and i hope that whether you're involved or the peer review involved can use this to coordinate upon themselves. which if it's common platforms, which i hope our folks at caltrain are listening to, i think that's very, very important. i very much wanted to understand if the two track or three-track solution was right. i've been very adamant. i think we should all be very adamant that we want to reduce, if not eliminate, any cut and cover along the downtown extension right of way that we can. i think one of the most important things we've learned from this is that there are pieces of private property that we don't need to condemn, which is going to save us money and heartache and controversy. for all of that, i thank you. to all of the players, i hope that you will continue to work

in the collaborative fashion that's been forged. are there any questions for the panel or mr. cordova? if not, i will turn it back over to eric. thank you, gene. i look at my other screen. sorry. commissioner kim. >> thank you. i just had a couple of questions. this is my first briefing on this report. so the current train box which we have already built out for the terminal would accommodate either a two-or three-track tunnel? >> yes, that's true. >> so what we're mainly considering is either the alignment or both of what we do at the fourth and king rail yard; is that correct? >> it was looking at two or three tracks and the throat section that goes ahead and

turns right into the train box. we have a lot of tunnelling. we're about to give another presentation on the tunnelling effort there in that regard. >> there was a cut and cover alignment study in the original eir. >> right. >> there was a question that came up about the tunnel boring machines of this size. is that possible? is that feasible? >> i would like to get into the presentation, commissioner kim, and we could go ahead and answer those questions. my apologies for not being clear. >> i will wait for the presentation. >> i just want to give a quick int introduction. we're going to move into the tunnelling option study that we participated in. we, being the transportation authority brought our expert to the table, a world renown tunnelling expert that's worked on numerous projects throughout the world, here in san francisco

also. we've worked with experts from the tgpa team. we're going to go through the tunnelling update here in terms of findings, et cetera. >> all right. thank you. again, my name is keith abbey. i will be presenting today on tunnel option study for dtx. just to recap, the tunnel option study purpose of this study is to try to reduce some of the instruction impacts by reducing the amount of cut and cover and increasing the amount of mining on the alignment. presented to you guys about six months ago. since then, we've worked on several tasks. we looked at additional options for the throat section down there by howard street. we also took a deeper dive into

some of the schedule and constructability -- excuse me. schedule and cost estimates for this project. we confirmed some of the ventilation requirements and took a deeper dive into the tunnel boring machine. this is a blow-up of the throat section. you can see howard street is going more or less up and down, and second street off to the side there. this is really the most complex portion of the project. you can see this is where it goes from the three-track alignment up to the six-track alignment going into the transit center. so we looked at a variety of options here. those are showing the different colors you see. we'll talk about that a little later. starting at clem tinea street, we looked at two options there. what you see on the left, that's the scm option. that's what we used in the

baseline and we've extended it further down. on the right, you see the tunnel boring machine that we looked at. now, for the fourth and townsend station, we recommend that being a cut and cover structure. that's because the soil conditions are very poor in that area and also because it's shallow. there's only a couple of feet of cover between the construction and the grade in that area. now, there are ways to reduce construction impacts. primarily by using what is called top-down construction. that would be installing temporary decking during weekend closures and reopening traffic during the work week to allow commuters to driver on it. this is a station down in los angeles where they did the procedure there. it was done on biel street for the transit center as well. now, i said we took a closer look at costs, shown there in the shaded orange.

that's the mining portion down on townsend street. we broke that down into the two mining options. you see the tbm plus sm options. these are preliminary numbers but come with a fully burden cost premium. if we went with the other option, that's $140 million. the purple shaded area, that pie-shaped portion is the throat section that we'll talk about now. here it is blown up a little bit. the shaded gray areas there, those are parcels that are off the public right of way. those are going to be cut and cover in any case. now, when we talk about fully mining the throat, this is what we mean. it's the shaded blue there that you see. that comes with a pretty high cost premium. $460 million to do that. we looked at ways to reduce the scope there. here is if we mine only under howard street.

