management, many will be out -- thank you -- will be out visiting some of the staff who work out in the various locations as we're thanking our riders. we also want to thank the women and men of muni who work hard and as you heard often, when the rest of us are asleep, to make the system function well. swayer developing a video to show at the divisions that celebrate some of the history. i think we've talked before about the rich photo archive. we have really a lot of history we have to celebrate. and then finally next saturday -- on this saturday, the sfmta will be joining with supervisor wiener, the supervisor for district 8, along with duboce park community for a ribbon cutting celebrating the completion of the church and duboce project. i've given you updates along the way of the various shut downs that were quite

disruptive to that point and really to all of our riders on the west side of town. but we're coming out of this project thanks to the engagement of the community, we have a very good project. people are very pleased with the results from an infrastructure standpoint, much better and smoother, more reliable service. but also from a safety standpoint for pedestrians, cyclists, motorists, and muni riders a maytionv achievement. 11:00 a.m., church and duboce we'll be celebrating with the community the success of that project. and that concludes my report. >> thank you, director rifkin. i want to say on the 28th i hope as many members of the board will be able to join and go in the various divisions. we see it in a monthly basis for those we honor. where can you see it on a daily basis? i think it's pretty much everybody almost every day. i encourage everyone to go in the celebration.

okay, anybody else on this particular item? >> i want to add my personal thank you for the left turn pocket on valencia. i read it for the first time last night. it's lovely. i've been terrified of streetcar tracks, so, that made such a nice comfort easy way, welcomed as a cyclist and making that term and the fame mr. yee for the bike path, it's a lot of significance for a lot of people. it has gotten the most out p.e. to me from cyclists i see, any which, public meetings. people saying thank you so much for improvements. * outreach i was on oak street and saw a team of of your staff examining down there during rush hour to figure out how to facilitate the bike lanes. dedicated, they were there at 6:30 in the eaglev. thank you. well done. >> members of the board? members of the public have any comments on mr. rifkin's report? >> this is an opportunity for

members of the public to address the board on only 9 topics that mr. rifkin addressed. we have one member of the public who wishes to speak on one of the item that mr. rifkin discussed. >> anyone else can address the board on the director's report. seeing none, [speaker not understood]. >> all right. mr. chairman, i do not see mr. murphy here, therefore, there is no citizens advisory council report. as you stated earlier, you would like, then, to proceed to item 11 on the regular calendar. >> we will come back to the consent calendar and general public comment after that. okay. >> item 11, authorizing the director to determine the feasibility of central subway project option 4 for the

removal of tunnel boring machines. >> garv. >> good afternoon, chairman nolan, director rifkin, central subway program director. before you is our request to pursue two north beach tvm retrieval options resulting from a meeting held on november 19th facilitated by supervisor david chiu. director rifkin and i met with the members of north beach community and [speaker not understood] the community's concern to minimize surface disruption on columbus avenue between union and powell streets. [speaker not understood] discussionses with north beach community groups including renew sf, washington square park, friends of washington square park, telegraph hill dwellers, joining the development of the final supplemental seisseir, from 2006 to 2008. during the environmental review

period, presentationses were made. comments received, and incorporated into the final environmental document. now, since 2006, the project held 10 community meetings in north beach to inform residents, business owners and organizations of the proposed construction activities. during the project's ten-year planning and development process, other retrieval shaft options along stockton and columbus street right-of-way were evaluate and had presented to the public including the option of removing the tbm from the chinatown station site. the environmental process concluded in 2008 that constructing the retrieval shaft on columbus avenue would cause the least disruption to traffic and public access to locals and businesses. now, that brings us to presentation. four community meeting were held before construction of the north beach retrieval shaft

work which started in august of 2012. the presentations of those four meetings described the work necessary to construct the tbm retrieval shaft on columbus avenue. and some members of the north beach community raised concerns at these meetings about traffic and business disruption caused by the retrieval shaft construction. before you is the plan that's environmentally approved, which shows the retrieval shaft work on columbus avenue. the utility relocation work was completed between august and november of this year. on the half block section of columbus between union and filbert, and only one lane of traffic was closed at a time for this utility work. the construction of the retrieval shaft is scheduled to again 2013, and will be completed in approximately 10 months. the retrieval shaft excavation will require the closure of two lanes on columbus avenue.

