and those are the last two people. >> good afternoon, mr. lam> good afternoon, board of directors. myself and a few others, 10 or more of us from the taxi industry were asked to participate in a bicycle strategic plan at the 1 south van ness building. and i felt like we were -- we were asked to be part of the program which was nice, but it was more of a sales presentation where they laid out, this is where we are, this is where we could be, and this is where we want to be. and that's all great. i think that that's an integral part of san francisco. but with each step was a multiplier of hundreds of millions of dollars from, you ow, 50 million and then, this is where we are and this is where we'd like to be in the middle of 200 million. and i'm saying back lane, 200 is the middle, where is the upper portion? 500 million dollars over the next five years. now, you've got a big gasp from a lot of cab drivers because where is the revenue going to come from? essentially, unless there is a traffic violation, there is no revenue from this group

mrs. lam's lot is here and all of the longer lots goes out this way and this is a very long lot here behind. that is my exhibit f. here is our exhibit e. and this shows the decks and the rear yard configuration and here is the subject site here and there is very small decks next door. and so, the misinformation that has been provided to you is across the board. unless we are allowed to expand in this area and build larger decks and configuration, we are going to be deprived of this property. and in fact this property already has by far the largest configuration of deck and rear stairs. and that is what you see, when you take a look at these photos. the applicants say that many immediate neighbors enjoy large decks and some that are larger and enter into the required rear yard tha. is simply untrue there is none out there that have a deck of the size that they are proposing. the information in the applicant's brief is completely incorrect. they have used an out dated san born map and let me show

mr. chairman. we'll start with charles rathbone, kerry lam, and [speaker not understood]. >> i think mr. oka is going to speak in this one, right? >> we don't have a speaker card from him. [laughter] >> he doesn't need one. >>> good afternoon. >> good afternoon. >>> charles rathbone with electric cab. i put on the overhead a subject for you to see. it's an article from the chicago dispatcher magazine. and it shows one of their long-time ramp taxi drivers who received many compliments from his customers being awarded a ramp taxi medallion. and i think you can see from the picture the pride and the joy in just how much that means to their whole family. i'm really concerned that as you move to your new ramp taxi program that the long-time drivers, not the medallion holders, the drivers of the cabs other than the me doll i don't -- medallion holders will be left out of the deal. i suggest that you reissue those ramp taxi permits as they get turned in by the medallion holders to these long-time drivers. * in a manner very similar to what you do with the s permits. this would be issued to driv

mr. [speaker not understood]. next speaker. >> correspond i lam followed by [speaker not understood] and mark gruberg. >> hello. >>> good afternoon, directors. i've spoken previously and other meetingsing, i was a ramp taxi driver. i do work at night, so, the majority of my rides are usually not folks in wheelchairs. they're people who are out drinking and whatnot. my concern with the ramp program has to do with people using the medallion just to go to the airport and take what doesn't fit in a prius or an escape. i've had that concern for sometime now. i've addressed that with sfo people on how to handle that. what's happening is now that we have the 8,000 series and these other vehicles that are being added and i believe you're probably going to see another spike in hybrid medallions, but you do need incentivized drivers who don't have a medallion down the road for them to still service that very important community. i've given a suggestion previously, and i'm going to bring it again to you. you need to work with the para transit coordinating council and the broker to subsidize the time and gas that is aped expe

mr. funge. >> thank you. we may have questions, but later. thank you. >> good afternoon, president fong and director lam, commissioners. my name is john funge, i'm the central subway program director. i have a brief technical presentation if we can get it onto the screen. for the past two months sfmta staff and multiple city agencies have been working very hard to relocate the tvm retrieval shaft off of columbus avenue onto private property known as the pagoda palace. we have pursued this change with strict adherence to environmental regulations and engineering best practices. we are confident that the plan for construction we are about to show you will be environmentally and structurally sound, and that it will minimize construction related inconveniences to the north beach neighborhood. shown here is the 1.7 mile extension of the t-line. the subway portion of the t-line begins underneath the freeway between bryant and harrison. the tunnels are constructed using tunnel boring machines that will be launched underneath the freeway and the portal that is currently under construction. as mr. reiskin mentioned, the tunnel

mr. williams. >> thank you. members of the board. steve williams again. just quickly, let's go back to the measurements the current decks, they are 72 square feet. six by 12. this is taken from miss lam's roof. you have been told that they are 200 square feet and only adding a little bit to it and all that you have to do is look at the diagram and right now it goes down her roof line, it goes down her roof line about six feet. right about here. it is going to go down 14 feet. it is 14 by 12 in the new deck. i mean that it is absurd to tell you that it is the same size, it is not so, you have been given a lot of misinformation about what is proposed and what is being built. >> the egress issue, number one, the rule of egress you can't go back into the burning building. so if you look at the egress that they provide, they say that if you run into the rear yard and we return and run back through the burning building, the code is clear on that that that is not the proper egress. filling up your rear yard and just makes it more dangerous and that was my point, this building could never obtain code compliant egress. here is the other deck that they have cited as being adjacent, it is actuall