concern? >> in our discussions regarding

this, clearly there's no one size fits all. while we have -- a memo that came out on inadvertently, our plan is to be sensitive in how we implement this. we value the employees that work off hours and the impact this will have on them. we'll work facility by facility and deal with the unique situations and work environments to make sure there's no -- no overarching burden on our employees. it is not going to be easy. but this concept we're there. i think in terms of the details and marching it out vas ilt -- facility and by facility and work group and those that have it in the bargaining agreement and those that don't, the actual paying of fines and things of that nature, we have ideas but ultimately we're going to have to deal with these on a case by case basis.

>> okay. on the -- the motion? the total resolution. the resolution as amended. do you have one? >> so moved. >> second. motion and second. further discussion. all in favor say aye. opposed. thank you. >> mr. chairman moving on to the next item. item 14 recommending the approval of amendments to the transportation code, one by amending and establish [inaudible] parking meters and establish, for broken parking meters for off street parking. do you want to address you on this matter? >> the public. >> okay. >> good afternoon. i want to say that -- i think i'm going to -- support this and

say that this was a fair resolution to this. and address the concerns of the public and also the board. i urge you to pass this. as compared to the last measure which i think is insensitive, charging police officers for parking on their property now, you're going to charge bus drivers for parking on their property. >> one of the big concerns is the vandalism to the parking meters. so our hope is that the two-hour time limit will reduce the vandalism and just to remind everyone if it doesn't -- as we discussed, we look at it again in maybe a year or whatever reasonable amount of time and make sure the vandalism gone down. >> second. >> any further discussion? all in favor say aye. >> aye.

>> authorizing [inaudible] contract number 1239, track improvement project with n.t.k. construction. and for a team not to exceed 710 calendar days. no member of the public has indicated an interest on addressing you on this one. >> a question for staff. the duration of this contract is -- is you know, almost a two years, at some point will we get a presentation on what -- what provisions are being made to replace the n. and j. lines when we do track work in this &. it is something the public will have a high level of interest in. >> yes. we're going to be prepared to present that item to you in the upcoming meetings. the construction is going to start around september. before that, definitely we'llee we'll come back with more on the construction sequencing and all

of it. >> socon instruction runs into september -- contrucks into 2013. >> from the proceed date. >> i'm sorry, it goes into 2013. thank you very much. i move the item. >> second? >> discussion? >> sorry. >> me again. i was very involved in this biff came on the board. the track y. project had a lot of community involvement and i think the staff helped move this along. i know one concern that the community had going forward, without signalizing the intersection, which nobody wanted to do, not the m.t.a. or community, not to make it cheer who has the right of way when the train is going through and how to get the cross traffic and pedestrian twrask to get -- to stop and let the train through. there was discussion at the the

meeting. maybe we should look into doing a study not to just handle that intersection but other interseconds where trains are moving through a crowded intersection, with just a sign, to make sure that the trains move through and get the right of way. there was talk of just maybe looking into it, a small study, getting a consultant on board. it is not an issue just at this intersection. it is an issue at intersections in the city, where transit goes through. it would make it worth our while to figure out how to address that, which is not happening in the cannot fines of this project. it is not appropriate to be a part of that bigger project. it is something to consider going forward. >> yes. >> and look into that. come back with a recommendation. >> thank you. >> thank you. we have a motion. a second? >> second. >> director hunnicutt. the motion and second. resolution. aye. >> aye. >> and --

>> the discussion whether to have a closed session. >> so moved. >> second. >> all say aye. >> aye. >> we're in closed session. it'll take us