Were still figuring that out. Were working with d. P. W. To come up with an overall programme. There will be additional work. Blah blah blah. Plus, they announced there that there may be an additional operating division somewhere in the bayview, but couldnt discuss the location, etc. , etc. Things that have not, in my view, been before this board and are not reflected in currently approved documents. So, theres some interesting stuff happening with this building progress programme. Nevertheless, i do support the work to update older facilities and modernize those facilities and look at joint development opportunities, although the joint Development Work seems to be much, much farther out in the future than perhaps it should be. I think there needs to be an overall Work Programme developed internally and for public consumption. Im waiting for that. I think it is importants for you and important for the public. And then in terms of this specific contract, since this is a longterm programme, in particular, i think this outreach work, the outreach component of this, should be done by inhouse staff. This is not a shortterm assignment. This is going to be many, many years and so having staff to be engaged in this on an ongoing basis makes more stones me than having an outside consultant contractor do it. For that matter, perhaps some of the environmental work you may likely oppose this contract in short order here, but there should be more consideration to doing this kind of work inhouse with city staff. Thank you. Directors, do i have any questions or commentses or notion approve . Notion approve. Ive got a motion and ive got a second. All in favour . Aye . Any opposed . No. Hearing none, 10. 4 is approved. Lets go on to 10. 5. 10. 5 approves a contract modification for 12282r with n. T. K. Construction to decrease the contract amount by 16 million. Extend the Contract Term to 593 days and terminate the contract for convenience. So, on this contract, i did read the staff report carefully. I could not tell, despite the lengthy verbiage, what work was actually accomplished for the 16 million and change that will be left here and what work remains to be done with the rebid contract. There apparently was some work done in the tunnel but it is not clear how much. The last i saw the tracks, the replacement tracks were still in the public rightofway along juniper boulevard between sloan and ocean avenue. I dont know when those tracks will be removed. They have been siing there for a couple of years now. Its also not clear what the status of the rebid is. The staff report did indicate that that is coming before the sport at some point soon, but was not real clear as to when and again what scope remains there. Im of the view that the Environmental Review work that was done on this project may need to be reconsidered in light of the changed scope and method of project delivery and impacts on the public. Perhaps well argument about that another day. And finally to the extent that there is bus substitution and passenger impacts from this promise ive said before that we were in the twin peaks tunnel and doing the other tunnel work is absolutely important. [bell ringing] but the impacts on passengers, whether this is a weekend shutdown, several lengthy weekday shutdown, some combination 50days, all kinds of different options ive heard about affects passengers greatly. And to hear that the contract will be let and will figure out later what the passenger impact will be and how bus substitutions can work, i think it is wrong. And we should incorporate the passenger impacts and [bell ringing] thank you very much. In the contract up front. Mr. Reiskin do we have a member of staff that can answer the question for the work thats been done for this dollar amount and the work that remains to be done . Yeah. And answer twlrnlts information on the website about the project is up to date. Certainly. Let me give an overview and i do have staff here. A lot of good questions and i want to join and convey my condolences to you . Er the loss. With regard to this contract, i first want to say that a lot of what ultimately drove our decision to change the schedule and ultimately the rebid was driven on its Impact Community operations and the people that it serves so that was very much on the forefront of this decision process. Well be bringing an item to you in february with a new contract where the service plan has been thoroughly thought through. Lots of conversations weve had with various stakeholders on that and so you will see that all reflected in february as the goingforward plan. With regard to what was done, a large majority of the expenditure was for materials so the rails that mr. Pillpel mentioned which i thought had been moved by now. But in any case, it was primarily to purchase equipment. There were other costs that the contractor incured that we reimbursed. Much of the physical work was more exploratory in nature. We were able to identify a number of conditions that we were not aware of, that were able to scope in to the revised rebid. But the short answer is that i believe the most the biggest single component of the expenditure is for materials that we will be using in the new contract. The rails that were purchased will not need to be purchased but the main body of scope, which is the replacement of the rails and the underlying infrastructure, including the drainage as well as the seismic strengthening, that is the work to be done which well discuss with you next months is projected to be starting this summer and with a duration of up to 60 days as well as weekend shutdowns so it will be a combination. So, again, were a lot of the decisions about this project have been driven very much with the riders in mind and we get that regardless of how we did this and do it, there will be great disruption and inconvenience and weve been working hard to develop a service plan that is going to minimize that inconvenience to the greatest extent possible. Thank you, director. And to director bordens request could we simply ask that somebody make sure that the m. T. A. Website is uptodate with all the information information . Project information . Yeah. It could be that until we have the new contract ready to tee up, we have not had that current. If it is not current, well make it so quickly and have much more certainty after we bring you the contract in february. I think it goes to the timeline sort of things that people care most about. Fair enough. Thank you for pointing that out. It is good to have a lot of advanced notice. Thank you. Do i have a motion to approve 10. 