you see that in the shaded red. the post-shaded gray on second street, that would still be cut and cover, but it would be with the temporary decking, again, the top-down configuration. that version has a $208 million premium. we looked at extending the mining down on second street, as far as to hama street. you would have a small portion of deckover cut and cover. that comes with a $343 million cost cover. you see the baseline there, 54 months. moving down, the tbm plus sm option, the yellow bar is if we mine only a portion of the throat section. you can see we're actually saving about three months in the overall schedule, even though we are getting a significantly longer tunnel. now, the red is if you mine the entire throat section. that is less room to work, so it kicks it up eleven months beyond

the baseline. if you move to the sem option, the numbers are true. they're bigger. that makes sense because you're using the same mining technique as the baseline, but you have a longer tunnel there. now, for recommendation. we do recommend proceeding with 30% preliminary design for the following. that tbm plus sem mining option all the way down to the fourth and townsend station, we do recommending cut and cover at the fourth and fourth and townsend station to reduce impact. we recommend extending the boring machine in an existing building in the throat section. doing that will help reduce some of the impacts in that area. that comes with a $23 million premium. we also recommend maintaining cut and cover, again with the temporary decking on second

street between clementinea. that comes with a $208 million premium but allows traffic to flow continuously on howard. lastly, we recommend performing value engineering at a 30% preliminary engineering just to validate our assumptions and make sure we're on track. thanks. >> are there any questions? commissioner kim? not to put too much of a fine point on it, but disruption ranging from four and a half to six and a half years. is that correct? >> no, that's not really correct. >> 54 months to 77 months? >> so that's the construction period, yes. i mean, i guess it depends on what you would define as disruption. so when using the temporary decking, you know, the street or public right of way would be significantly less than that.

>> commissioner kim? >> i just had a few questions about the premium. this is above and beyond what the cost estimated today if we just went with the original alignment? >> that's correct. >> does it also consider the cost savings we would incur by not having to disturb the properties above us? >> as far as my understanding is, no. that's a hard construction cost. it doesn't count for the socioeconomic costs. >> okay. the director is standing behind you. >> good morning, director kim, directors. the costs that you see are conceptual costs over and above. the recommendation is to carry the cost at 30% level so we're better able to compare the best costs with these costs and then do value engineering to

determine the cost method to proceed with. >> i'm sorry. i'm such a layperson around all of this. so the twin bore tunnel boring machine would allow us to tunnel a tunnel wide enough for three tracks; is that correct? >> that is correct. the idea is we would use two tunnel-boring machine that would contain one track essentially, and then there would be an sem mine cavern in between the two that would contain the third track. so it's essentially two relatively medium size tunnel boring machines, i guess you would call them, and one between those. >> is that the most affordable option or just the only option available to us given the technology that exists? >> so we ran several different scenarios and different options during this. this is the one that came out

the most cost-effective, yes. >> so there were other tunnel boring machines, but they weren't as cost-effective as this? >> the big tunnel boring machines are, yes, but they're not feasible because you need to go deeper. the vertical grade, if you will, wouldn't align for those. >> now, did you study a loop extending out of the terminal after we arrive to the terminal? once we're underground, you might as well keep going. >> and you mean headed towards the bay? >> yes, headed towards the bay. >> that was not in our scope. i will let mark address that. >> includes a loop going or going straight. all options are open. that does not preclude it, but we didn't go further into it. >> i think it's good for the members of the public to understand it is a potential option that the boring machines

could do two things. one is to continue to the east bay and create a way for caltrain to go to the east bay or for bart, if we wanted to work with them. the second is that we would create a loop, right, that would provide kind of an additional valve for the trains to move in and out of the station so they don't all come in and come out in the same direction. >> so what we did was look at all these ideas that were out there and made sure our designs -- that it precludes them from taking place. >> isn't it good to study those now? once the tunnel boring machine is in the ground, don't we want to know which direction it's going into before we pull it out? >> we're going to have to pull the boring machine out at the throat structure. if we do a loop, it's going to be on the other side of the box. it's being built underneath

