like to see this called out as the court house fee so that people understand when this hit a parking ticket go up, this is a fee from the state that is being passed through. it is not just us raising parking fines. sfmta has raised parking fines and off and gotten criticism for that from some, it is not reasonable that the agency be blamed when it is the state that is imposing the fee. we also believed extending parking meter hours to evenings in commercial districts is a good idea. we think you should allow logging -- longer parking

durations during those hours. you want to give people time to have dinner, or dinner and the movie. there have been a lot of concerns expressed by neighborhood merchants, restaurant owners. we want to make sure that that is accommodated. we think if you look at other cities, overwhelmingly, there is parking meters with wander hours than they are here. we have come to expect -- that does not reflect the patterns of use anymore. we think you should extend hours to noon to 6:00 on sundays and commercial districts or parking availability is low. to allow for longer parking directions during those hours.

the sfmta also recommends the board work with neighborhood merchants to choose the appropriate locations for this policy. this is not necessarily a one size fits all thing. this is something that it may make sense to look at this on a case by case basis and see where the parking use is sufficient that meters would be beneficial on sundays. we have also had some discussion about this today in the budget balancing committee and i think they will be addressing the board a little further about that. i will not belabor the point. we also support adding 500 to 1000 new metered spaces in front of parcels under not zoned -- that are not zoned r.

that was one of the things that was brought up as an objection when the whole north mission parking expansion discussion. we think having those -- it is appropriate to do these kinds of parking meter expansions, but they should not be in front of residential buildings. we also recommend that if the board were to consider charging for transfers or increasing the single cash fair for non clipper users. if it is a choice between charging for transfers or charge a little extra for people were not using clipper, if you opt for the latter option. we think the agency has had some bad experiences with charging for transfers, and we think that

going the other route would be preferable to that. i know both of those that have come up as options considered to fill revenue gaps, and we think one of those is preferable to the other. we do not think charging for transfers is a policy this agency should pursue. the system is, after all, designed around the idea of making it easy for people to transfer when we went to be modified grid system. because san francisco is a transit first city, we urge the board to undertake all possible efforts come at -- efforts to preserve federal funding.

i am sure this is not a controversial recommendation here, but we felt it important to underscore the importance of pursuing that federal money given all the tax money san francisco sense to washington. we also recommend the sfmta board request from the city attorney and memo outlining the constraints on the mta to regulate or charged franchise fees on tour buses, a charter buses, a private shuttle buses, a private educational institution buses. there has been a lot of discussion about what is and is not legal for us to do. what is and is pre-empted by state regulation. these buses interfere with mta's

operations. in some cases, they do not. we need to have a real discussion about a word that fits in and whether they should be paying their fair share -- about whether that fits in and whether they should be paying their fair share. we think to have that discussion, we need to know the parameters of what the city can do about this, if anything. that starts by knowing what our legal options are. we think this memo should be made public so that the cac can deliberate, so the public can have a discussion, so that any interested parties can talk about it. we have a recommendation about recorders.

in november of 2007, san francisco voters approved proposition a. a dedicated 80% of parking revenues to transit. in subsequent budgets, work orders send those new resources out of the mta at the expense of transit operations. we think in order to establish public support necessary to secure additional resources, to go back to the people of san francisco, to restore the faith, we really need to and at least $26 million worth of work orders to reverse things to the pre- prop a stage in order to show

good faith to the voters that money allocated to this agency will actually go to transit and will not go to, say, pay for the traffic division of the sfpd. we think this is something important to do before going back to the public to ask for more money. we have a recommendation that the sfmta work with 311 for arrival time requests. there are some requests for arrival times that have to stay at 311. 511 is not quite as culturally competent as 311. it does not offer as wide a range of language support. many calls are simply people

asking when this next -- that is something that machine can answer. in fact, when you call 311, the operator is looking at up on the web. they're just telling you what they find there. we think that finding a way to channel does do 511 will lower cost. we should also publicized 511. in the past, the cac has recommended putting prominent signage. it is much easier to use 511 when you have date stop number. seventh avenue, no? seventh avenue. it is easier to key in.

