YouTube thumbnail for May 2013 Mock Funeral logo for Save North Beach Village

(Formerly No North Beach Dig)



What is the Pagoda Option?
What you can do
Circulator Bus
Subscribe
Jane Jacobs Walks
Improving Neighborhoods
Legal action
Documents
Demolition Blog
Pagoda Site Problems
Press
Letters
Events
Videos & Graphics
Quotes
C C Curmudgeon
Howard Wong's reports
R. K. Oytauer Blog
SaveSFMuni
Muni communications
Facts
SF Battles
Cost overruns
Concerned residents


Donate button
Why Donate to Save North Beach Village?

info@SaveNorthBeachVillage.org

       Home

Documents obtained from SFMTA (Muni), FTA, and others

Contents


Former Supervisor Aaron Peskin lays out Muni troubles

Letter to Muni Transportation Director Ed Reiskin, cc: City and National officials, May 28, 2013

12-page letter to Ed Reiskin, May 28, 2013

Summary of letter

Summary of 12-page letter to Ed Reiskin, May 28, 2013

Response from Ed Reiskin

Response from Ed Reiskin, July 27, 2013

Response from Aaron Peskin

Response from Aaron Peskin to Reiskin July 27 letter

 

Muni Budgets

Budgets


Muni reports

SFMTA Document Library

Pagoda site (general)


Pagoda demolition

Extraction shaft

TBM Progress

Pagoda construction memo, February 2013

Pagoda construction memo, February 2013

Rationale for not extracting at Chinatown station; describes extraction shaft construction; criticism of Karp geotechnical report

Why Muni can't remove TBMs in Chinatown (page 4):

Questions have also arisen about why the TBMs could not 1) be removed at the Chinatown Station site; or, 2) be turned outside of the approved tunneling path in Chinatown and abandoned at a location that would not interfere with a potential future line extension.
Removal of the TBMs at the Chinatown Station site was reviewed in the original SEIS/SEIR, but not proposed for adoption because the design of the Chinatown Station makes this concept significantly more expensive and complicated than removing the TBMs elsewhere. At this stage in the construction process, removal of the TBMs at the Chinatown Station would require significant redesign of the tunnel. In addition, it would conflict with the Chinatown Station contractor’s schedule and create site access issues for the station contractor. Significant cost increases and neighborhood impacts would result.
The concept of turning the TBMs out of the approved tunnel right-of-way and abandoning them at another location within Chinatown was not proposed because doing so would require significant additional environmental work. Moreover, abandoning the TBMs outside of the City's right–of-way in Chinatown would involve entering and constructing the tunnel within private property, requiring approval by the property owner(s) (or eminent domain) and appropriate compensation.

Easy solution: see comments by Douglas Hamilton.

Bank of America site

  • Leases for construction
    $34K for six months use
    To allow tunnels to run under the building property line. Map of easement attached.
    Court order granting easement to run tunnels under the building property line and payment of $8,700 to property owners.

SFMTA powers under City Charter Section VIIIA

City Charter Section VIIIA, Amended by Proposition A, Approved 11/6/2007

  • SEC. 8A.102. GOVERNANCE AND DUTIES.
    • (b) The Agency shall:
      • 1. Have exclusive authority over the acquisition, construction, management, supervision, maintenance, extension, operation, use, and control of all property, as well as the real, personal, and financial assets of the Agency; and have exclusive authority over contracting, leasing, and purchasing by the Agency, provided that any Agency contract for outside services shall be subject to Charter Sections 10.104(12) and 10.104(15) and that the Agency may not transfer ownership of any of the real property of the City and County without approval from the Board of Directors and the Board of Supervisors;
      • 2. Have exclusive authority to enter into such arrangements and agreements for the joint, coordinated, or common use with any other public entity owning or having jurisdiction over rights-of-way, tracks, structures, subways, tunnels, stations, terminals, depots, maintenance facilities, and transit electrical power facilities;

City Charter Section VIIIA, amended November 2, 1999

Prior authorizations to proceed under Charter Section VIIIA without DBI permits

Notice to Proceed for utility relocation under City streets, January 2011

Notice to Proceed for Pagoda demolition (private property), July 2013

A Muni Sunshine Request for a "previous Notice to Proceed on private property, not the Pagoda Palace, and without DBI permits" came up with nothing, see below. The Pagoda demolition appears to be the first time SFMTA has used their VIIIA powers for a private property site.

