going to be generated. staff recommendation is to leave it as a number. it is a crapshoot. we might have been better off with a percentage or we might have been better off with a number. at this point camara our recommendation is to leave that as a number. commissioner borden: it was brought up by a member of the public that there is no -- the hiring, the service manager project has to be local contractors. that does not apply to this project. >> are you referring to the construction jobs? >> my understanding is that he was called away by a family emergency. i will try to do my best. cpmc is not subject to the ordinance because it is a privately funded project. the agreement in the d.a. a

sense, as closely as possible, to mirror what the requirement would be if they were subject to it. generally, that is 30% of all hiring and 50% of subsets and some other ones. it mirrors what they would do. we did not talk about it today because not a lot of questions came up about it. but there is a very strong local hire component. what -- commissioner borden: i know we were focusing on the lower end of the socio-economic platform for jobs. was there any other discussion about opening up to a broader set of new jobs in general? >> it would be very similar from earlier, that everyone had discussed this, felt that the most appropriate place to do this, particularly because this was the hospital, with maybe more than others -- other types

of businesses, highly skilled jobs above entry level that most reasonable people would not want to see doctors and nurses have the same requirements as entry- level jobs. the appropriateness to go with was entry-level jobs. that is where a lot of the -- there are a lot of jobs at cpmc. 1500 new jobs. we are talking about entry-level jobs. the appropriate conversation is to compare jobs 3 work 4 system with the number of entry-level jobs, not the number of total jobs. >> even if the overall number of jobs, for some reason, i am not saying they're going to decrease, but even if the overall number of jobs decreased, any new entry-level jobs would still be -- >> that is the advantage of using the percentage. even if they did not produce as many new jobs, they would still be on the hook for 40 jobs per

year. commissioner sugaya: the development agreement has a lot of new stuff in it that we have not seen before. i am wondering if you could address the issue of including the health service system in the parameters around which cpmc are supposed to adhere to certain kinds of rates and that kind of thing. why is it not possible to address the nurses union, stationary engineers, as having transfer privileges? >> that might be a better question for the city attorney. our understanding with some significant legal advice is that labor relations issues are not allowed for us as a local decision maker to address. there is a difference between health service. there is nothing for including us -- precluding us from

addressing health issues, but there is for legal issues. commissioner miguel: just to follow up -- i am sorry. >> are we going into housing next? commissioner miguel: i will follow up on the work force. san francisco has always been known as a union town, more less, depending on what decade we're talking about. i abhor the concept of long, multi your drawn-out labor disputes. we have had them in many areas of the city. we may have had it before with stationary engineers. we certainly had it with zero co-workers -- with hotel " --

with hotel workers. it does not help the population. it does not help the businesses. it hurts them a great deal. but it always has been my understanding that those are private contractual agreements between employer and union. unless it is the city who is the employer, there is nothing we can do about it. at least that is the advice i have always received on it. unfortunately, and i have to mention it because i consider it unfortunate, i am not able to do anything about it. there was a comment, and i did not want it to pass without additional words on it. i believe it was a woman from the electrical trade. one of the things in the training of apprentices as they go in, that this type of project

will bring to apprentices and incoming workers, particularly in some of the trades, the plumbers, electricians are the two i can think of. this is such an intricate building to do a major overhaul. i c r one health care advocate here to my right. nodding in agreement. there are things that will have to be done within this building , right up to not only current codes but current practices, that a normal office or residential building would not even think of. that type of training is something we normally would not get for the beginning trades and

apprentices. to me, that is of value also. commissioner moore: i just put my name of for the next topic. commissioner antonini: while we are on -- while we are on housing -- i thought we were on housing. president fong: we are now officially on housing. commissioner moore: after all the explanations and a really good discussion on the topic, i am concerned about the request for modification for the non- residential ratio for the campus. i have read this explanation but i would like to see a larger percentage of this money being used for the way the city bound

policy is using it rather than creating a distinction for people who would qualify for this. speaking about the program and the possibility that it would be administered in two different forms by moh and while i know it would be in good hands, the problem is still people of the same need. i do not want to start distinguishing about the level of need or level of deserving nest. -- deservingness. that was just a comment. commissioner antonini: on that subject, i think this is truly a prototype that could be used for future agreements because it does specifically address a

