the second one is at 790 market under what previously had the virgin record store and that is, again, to provide access for the tunnel at about 60 feet below the surface and 1455 stockton street owned by a family trust in san francisco and currently has the bank of america as a lessee. so negotiations are underway with all of the property owners and have been for numerous months. the mta board requested -- is requesting -- did request the board of supervisors for eminent domain on february 26 of this year for the three easements and on able 20 for the two properties. so today we're asking you to hold this public hearing for the acquisition for the five properties and finds that it's in the public interest and necessity, that the project is

planned and located in an area most compatible with the most public good and least private injury, that the three easements and properties sought to be required is the best for the project and with that, john and i are happy to answer any questions. president chiu: colleagues, any questions for the representatives from the mta? supervisor david campos. supervisor campos: thank you. thank you to the mta for the presentation. let me begin by noting that i am supportive of this project. i look forward to the hearing and what is presented to us. i do have support for this project but i do want to make sure that we have a better sense of where the mta is in terms of its ability to manage this project. again, i am supportive of it

but since we are being asked to take some very important steps to finalize the project, i want to make sure that the mta has done everything it can to make sure that this project is managed well and i would simply reference back to a letter that was received earlier this year from the u.s. department of transportation, the federal transit administration. as you know, in that letter which was sent by the -- by leslie rogers who is a regional administrator of the federal transportation administration, that letter points out a number of things that quite frankly raise concerns about the mta's ability to manage this project and specifically, the letter says on page three, and i quote, the central subway project is a high risk project located in a densely populated

urban center, it is the largest most complex project ever undertaken by the sfmta, thus sfmta will need to practice risk in a diligent and comprehensive manner. there's also another section of the letter that talks about -- and this is a direct quote from the letter, the mta is concerned about the ability of the sfmta to maintain its equipment and system in a state of good repair and the letter goes on to say based on the fta review of the bus and rail plans and the 20-year financial plan, fta cannot at this time determine sfmta's ability to do this. this is from the letter. so as one who is supportive of this project and who has talked in the last few months about

the need for reforming the mta, i want to make sure that as we go forward with this project that we're also doing everything we can to make sure that the mta lives up to the expectations that all of us want to see this project completed have. so i'm wondering if you can speak to that. to the chair. >> yes. president chiu, supervisor campos, thank you for raising the fta approval letter and what was listed in that letter were items of concern raised by the fta that need to be mitigated and addressed prior to receipt of the full fund and grant agreement. since that letter, when it was received in january of 2010, the agency as a whole has been working very closely and cooperatively with the federal

transit administration to address every item in that letter and continues to meet with the fta monthly to resolve or mitigate each item in what is called a full fund and grant agreement p road map that has been developed in concert with the federal transit administration. some of the items you've raised like the risk management program we have implemented a very sophisticated risk management program that has identified over 100 elements in that program and the agency is in the process of addressing, relieving, mitigating or transferring some of those risk elements so that as a program matures and it migrates from final design into heavy civil construction, the risk process has been identified and mitigations are put into place before the full fund and grant

agreement. and in the other point that you raised on the state of good repair, the agency is in the forefront, has submitted a state of good repair plan to the federal transit administration addressing its -- the maintenance, the operation and the overhaul program of its bus and rail facilities. in addition to many other plans like the operating plan for the central subway, the fleet management plan and the financial plan for the program. these are all elements of -- that need to be submited and approved by the federal transit administration in advance of them approving the full fund and grant agreement. supervisor mirkarimi: you talked about a plan being in process. what does that mean that you noted this letter was sent in january. this is almost august and so

it's been quite some time and i'm wondering, has that plan been finalized and if not, what is the status of it and why has it taken so long for us to get to see a finalized plan in place? >> well, upon receipt of the approval letters and the final design, the agency has met with -- meets regularly with the federal transit administration both regionally and representatives from washington and we've worked a cooperative -- identified all of the elements in what we call a full fund and grant agreement road map and have worked with the fta to address many of the elements that were raised in the letter. and this process is something that is going to -- it's a cooperative effort with the agency and the fta and we anticipate this process will be