 
August 9, 2013
 
Central Subway has no responsive documents that match the request for:
- Only projects prior to July 29, 2013
- Only where the project site was private property at the time the authorization
- Not the Pagoda Theater at 1731--1741 Powell Street, and
- Where a DBI permit was not also issued.
 
Sincerely,
Caroline Celaya
Manager, Public Records Requests
SFMTA
One South Van Ness Avenue
Seventh Floor
San Francisco, CA 94103
415.701.4670

No appeals to SFMTA authorizations

In an August 8, 2013 letter to Howard Wong, SFMTA Board Chair Tom Nolan writes:

Under the SFMTA's Charter authority, the SFMTA has the authority to authorize the contractor to demolish the Pagoda Theater. Please also be advised that there is no appeal to that authorization and none is required by law.

Tom Nolan August 8 letter, "No appeals"

Contracts List

June 13 Contracts List

Awarded contracts

Operations & Maintenance costs

How we got to $15.1 million O&M per year.

Progress reports

Central Subway Monthly Progress Reports

The project issues a Monthly Progress Report (MPR) on their web site. Since June 2013 the report shows two project indices using the "Earned Value Method": Schedule Performance Index (SPI) and Cost Performance Index (CPI) — these appear at page 5 or 6. An index of 0.90 or higher is considered favorable. %Complete shows how much of the project has been completed to date. See this report at page 49/112 for an explanation of the "Earned Value Method."

Each month's Cost summary on page 5 or 6 ends with the words, "On schedule (SPI n.nn) and on budget (CPI n.nn)." Looking below at the monthly %Complete numbers as they dance up and down it's clear that this analysis is a thinly-veiled attempt to show the project is on time and on budget.
Earned Value Analysis
Month SPI CPI %Complete Comment PV EV Cost
Jun 13 0.94 1.05 25 On schedule and on budget 404.9 382.5 365.9
Jul 13 0.94 1.09 26 On schedule and on budget
Aug 13 0.93 1.10 24* On schedule and on budget
Sep 13 0.95 1.09 28 On schedule and on budget
Oct 13 0.98 1.07 31.75 On schedule and on budget
Nov 13 0.99 1.08 31.75 On schedule and on budget
Dec 13 0.98 0.97 30.28* On schedule and on budget
Jan 14 0.95 0.96 30.98 On schedule and on budget
Feb 14 0.97 0.97 33.38 On schedule and on budget
Mar 14 0.93 0.95 32.65* On schedule and on budget
Apr 14 0.93 0.92 34.09 On schedule and on budget
May 14 0.96 0.93 36.2 On schedule and on budget 597.6 572.0 613.6
Jun 14 0.93 0.92 36.04* On schedule and on budget 611.5 569.5** 618.3
Jul 14 0.92 0.90 36.62 On schedule and on budget 627.9 578.7 644.1
*Note dip in %Complete    **Note dip in Earned Value (EV)
PV (x $1 million) - Planned Value
EV (x $1 million) - Earned Value
Cost (x $1 million) - Actual Cost
SPI - Schedule Efficiency = EV / PV
CPI - Cost Efficiency = EV / Cost
%Complete = (EV / Total Budget) * 100 (Total budget is $1.578 billion)
Note: The SPI, CPI and %Complete are dependent on the value of EV. By moving EV up or down the project can be made to appear On schedule and on budget.