biele street. so it will be a different boring machine. >> so the extension, if it became a second bay or loop, it would be a different boring machine? >> it would have to be different criteria, because the extense is going to take place from biele street, or the train box, onwards. >> so it won't be the same machine? >> not necessarily. >> not necessarily. >> yes. >> i'm sorry to keep asking the question, but putting the machine into the ground is pretty hard. why would we pull it back out? why wouldn't we just have it keep going? >> the machines will have to be used for other projects. they's not built for the project itself. they can be used for several projects. >> what do you mean by that? i'm sorry. >> it's possible -- the tunnel boring machine is owned by the

custom cu contractors doing the work. it's possible they will use it on another project. >> i understand that. i'm saying for the sake of efficiency, wouldn't we want to let it keep going? this is, again, where i bring this very layperson perspective. wouldn't we just want to combine with either bart or caltrain and let the construction continue so that at least the tunnel boring machine can do its job? let me think about this because i'm thinking about central subway. so we couldn't pull the tunnel boring machine out in chinatown because that would be crazy. instead, we purchased in north beach. now, we haven't funded the second phase of the sway to north beach, but it went through and came out there. i don't want to say did half the job, but it did some of the work that needed to get done for the second phase. >> the way we have it laid out now, the tunnel boring machine

will come out on the -- >> you see it on the screen here. >> and then the structure comes into the twin box that's been built. then the continuation of the break crossing will be on the other side of the train box on the east side of the train box underneath biele street onto the bay, or loop from there. >> if i can add, commissioner kim, timing is really the issue and funding for all that. >> i understand that. >> for the next crossing. >> i understand that. >> and, ideally, if we were able to time the project together, which is one, the dtx and the second be a second bay crossing, then you would have the best use of dollars, but the issue there is just one of timing, the ability to go ahead and prepare the environmental documents, et cetera, so the timing here from everything we see to date potentially probably won't work. >> okay.

i know. that was kind of my question. i feel that we should at least try to endeavor to get to that place because it is a more effective use of public dollars, even though it's the entire region. it may be impossible to align these projects with each other. the second question is on the eir. we would have to reopen the original environmental study to pursue this alternative? is that correct? >> it's an eir and eis? >> not necessarily. it's looking at the worst-case scenari scenarios. that's what they do, show you the worst-case scenario. you start looking at the designs and then you show a reduction in impact. we want to show the public the worst-case scenario and then improve upon it versus showing them something that as we go further into the engineering, we find things don't work.

>> the original eir and eis anticipated this as a worst-case scenario so we don't have to offer this slightly different alignment? >> the reason the cut and cover scenario was created, which is the worst-case scenario. >> i see. so the boring machine doesn't -- we don't know the answer to that? >> right. >> so it may, but we don't know. >> it would be a reduction in impact. >> i'm asking about not about impact but about timing. so if we have to reopen an eir and eis, it will take additional time. >> yeah. >> i'm asking if that will get triggered or not, and you're saying you don't know yet? but if it does, it will create a delay, although a delay to a project that's not fully funded.

>> not necessarily. >> but it could. >> not necessarily. >> but not necessarily means that it could. that's my question. >> i'm saying most likely it will not. >> it will not. >> because the environmental documents, as it stands right now, the supplemental environmental document, contemplates the worst-case scenario. the impact to the public is what we're showing. >> why didn't we study a loop in this? a loop is separate from a second bay. that's actually a part of this project. >> the loop is not -- let me defer to the project manager. when was the loop -- i know it was part of the project at one point. >> ms. murphy. >> hi. megan murphy for the program management team. so, first, this is on me. i didn't brief the executive director, but i did talk to