so the -- that is something we would like to see it explored since we are paying for 511 anyway. we made a recommendation supporting the staff proposal for $2 million reduction in management salaries and benefits. that is also something where the agency is taking a positive step toward establishing good faith with the public. we also further recommend that senior management positions be reviewed to determine they are under the correct civil service classification for the actual duties and responsibilities of their respective positions.thisk it is important that to win so many people are being asked to

sacrifice in a difficult budget year, we make sure that is being handled as well. our last recommendation, which will be the most controversial, we recommend the sfmta sick enough grant money so there is no loss revenue from the agency from sources that would otherwise not go to sfmta -- with a limited number of rides set per day. this is a difficult budget year. i think most people think there is a good policy aim behind providing free muni for low end, youth, but we also think that you have to look at this as a

decision about priorities. are we going to take money that would come to the sfmta, at things that affect service for everybody? when the bus is late, it is like for everybody on the bus, regardless of their age, regardless of their socioeconomic status, regardless of whether they are disabled. we think that this is a good idea, but it needs to be funded with money that would not otherwise come to sfmta for transit purposes. the staff proposal we have seen so far does not meet this recommendation. we think that in a difficult budget year like this, this is not -- we are holding a budget balancing committee to try to figure out how to close our

short-term and long-term deficit, it is not realistic to say, by the way, we will throw an a five or $10 million item that it is coming out of money, much of which would be going to be sfmta and be able to be spent on transit. we support doing this. we support during this with funds from a source that does not impact transit. you know, young people have somewhere to be, too. young people get in trouble if they are not to add school lunch time. if they show up at work late. they are the ones -- young people get in trouble if they are not to school on time. if they show up at work late. providing reliable service is doing more for use than providing -- youth than

providing free service for youth. that is where we came out on this. we understand it is a difficult issue. we had a lot of discussions about exactly what we support and exactly what we do not support around this. that is where we stand on end. that is what we are recommending to you. if you have the questions, i would be happy to answer them. otherwise, it thank you very much for your attention to this. >> thank you, mr. murphy. thank you very much for the recommendations. >> thank you very much. >> [inaudible]

i am sorry, just one moment. as previously discussed, we will move general public comment on items not on the agenda to further down the agenda. we will move on to consent calendar. >> these are items considered. members of the public have requested that items with regard to establishing left and right

turn lanes be severed from the consent calendar. those are the only request i have received. >> thank you. >> i have one question. why do we sole source our agreement for workers comp? >> generally, we do not. what we are doing, rather than separately contacting for third- party administrative services for workers comp, we are joining with the city. we are doing a joint request for proposals. this is just an extension. we will do a competitive process. >> thank you very much. >> all in favor, aye. thank you. we will go on to e and f.

i believe the director has a comment. >> i wanted to note these items have to do with the changes we are recommending to facilitate the bicycle lanes that were approved in the plan as well as a number of other plants. bicycle lanes on cesar chavez east, there has been a lot of work to get to this point. i wanted to note, the meeting we had this weekend. as we are discussing the cesar chavez east, we at the same time have the jfk bike lanes going end. -- going in. they are separated from traffic.

it is a significant amount of progress that we are making post-and down -- post- injunction. to the naked safe. we are encouraged -- to make it safe. we are encouraged by that. >> thank you, director. public comment? >> those are the only two people who have turned in speaker cards on this matter. >> good afternoon. i am a 46-year resident of san francisco. i am an urban planner. thank you very much for severing this from the agenda to hear my concerns. i've long been involved with projects along the california coast line.

cesar chavez expressway is the major corridor in the city of san francisco. in my involvement in these kinds of projects over the years, i do not feel there has been adequate consideration or out reached to the maritime industry, to the maritime users along the corridor. i would ask you to consider about three conditions if you do choose to approve this. i do have three conditions i would like you to consider, which i did segment in a letter over the weekend. those conditions are that it is very important, it is imperative that the monitor the traffic to determine how the level of service is going. these cargo movements, northern

california, the region. we are concerned about the impacts on bicycle lanes. the second comment -- the second, if it starts to show signs of failure, it did it to the very lowest level possible, that you remove those bicycle lanes. in conclusion, that you hold an outreach session and educational session with san francisco bicycle coalition, to discuss a safety concern. thank you. >> thank you. bill butler. >> good afternoon. members of the board. my name is bill butler, i am a former executive for one of the port of san francisco's largest industrial tenants.

