thinking the hospital council and various health institutions that have participated in this process and provided their feedback. we certainly want to thank them. i particularly want to thank members of the community who of been working on this for quite some time. ultimately, this legislation stems from a number of pleased that we have heard in the last -- a number of pleas we have heard in the last few months and years from people throughout san francisco, and not just in the district of represent, but throughout the city. district 3, district 10, district 1. people from all over the city have made it clear that we have a system that is not complete in terms of ensuring that the needs of every san franciscan -- the health needs of every san franciscan are in fact addressed.

before a health institution san franciscan our address. before the health institution proposes a project, it in cages in internal planning to decide for itself -- it engages in internal planning to decide for itself whether or not a project makes sense. this legislation takes the concept to the next level and simply proposes what we do not believe is a radical idea, that we, as a city, can engage in the planning with respect to the many projects that are not only before us now but are likely to come before us in the future and in so doing, we are simply doing as a city what these institutions have been doing for quite some time. a lot of things have been said about this legislation, so i wanted to make a couple of things clear because some courts have been raised, which i will respectfully submit are not entirely accurate.

there is the issue of -- the point that was raised was about the appeals process, that somehow we need to consolidate the appeals process, and i just want to make sure that this committee understands that that is precisely what this legislation does. in drafting this legislation, we wanted to be clear that we did not want to create additional bureaucracy for the sake of creating additional bureaucracy, which is why the consistency determination is made by the planning department, and if there is an appeal, that appealed joins the existing land-use process that is already in place at the planning commission. in other words, if a consistency finding made by the planning department in consultation with the health department leads to an appeal, and there is a land use process in place at the

planning commission, that appeal will join that process. it will be decided by the planning commission at the same time the planning commission decides the underlying land use appeal. in fact, what we have gathered from discussing this item with a number of these stakeholders is that the consistency determination when there is an existing land use appeal, is likely to come up -- in fact, very likely to come up and be resolved before the other land- use process, which means that the consistency determination portion of the appeal will probably have to sit and wait for the rest of the items to be resolved. again, we want to make it clear that we have tried to consolidate the appeal as much as we possibly can under existing law, so that is one clarification. the second clarification i think needs to be made --

>> supervisor, could i ask you to clarify that? why is it that members of the community continue to insist that it is a two-part appeal? are they simply incorrect on that? supervisor campos: the consistency determination is originally made by the planning department in consultation with the health department. if this is an item where it is clearly consistent, it goes through an expedited consistency finding -- if it is not, then it goes directly to the planning commission and joins the existing land use appeal, so i do not know exactly what people mean when they say, "consolidate the appeal process," because we believe that is precisely what we did with the city attorney's input.

i think people would have to explain that, but again, we believe that we are doing precisely that, consolidating the appeal process. with respect to the historical role the certain institutions play, and there is the example of chinese hospital, with respect to the chinese community in terms of working with underserved populations, one of the amendments that was made was the in the process of determining consistency, that in fact, that unique role that those institutions have played be an important factor in deciding consistency. >> if we were to look at st. luke's, then st. luke's would have fallen into historical and would have then not even been a question, that they would no longer exist? supervisor campos: the way that

it would work is in deciding the issue of consistency, the planning commission in consultation with the advice of the health commission would take the historical role that that institution has played into consideration in making the consistency finding. that would be one of the factors that they would look at. we believe that that addresses that concern and that to the extent that there are additional concerns because of the seismic retrofit issue -- and let me say this -- we heard from a number of community members who rightly point out that the consistency determination as currently structured in fact allows these institutions to go forward with their state law obligations in terms of addressing the seismic issue.

ideally, our preference would have been not to talk about changing the effective date of the consistency determination. i think the community is absolutely right, that that is an issue that is already addressed. the reason that we have raised that as a possibility is because we also recognize that there is another perspective, and we want to make sure that we work with the different stakeholders as much as possible, and what we are trying to do by considering that amendment is strike a balance between essentially two perspectives. there is a perspective which the community and planning commission, i think, rightly embraced, which is the idea that you do not exempt any individual project. there is a perspective that the industry is saying actually exist specific project. this strikes a balance between the two by saying that if the

issue really is the issue of seismic compliance, then by having an effective date, you actually strike a middle ground that says you will have time to meet your obligations, but we are not going to do specific project exemptions because then, that does not really focus on the issue that seems to be the reasoning behind it, which is the seismic issue, that allows you that time. someone from cpmc indicated, "well, we do not control the entitlement dates." one thing that all of these institutions control is how they approach of these projects. if they approach the projects in such a way that actually addresses the concerns of the community, such a way that addresses the issues that have been raised by the health department and the planning

department, then the time provided to them should be sufficient for them to put together a project that makes sense and allows them to meet their state law obligations at the state time -- at the same time meeting the needs of the community, but they do not, then perhaps two years is not sufficient, but if that is the approach they take, three years, four years, five years would not be sufficient. we feel we have struck a middle ground that recognizes that no legislation is perfect. that every side has a perspective, but what we're trying to do is make sure that we move this city forward, creating a structure that allows for the best public policy decision making process. supervisor mar: could i ask a couple of hypothetical so i