Other Progress Reports

Risk Management

  • June 2014
    Risks 46 and 208: No change since May 2014 report. Both still high risk.
  • May 2014
    Risk 208: Additional cost to retrieve TBMs at the Pagoda Theatre site exceeds current budget (See page 38/54.)
    Discussion: Additional information requested of Contractor to demonstrate impact has yet to be received to assess the alleged Differing Site Condition (DSC) claim. Risk Rating 6
    Risk 46: Public complaints result in unanticipated restrictions on construction at CTS (Chinatown Station). (Schedule and estimate for underground work assumes 6 day work week and 2 shifts per day.) (See page 9/54.)
    Discussion: The Contractor to submit Noise reading report to substantiate permit compliance. Risk Rating 6
  • April 2014
    Risk 208: Additional cost to retrieve TBMs at the Pagoda Theatre site exceeds current budget
    Discussion: The Contractor's Differing Site Condition (DSC) has been rejected. Additional information from the Contractor is required to assess the alleged DSC claim. Risk Rating 6
  • March 2014
    Risk 208: Additional cost to retrieve TBMs at the Pagoda Theatre site exceeds current budget
    Discussion: 1252 Contractor alleged DSC claim of a harder layer than anticipated encountered at the CSM walls issue is being tracked. SFMTA inspectors are collecting samples at certain increments to compare the core log samples. Risk Rating 6
    Risk 83: Cost of vehicles are more than estimated
    Discussion: Two firms have submitted bids. Risk Rating 8
    Risk 52: Unacceptable settlement and impact on major utilities at CTS. (OLD Sewers And Others Within 20ft Space Between Top Of Cavern And Street Level)
    Discussion: Response letter from SFPUC is still pending. Previous contact Betsey Egan has left the division. SFMTA needs to determine whom the new contact person will be to find out the status of the comments under review by SFPUC. Risk Rating 6
    Risk 204: Relocation of AT&T Vault and other utilities delays work south of Bryant
    Discussion: A section of potholing remains to be completed at 4th and Townsend related to AT&T, which needs to be coordinated with Muni Operations. Risk Rating 6
    Risk 99: Breakdown in relationships between SFMTA and Contractors during construction results in increased claims and delays to the overall construction schedule.
    Discussion: To maintain a positive relationship with the Contractor the Program should be more proactive and helpful in making attempts to look at situations from the Contractor’s perspective to solve problems. The Contractors suggested deviation from the compensation grouting plan remains an issue. A letter will be sent to the Designer requesting confirmation of their design intent for compensation grouting. When is pre conditioning required? Risk Rating 5
  • February 2014
    Risk 208: Additional cost to retrieve TBMs at the Pagoda Theatre site exceeds current budget; Risk Rating 8 (pg 32/54)
    February 2014: 1. Change orders for the 1277 Contract have been budgeted under CPT 690. (pg 32/54)
    The total budget for demolition change orders seems to be $12,362.66 (see COR 01--04 below) rather than the $200,000 asked for (see November 2013 below).
    Decision on 1277 change orders, Configuration Management Board (CMB) meeting #157 Feb 5, 2014
    1277 - Pagoda demolition (pages 1--2)
    COR 01 - Demolish and remove unforeseen concrete structures found under slab on grade - Merit, Cost NTE - No action taken by CMB
    COR 02 - Parapet wall demolition at the Filbert Garage - Merit, Cost NTE $8,054.88
    COR 03 - Hauling and disposal of Styrofoam debris - Merit, Cost NTE $4,307.78
    COR 04 - Sorting of materials at Baylands Soils Processing - Merit, Cost NTE - No action taken by CMB
    Other CMB minutes.
  • January 2014
    Risk Register
    1. Risk 208: Additional cost to retrieve TBMs at the Pagoda Theatre site exceeds current budget; Risk Rating 8
    Status Reports
    January 2014: (pg 20/32)
    1. Both TBMs have experienced thrust ram failure in the last month
    a. The Southbound TBM was stopped for approximately 2 weeks
    b. The Northbound TBM was stopped for approximately 1 week
  • December 2013
    1. Change orders are still being assessed and negotiated with the demolition contractor [Pagoda site contract 1277 - see November 2013 Risk 208]
  • November 2013
    November 12 meeting minutes are dated December 12
    Why are these dated after the December 10 meeting? Presumably the November minutes would be reviewed at that meeting.
    1. Risk 208: Additional cost to retrieve TBMs at the Pagoda Theatre site exceeds current budget;
    Discussion: A revised CMod for CN1277 is being circulated will be brought to the CMB for review. Risk Rating 8 (pg 3/74)
    (CN1277 is the Pagoda demolition contract)