i am addressing you on the same issue. the proposed cesar chavez east bicycle lane project. as you know, the cesar chavez corridor in this area is here important for trucks and industrial users from the port of san francisco and the surrounding industrial areas to access to under 80, 101, and east neighborhoods -- 280, 101, and the east neighborhoods. i fully support needed bicycling improvements in the city. in this instance, i am concerned that the proposed changes at this intersection will create some major conflicts between bicyclists and the current users and truckers for the maritime businesses. i am very concerned that there

could be a future capacity fell years for this intersection. i understand the staff report indicates this proposal will not significantly increased traffic under existing conditions. but i am concerned about the future. that could have significant impacts on the viability of the industrial uses. i, too, urged the commission to adopt the conditions recommended. that the mta monitor the traffic levels at the intersection, at issue a warning when it approaches the level of failure. when it reaches levels of the service, restore the through traffic lanes and the intersection. it would place them at of the existing right of way, so they could be maintained. facilitates educational safety outreach. >> thank you, mr. butler.

last speaker. >> good afternoon, directors. i am a community planner with the san francisco bicycle coalition. i urge you to approve the changes that allow for more dedicated bicycle space on cesar chavez east. dedicated bike space is essential. for a long time, cesar chavez -- the mta has not invested in safe bicycle connection to these neighborhoods. i am happy to see your staff beginning to do so. community average started a decade ago. i know we have an injunction kind of halting things. staff has devoted significant resources. i have been a part of two community meetings, the public hearing about a month ago was very well attended. trucking companies, residents,

industry people that rely on cesar chavez were there. there was one person at the public hearing last month but was not in favor. we made every effort to reach that person to try to talk. today, i am urging that you please approve these changes. hopefully, -- i will submit to use some of the latest support letters. as well as folks from a major employer on cesar chavez. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> is there anyone else who wishes to address the board on this matter? please step forward. >> we have two more speakers. >> thank you very much. i lived in a resident of san

francisco for 69 years. i have been a resident -- i will like to say that in the area of cesar chavez, i did not come to speak on this issue, but i would like for you to think about monitoring that area. we are having problems right now because of rezoning without the community knowing anything about it. i did not know this meeting was being held today because i am not a bicycle rider and i do not own a business. you really need to be careful on what you are voting on because of that area. the southeast sector, a lot of people do not know the community. people come here 10, 15, 20 years ago and started making decisions. do not know about the land and this area. the fact that most of the area

is landfill. i want you all to take the advice of the young lady that spoke. it needs to be monitored. that way, you will know what is going on in the area. thank you during a match. >> thank you, ms. jackson. >> -- thank you very much. >> thank you, ms. jackson. >> one of the things that people do not realize in this city, these trucks cannot stop in stanley. -- instantly. i am seeing more and more bicycles, and running in front of trucks that are extremely large. i think she is correct.

we have to take a close look at this issue. they have blind spots. it does not matter. you have to be very, very careful. with this many trucks in an area, and bicycles. i did not plan to speak on this either. i wanted to put my input and. >> much appreciated. director? >> one question for the director. with any major changes, we will monitor them. if we got to intersection failure, that is something that we take action on. i assume you do not have any issue with the suggestion that we simply monitor that to make sure this change does not inadvertently harm commerce in the city. is that fair? >> that is absolutely fair. that is an explicit part of the

conversation that we had with the port of san francisco. they had some similar concerns. everybody recognizes that the traffic is such that from a capacity standpoint, these changes will not create a problem. there will be more capacity with these changes put in place. this is a lesser arrangement. there will be more capacity than there is currently volume. our agreement with the port and with the public is that we will monitor this and adjust as necessary. there were some alternative ideas that could be part of the solution in the future if we reach that point. we are ready to do so. i believe reiterate one point that was made, there is no question that there are safety concerns where you have these large vehicles. that is what troubles on this road. that is exactly the reason -- that is what travels on this

route. that is the reason we are proposing the change is that we are. >> given that confirmation on the monitoring and given the comments we heard about the public outreach, which i think all of us knew about, i would be inclined to move the staff recommendation. >> thank you. i have a motion. i have a second. i want to say i do appreciate the members of the public speaking out on this. this is a very important connection and we did receive a lot of e-mails. may i have a vote, please? thank you. >> on to your regular calendar, madam chair. >> we will go ahead and called the budget, which is item 15. i am sorry we are being a little fluid