to minimize effects of construction we have employed a variety of measures including traffic control and daily street sweeping. the agency decided to move forward with the utility relocation of the proposed columbus street retrieval shaft to meet contractual and grant funding obligations. in the meantime, we've also reviewed four options. some of the residents and business owners in north beach expressed concern that the north beach retrieval shaft work if if carried out as planned would impact the neighborhood without providing benefits of an enhanced public transportation system. the community [speaker not understood] project team to evaluate options and the options evaluated includes included a number of criteria. and including the impediments to a potential but not yet planned future t-line extension. each option was also evaluated based on the impact to the approved project's cost and schedule.

as you know, the sfmta has entered into a $233 million contract to construct the tunnels. the tunnel contract is currently on schedule and on budget and any delays to the tunnel contractor exposed the agency to significant financial risk of a contractor claim. now to walk you through the options as shown on the slide. now, the project staff evaluated several options for the tbm including leaving the tbms in the ground. now, bearing the tbms would require removing some of the tbm's internal components and encapsulating the balance of the machine in concrete to guard it from future settlement as the machineses deteriorate underground. leaving the tbms in the ground would impede the future extension of a subway into north beach. as the encapsulated tbms would likely have to be removed to extend the tunnels or construct

an underground station. removing the encapsulated tbms at a later date is more difficult disruptive and more expensive than removing them at the conclusion of the central subway tunneling as currently planned. option 1, the retrieval shaft is approximately 200 feet from the closest resident and about 70 feet from the closest business. while work is within the public right-of-way, columbus avenue would be reduced to one lane of traffic in each direction in 2013 for approximately 10 months. the retrieval shaft does not impede a future station in north beach nor an extension into fisherman's wharf. and the retrieval shaft could be used for a future construction purpose essentially providing a home if and when a t-line extension from fisherman's wharf is constructed.

the retrieval shaft could be used as the home for the future tbm that would construct the yet to be planned fisherman's wharf extension. now moving on to option 2 which is leaving the tbm head north of the chinatown station based on conversations with the planning department, this would require a minimal additional environmental study, leaving the tbms in the ground in chinatown, north of chinatown, would create a site access issue and jeopardizing the project schedule, leaving the tbm head in the ground would also preclude a reasonable near term project of extending the t-line to north beach. and the option as shown in the diagram reduces the overall project cost by approximately 21 to $23 million because it essentially reduces the project scope by about 2000 feet of tunnel. however, the overall project

savings are unknown at this time since the agency would have to negotiate a modification with the tunneling contractor for the loss of a resale value of the two buried machines. and also would probably delay the station contractors' work as the two contractors would have to coordinator essentially work in the same location. now, option 3 before you is leaving the tbm head under columbus avenue. now, this option would require additional environmental study. also, the tbms would be encapsulated, large obstacles that would be difficult and disruptive to remove at a later date. this option would also complicate a future extension of the line and/or station. and abandoning the tbms in the ground object columbus would require the sfmta to compensate the contractor for the loss of

resale value to machines, removing the tbm trailing gear, and also could cause some potential schedule delays to the existing tunnel contract and station work. option 4 is removing the tunnel blowing machines at 17 31 powell street, commonly known as pagoda palace. this would require additional study. the property is a former cinema, it's currently empty and dee cap itherctiontion, however, the property owner has obtained the approvals from the planning department to redevelop the property at the mixed use retail and residential development condominiums over some ground floor retail. * dee cap it it would require demolishing the existing building. it would impose minimal traffic impacts to columbus avenue. and would not preclude a future extension of lrv service to fisherman's wharf. currently the impact of the

project budget would be about $3 million and it will also require the appropriation of additional local money to secure the rights of the property from the current owner. finally, the last option, option 5, now, this option would also likely require additional environmental study. and then for the reasons articulated above, abandoning the tbms underground would require the sfmta to compensate the tunneling contractor for the tbm and may also delay the construction of the existing tunnel contract and station contract. the benefit of option 5, though, is that it would -- it would prevent a future extension of this line would not conflict with existing powell street cable car lines. but the negative is it would increase the project budget by roughly 24 to $26 million. now, the above alternatives

that were presented to the public on november 19th, the meeting was attended by approximately 90 people. and based on the above option review, only option 4 addresses the construction concerns of the community without impeding a possible future extension of rail service to north beach or fisherman's wharf. now, the challenges with this option include a very tight timeline to secure the access rights to the private property, would require the appropriation of additional local funds needed to secure the property access rights. and then a bit of additional engineering review. and approval, if necessary, to remove the tbms from private property. now, if option 4 proves infeasible, option 3, leaving the tbm head under columbus avenue, would respond to the disruption concerns raised by some members of the north beach

