monday. so, we're well positioned now for consideration of this lease. the basic terms of the lease are i think summarized well in the report. there is two years of rent. it's a two-year lease with a $400,000 annual lease payment for just the occupation of the site. there is $450,000 reimbursement cap set in place for out of pocket costs that the owner has while we're in this process. and this, with all the other items, are only on a reimbursement basis and only with our approval. we can't reasonably uphold our approval, but any costs that he incurs that we can validate, we would pay up to these caps, but not beyond and not things that we can't validate.

so, there's $450,000 cap for his out-of-pocket expenses. there's an allowance of up to $1.5 million for construction escalation costs. so, that's basically the fact that if -- to the extent that if he were to go out today and build his approved project, that same project may be more expensive in the future just because of the cost of inflation. so, we're agreeing to hold him to keep him whole in that regard up to a cap of $1.5 million. there is also a cost he will incur once we're done with the site. what we'll do is go in, demolish the building, excavate and build our shaft. we'll remove the tunnel boring machines, and then we'll leave. what we will leave him with is removing the top portion of our shaft and backfilling some of that space and we've provided an allowance of up to $400,000 for that activity to get him

back to a place where he he can then advance his project. so, the sum total of those is $3.15 million. that again is an upper limit. the 400,000 per year is fixed. the balance are allowances to be verified. in addition, we have estimated that our costs to change the current approved contract and project, the additional design cost, the additional construction costs, would be on the order of $6 million or the maximum of $ million. so, what we're asking you for in this item is the authorization, both for the lease, the $3.15 million max of the lease, up to $6 million additional construction costs, which are basically the costs of the additional tunneling, the design changes we have to make, and the cost of building the new excavation shaft less some of the costs that we'll save from not excavating where we currently planned.

* $6 million so, that's the item before you. as the board president referenced, there have been various concerns by various members of the community, surrounding various aspects about this. i think there's one category of folks who have consistently not supported the general project and they've raised a number of concerns that we have been able to address in writing and i sent you a copy of that last wednesday night. there are i think some very legitimate concerns of the immediately abutting property owners. now that we're not on the public right-of-way, the impact, construction impact to the great majority of north beach residents and merchants is very, very small, but the people who are directly abutting the site, you know, they will be abutting a construction site, as it would have been whether or not we came there presuming this project would go forward, but they will additionally have the impacts of our project.

we'll be working closely with them, with the office of economic and work force development to make sure that we're not doing anything that jeopardizes their businesses or other activities. i think i guess we can wait for public comment to address any other concerns, but that's where we are. we've got virtually all of our approvals in place. we still need fta certification that we have our federal environmental clearance. we've been working with them all through this process. they've been at the table from the start. so, we expect to be able to secure that. and then with the final action of the board of supervisors once that special use district goes into law, we'll be able to move forward with the demolition of the building starting within the next couple of months so that we can keep our original timeline, which you'll recall that was to have the shaft built in time for the tunnel boring machines which are set to arrive about 12 to

15 months from now in north beach. so, that i think summarizes what we have before you. i just want to thank the many staff and the mayor and the board president for their work to get this done, and happy to take questions either now or after public comment. >> we can certainly ask members of the public to come forward at this point. do we have some names? >> yes, for item 11 greg gi ber, howard wong [speaker not understood]. those are the first three. >> good afternoon, sir. good afternoon. thank you for allowing me to speak here. just now and again at the january public meeting on north beach, director reiskin assured us that this boring site, this would only be for the removal of the tunnel boring machines.

with that restriction, i support this project, but really only as the better of two not so attractive options. i don't think it's particularly difficult for one to figure out that the economics of taking this thing out of north beach versus the more traditional methods of backing the machine out, bearing, cutting the heads up and pulling them out. it's kind of strange here. the real question is why is this being done. i don't think removal of the equipment is really the issue at hand. what's really the issue and we're all concerned with is how do we get an extension of these subway tunnels into north beach as sort of potential down payment, for lack of a better term, down payment for extension of this subway into north beach and into fisherman's wharf. this board has made it clear, the mta made it clear in its public statements this is something it wants to do. at least one board member said

so at the last meeting. the problem is how do you do that when you don't have the funding? you are not funded to extend these subway tunnels beyond chinatown. you know that. if you take a look at the december 8th -- pardon me, the 2008 approval, it said that this tunnel into north beach is for, and it says, this is a temporary construction tunnel for use in extraction of the tunnel boring machines. if you look at [speaker not understood]. if you look at the secretary of transportation's report for fiscal year 2010 on this project, there is a map in it. it shows nothing beyond chinatown. there's no mention of this continuation. >> thank you, sir. next speaker, please. >> howard wong followed by joan wood and then lance carn, s. >> good afternoon, mr. wood.