understand how this plays out? i want to thank the community and supervisor campos for all the work i know has happened over the past several months, and i do think the amendment that was proposed today around the january 20 to 18 deadline is going to really help move a lot of this fort. with regard to, for example, chinese hospital, they have a january 2013 deadline. assuming the meat that, then they are covered. supervisor campos: there would be no need for a consistency determination for the project, assuming they meet that deadline. supervisor mar: ok, and then let's take st. francis, which also needs seismic renovations. they are in the process of complying, but they are not actually require but will be able to have all the detail settled. they are not required by 2013 to get this done but some years later. you are saying that under your reading, they would fall under

an organization that provides medical services to historically underserved groups. supervisor campos: that is correct. supervisor mar: would that be the read of the planning department as well? supervisor campos: to the extent that an institution like you are talking about that has provided unique services to underserved populations, that in deciding whether or not a proposed project is consistent, that to the extent that project continues in that tradition, continues in what they have been doing, that would be an important factor in favor of consistency in terms of how the planning department could see it. i do not know if the planning director would like to say anything beyond that. >> might understanding of that policy and the legislation is that it would be a factor in

determining whether or not it is consistent. it would not allow an exemption, but simply be an effect that we would look at undetermined a level of service. >> again, assuming they are moving forward with the seismic retrofits to come into compliance with state law, and given that they are an organization that does provide medical services to historically underrepresented group, that would be a factor now among other factors. from your analysis, you think that should give me assurances that, for example, the st. francis, if they move forward with their project, that that will not be held up? >> it is hard for me to answer directly because i do not know the master plan yet, but my assumption is it would be a very strong factor. supervisor campos: if i may, one of the things that we keep hearing repeatedly as we talk about this legislation is the as

important as the legislation is, the key to this working will be making sure that we have a master plan that actually is the right master plan for the city, so that is why it is important for us to make sure that we have a process that is transparent, inclusive, and that the master plan truly outlines what the needs of the city are today short-term and long-term, and if you speak to director katz, he will tell you that as important as this is, the key is what this master plan looks like. that is where a lot of the heavy lifting will have to take place. supervisor maxwell: i think you mentioned earlier about details, that you wanted it brought, and it one of the objectives is to make sure that all communities are served, i would think that if you were doing it point

system, that would be heavily weighted. supervisor mar: i just wanted to ask my colleague to respond to some of the community concerns from the good neighbor coalition from the coalition from health planning, from books that cannot wait an additional year, and the 2013 amendment is something that i feel concern about. we need the help planning now, and we need to hold accountable the hospitals and others to the needs of our community. supervisor campos: the legislation until now has not had an effective date, and my preference would be for it to go forward without one, but if i order to strike a balance between what the community is saying and some of the concerns that have been raised by the industry, there is a sense that maybe we need to do that. we are open to that, but again,

when we drafted the legislation, that date was not included. i think that the community has very strong points, and i'm not going to disagree with those points, but again, we offer that date as a discussion if only because we do want to make sure that we do everything we can to get something moving. >> i just wanted to clarify -- my understanding is that the date is not necessarily the effective date of the legislation but the date at which if the plan is completed before that date, the consistency determinations would not have to happen -- supervisor campos: that is absolutely right. the legislation would be effective immediately if it is passed, which means the process for creating a master plan would begin, but it simply means that it would be the effective date of the consistency determination requirement. >> -- supervisor maxwell: i

could understand that, but we did not do the best job of explaining that to everybody. so why don't you explain that one more time? supervisor campos: assuming that the legislation is amended to include that date that was discussed, january 2, 2013, it would mean that the legislation would be effective immediately if passed, which means that you would begin the process of drafting a comprehensive master plan that outlines the needs of the community, but during that time, as that plan is drafted, between that time and january 2, 2013, if some of these projects are able to complete the title of process to address the seismic retrofit requirements of state law, there would not be a need for a consistency determination finding, if that

is the way that the amendment is made. again, we have from the very beginning thought and continue to believe that the legislation without that provision, without that change, adequately addresses the concerns and the needs of the industry, but we offer that as something that we can live with to address the concerns that have been raised. supervisor maxwell: ok, so, colleagues, are we ready to vote? again, i want to thank the supervisor for bringing this up. we all know that this is important, and i thank everybody for agreeing, and i thank the community and everyone involved. on the commitments as a whole -- on the amendments as a whole and on the new amendment, without objection, so moved, and on the legislation as amended, so move. this will be a committee report, and it will be at the full board tomorrow. thank you. thank everybody.

supervisor campos: thank you very much, colleagues. supervisor maxwell: if you could leave quietly, we have another -- another -- all right, madam clerk, will you read item 5? >> item 5, ordinance approving the relocation impact study and last resort housing plant for the central subway project -- housing plant -- housing plan for the central subway project. supervisor maxwell: all right, item five, staff. if you could please hold your conversations outside, we have other business we have to take care of at this time. thank you. all right, muni.