community. the challenges with option 3 include also a tight timeline in which to obtain the additional project funding, complete the additional engineering work and execute the necessary contract modifications to move this work forward. now, it is important to note that consideration of extending rail service into north beach and fisherman's wharf would be a separate effort given that funding has yet to be identified for the planning design or construction of a future station and/or line, but it is worthy to note it is currently planning a design this winter to begin the community discussions regarding such an extension. now, staff recommends as its first preference to further evaluate option 4 with a back up plan to further evaluate option 3 until february 1st of 2013. now, if the necessary reviews

and approval cannot be obtained at this time, staff recommends that the project focus on constructing the approved retrieval shaft. thank you for the opportunity to brief you on the central subway and i'm available to answer any questions you might have. >> thank you. i have a couple. thank you for the excellent report. that has to do with the final line of this thing, if necessary approval. i assume one approval would be from the owner of the pagoda theater, a deal. probably environmental one from the city. what other ones? >> it would -- the environmental approvals from both the planning department and the federal transit administration, i met briefly with the fta this morning to discuss the topic and they're fully briefed on this report presented to you today. and i should have at least a preliminary review from the fta by the end of this week. >> those are the only three approvals -- >> and funding, and additional local funding. >> would that be the ta here we're talking about? >> we have not yet identified funding source.

>> okay, thank you. other questions before we hear from the public? >> yes. just to clarify, 3 [speaker not understood]. it says it would be encased in concrete and it would be more difficult to continue the tunnel along if we were to continue to north beach or fisherman's wharf in the future. is that correct? >> i believe, director brinkman, you're referring to option 3. >> yes. >> the benefits of option 3, it does allow the construction of 3,000 feet of critical thank youerctionv that could make the possibility of an extension be real. >> right. >> the downside of option 3 is that in order to accommodate for north beach station, you would -- the likelihood would be that you would have to remove these machines, which would be from a difficult operation in the future. we're currently looking at, though, to look at ways of

perhaps diverting the machines, kind of off the path so that would either minimize or, you know, prevent the need to remove these machines. >> and normally when you use a tunnel boring machine at the end of the project, that tunnel boring machine comes out and it i guess goes onto another project somewhere to dig again? >> yes. typically these machines have a useful life. the particular machine that's being used to construct the central subway are brand-new machines. so, they have a significant -- quite a bit of useful life left in them. >> all right, thank you. >> other members of the board? mr. reiskin? >> yes, i guess i want to add a bit more context and explanation and perhaps offer that, since we've been working very closely with supervisor

chiu, justin true from his office may want to add a few words prior to public comment. but the supervisor is presenting over at a board meeting at the moment. first, i want to clarify that -- and i think this was a little bit perhaps misconstrued in some of the media reports. what we're not talking about is recommending an extension to north beach or not, or voting on a station to north beach for north beach or not. the current approved project that has, that has been fully designed, that has been funded, that has been environmentally cleared already contemplates a tunnel going to north beach. so, that's part of the current project. we're not recommending a change to that. as mr. funge mentioned, discussions about an extension, whether it should happen or not, what the alignment would

be, where a station in north beach would be if there were to be one, would be subject to a separate process that would require its own community process, its own environmental review, its own planning, engineering design. so, i want to make it very clear that that's not what's before you today. what's before you today is a recommendation that would allow us to pursue alternatives. one, in just where we remove the tunnel boring machines half a block from where they're currently proposed to remove them, or alternately, to leave them underground. so, i just want to clarify that up front. i do want to acknowledge that the way this process developed from my understanding is that we were out in the community four years ago as the whole project in the entire e-i-r was going through its process, the focus was the core of the project.

and while there was some i think discussion of where these machines would be going and where they would be coming out, i don't think it was a significant part of the discussion. i don't think it resonated with people. it was something far off. and once the approvals were in place, i think we kind of put our heads down and focused on getting the design work done, getting all the approvals, getting the construction contract underway. i think what we should have done better in hindsight is kept the north beach community engaged so that they weren't surprised as they were when we came back four years later and said, here we are. we're about to start tearing up columbus avenue. so, i think it's a point well taken we heard loud and clear from the community that we should have done, and from president chiu, that we should have done a much better job on that. so, i want to acknowledge that. so, but we did hear loud and clear from the community not