    Configuration Management Board (CMB) is a project-level, decision-making body that reviews and approves, or recommends approval to the SFMTA’'s upper management of, all change requests to the Central Subway Project’'s baseline documents prior to implementation of such changes.
    4. Political Risk – opponents impacting staff productivity - Requires more time than it's worth to track and analyze - Not a Risk (pg 4/74)
    4. Compensation grouting at Pagoda Site - The Designer is unhappy about their scope of work although they agreed to the scope -
    Risk to be added to register. (pg 4/74)
    November 2013: (pg 40/74)
    1. CPT 690 approved by the SFMTA board on November 5th.
    Board resolution for an additional $550,000. See the table at top of page 3/5 for justifications. $70,000 from Mayor’s Office of Economic and Work Force Development assistance to businesses adjacent to the Pagoda Palace site?? Adjacent businesses report no money or services received.
    2. Change orders for the demolition of the Pagoda Theatre are currently being negotiated with the demolition contractor
  • October 2013
    October 2013: 1. Budget to be increased $500,000 through CPT 690 being presented to the November 5th, 2013 SFMTA Board meeting (pg 217/268)
  • September 2013
  • August (2nd report) 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
    • Risk 208: Additional cost to retrieve TBMs at the Pagoda Theatre site exceeds current budget
      Discussion: Efforts continue to maintain budget, negotiations not yet finalized. Risk Rating 8 (p. 1)
      Nothing further on "Cutter soil mixing is being proposed to construct the retrieval shaft in lieu of tangent piles (ROM approx. $600k less than tangent piles)." See June Risk# 208.
  • June 2013
    • Risk 207: Implementing Pagoda Option for Retrieval Shaft - Delay in Obtaining Property --- Property has been acquired, leased has been signed. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) approval was completed on May 10th. Risk Rating 0. This risk will be Retired. (p. 18)
    • Risk 208: Additional cost if we change direction going to the Pagoda --- SFMTA anticipates PCC 10 being closed by Friday, June 14 or next week sometime. We will remain within budget overall. Risk Rating 8 (pp. 19--20)
      Cutter soil mixing is being proposed to construct the retrieval shaft in lieu of tangent piles (ROM approx. $600k less than tangent piles).
  • May 2013
    • 1. Risk Mitigation Report No. 45 2013-05-10
    • 2. Mitigation Report (Active Status Sheets) - May 2013 (pp. 66--68)
      • Risk 207: Implementing Pagoda Option for Retrieval Shaft - Delay in Obtaining Property --- Lease has been signed by owner. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) clearance still remains open. Risk rating will be maintained. Risk Rating 9 (p. 66)
      • Risk 208: Additional cost if we change direction going to the Pagoda --- SFMTA and BIH are close on resolving the current costs. Appear to be within budget. Risk Rating 8 (p. 67)
      • Risk 209: Implementing Pagoda Option - Obtaining Environmental Clearance. Risk Rating 3 (p. 68)
      • Risk 22: Public complaints result in unanticipated restrictions on construction at UMS station. (p. 10)
      • Risk 27: Loss of business results in unanticipated restrictions on construction at Yerba Buena/Moscone station. (p. 11)
    • 3. Risk Register Rev 21
    • 4. New Risk Associated w/ Contract Strategy & RS
  • April 2013 (pp. 41--44)
    • Risk 206: Delay in Decision on Retrieval Shaft --- A decision has been made, this risk has been mitigated. Risk Rating 0. This risk is retired.
    • Risk 207: Implementing Pagoda Option for Retrieval Shaft - Delay in Obtaining Property --- Real estate lease agreement has been signed. New information regarding the presence of hazardous material requiring abatement. Information needs to be included in PCC 10 and the MPS. Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirement to be submitted to the FTA for evaluation. Risk Rating 9
    • Risk 208: Additional cost if we change direction going to the Pagoda --- Optional plan has been developed: 1) Continue to negotiate with BIH on their proposal (identifying the hard spots of discrepancy) prepare document for Senior Management review), 2) Initiate a separate contract for design build of the Retrieval and put it out as a separate contract or add it on to BIH’s contract instructing them to build it. 3) Bid the Pagoda separately without the add-ons. Risk Rating 8
    • Risk 209: Implementing Pagoda Option - Obtaining Environmental Clearance --- Bids for testing of noise and vibration went out. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) studies due on 4/12/13. Risk Rating 3
  • April 2013 Risk and Contingency Management Plan Rev 3