5 . Notion approve. Do i have a second . Second. All in favour . Aye . Opposed . Hearing none, it is aproved. So. 6. Approved contract modification to contract 12, Improvement Project with management to compensate the contractor for direct and indirect costs resulting from various reasons, increasing the contract amount by 4 million and 50,000 to extend the Contract Term to 1282 days. Thank you. Mr. Pillpel . Thank you. On this, i was not able to read through the account regiment, sorry. Theres been considerable passenger impact from bus substitution due to work here inner sunset and related projects affecting the n line as we know. What was not clear to me was, again, if the work how much of the work is complete. Is all of the work complete . Because the calendar item summary did not include that this was a close out. Is this the final contract mod in close out . Is all the work done or are there still punch list items in sunset tunnel . And i guess my summary on five, six and seven, ill get to seven when we get to that in a moment, is if if i could talk to staff before things get to the board, i could probably ask those questions and work this out before hand. Some of these things are helpful to be in public. Over things we could just talk about before hand and when we get to a later item, staff did reach out to me on one item, which i very much appreciate. So, you know, its kind of up to the board and staff as to how you wand to handle my comments. I do care about these things very much and i do try to read this stuff as closely as i can. Thank you. Thank you. Before i ask for a motion to approve, ill just affirm the same thing that once we have this updated, the website will be updated and well have the most pertinent and uptodate information on there. Correct. And the work is substantially complete. There are punch items that i dont believe will require any revenue hour impacts. So, there shouldnt be any i dont believe there will be any passenger impacts. At the same time we lined this up with inner sunset street work that is happening so there could be other shutdowns. As far as this promise and this contract is concerned, the work is substantially complete with punch list items remaining. Thank you. And ill note how important this type of Maintenance Work is to our system. We can see from the example of new york city and washington, d. C. The impact that deferred maintenance ultimately has on our passengers. We do appreciate the work that is going on to make sure we keep our system running. 10. 6, motion to approve . Approved. Second . Second. Hear nothing oppose, approved. 10. 7. A motion to view track replacement project at 19th avenue and rossmore with provan to compensate the contractor for various cost, increasing the contract amount by 314,338 and exiting the term of the contract by 193 days. Thank you. Mr. Pillpel. Thank you. On this as well, the website should be updated because the dates have change add few times. There have already been bus substitutions primarily for the work at is theth and juniper sera. I understand that there will be further bus substitutions to do this work at rossmore. I did not comment on the original contract when it was before the board. I forget why last year. My concern on the scope of this project relates to the support poles at 19th avenue across from mercy high school. There continue to be a number of concrete support polls that the overhead [inaudible] attaches to athrong j, k, l, m, n lines and some of the other places like van ness avenue. Where possible, i think those historic support poles should be retained. Where its not possible due to Structural Integrity issues or age, wear, whatever, where it is possible to fabricate new poles that resemble the old poels and maintain the historic significance of those support poles, some of which are now over 100, over so 5 years old. I think that would be excellent in the city. I think our historic structures, whether they be buildings or other facilities like this, should be maintained and the continuing disappearance of our citys history troubles me. So, i took the time to just make that point. I dont know if that can be changed in the scope of this particular contract. But as we go forward, whether its on taravale or other places with support poels, i ask you to consider that. Again, there will be further passenger impaxes and it would be nice to have a larger master schedule of all of these big projects that have impacts on passengers so that were not just having random bus substitutions throughout the year. Thank you. Directors, do i have a motion to approve 10. 7 . Do i have a second . Second. In all favour . Aye . Any opposed . No . Hearing none, 10. 7 is approved. Madame chair, that concludes your consent calendar. Well move to the regular algds da. Item 11, amends section 905 to limit the number of residential parking permits to no more than one per person and two per single address, provide for a waiver for residents for up to four residential parking permits that can be issued to a single address, establish permit fees for additional permits issued to residences, provide that permits issued to residents for health care or child care workers shall not count toward the maximum number of permits that can be ish uniformed to a single address for residents of area a. A. And approving various parking and traffic modify diagnosis establish residential parking permit area aa in the Northwest Heights neighbourhoods. I will not read through the specific traffic modification. Thank you. Mr. Wilson, happy new year. Good to see you. Happy new year. Good afternoon, directors. Thank you for having me. My name is hank wilson. Im the policy manager here at the sfmta here to discuss a proposal for residential parking permit area a. A. Which would be the newest area in the city. There is in many ways it is a straight