ongoing for the next year to year and a half and many of the elements of the plan have been checked off and approved by the fta like the project management plan, the risk management plan. and there's certain elements that have been submitted and are under review like the state of good repair plan. we have submitted a state of good repair plan. the fta has looked favorably on that plan and have given us indications that they like what the agency is doing in addressing the state of good repair and outlining a program in dealing with the state of good repair. the state of good repair plan will receive comments by the fta and will be submited in august of this year. supervisor mirkarimi: supervisor campos: i think it's

important for us to be diligent about what's happening with the mta. i don't think that we can have the certainty or the a insurance that this project is going to be completed on time or as planned unless we're also talking about making sure that the necessary reforms that have been outlined by the federal government are actually being put in place. i don't think you can talk about supporting this project and also not talk about the importance of mta reform. and so i can go through the specific letter and go item by item of whether or not you have done some of these things so let me ask it differently. are there items by the fta that you have not completed? >> every item that has been asked of the mta has been addressed and is in the process of being addressed. many of the question --

supervisor campos: that's not what i asked. are there items that you have not completed that were identified by the mta that are not completed? >> with all due respect, there are items that have been submitted and there are items that can't be completed until the fta performs subsequent tasks like a secondary risk assessment and risk analysis of the project. the agency is on track and on schedule to receive the full fund and grant agreement in 2011. it is doing everything to meet that goal and many of the items that have been listed in the letter are what needs to be completed and that completion time is phased and addressed by the fta and the agency so that

the team can remain on track. supervisor campos: and you have that in writing you're going to get that money? >> what i have in writing is the full fund and grant agreement, the full fund and grant agreement road map that addresses all of the items and the schedule and the responsible party and when each activity will be completed by the agency and ultimately approved by the federal transit administration and there's also elements in there like when the federal transit administration will review documents, when they will review the full fund and grant agreement and when they anticipate the scheduled approval of the full fund and grabt agreement. i will respectfully disagree

with you on that and my point is simply this, that those of us who are supportive of this project, i think we also need to push forward addressing some of the issues that were identified by the fta and i think that those issues are very specific and i think that they're required deliverables that have not been attained. and i think it requires some of the additional reforms that many of us have talked about and as someone who is supportive of this project, i think it's important for us that we go on parallel tracks, that pushs this forward but also pushes comprehensive reform of the mta so this project can be done on time. thank you. president chiu: any additional questions to the representatives of the mta? thank you for your presentation. let me ask if there are members of the public that are supporting the mta's resolutions to move forward to

this. are you here for public comments in support of the mta? please step up and each speaker shall have up to two minutes. >> good evening. supervisors, my name is jackie sachs. i'm a member of the transportation authority citizens advisory committee. i've also been working on the fourth streetlight rail project inception that was put on the books in 1989 and i helped -- [inaudible] we authorized under problem k sales tax package years later so i'm behind this project a thousand percent. you've gone this far. there's no reason to step back now and worry about the funding for the simple reason that this

third straight light rail project is a sales tax project that gets matching funds from the federal and the state and i've been behind this project from the very beginning and i'm behind what the mta wants to do today. i hope you pass it. thank you very much. president chiu: are there any other members of the public that wish to speak in support of this resolution? okay. at this time if i could ask if there are representatives of the property owners, the five property owners who oppose this resolution? if you could step up, each representative of the property owner shall have up to 10 minutes for your presentation. if you could identify yourself for the record. >> good evening, supervisors. my name is dan engler. i'm an attorney and we represent jamestown which is the owner of 801 market street.

i'll keep my remarks short because i know there's a lot on the agenda. we just wanted to let you know that we are in negotiations with the city and with sfmta. we feel encouraged by the negotiations. they're in good faith. most recently, we submitted comments on the purchase agreement and other transfer documents and we're waiting to hear back from the city attorney and we do not believe at this point since we are proceeding in good faith, we don't see this resolution as necessary and we would prefer the board wait until we finish with negotiations. thank you. president chiu: thank you. are there any other representatives of the property owners who are here that wish to speak today? going once, going twice. okay.