Configuration Management Board

The Configuration Management Board (CMB) is a project-level, decision-making body that reviews and approves, or recommends approval to the SFMTA’'s upper management of, all change requests to the Central Subway Project’'s baseline documents prior to implementation of such changes.

  • #158 Feb 12, 2014
  • #159 Feb 19, 2014
  • #160 Feb 26, 2014
    1277 - Pagoda demolition
    COR 01 - Demolish and remove unforeseen concrete structures found under slab on grade - Merit, Cost NTE - No action taken by CMB
    COR 03 - Hauling and disposal of Styrofoam debris - Merit, Cost NTE $4,307.78
    COR 04 - Sorting of materials at Baylands Soils Processing - Merit, Cost NTE $12,338.34
  • #161 Mar 12, 2014
    1277 - Pagoda demolition
    COR 01 - Demolish and remove unforeseen concrete structures found under slab on grade - Merit, Cost NTE $79,379.17

Certified Payroll Reports

Gas Leak near Moscone Conv Ctr, June 16, 2013

NATURAL GAS WATCH: San Francisco authorities had to evacuate hundred of people from homes and businesses near Moscone Center at in the South of Market neighborhood on Sunday, June 16, after a construction crew severed an underground gas leak during work on the new Central Subway line currently under construction.

Work was being performed by SFMTA subcontractor Condon-Johnson Nicholson JV (CJN) near 4th & Folsom Sts.

IDR2013-173 Correspondence with FTA & Pagoda Docs

FTA corresp & Pagoda Docs


DOT FOIA request Sept 2013

Reiskin-Rogers letters May-Sep 2013

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) documents

FTA Oversight guidelines

Project Management Oversight Contractor (PMOC)

The Project Management Oversight Contractor (PMOC) was hired by the Federal Transit Administration to make monthly reports on the Central Subway project budget and schedule.

Serious Central Subway contingency problems

Budget and schedule contingency problems since May 2013

PMOC reports received as Word and PDF files

Beginning in Nov 2013 PMOC reports were delivered as a mixture of MS Word and PDF docs. Previously all reports and attachments were delivered as a single PDF file.