forward proposal, straight forward petition for residents with a little bit of an update that ill talk about in a couple of slides. I dont know if we can get the slide show up on the screen. But the there we go. A little background on the r. P. P. Programme. It started in 1976 and, of course, it is designed to prevent nonresidents, usually employees, or folks who are going to where commuting to go into the city for parking for long periods on neighbourhood streets. Its most important near transportation hubs like bart station or other major transit stations and also parking generators like universities, the financial district, hospitals, things like that. And it is a purely residentdriven process. Its submitted by presenting petitions to the m. T. A. To say that theyre interested in Residential Permit parking and collecting Data Analysis and making a recommendation to this board, whether the requirements of the transportation code have been met. And i think youll hear from a lot of residents today who were the drivers of this. Youll probably hear from residents who are also not big fans and i think youll hear from me talking about some of the tradeoffs and some of the questions that weve gotten throughout the outreach prose. This is a map of the existing r. P. P. S system. There are 29 areas in the city right now. Itself covers about a quarter of the city. As you can see, for the most part, most of the major transportation generators, parking generators in the city have been covered. As the city grows and as the Transit System gets better, there are more transit hubs. For instance, the 1449 and 1440r deliver people into soma much faster than they used to and probably encourages people to park them near Mission Street and take them downtown. There are other as retail neighbourhood retail areas sort of grow into regional and citywide destinations, i think that brings in people from around the bay area and around the city who may want to park on the neighbourhood streets. I think that is what were seeing in the northwestboro area. This is a list of the parking pressures from nonresidence denlszes. St. Lukes, obviously a large hospital a block away, thats growing and about to open up a new administrative building and the local retail is becoming more citywide regional retail attracting people from all over the city. The 24 park street station has been there for a long time, but ridership is up and more people are trying to take advantage of that. St there are a lot of residents in nainlds and a lot of them have cars and not all of them have a place to put their car off street so there is a lot of internal pressure, which, again, i will get to in a minute as to one of the modifications were proposing here. Again, section 905 of the transportation code dictates Residential Permit parking. It says that the sfmta shall go out and collect data, conduct surveys. If residents provide a number of petition signatures, which they have done here, there has to be a mile of street frontage. Ill taung about each of these in line. You see the guideline of 50 of units in favour on any given block is usually the standard in the transportation code for whether residents actually desire r. P. P. On their block. For parking occupancy, we typically use the guideline of 80 or higher to indicate that there is a parking problem here and parking restrictions might help create more availability. We use a guideline of 50 or more nonresident vehicles. And ill talk about the definition of a nonresident vehicle in a minute. As representation that there is a lot of sufficient external pressure. People coming from outside the neighbourhood that a restriction that benefits residents would again help create parking availability and then a look at whether this is sufficient offStreet Parking availability to accommodate all the residents in their cars. To go through these one by one, this is a look at the blue blocks here are the blocks that have at least 50 of the units on those blocks have voted themselves in to this proposed r. P. P. Area. That is more than one mile of street frontage and that 50 threshhold is how they desire to have r. P. P. This is a map of a survey conducted a couple of years ago. As part of the citywide r. P. P. Reform effort, but really relevant to a northwest potential r. P. P. S area showing that parking is difficult to find on a lot of streets. The red lines indicate where parking is 90 or more full. The orange lines where its 80 to 90 full. So essentially every street thats on one that is one of those blue blocks that i showed on the map before, we see fairly impacted parking during the day. Meeting that 80 guideline. The transportation code requires that nonresident vehicles be take up a sufficient number of spaces and the way the transportation code defines nonresident vehicles is a vehicle is registered to an address that is not in the proposed r. P. P. Area. That means whether youre 50 miles away or one block away, you are card nonresident. This came out in area q which is the new r. P. P. Area created back in 2015. Because area q was surrounded by other r. P. P. Areas so people one block away would go park in what became area q because they could leave their cars parked all day and didnt have to purchase a permit or move their car. That is why the definition of nonresident so tight because often times people from one block away may actually choose to come park in an unregulated area or choose to come park in an area where they might be considered neighbours. But they are for transportation purposes considered nonresidents. And signatures were gathered to indicate whether people would be interested and the question is do you have off Street Parking available . Almost 50 of people said they dont. We dont have a specific guideline that we used but that seemed to meet the threshhold, saying that there is not sufficient off Street Parking for residents to be able to park their cars. That a lot of residents arent parking their cars on the street. Dont have access to offStreet Parking and perhaps have one space and two cars. S the average process has been going on for i think about three years now. The as you saw from the original map, ill jump back to that, you can just barely mak