howard wong with muni.com. a supplemental letter from our attorneys libby [speaker not understood], were delivered later. * i'm providing three additional copies for your reference. as described in the three legal letters dated february 5th, february 14th, and february 19th, the pagoda theater requires a supplemental e-i-r and there are legal requirements for the special use district and continual conditional use authorization before the lease should be authorized. save muni's goal in this regard is only to protect all of the north beach businesses that could be affected because the pagoda lease does not affect -- does not change the fact that some businesses will be possibly put out of business. as an architect, i have worked on many complex projects for the city and in particular the

letter from the geotechnical engineer, lawrence carp who is very highly regarded does have very substantive merit. the groundwater being 6 to 8 feet below the street, foundations of adjacent buildings, some which are historic, no more than 10 feet below grade. a retrieval box that is 42 feet plus below grade indicates that there is hydrostatic pressures and concerns about its impacts on structures nearby as we've seen in many projects which have been engineered with also the best engineers in the world. lawrence carp's geotechnical letter has -- all had i letters have been stamped and signed. the mta has not responded with an equivalent stamp. they're signed engineering

rebuttal to his concerns and our concerns. >> thank you, mr. bong. -- wong. >> joan wood, lance carnes, and mark bruno. those are the last three people who have turned in speaker cards. >> good afternoon, ms. woods. yes, good afternoon. my name is joan wood i have i willedv continuously in north beach since 1962. * i have many objections. i formerly worked for the city 32 years. one of the conditions of employment there was that you acknowledge the public trust. all of you and director reiskin and manager funge, you're all subject to that. i don't know why it seems to have been ignored in the interest of the central subway. i draw your attention to the e-i-r which was whipped out in a very short period of time. it says the construction will take 15 months for this project if it goes forward, the pagoda palace. there has been no consideration whatever of the historic buildings surrounding it and

it's only going to put two restaurants out of business instead of probably a whole lot more in the previous plan. north beach residents and businesses got excited about the new plan because they realized that the pagoda palace, which is considered an eyesore, i'm kind of used to it by now, is going to be demolished. and i think the owner of that property and his lawyers and his expediter are over the moon about getting all this monday and i getting the building demolished. i will just ask you why you haven't considered this destructive e-i-r. also, if you sign this lease, the property owner is getting a lot of his work done by the city plus getting this large payment. i totaled up the figures. it looks like you're spending $18 million in total for this by signing the lease today.

i'm asking where the funds are coming from. i was told -- we were told previously in another earlier meeting, maybe the planning commission, you're going to use reserve funds. i didn't know they existed. many of us didn't know they existed. why are you not using contingency funds? there are a lot of funds in that and we want one more community meeting. a fire alarm went off and can you tell us short before. we'd like answers to many questions. thank you. >> thank you. >> lance carnes followed by mark bruno. those are the last two people who have submitted a speaker card. >> good afternoon. hi, good afternoon. my name is lance carnes, i'm a resident of north beach. i guess i wanted to make a pointed to about taking care of our neighborhoods. you know, we're certainly going to be in a situation of putting up with a lot of construction without any real benefit to the neighborhood, a station or service. i'd like to start off and echo

what the previous speaker said and that is we had a meeting in january 22nd which was unfortunately terminated before a lot of people traveled some distance in fact, to get there, were able to ask questions or get answers. and i'd like you to reschedule that as soon as possible. it's nice to come down here and visit you folks at city hall, but little two-minute sound bytes. much better to have a forum where we can ask questions and get answers. last thursday at the planning commission meeting, it what noted that the owner of the pagoda site is to be compensated generously for the delay in his development plans while the extraction project proceeds. there is no mention to compensation to the nearby businesses particularly piazza pelegrini and [speaker not

understood] sushi [speaker not understood] the pagoda site. further, the restaurants will be affected during the america's cup races [speaker not understood] their highest income probably for the year, maybe a couple years. so, i'd just like to once again, you know, request that mta come to our neighborhood, tell us exactly what they're going to do with this site, how long the construction is going to take, what hours of the day will be affected, how much dust, whatnot, will be raised. we welcome you as soon as you can make it. thanks. >> last speaker, mark bruno. >> good afternoon, mr. bruno. good afternoon.