Nov 2013 PMOC
November 2013 (from SFMTA web site, attachments missing)
MD 20176_r1_SFMTA_MiniMR_1113.docx
MD 176_ATTACHMENT A_CSP Project Overview and Map 1113.docx
MD 176_ATTACHMENT B_CSP Safety and Security Checklist 1113.docx
MD 176_ATTACHMENT C_CSP Critical Path Schedule 103113.pdf
MD 176_ATTACHMENT D_CSP 3 month lookahead 103113.pdf
MD 176_ATTACHMENT E__PMOC Action Items for SFMTA_November 2013.docx
MD 176_ATTACHMENT F_CSP COST SCHEDULE CONTINGENCY DRAWDOWNS 1113.doc
Dec 2013 PMOC
MD-178_SFMTA_Comprehensive-MR_1213.docx
MD 178_ATTACHMENT A_CSP Project Overview and Map 1213.docx
MD 178_ATTACHMENT B_CSP Safety and Security Checklist 1213.docx
MD 178_ATTACHMENT C_CSP Critical Path Schedule 113013.pdf
MD 178_ATTACHMENT D_CSP 3 month lookahead 113013.pdf
MD 178_ATTACHMENT E__PMOC Action Items for SFMTA_December 2013.docx
MD 178_ATTACHMENT F_CSP COST SCHEDULE CONTINGENCY DRAWDOWNS 1213.doc
MD 178_ATTACHMENT G_PMOC Cost Update Rprt 1213.pdf
Jan 2014 PMOC
MD 182_SFMTA_Mini MR 0114.docx
MD 182_ATTACHMENT A_CSP Project Overview and Map 0114.docx
MD 182_ATTACHMENT B_CSP Safety and Security Checklist 0114.docx
MD 182_ATTACHMENT C_CSP Critical Path Schedule 123013.pdf
MD 182_ATTACHMENT D_CSP 3 month lookahead 123013.pdf
MD 182_ATTACHMENT E__PMOC Action Items for SFMTA_January 2014.docx
MD 182_ATTACHMENT F_CSP COST SCHEDULE CONTINGENCY DRAWDOWNS 0114.doc
Feb 2014 PMOC
1402_MD_183_SFMTA_MiniMR.pdf
MD 183_ATTACHMENT A_CSP Project Overview and Map 0214.docx
MD 183_ATTACHMENT B_CSP Safety and Security Checklist 0214.docx
MD 183_ATTACHMENT C_CSP Critical Path Schedule 013114.pdf
MD 183_ATTACHMENT D_CSP 3 month lookahead 013114.pdf
MD 183_ATTACHMENT E__PMOC Action Items for SFMTA_February 2014.docx
MD 183_ATTACHMENT F_CSP COST SCHEDULE CONTINGENCY DRAWDOWNS 0214.doc
MD 183_ATTACHMENT G_PMOC Cost Update Rprt 0214.pdf

PMOC February 2014

In addition to the continuing problems with financial reporting, and budget and schedule contingencies, it now appears the project is losing staff and replacement personnel are under-qualified.

PMOC February 2014 report

Page ES-iii (PDF page 4/31):

It is the PMOC’s opinion that staff morale is at a low point. The firing of the two Cost/Schedule staff and the resignation of the Tunnel Construction Manager (CM) and Chinatown Resident Engineer (RE) are cause for concern. It is the PMOC’s opinion that the CSP is understaffed in the following positions: RE, CM, Inspectors, Office Engineers (OEs), Cost/Schedule support staff, and a Change Order specialist. Management intends to hire some new staff, eliminate some positions all together, and has filled some positions with existing, less qualified staff. The PMOC is concerned that some of the existing staff are not qualified for their new positions. The PMOC recommends hiring the new employees as soon as possible.

PMOC January 2014

PMOC January 2014 report

PMOC December 2013

PMOC December 2013 report

PMOC November 2013

Some comments from a retired financial economist on the PMOC November 2013 report

"The budget contingencies remain largely unchanged (based on my memory). But the reason for the lack of change is that SFMTA hasn’t submitted any real budget data to the Feds since the end of May. Hence, the only changes the Feds appear to have made in their estimates of the contingency is based on the variance between the actual size of new contracts let and what had been the pre-contract estimate. As noted in previous PMOC reports, the Feds question the veracity of SFMTA’s budget/cost reporting and accounting system for this project. SFMTA in turn is blaming the software system (purchased from outside vendor) for the problem or at least part of it. In my days [as a financial economist], if I were to see a corporation do this I would raise red flags."

See more at November 2013 Risk Management.

PMOC September, October 2013

SFMTA didn't release the September or October PMOC reports.

For reports from FTA see Sep, Oct 2013 PMOC reports.

PMOC May 2013

The Central Subway project contingencies are still well below federal budget and schedule minimums.