just on the process issue, but on the substance of what this project would mean to the north beach community. and i think what we came down to is there are trade-offs to be made. i think the option that we're recommending that is our first choice, which is basically still enabling us to remove the machines from the ground, but doing it off of the public right-of-way. and in doing so, perhaps stimulate movement on a project that has -- a property that's become a blight to the community really represents a possible win/win scenario where we preserve the maximum flexibility for the community for whatever future extension there may be. but we are able to do so in a way that doesn't create the disruption that the current plan would cause which just to remind you would be nine or so

months of construction on columbus avenue in front of the park that would require two lanes at a time of columbus avenue, which is four lanes, to be closed during that entire nine-month period. so, it would bring a four-lane down to two lanes. there would be, as with any construction project, there would be some, some noise and other disruption. so, i want to acknowledge that as well. we believe that we can manage the traffic flows, that we can manage the construction site. but there's no question that there will be impact from the construction as planned. moving that whole operation off of the public right-of-way takes the great majority of those construction impacts really out of the view of the majority of north beach. so, it's a great scenario if we can make it happen. i've talked to folks in this

building and i think we have a commitment that with this board's support, we pull together all the kind of elementses of the city family from planning and economic development, the budget folks, the supervisor has already stepped in to lead on this. it would take a lot to make this happen. it's a short timeline to be able to put a deal together to identify the funding, to clear the approvals. but it definitely represents a win/win. my son is is from the community meeting and we'll certainly hear from the community directly. i think there's good support for this alternative. it will take a lot of work to make it happen. our kind of next best alternative, if we can't make that happen for whatever reason -- and let me just mention on the timeline why this is important and why we're kind of putting this short timeline out here.

the tunnel boring machines will arrive down on fourth street in late winter this year. it will take them about a year to get to north beach. so, late winter 2014 they will be there. so, if we are under our current plan, we need that retrieval shaft built before they arrive so it can receive them so that we can pull them out. so, backtracking from there for nine or 10 months of construction and the holiday moratorium, we really need to start that work late winter of this year. so, we need to make these decisions quickly so that if we're going to bring it out off the street, we have that retrieval shaft ready, and that requires perhaps maybe a shorter time frame because we're not working in the public right-of-way. or if we are going to leave it in the ground, we have to do the redesign work to enable that. and then if that fails, we need to -- we would be recommending that we go back to plan a.

so, the first option that we are asking for your support for is the off-site kind of win/win scenario. what we believe is the next best . this is where we may differ a little bit from what you hear in public comment. what would be to bring the machines that north beach has proposed and leave them underground. so, the trade-off there is, as mr. funge said, that there's some cost to the future project , the to-be-planned funded design project, and that leaving those machines underground encapsulated in concrete would be an additional cost for a future project should it continue up columbus avenue. but that's on the cost side. on the benefit side, we would be relieving north beach of that 9 or 10 months of construction impact that they

would be seeing now for a project that they won't at least directly benefit from for many years down the road. so, it is a trade-off. i think it's a reasonable trade-off to make, that the point that i think you'll hear from many speakers -- and we've heard from the supervisor, it's just not fair to subject us, this neighborhood to that amount of disruption when the benefit is so far out and uncertain at that. and i think that's a reasonable position and a reasonable trade-off and that's why we are recommending that as our kind of backstop plan. if we're unable to make something happen off-site. * the final thing i think you'll hear from folks is kind of our final backstop, which is if for some reason going to the pagoda site doesn't work and for some reason we can't make leaving it underground work, which i don't anticipate we would have

trouble doing, but we don't have that fully designed and approved, that we keep the current approved project on the table as our ultimate default. and that is because, you know, we have an approved project. it's a fully funded project. we have an executed contract. we would be putting the agency, we believe, at significant risk if we didn't have that final backstop to fall back on. it's our hope that we wouldn't get there. i saw some correspondence suggesting that we come back to you before hitting that final stop. i'm certainly open to that. i think folks would -- a you would probably want to know, that we've made our best good faith due diligence effort before getting there. so, i just want to provide a little bit more context. i want to thank mr. funge and

his team for this. and i want to thank president chiu for his leadership on this and perhaps with the board's consent we could -- >> actually any questions for mr. reiskin first? >> yes, one more question. i was not on the board -- you weren't here either -- when we approved the original central subway. i know that the union square merchants had a lot of concerns going in and your team has worked incredibly hard to mitigate the concerns to the merchants and the shoppers and the people passing through that stockton street utility relocation work. do you anticipate that the construction, if it happened on columbus ave., would be more impactful than that one? or will you have ways that you can mitigate that construction site as well? because i'm hearing a lot of concerns about dust and noise. i have walked by the stockton street when it's going on on a