easier when you're 15 to do this. so, my name is mark bruno. i live in north beach and i've been involved with the subway project for the last year. as you know, because you approved the original eis, e-i-r, one of the considerations was possibly leaving the machinery under the ground. i advised you at the last time we had a chance to speak here to, in fact, do that. to leave the equipment under the ground. and every time it's been asked -- that you've asked what that would mean to mr. funge, i feel that the explanation unintentionally has been ambiguous because we don't quite understand -- maybe people in the room don't understand -- what the machine looks like. it's on the site for the sfmta. so, mr. funge has explained that this is a 300-foot,

meaning a football length field piece of equipment. but, in fact, the piece that we've suggested leaving under the ground is only about about 15 feet deep. it's a train, 300 feet long, a train, that's pushing a disk. you can see here this disk is much larger in circumference than this train. this disk, which is cutting the dirt, gets stuck in the ground. and all over the world the same company, which has provided the demonstration for the sfmta site -- there is a democrat owe there beautifully done to show you how this all works -- that company, most of those 41 different sites in the world are leaving this disk under the ground. * all we're asking in north beach, to not interfere with the successful neighborhood church, residents, businesses adjacent to pagoda palace, is to write into the lease with the pagoda the possibility, should it become possible to do

this in the future when the machines arrive in north beach, to leave this disk, not the train 300 feet long, but just this 15-foot disk in the ground. and that's how it's done in many places around the world. thank you so much. >> thank you, mr. bruno. anyone else care to address the board on this subject? if not, okay. members, questions, comments? >> let me speak to that, mr. reiskin, the comment about leaving the disk in. is this something we looked at, considered, would that be a viable possibility to try to build something like that into it at this point? * >> the answer is yes and yes, it is something that we looked at i believe originally as part of the project and then as part of the review that we undertook this past summer, it was on the list of options that we presented to you in december. it is doable, it is viable, that there are with that option, with the current option, with what we're proposing, there are various pros and cons. the the win/win i think that

president chiu mentioned, dovetails this project with the pagoda project. it leaves our current contract kind of more intact in terms of the residual value of the tunnel boring machine staying with the contractor. but yes, absolutely, leaving them in the ground is possible. it could be done. that's something we evaluated and came forward recommending what we're recommending today. i will note that at, not the january community meeting in north beach, but one that we had in december when there was, albeit very informal straw poll of the people there, there was support for the -- the greatest support was for this option or for leaving the tunnel boring machines in the ground in chinatown. the current plan of removing them on columbus avenue and the plan for leaving them in the ground under columbus avenue

was received virtually no support at that meeting. so, to the extent that that informal poll was representative of community sentiment, that's just a data point for you. i also want to add, and i didn't state it in my opening that you've heard from 4 or 5 people who are suggesting we do other things, that there's been fairly strong community support from a number of individuals and organizations in writing for this option. so, just another data point to get a sense of where the other community sentiment is. >> what we're doing today, does that preclude the possibility of leaving that disk in there? >> we would be entering into a lease and we would immediately start constructing the shaft. in order for us to have the shaft built in time for the machines to get there, we need to start that. our original plan was to start that work in january of this year. so, we're already behind on

that. so, before we start impacting the critical path, that is not a decision that would be made in a year. it's a decision we'd be making now to move forward with the demolition and the excavation to build the shaft. >> director big nan. >> if we could discuss the funding. i don't remember if it was in open session or closed session -- was it in closed session? can we discuss that very briefly? i know that the number you gave us versus the number that seems to be perceived by the public were different. so, if we could just briefly go through the funding and where it is going that would be great. >> i think the confusion on the total amount was just a mad matter of ating the components of the 1.15 -- and .15. it is .15 million and [speaker not understood]. * 9.15 again, those are both not to exceed numbers. so, that's kind of a worst case

fiscal impact. what we're proposing right now, the costs won't be -- need to be for the most part budgeted or paid for until next fiscal year, the following fiscal year. * so, at that time we'll have more kind of specific -- we'll have a better understanding of exactly what the costs are and where we'd be budgeting them. but as one of the speakers said and what we said in the report, we'll be looking primarily at reserves. we approved a budget with a certain expectation of where our ending fund balance would be as we're trying to increase it back up to a healthier level. and it was that commitment that was the basis, at least in part, for the strong credit ratings that we received. so, we don't want to do anything to jeopardize that. however, since the mv ta budget was approved by you last spring, * the health of the economy for the last fiscal year and then based on the controller's six-month report for this fiscal year is projecting more general fund

transfer that will come into the mta that is not budgeted that will just add to that fund balance. so, we believe even if we had to fully fund this from our reserves, we'd be able to do so in a way that would still keep us on track with the ending fund balance projection that you all had approved. and that's all to initially front the money, if you will, once these payments are due. we will be working with the fta to secure their approval for consideration of use of contingency. another public speaker indicated to the extent we have contingency in the project to refund the city for that amount. you know, we believe certainly the $6 million of our costs extending the tunnel is fully part of the project and we hope would be eligible for that reimbursement, but that's something that even if the fta were to approve it in concept

at this point, it really wouldn't be until they had a sense of where we are relative to contingency. they wouldn't want us to draw down contingent is towards that. but towards the end of the project we may. we hope in the end to get that money refunded, but that's currently the plan for our funding this. >> commissioners, any other questions? director bridges? >> my question was along the same lines. i understood from the meeting director reiskin had planned he would go back to the fta for reimbursement on this wrote et and request it at the end. >> that's correct. we'll be working with them before the end to try to get these accepted as legitimate project costs and then to the extent we achieve that, then they'd be eligible for funding to the extent there's funds left over. since that's not something we can control -- >> i understand. >> what we can tell you now is how we would fund it now. we certainly hope in the end to be able to get this money refunded back into the city to the mta.