nexus. these are going to be employees that will be working there. presumably, we would like as many as possible to live as close to their work site as possible and become homeowners in san francisco. i think it targets a specific thing and i think it is a very -- as i mentioned earlier, the first time i have ever seen this middle income ownership addressed in a development agreement. perhaps there have been some others. but i think this is the first one. the other thing i should point out in terms of this, of course, the van ness special use district 3 we could have exempted the project from any housing contributions. however, it was felt by -- as part of the development agreement was included, it is not directly a requirement by

c.u., but it is part of the development agreement, which we are going to approve. as should be the case, because it is an institution. the reason that was in there is because most of the development on van ness was commercial. they wanted to encourage housing above commercial. that is why that was in there. institutions were exempt. the other thing, i marked the difference between stanford lucille packard with more than 1 million square feet of development and cpmc with more than 1 million. there is a lot more being done here. trying to squabble over the small amount of difference based on the van ness, my compliments

to the city for doing this. if there is anything else to add, i am happy to listen to any corrections on my analysis. >> i think you have described the concept. thank you. president fong: if you do not mind, i would like to jump in for a second related to housing. i think the 220 units is significant. it may not be enough, but it is still new housing that we're putting into the city. more importantly, the larger piece is the loan assistance program. it addresses a very important role that we need in san for cisco related to the hospital. these are, in some cases, first responders in the event of an earthquake or other tragedy. much like i am concerned that a good portion of our police department or fire department does not live in san francisco, this is a way we can help ensure at least one sector of first responders are in the city, not

depend on bridges, ferries, tunnels. that aspect alone is a huge idea. i hope there are other opportunities within the agencies i mentioned to try to absorber that as well. commissioner sugaya: i apologize, commissioner antonini, for jumping in there. anyway, i still go back to my -- it is going to be a comment. that is all. my other argument that the city should have negotiated for the 73 million in the first place. then we could have decided how to divide it up, whether it would have been 29 still for the assistance program and the rest for building housing or whatever it is. i still do not understand why we are dropping below that number. also, it bothers me, as commissioner moore has said, that it is specifically targeted

to cpmc employees. we had testimony from the man from the hotel who said his business was going to increase, he will be spending additional money, he expects to have 10-15 new employees. there is the nexus, right? it is not just not cpmc employees. everybody says this will be ed -- a big economic engine for the area. multiple new jobs created by these kinds of businesses. he is saying people are going to the restaurant and eat at cafes so more jobs will be created. none of these people are going to qualify for this particular program. that is why i cannot support it. commissioner miguel: i just wanted to echo your comments, president long. -- fong.

originally, why it was just for cpmc employees, and then rethought it because of the fact that they have been complaining for years about so much of our emergency first responders living outside the city, which they are entitled to do. at one time, many cities, including san francisco, tried to create a situation where if you did not live in the city, you did not get a job. that was illegal. so the concept of trying to keep part of that first responder force in the city, as much as possible, resonates with me. commissioner antonini: on the whole nexus thing, i think it is entirely proper to earmark this

for cal pacific employees. we know they're going to work there. presumably almost all of them full-time. there will be other jobs that will be created by this hospital. but you cannot necessarily earmarked these as being lower income jobs. for people that necessarily work full time, you could have elevator repair personnel, air- conditioning techs, all sorts of different jobs that will be created, many of which will generate good income, but may spend part of that time in the east bank, wherever there is air conditioners or elevators to work on. to say that the jobs that are generated are going to be a certain class and would not qualify for the home ownership other than employees is not entirely accurate. we know for sure that the employees will probably be full- time employed at that hospital.

that targeting is a proper thing. commissioner sugaya: we have no assurance there will be working at cpmc after they get their assistance. if we have 100 vacant entry- level positions filled every year, the turnover rate is even higher than that, is it not? hundreds of people leaving cpmc and we have no assurance that, once they get on the program, they are going to continue to be cpmc employees. president fong: onto enforcement monitoring. commissioner borden. commissioner borden: i think it was great that you explain the city attorney would be doing the enforcement. we talked about the report every year that would go to the health department, the claims department. when did that start happening? is that before the hospital --

are we going to start getting that your respective of when the building is built and opened? >> let us take a look. i believe that, as of the effective date, which would be this year, whenever it is passed and signed, that those monitoring reports would come in once per year. there are obligations the start now. as soon as the obligation start, we would be monitoring and reporting on them. i will take a look. i am 99.9% sure that is the way it works. as soon as obligations come due, which would be fairly soon, the reporting what happened at the end of the fiscal year and go on every year from there. >> is says within 120 days

