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 temporarily, they will be eligible, assuming the mayor's office of housing criteria are met, to move into the housing project, and mta has committed to finding the $8 million to apply to that $40 million affordable housing project. in terms of commercial

relocation, mta reimbursements will be for moving expenses, reestablishment expenses, furniture and equipment, and again, those letters went out last week, and good will. there has been a question about funding for a proposed commercial stabilization program. we have not identified funding for this proposal, but we are in the process of identifying the extent of the issues. for instance, a tenant improvements. as the businesses identify their new locations, and we would be happy to report back to you on that. we would be happy to answer your questions. supervisor maxwell: colleagues, any questions or comments? >> -- supervisor mar: how many of the existing chinatown tenants have agreed to move to the montgomery sanford side? >> all of them have expressed an

interest, but is up to each of them. as they move into temporary housing, they will get 42 months of subsidized rent, so we will find out later, but they will have that opportunity. supervisor mar: hi was going to ask as well, "the chronicle" reported the budget gap for the $1.6 billion project, and i wondered if you could respond to -- i think they were saying it was $127 million to $235 million in order to complete the project. i wondered if you could respond to what was in the paper today. >> the financial plan is one of the many deliverables that rolls up into the full funding grant agreement. the financial plan has been submitted to the fda, and the agency's chief financial officer

will be presenting to the transportation authority plans and programs tomorrow morning with a presentation of that draft plan, outlining the $137 million and program the amount, -- unprogrammed amount, and she will be presenting a plan resulting in a fully funded project. supervisor mar: in the paper this morning, you made a comment about two state transportation bond measures you are looking at that might fill that gap? >> yes, it is very promising. there is two transportation initiatives that the central subway could benefit from. one of them specifically with the proposition 1a, the high- speed rail initiative. central subway is a direct link to high-speed rail, and

proposition 1a set aside funding from the high-speed rail initiative to support local transit agencies to provide into connectivity to high-speed rail, and central subway will definitely provide direct connectivity to high-speed rail, so that is one of many possible sources that the chief financial officer will be presenting to the plans and programs. supervisor chiu: first of all, thank you for that presentation. i wanted to ask specifically around the commercial stabilization program and what your thoughts are given that there has not yet been an identification of funding for the program. in recent weeks, we have seen some issues arise around the city college construction project and the impact that has had on some of the commercial establishments in that area, and i want to understand what the next step is for this.

supervisor maxwell: the next step is that our relocation consultant is meeting tomorrow again with each of the businesses at the chinatown station site, and as a continuation of the weekly meetings, they had given them a list of all the information they need to do their good will -- to provide to the goodwill appraiser to prepare the goodwill appraisal, so as they do that, they will then be able to identify each of the pieces of the package that the commercial tenants will be entitled to. as those packages are then developed, we will be able to report back regarding what is the extent of the money that is available to them compared to what they will meet that may be above that for the new sites they will be moving into. we will be able to find that work with you as well as the mayor's office to see if there are other funds available

through economic development, etc., that may help fill that gap. supervisor chiu: ok, thank you. supervisor maxwell: all right. any further presentation? is that it? why don't we open this up to public comment? public comment on this item? >> good afternoon, supervisors. i'm here from chinatown community development center. we're here to express our support for this project and to urge the board of supervisors to vote and approved of the relocation plan so it can move forward. as you know, this is a project that the chinatown community has advocated for for over 15 years now. we believe it will bring significant transportation benefits to the community, and we also believe it will create an anchor for the future stability of chinatown,