legal counsel about the environmental document and the tunnel boring machine, and the answer is, no, it does not impact the environmental document. >> that's great news. >> i apologize for the director for not briefing him on that. the other question about the loop, so we studied the loop about 11, 12 years ago. also, the rab studied it more recently. we found that it was not operationally necessary for the benefit you received. you received a very incremental benefit from that loop operationally that did not bore -- did not gain the benefit of doubling the line to justify the cost. >> that's right. but a three-track would take care of some of those concerns of entry and exit versus the loop. >> that's absolutely correct. >> i would love to get a

briefing. i'm sorry i didn't ask for one before today's hearing. it would be great. i have a lot of questions, but i don't want to take up everyone's time. >> we will work with the director to get that set up for you. >> thank you, ms. murphy. executive director chang, i saw you don't want to add. mr. abbey, has there been any analysis of stacking the tunnels on top of one another? >> we have not looked at that. as i mentioned, the verityal alignment -- vertical alignment is pretty much retrained. most of it is kind of shallow. that may be technically difficult to do. we have not studied it, however. >> okay. at the risk of opening a can of worms and maybe this is a rhetorical question, but it's a serious question, which is who ultimately is going to be in charge of this project?

maybe that's not -- do you want to take this? >> that's above my pay grade, vastly. >> it's a vexing question. >> it's a question to me, supervisor. >> i bet it is. >> the tgpa is currently in charge. i wish for them to continue to be in charge. as i mentioned to you before and to our partners, this project is going to be delivered collectively by all of us. as it moves forward, it will be in coordination and partnership with smta, planning, san francisco planning, and caltrain and high speed rail. it will be with the stakeholders together, we'll work together to make sure everyone's interests are protected and that we have a successful project. what you see today is a result of our collaboration. the peer review for both the tunnel option study and the two

tracks versus three tracks was done in collaboration. we want to extend that collaboration moving forward. i could not have found a better partner. >> we'll take that under advisement. then, with regard to the remarkably important issue of common platform heights, how are our partners at caltrain taking that? >> discussions are continuing between high speed rail and caltrain and our wish from my board is to make sure we have common platforms and maximum flexibility in anything we construct, whether it's the transit station center itself or the alignment, we must have maximum flexibility for operations in the future, which includes platforms and possibly other elements. >> all right.

seeing no further questions of our many staffs in this, why don't we open this up to public comment. i have a number of speaker cards. if you will line up to your right, my left, elizabeth, i think it says scanlin, bruce, amisted, andura, bruce legid. theodore strass. >> i have appeared before you many times. today i am happy i am not, but i want to give you some context. last year in the winter, you had before you a proposal. you determined that to no longer be viable because it required 16

trains at the surface. you cut back the amount that was going to be set aside for engineering. a number of us, as you would hear from my colleagues, have been moving to work it forward. that investigates tunnel options starting at the south side of the hill and connecting into the former-approved plan. i must say that the media has never understood this and seems to think that what is before you today is the city's approved

plan to get the train downtown. i want to emphasize that the city has no approved plan to get the train downtown until the rav study is finished and until later this year, hopefully, you then look at the rav study and look at the root that we can have for the dtx. thank you. >> before we get the next speaker, do you want to just speak to the record of decision, ms. chang or mr. zembanye [phonetic]. >> i will refer to the director. >> the record of decision, the rod. >> we're planning to take it to the board for decision in may. >> thank you. >> you wanted to wait for the peer review as requested to be completed. i assume that this body is happy with it, and we can move forward with it.