let me ask if there are any members of the public that oppose any or all of these resolutions, if you wish to speak please step up to the microphone. seeing none, let me invite back the mta staff. if you have any final rebuttals. >> thank you. >> thank you very much and yes, we're continuing to work with the property owners and their representatives and we look forward to successful negotiations. thank you. president chiu: thank you. colleagues, any final questions to the mta or any of the property representatives? okay. at this time these hearings have been held and closed. items 44, 46, 48, 50 and 52 are hereby filed. items 45, 47 and 49, 51, 53 are

the resolutions of necessity to acquire the three easements and the two parcels by eminent domain. these items are now in the hands of the board. colleagues, before we proceed, i understand from the city attorney's office that that they are asking us to make some technical amend manies. they have been provided to the members and first can i ask, is there a motion to accept these technical amendments? is there a second? second to the technical amendments? any objection to look moving forward? those amendments are made. is there a motion to adopt the resolutions?

(roll call vote was taken.) (roll call vote was taken.) president chiu: these resolutions are adopted. i would like to make a motion to amendment 42 and 43. >> on items 42 and 43,

supervisor -- >> not debatable. out of order. point of order is out of order. president chiu: if we could take a roll call vote on the motion to terminate debate. (roll call vote was taken.) president chiu: motion to terminate debate passes. it does not pass. given that the motion to terminate debate requires eight votes, it does not pass.

supervisor michela alioto-pier. supervisor sean elsbernd. okay. are the representatives of the city here with regard to the hunter point shipyard project? okay. i understand that representatives of the city have had a chance to take a look at these amendments. i would like to ask mr. cohen if you have questions or

comments on the amendments as they were presented to you. >> i'll be happy to. i apologize it took us so long. it's a lot of language for us to go through in a relatively quick period and a lot of city departments that we needed to confer with. the way i've tried to organize this, which i hope will be helpful for you is which amend manies we think were perfectly comfortable with as they're written, which amendments we think we would be comfortable with if they were modiñ modifie. which amendment we will be recommending. if you're comfortable with that, will proceed in that fashion. oalso be the amendment that woud

make it clear that there would be no -- on the bridge. moving to the amendments which we would support with certain

modifications, this is one word from change to amendments. these are highly problematic documents which have to live and breed 415-20 years. this is anything that a sufficiently material that is coming into the board of supervisors. there are citywide changes to the mandatory policies. if those changes were made and the redevelopment agency commission elected.

>> can you read that amendment exactly where it would go? >> you would add a new sentence to the end of the proposed amendment. that would say nothing here and would require the agency or developers to make a change which would violate an existing project agreement? -- agreement.

we would support the idea that we would take out the waiver of punitive damages in large part to make these documents consistent with other comparable project documents. if you look at mission bay and the treasure island documents which this board recently endorsed, they did include waivers of consequential and special damages that were included and did not include a waiver of tenant to damages. we are willing to fix that to conform to those other agreements. we would also support the amendment regarding heating and cooling. there are a key changes. one, on the advice of the city

attorney, these should not be in the findings. these should not be with the interagency agreement. fossil fuels heating and cooling systems would effectively bar electric and gas heat the way people get it in most homes in san francisco. if that were amended to delete the two references in that amendment to the heating and cooling systems but retained a prohibition against power plants, we would be comfortable with that amendment. in terms of items that we are

recommending against approval that, both of the amendments regarding studies for the day lighting of the watershed and air quality, we don't have a problem with either of these issues as a matter of public policy but we did discuss this quite a bit with other departments and the city attorney's office. we don't think that they fit in the project's findings. we believe that these would be better addressed an entirely separate resolutions so they would not cause any solution with the findings themselves.

>> there's nothing stopping this board from introducing resolutions related to having additional studies. i think the point that is being made is that the studies presented are not related to the project as they relate to some bigger areas and it is a portrait for the board to take this up as something as any time in the future. >> this could be introduced at roll call today as a resolution? >> i am not sure the proper way to do this -- >> could this be done as a roll call resolution? >> you can ask for us to prepare our resolution and this will not be voted on today.

>> thank you. >> we are recommending approval of both supervisor mirkarimi's supposed amendments regarding the bridge. we have agreed to the one on water usage. the amendment that would have no bridge whatsoever in the project for that would require the more narrow. we are comfortable with the idea that there's sufficient uncertainty around the forty- niners. if and when they decide to come back, we'll have the opportunity to have a full debate with the board of supervisors about what is the best-