all right, thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i'm the central subway program manager, and i'm joined by my colleague, the head of the mta real estate. i will be walking through a very brief update on the program -- supervisor maxwell: you need to speak up a little bit until the door closes. >> ok, i will be providing you with a very brief update on the project itself, and then i will be turning it over to someone to brief you on the actual relocation plan itself. the central subway program, an extension of light rail, 1.37 miles, three underground stations and one service station -- surface station.

bear with us as we reversed the presentation to start from the beginning. this is the actual funding plan of the program. the program remains on schedule and on budget. the program has also started construction with the first relocation project awarded in february of this year. that project is moving along very nicely, that particular contract, with a scheduled completion in the first quarter of next year -- supervisor maxwell: do you have any statistics on local hiring and citybuild and all that? >> yes, we have done very well. the synergy project management, a company located in the bayview, recently hired 25 additional people for this contract alone.

next slide please. this is a similar photograph of the work currently happening in south of market. from here on out, it is just a walk through of the line in itself, the 1.7-mile extension. with the construction of a surface platform at fourth and brennan. the portal underneath the freeway. this shot of the portal. and the first underground station and mosconi with an entrance off of clementine of. these are some of the recent rendering of the proposed location. the tunnel alignment underneath the existing tubes on market street, are arriving at the

union square market street station. once again, some current renderings of the connection to union square and of the concourse level. finally, the chinatown's station with a proposed engines of washington and stockton, and these are some of the latest renderings of the chinatown station. and the north beach ferry, where we would be driving the tunnel- boring machine and extracting it on columbus avenue between union and filbert. finally, the list of contracts that will be awarded for the program, the six remaining contracts. the first one will be presented to our board on december 7, and the largest contract will be issued for bid on the first

quarter of next year. that would be the tunneling contract. this program is over $1 billion worth of park construction, anticipated to create over 35,000 jobs over the life of the subway. at this point, i would like to turn it over to kristin. thank you. >> good afternoon. thank you very much for having us at this hearing. as we have discussed in previous meetings about the central subway project, we need five acquisitions. two for the stations had mosconi and chinatown, and three underground easements. once again, we are getting

there. thank you. the red dots shows the fourth and fulsome and chinatown stations. the blue dots show the underground easements. the uniform relocation act provides a uniform policy for the fair and equitable treatment for persons displaced as a direct result of projects undertaken by a federal agency or with federal financial assistance. to insure that such persons do not suffer a disproportionate injuries as a result of these programs and projects, there are benefits design for the public as a whole, and to minimize the hardship of displacement on such persons, whether they are

residential or commercial. so the relocation impact study and last resort housing plan before you today, the purpose is to study the impact to the commercial and residential occupancy and ways in which the impacts will be addressed and mitigated. the federal transit administration has already reviewed and concurred with the relocation plan on july 13, 2010. the sfmta board of directors' approval was on august 3 of this year, and now, we are before you. we have actually already begun one of the relocations of the residential tenants, and we are working with a commercial tenant, who is buying the building in chinatown. the process has been over a couple of years. we sent general information notices and handbooks and

brochures out in july of last year, october of last year. we gave eligibility letters out in february and march of this year, including to commercial tenants. we have given outreach sessions both for residential and commercial tenants in english as well as chinese, and all the documents are in english as well as in chinese, and we have had weekly individual meetings with all the commercial tenants in chinatown as well as in the south of market. we have identified the ownership of the fixtures and equipment in each of the commercial businesses as real property compared to personal property, so real property is identified, for instance, as non-mobile, compared to personal property like a table or a desk, which is considered personal property. we have also, through our universal field services

relocation consultant, interviewed tenants, assessed their replacement needs, and provided advisory service on an ongoing basis, and referrals to available property that may be suitable replacement sites in addition to our good will appraisals regarding their current business locations and what the impact would be. we also, through the relocation consulting, health care bits and estimates and coordinate processing of claims as well as help them locate and secure replacement sites. again, one of the tenants, the residential tenants in unit 10, moved out already on october 5. one commercial tenant is in escrow to buy a mixed-use building in chinatown, which is 6 residential units and one retail unit -- supervisor maxwell: you need to

speak up just a little bit, ok? >> the restaurant is looking to move into a mixed-use building. there are actually different types of monetary benefits. there is the actual reimbursement for actual costs of incentives. this includes the actual items listed. in addition, there is a $10,000 maximum business reestablishment expense payment. in lieu of actual reestablished payments, businesses could pay based on the prior earnings of the business, which are substantiated through tax returns, financial statements, or similar evidence. there is also compensation for loss of goodwill, which the actual payment would be determined after a new site is identified or secured, and those appraisals are ongoing right now.

mr. shee has already identified his location. other tenants are in various stages of identifying the location they would like to move to. in addition, the owner has disclaimed interest in the furniture fixtures and equipment, which means the tenants will be compensated, and they have been given letters last week regarding how much they're non-movable fixtures and equipment are worse. basically, there were five major policy issues, all of which were approved and are in the relocation plan. the remaining issue is the funding of the broadway phantom project as a permanent replacement housing for the 18 drilling units and 90 households to be able to move their after they are relocated