>> good morning, directors. i'm the planning director for caltrain. i wanted to make brief remarks to let you know we're here in the audience. i want to extend my compliments. we participated in the peer review. i found it to be a collaborative and fair and thorough process. the word constructive was used. i'm in agreement with that. caltrain continues to work with the city and partners going forward in continuing the collaboration that was begun by the peer review. thank you. >> thank you. i appreciate that. next speaker. >> good morning. i'm bruce armstead. i, too, participated in a peer review study. i thought it was very

collaborative. we're in full support of the results. >> thank you. >> mr. agid. >> thank you, good morning, chair, commissioners. i'm the share of the cac, a member of the rab study and rail working groups. i'm a member of an advocacy group, friends of dtx. in conducting this peer review study and understanding and confirming the findings on the two versus three tracks and tunnelling option was critical in terms of moving phase two of the project forward. we don't want any questions or doubt on why a method or option was determined to be a preferred path forward. now that the peer review is completed, we see next steps as making the decision on the optimal alignment of dtx, whether pennsylvania or third street with phase one of the salesforce transit center

targeted for completion and implementation in the third quarter of this year. we know all parties, including the public, would like to know how the party builds momentum from phase one to phase two from an amenity to grand central station of the west. it's critical to move forward with the dtx to minimize challenges that will present themselves using fourth and townsend for electrified caltrain and high speed rail. we know the design to date cannot adequately handle passenger volumes of caltrain diesel service. with caltrain and high speed rail, i'm not sure they can handle passengers, pedestrians, bike share facilities, tax sis, light rail, and autos without major infrastructure

improvements. almost like rep indica-- replic items. >> thank you. >> good morning. my name is via. i'm a member of the high speed rail working group. i'm a co-founder of the friends of dtx. i came to speak because i feel my government is failing me. we voted, as californiaens to get high speed rail over 10 years ago. proposition 1a is explicit. it does not generally say we'll get the train to san francisco.

it pinpoints the trans bay terminal as the end of the line for phase one. in spite of that legal fact, both the high speed rail authority and san francisco officials have not recognized the urgency of completing this task. the excuses are never ending. the rav study has to be finished, and it drags on. the peer review was another hurdle thrown in the way of the tracks, and we're thrilled to see you voting on it today. the cry of, we have no money for the downtown extension rings loudly when all else fails. i would like to tell you that this is the only capital project in san francisco that seems to be bogged down in quick sand, but i can point to many from the central subway that will speed up the t in an excellent move toward more et quitable

solution. we created an advocacy group to get the train tracks to the station, not to worry about what land could or could not be developed, whether 280 should or should not be taken down, but to make sure we take advantage of the additional 1 million riders that have been projected to take caltrain and high speed rail once we extend those tracks the additional 1.3 miles to the gorgeous trans bay terminal. we deserve your attention on this. we deserve your attention on all capital projects which help san franciscoens move around the bay area. please recognize your duty to the people of san francisco and count on us to rally the people to get the train tracks to the station. >> thank you for that santa cruz reference. next speaker, please. >> good morning, chair peskin,

board members and staff, my name is adinna levin. i'm part of the friends of dtx group who are speaking with you today. i want tot commend the agency for moving forward with this piece, the peer review piece, that sets the stage for some key decisions about completing the downtown extension and, as a couple of the previous speakers said, this is one of two key pieces that are required for things to fall into place to allow this project to move forward. the second piece shortly forthcoming is choosing an alignment from the rav study in order to make that decision to have a complete project that would then create a project that is shovel ready.

as we're looking at the bigger picture, transportation goals, and working on the next generation of funding to do large and transformative projects such as this one, moving this forward, making a decision, being ready will put this in the queue to be the regional transformative project that it is. with that, i would also like the thank chair peskin for calling out the importance of the platform issue as well as another seemingly wonky detail regarding the caltrain and high speed rail schedules. this seems like something who is an engineer two levels down in staff would pay attention to. but these are the decisions that will make a difference in terms of what the capacity of the system is and how many people are going to be able to take transit and take high speed rail

into the city as opposed to having cars clogging the streets. >> thank you. there strauss. >> good morning. i'm peter strauss. i have i'm on the board of the san francisco transit riders and also part of the friends of dtx. so why did five of us come down here today on what's basically an information item? actually, part of that is that we were led to believe that there would be a progress report on the rav study. >> we're getting there. >> that's good to hear. we're here because the dtx is vital to the future of the city. it's our next subway. it's not being treated with the you are sen jy that it needs and -- urgency that it needs or

