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 p

please keep in mind that columbus avenue is a major artery. when i take us around the city and i need to move around in three hours so they can go on to something else, or four, that i simply cannot afford to eliminate all of north beach and hie because my only route is columbus avenue, unless i go by van ness. and particularly with the america's cup coming in, we'll have embarcadaro traffic. so, as you know; as the neighbors know, russian hill is not an option really because our motor coaches are limited on that hill. so, you simply will eliminate sites like lombard street and the famous north beach, going along through the real chinatown of stockton which to me is the real chinatown. they can walk along grant but they have no way to do that and that will be eliminated if you use the proposed option, which is to dig in the center of columbus avenue. thank you very much. >> howard wong followed by susan mccull ac and those are the last two members of the public. >>> good afternoon, howard wong with save muni.com. i'm a native of north beach an

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 approxim

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

it would impose minimal traffic impacts to columbus avenue. and would

we don't have to take this thing out through columbus avenue. we could have taken it out through the park and left the roadway open. but we had even more vocal opposition to the people who didn't want to harm a single tree or a single blade of grass. this was the compromise that was intended to mollify the public. there is nothing wrong in principle with pagoda option. it's just there are additional costs there. they have to come from somewhere. my city is not a trash dumb. i don't want to leave anything in the ground. that's a practice that should have stopped with washing the ships into the store line and the gold rush era and filling in the bay to extend the shoreline. we want people to pick up our trash, to separate our recyclables, to reuse, repurpose what we can * to practice sustainability. to set leadership by example. do whatever you have to do, but let's not leave these pieces somewhere in the ground where they're going to be someone else's problem, but someone else's problem at our expense. thank you. >> our next speaker, please. >> j

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 tunne

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 t

one window is on columbus, one window is on stockton. i can smell, taste, hear -- i know what's going on. and i think a little more investigation should be planned before bulldozing through our neighborhood without regard to residents and businesses, which does not represent progress or proper planning, but i think mostly greed. thank you. >> patricia landis, [speaker not understood]. >>> good afternoon. my name is patricia [speaker not understood]. we're coming from north beach and i'm a florist. [speaker not understood]. i'm happy everybody has business now, but thinking about our business is very, very hard. now with the construction, i know -- now, everybody saves money. i know everybody is saving money in the pocket. this is no, no. they're saying city hall has to save money. [speaker not understood]. i was working coming from chinatown and i realized it's leaking the water why they don't paint t why they don't fix what they already done? repair what is right now. i'm happy that there is construction and they are investing money in