PMOC May 2013 Other reports mentioned:

  • Project Management Plan (PMP)
  • Risk and Contingency Management Plan (RCMP)
    An updated RCMP Revision 3 was received by the PMOC on April 30, 2013. A Draft Spot Report* was provided to FTA on May 20, 2013.
  • Environmental Assessment / Mitigation Plan / Archaeological Plans
    The PMOC received the First Quarter 2013 Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (MMRP) update, dated April 26, 2013 from SFMTA on May 1, 2013. The report was expected to be submitted to the SFMTA Board of Supervisors, the San Francisco Planning Department, and FTA by the end of March. The PMOC provided a Draft Spot Report* to FTA on May 22, 2013.
  • Project Cost Status
    • (p. 8/11) The Project Cost Report monthly update for April was received by the PMOC on May 28, 2013. (See April 2013 PMOC, p. 9/12)
  • Project Risk, Risk Management and Risk Mitigation
    On May 22, 2013, the Central Subway Partnership (CSP) submitted a document titled, Contingency (Schedule) Management Update 2012 to justify the decrease in minimum schedule contingency based on risk. The CSP has not provided justification for the reduction in schedule contingency until recently. The PMOC is currently reviewing this report and will provide a report to FTA in early June 2013.


(*) Spot report - As the current budget forecast changes, the capital plan may need revisions to ensure that the grantee maintains a sound financial position. Grantees are subject to financial spot reviews by FTA and its PMOs to ensure that they have the financial capacity to complete the project according to the terms of the FFGA, as well as to operate and maintain the existing transit system and service levels.

PMOC April 13, 2013

Shows seriously low schedule and budget contingencies. See also newspaper articles that summarize the report.

All files above:

All PMOC Reports

Reports October 2012 to present

PMOC SPOT reports

Review of Contingency Management - Schedule 2012 Update, Dated May 22, 2013

Financial Management Oversight Contractor (FMOC) reports

Article on Detroit Transit showing the need for FMOC.

"The [project funding] plans must demonstrate that the project sponsor can complete the ... project and continue to operate its existing service with available resources."

Triennial Reviews

Triennial Review, June 2010

Rogers-Reiskin July 18 letter re 2013 Triennial Review

Triennial Review 2013

Communications with SFMTA

Ed Reiskin, Leslie Rogers communications, May--September 2013

Related transit battles

August 15: Honolulu rail project hearing in 9th District Court, S.F.

A group in Honolulu has filed a suit to halt construction of a monorail pending a complete environmental and archeological study of the rail alignment. The case will be heard the week of August 12, 2013 at the 9th District Court at 95 7th Street in San Francisco.

Pacific Business News article

From honolulutraffic.com:

May 16, 2013.
Our appeal filed with the Ninth Circuit:
An appeal in the case of Honolulutraffic et al. vs. Federal Transit Administration et al. was filed last night with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
At its core, the appeal focuses on the improper alternatives analysis undertaken by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) in the Final EIS in violation of Section 4(f), which Congress wrote to protect historic properties and resources.
The FTA was required to, “rigorously explore all reasonable alternatives,” but ignored the Managed Lanes Alternative, street level Light Rail, and Bus/Rapid Transit (BRT). The EIS only explored three minor variants of the elevated heavy rail alternative.
In 2003, the FTA and the City had found that BRT was preferable to elevated rail. It wrote that from, “Public input received in hundreds of Vision Team and Oahu Trans 2K meetings and workshops … the predominant sentiment among thousands of participants was that a grade-separated transit system would be unacceptably: (1) intrusive on the visual environment; (2) divisive of communities; and (3) too expensive.”
What we are asking the court: “Appellants seek relief requiring that the FTA’s approval of the Project be vacated and set aside, that the City and FTA be ordered to comply with NEPA and Section 4(f), and that all further work on the Project be enjoined pending that compliance.”
We firmly believe that a new and honestly conducted alternatives analysis would never result in the selection of elevated heavy rail as the preferable alternative.
HonoluluTraffic.com Appeal hearing, August 15, 2013 in San Francisco

HonoluluTraffic.com web site and legal filing for hearing August 15, 2013 in SF 9th Circuit Court, 95 7th Street. Pre-hearing article and legal analysis and other articles from Hawaii Reporter.

Video of the hearing (57 minutes). A Hawaii Reporter article on the hearing and analysis of the hearing.