>> what is good about this, it's based on cpi which is good in this environment. >> it has all not to exceed values. so, if the owner's construction costs go up $3 million, we're still capped at 1.15. if he ends up at a million dollars to remove the shaft and backfill,v our liability is still capped at 400,000. >> that is correct, and that's good. >> anything? >> no. >> [speaker not understood]. if not, is there a motion on the recommendation before us? >> p motion to approved. >> second. >> further suction? all in favor say aye. >> aye. >> opposed no? the ayes have it. one thing, director reiskin about the meeting on the 22nd being interrupted, it seems like it might be a good idea to have an information meeting. not a policy discussion since that's pretty much been set. but maybe go back to the community and answer specific questions about what people are anticipating what's going to happen, if we can do that. >> absolutely. we've been working to

significantly improve the way we're communicating with the north beach community in particular and are doing so through many different channels, through e-mail and otherwise. we are supporting part of a position in the economic development office, somebody who is in part focused on working just with the north beach community. so, we're happy to continue that and make sure that any kind of unanswered questions to the extent there are any are answered. some of the things that are coming up are things that have been answered in some cases. for five years ago, in some cases in the last six months. but we absolutely want to continue our commitment to communicating with the community and in particular working with the -- any businesses or residents that might be impacted. >> those three that were mentioned here and the others. thank you. i'd like to -- it took many people to get us to this day, i certainly want to say a very special thanks to john funge

and his staff for the outstanding work. i know it's a huge challenge in a very short period of time. so, thank you, mr. funge, and your staff for all the great work. >> i want to note as i think the board president did, alicia john baptiste came on the first day of her assignment was getting this job done. she was able to pull together not just the mta staff, but from our real estate folks and finance and construction and engineering, but the planning department, the attorneys, and everybody to make this happen. and then our cfo/chief real estate negotiator, [speaker not understood] was the one who was kind of working around the clock to get this deal done in a way that was responsible for the city and good for the mta. so, i want to acknowledge them. >> a great sacrifice missing our all-day retreat to do this. >> [speaker not understood]. >> okay, thank you. next item. >> item 12, amending transportation code sections 1109, 1110 and 1116 to establish the rights of current ramp medallion holders under the recently adopted medallion transfer program, to provide

the lease of ramp taxi medallions returned to the sfmta, and to make other non-substantive changes. >> so, mr. chair, this item is meant to kind of catch up the ramp taxi program with the various steps of medallion reform we've taken over the past couple of years and to really provide a transition path for the ramp medallion holders. it's been informed in part by the authorizations you've given us to provide incentives for ramp medallion or ramp service performance which have been effective. but also have helped us show where there's significant unevenness in ramp service. we also have a number of the medallion holders who are looking and perhaps deserving of a pathway out. so, this proposal that's before

you that was subject to some town hall meetings that benefit from some town hall meeting, that benefit from our accessible service folks working within the taxi and accessible services division to develop is our proposal. and jarvis murry, who is the -- who is here for director hayashi who is on travel this week, is here to take you through some of the specifics of the legislation that we're proposing. >> good afternoon [speaker not understood]. >> good afternoon, directors. director reiskin. this item before you is simply a matter of amending the transportation code to provide an opportunity to lease and grant medallions directly to companies and also to clarify some issues with our ramp medallion holders. as you have already approved in some previous legislation, we are looking at giving our medallion holders the opportunity to purchase

medallions for $150,000 for the top 200 people who are on our waiting list. we have 100 grant medallions. those 100 grant medallion holders are within the top 200 on our waiting list. so, what's going to happen is they'll all have the opportunity to purchase a half price medallion at $102,000 each. but when that occurs, those ramp medallions will come back to the city. and what we want to do is allow those grant medallions to keep operating to service our wheelchair clientele. so, what we're proposing is -- and we're looking at this for along the future, is the opportunity to allow the mta to lease these grant medallions directly to the companies to ensure that that service will continue and to ensure that our wheelchair customers maintain priority as part of our ramp program. >> [speaker not understood]. thank you very much, mr. [speaker not understood].