deserves. the project has essentially been stalled. we've been going nowhere. let me say that the three-track study that you just completed is not part of the delay. in the meantime, everything else has just been spinning its wheels. yes, the reasons that are given for these delays, as there always are, but the bottom line is we've lost close to a year. so we're concerned whenever a progress report is deferred. we need your active involvement to ensure that an alignment decision is reached this summer. we are concerned even we the progress report is deferred, we ask that you have regular briefings on the progress of the rav so we move this ahead. let's get this done. thank you.

>> thank you, mr. strauss. if there are no other members of the public, i would like to close public comment. this is a multi-billion dollar project. we all understand that we went and built a $2 billion, right now, bus terminal that has a train box in the bottom of it in the middle of our downtown that may become the grand central station of the west. if we can figure out how to get high speed rail into it, we can only get it done once, and we need to get it done correctly. there are any number of different players. there was a theory for a while that an alignment that went to mission bay and up second street might be a new thing that we should look at, and in the middle of that conversation, untimely, our mayor passed away.

we're trying to put the pieces back together again. i want to thank mr. strauss for correctly noting, unlike a previous speaker, that the two-track, three-track inspection was done not to delay but to increase confidence of this decision-making body. it makes no sense to spend $2 billion building a bus terminal that's like a pyramid if we don't get rail into that trans bay terminal. with that, ms. dige, i hate to put you on the spot, but maybe you can give us a presentation on where the rav study is out. this merry go round needs to stop, and we need to move forward. >> so, yes, i'm susan dige.

i'm the project mag for the rav. it's a long name. we call it the rav. the rav was started a couple of years ago to look at five big transportation and lane use questions that have to be answered in the next one to 15 years that will all effect san francisco for the next 100-plus years. it looks those five is what are the rail alignments into the center? do we do a loop to add an extension into the east bay? rail yard relocation. the fourth is what gets all the press, which is the idea of taking down a pittsburg ortion . so with the other four components, there are parcels of land that become available to development and repurposing and what should happen to that land.

through the process, we were very close to going public with all of the materials last year. we were asked to do something that helps the process. qualitative and quantitative analysis and to deep dive on some of the specifics associated with specifically the first, how do you get the trains into the salesforce transit center. that took a while. we were ready, again, to share that with all of our partners, and due to the untimely death of mayor lee, we were in the process of working that through with our consultants and our partners. we plan on taking this public in and around the end of may. so we're hoping to have a public

meeting towards the end of may. i can answer any specific questions, but i think that's kind of a general. >> thank you, ms. dige. are there any questions? seeing none, mr. zabane [phonetic], if there are no other comments from commissioners, go file your record of decision. with that, this information item is concluded. mr. clerk, could you please go back to your regular -- >> thank you. thank you. very much for your leadership. i appreciate it and appreciate the board. thank you for helping us move forward. this will be done in a partnership. as we move forward with the dtx, it's going to be a partnership. thank you, again. >> yes. please heed the immediate step number six relative to

collaboration between the parties. [ agenda item read [ agenda item read [ agenda item read ] >> clerk: this is an action item. >> this is mr. tang and my favorite issue. the floor is yours. >> i will speak from here to be quick. as you may remember from your previous presentation, the purpose of the connect sf effort is to align our several agencies for a ground-up process to align the transportation projects and policy priorities for san francisco. so the vision before you copies over at the podium, should be at your desk, is a 50-year transportation vision created with the city agency in an

extensive public process. we've begun it. did research after the draft that came out a couple of months ago. got some comments, incorporated those into the revised document that's in front of you. the study will look at connections beyond dtx. the memo in the packets explains the outreach in the spring and the changes since then. if you have any questions, our staff is here, along with staff

from the planning department and mta. >> all right. do we want to hear more about connect sf vision? we have a different house. roll call, please. [roll cal [roll cal [roll cal [roll cal [roll call]