Joan Wood: It was very interesting and not crowded. Nicholas Yost representing HonoluluTraffic.com presented his arguments for about 40 minutes as then did the opposing lawyers. Probably no decision for weeks they said although it could be sooner depending on the scope of the decision. No fireworks. The younger of the justices (Andrew Hurwitz) seemed very interested and asked quite a few questions. The woman justice (Mary Schroeder) was anxious to get to the heart of the matter though I couldn't say what that is. The presiding judge (Stephen Rinehardt) - oldest - spoke very little.

The hearing lasted about one hour. Nicholas Yost, representing HonoluluTraffic.com, went first followed by the Hawaii attorneys, then Yost had the last word.

Don't know the legal background but can read body language and can tell when people are speaking who are either comfortable or in trouble with the subject matter. Yost seemed to nail every question the three judges threw at him, and often did so with a little humor, and often got a chuckle of agreement from them. The Hawaii FTA attorney was the weakest, and the City of Honolulu guy was OK. Neither, it seemed, was a match for Yost.

Lots of technical legal discussion referring to sections 1291, 1292, 4(f), ... The one point I could follow was the effect of a nearly-completed project on the outcome. As long as major construction hadn't begun in the historically-sensitive part of the project the court cases and appeals could continue. The judges spent a fair amount of time with both sides clearing this up.

Judges were Stephen Rinehardt (senior justice, older fellow, looks a little like actor Charles Laughton), Mary Schroeder, and Andrew Hurwitz. According to Yost, the first two are Carter appointees, and Hurwitz an Obama appointee. Hurwitz seemed to engage with the attorneys more than the others, and was pleasant and knowledgeable. Anecdote: Hurwitz asked Yost a fairly detailed question, and before answering Yost commented that it was an excellent question, and Hurwitz smiled and said he hoped so because he had spent some time thinking it up.

As Joan noted above, the judges' decision will probably come sometime in September.

Beautiful courthouse building at 95 7th Street, like a museum, worth a visit just for that.

Planning Department

Pagoda Building Permits

Historic Evaluation

Based on Alteration and not Demolition.

"[The site] is located within the California Register eligible Washington Square District that qualifies under the Events and Architecture Criteria of Significance."

Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs)

Planning Code, Special Use District for Pagoda Theater.

This Special Use District provision for 1731-1741 Powell Street (Pagoda site) "sunsets" in May 2018.

SF Civil Grand Jury

Central Subway: Too Much Money for Too Little Benefit

"Central Subway: Too Much Money for Too Little Benefit", July 2011

SF County Transportation Authority

SFMTA Cost Controls

SFMTA Cost Controls

June 2014 Central Subway update

  • Project update - Click here.
    • Scan down to "Timeline" which shows "Begin Revenue Service" has slipped from previously announced December 2018 to late 2019. The project is supposed to be "On time and on budget," yet seems to have slipped 6–12 months.
  • Video after tunnels near completion - Click here.

North Beach History

June Osterberg

June has lived in North Beach since 1965 and is a journalist and historian.

The Palace

Of the many names the theater on Washington Square has had in its 100-plus-year history, The Palace is the one June prefers. Find out more about this historic building, including the time The Cockettes made it their home. The North Beach Beat, a local paper June co-founded, is no longer published.

Theater on the Square 1909–1967, Part 1 of 2, North Beach Beat, August 2003

When the Cockettes Played the Palace 1967–2003, Part 2 of 2, North Beach Beat, September 2003

Eastern Orthodox Church that once stood at the Pagoda site

The old Eastern Orthodox Cathedral

The earthquake and fire of 1906 destroyed an old Eastern Orthodox Church that once stood at the Pagoda site. See the old church remembered

SF History: Tunnels

Twin Peaks Tunnel

Clink here for footage of films made around 1917 showing the construction of the 2.3-mile Twin Peaks Tunnel. The cost was $4 million and it took a little over three years to mine the tunnel, lay the tracks, and build the stations. Begun in December 1914 it was open for service in February 1918. No tunnel boring machines back then — all work was done with steam shovels and horse-drawn carts.

Web site updated September 7, 2014;