[ agenda item read ] >> good morning, commissioners. deputy district for policy and programming at the transportation authority. the first request for you today is from the caltrain agency for funding for them to work on defining their next generation of caltrain really to determine how caltrain will operate a blended system in conjunction with high-speed rail on the same corridor, on the same alignment,

and doing visioning as well as community interface strategy. the plan will also assess the caltrain organization and governance as it relates to how rails are organizationed nationally and internationally. the work will be done over the next year and a half. there will be significant outreach that occur in the fall of 2018 and early 2019. the next request is from the sfmta to fund the central subway. this is for the budget funding that has been incorporated into the baseline budget since 2008, i believe. we have the acting manager. he'll be giving a brief presentation after i've concluded. this is an r tip funding source, a state funding source that has been committed to this project for years.

it can only go to projects with currently awarded construction contracts. we have put together a fund exchange whereby the r tip funds will go into a rail rehab project for state of good repair needs for muni and then the prop k funds that would have been used for the rail rehab project will be used for central subway. all of the continued oversight that we're currently doing will apply to these funds as well. twin peaks, mount david, these are residential street in district 7. the prop k funds are going to match state funds from the sb1 local partnership program and the programming of those state funds was approved in the fall by the board. this includes the standard improvements that go along with street resurfacing, including curb repairs and curb ramps and sidewalk repairs as well. and the last request is from the sfmta for the bayview

community-based transportation plan. that will allow a grant for the project. the metropolitan program has been forged after the san francisco plan. the recommendations as they are eligible for this particular funding source could then be implemented with these funds. so excited to see this participatory budget applied to a community-based participation plan through this process. with that, i will turn the microphone over to albert ho to present on central subway. >> mr. ho? >> good morning, commission president. i'm the acting director for

central subway. i'm here to provide a briefing on the central subway today. we'll talk about the budget. to date, we've extended about 25% of the budget. we have 74 million in contingency, which is about 48 million more than what the requirement of 25 million minimum contingency. the largest contract, the station contract, we've extended about $590 million, about 70% of the $850 million. in terms of the schedule, currently the project is still showing a one-year delay completion of december 2019 as the current schedule. this is mainly due to the might

being efforts over in chinatown station. this was done as an sem mining operation. this is completed as of february so we can move on with the other elements of the station. the others are on schedule. as stated earlier, the main accomplishment for the chinatown station is finished with the mining operation. union square, we're currently in the process of finishing out the surface work of ellis and ferry and get the surface reopened by the end of the year. and for the masgoni station, we've finished all the civil work, except the roof structure at the head house, and we're doing all the electrical elements. the elements you see right now at the chinatown station, the waterproofing element needs to

go down in preparation for us putting the platform north of the station. as i mentioned earlier, we're restoring the permanent utility on top of the box to return stockston street back over to the public. and this is scaffolding that we're putting on for the restoration, the roof structure for the masgoni station, as you can see on the lower right. this is basically the fourth station at brandon. you can see the upper left, the rebar we're putting in and on the lower right, it's actually the surface crossover that we're going to be implementing for the surface track work. with that, any questions for me? >> any questions. i see two commissioners whose names were up relative to this item. any questions for mr. ho? commissioners yee or cohen? no? thank you, mr. ho for the update

on the central subway. congratulations on your recent milestone. with that, commissioner yee? >> thank you, chairman peskin. my question is around the resurfacing in my district, in district 7. ms. lozano or ms. lafort? >> i'm the project manager for this project. >> i'm grateful we're going to have some resurfacing and other improveme improvement in the district, but when we do this, there's usually disruption to the neighborhoods. my question is what is the timing for where we're starting? what kind of outreach are we doing to the community and will

the outreach be done by -- >> we're scheduled to advertise this contract in the next couple of months. typically, it's about a six-month process to advertisement and breaking ground and construction. typically, our communication effort, our construction notices are sent out usually in english, but if the communication team discovers there's a higher bilingual rate in the community, we'll send out chinese, tagalo, and spanish, i believe. if we receive requests for other languages we're able to accommodate and translate. in terms of the construction, as i mentioned, it's about a six-month process. so we're looking at the fall of this year. i know you had a separate question regarding clustering or

the sequencing of work for the contract, we're grouping the works into seven different groups. the way we've written out this contract is once the one group construction has started, all this has to be continuous until it's completed. in the past, if it's sewer, the contractor waits until everything is done, and then they go back and pave everything, but that's not the case in a lot of projects moving forward. a lot of projects we're grouping them and having a lot of the scope completed in the groups. >> would this project be broken up into seven phases? >> seven areas, right. >> then the work itself would be done at different times, i assume? they're not all going to be approached at the same time.

>> right. these are various locations. this is not a single quarter. technically, the contractor can start in different groups, you know, if they're kind of more spread apart, but usually that's not the case since contractors usually have a limited resources, you know. >> as you're working towards the end, the outreach would be six months in advance? are we doing an outreach to all the projects a year and a half in advance? we usually have the 30-day notices that we send out prior to construction, and then we also have the 10 and three day. so we do send out to the

residents as well as the owners. and those will go out to the individual sections as they start construction. >> can you make sure that my office receives from the contractor when the work is going to be done. how they're going to phase it in, and also the outreach material that you're providing so that we can actually also put it on our website? >> okay. sure. no problem. >> commissioner cohen? >> thank you very much. good morning, colleagues. i would like to direct my question towards caltrain, mr. chair. so specifically caltrain is an expensive commuter rail, commuter train. i owns a lot of land, a lot of property. i'm curious, what are the efforts to ensure that caltrain is investing in their infrastructure in ways that --

there's no doubt that some catch fire, they're strung with needles and drug paraphernalia. i want to make sure we're utili utilityizing the -- utilizing the land. >> i think two ways to answer the question, in terms of our property along the right of way, what you're describing in district 10 is sort of our ongoing corridor maintenance. i will take some of those issues back to the department to raise. we do our best with the contract operator to keep the corridor clean and free of issues. >> i'm here to let you know your best is not good enough. you need to do better.

it's deplorable. i've reached out on numerous occasions to the leadership. it's been really frustrating because the response has been slow, if at all. >> i understand. i will carry that to the director, mr. hartnet. we're currently conducting some tool building and a transit-oriented development policy to we're looking at how to use any larger parcels in the best and highest use manner. so those are things that will be done as part of our business plan, and we'll be bringing more information to our partners. >> sure. thank you. up until about a year ago for the last six years of my last eight years of the board of supervisors, i've sat on the caltrain joint powers board and was more knowledgeable about the intricacies of the organization than where i am today. one thing i do recall, back in

2013 or 2014, there was a desire to build housing on some of the largest swaths of land that you known. i haven't heard any conversations about that. is that still afoot? >> i think there's a lot of interest, particularly raised to affordable housing. >> what is the overall strategy to keep the prices affordable and low? >> i'm not the real estate director. i'm the planning director. i'm happy to take that back and respond to your question. >> thank you. i would appreciate that. i would appreciate a written response or a memo or something just so i can understand. there were intricate plans where i saw renderings of buildings on

caltrain property, particularly where there's a park, kind of an open space garden in the bayview that runs on top of tracks. >> right. so it runs parallel to third street. i haven't heard any news. >> i apologize. i haven't heard any news on that. i know there was work in progress. let me investigate. >> thank you, mr. chair. i'm done. >> thank you for using this forum to communicate that. i look forward to following up either offline or at a future meeting. thank you, commissioner cohen for raising those issues. are there any members of the public that would like to testify on item 7? seeing none, public comment is closed. do we have a motion to