following the end of each fiscal year. presumably, even after this fiscal year, the report would be that there was not a lot of activity but they do have to do a report. commissioner borden: i know that there are liquidated damages related to st. luke's. could you talk about other areas? >> let's direct you to the appropriate section of the document. if somebody could help me find this, i can find it, page 35 in the development agreement. there is listed a-g. seven different obligations that have liquidated damages on page 35-36. these are basically things that our performance obligations. if someone owes us a certain amount of money and they do not pay, we would take them to court. if somebody is not doing a

certain amount of health care, we would use the damages. the most significant of those, but not the only one, is foreclosing st. louis early. another one is that if cathedral hill hospital is open before st. luke's, there is a liquidated about of money every day if deficit -- if that condition exists. they are fairly aggressive. commissioner borden: medical beneficiaries are part of that as well. >> that is number d. liquidated damages under de on page 36. -- d on page 36. what we do here, if i recall

correctly, we look back to see how much each life, how much it costs to cover each one. if they fall 1000 short, they cost however many dollars each, they would owe us 1000 times x times 100%, because the city would take on that responsibility. that is how it works. commissioner sugaya: i just wanted to add, if we ever have a motion, the reporting director to the planning commission. >> if i may, the city and planning code route -- allows you to request a hearing. you could do it. you do have that right. i believe it is in -- within 14

days of receiving the report. commissioner sugaya: i do not care if we have a hearing unless there is something generated by the memo. i just wanted to make sure there was some of memo from the director. president fong: the last two items are the product description and the approvals. the product description starting on page 27 of our package. approvals on page 31 i believe. any comments for those items? or general comment? commissioner antonini: did commissioner borden have a comment? so we're ready for approvals? or motions? commissioner borden: why don't we do general comments? commissioner antonini: given what we have heard today, a lot of good testimony and an

extremely well-planned development agreement, i think, i think this is a project that deserves approval. i am ready to move. i see we have other commissioners who want to make some comments. commissioner miguel: this is the cleanup. if you just wanted to comment on the people who presented from the last block, one of our first groups. i had the pleasure of meeting with some of them before i was on the commission on a tour. i am pleased that they have done a turnaround because of the manner in which it has been handled at st. luke's. there were very vociferous.

the same is true of the residencts and commercial and trust of daniel bernham. i was mobbed in one of the apartments one afternoon with complaints and nearly had to quiet them down. so they spoke one at a time. i have been very pleased by the information we have received and the enthusiasm from city build, the trades, and the manner in which they have already become engaged while all of this has been going on. it is a ramp up. there would be no way to start it when the construction started. i am very, very pleased that stings started so far back --

that things started so far back. as far as construction is concerned, i have no idea who was on the planning commission at the time when the cathedral hill was approved. but i chastise them. i am sorry. that turns a horrible fate on a major street in san francisco. you have this big maw of a garage and a couple of ramps and that if it -- and that is it. it does absolutely nothing 4 van ness ave. the fact that this building is going to engage the street, what a strange idea. the difference is absolutely amazing to me. and i have to say, i was amused at the comparison with stanford

hospital because stanford hospital began in san francisco back in the 1970's and that is why the pacific campus is where it is. the only thing left is the old library, the medical library that is still sitting there. that is the last of it. with all the labor and all of the managed-care and all of the needs of san francisco, we cannot, in my mind, expect one project to be the dependency for all of the ills and to do everything for everybody. i do want to complement those who have been working through the mayor's office, the health department, and the other departments that were involved in the city attorney's office in

doing yeoman's work. it is not going to please everybody. it is just what it is. besides that, it is go -- it is going to go on to the board and they are going to do what they are wide to do. >> my understanding is that the jack tar was approved by a less enlightened diversion of the redevelopment agency. the planning commission cannot take responsibility for that. commissioner miguel: they are now exempt. >> the most -- the best way would be to vote separately on the eir and then you could took -- you could take on other items as a single vote. commissioner moore: i think this is a moment to acknowledge staff for a job which has been skillfully executed.

perspective of my vote, i feel everybody has driven this project to the line and try to shape it as best as they can. i want to point to mr. richard, and he came out last friday to address comments which we had last time. i appreciate everybody for what they did. >> i apologize. i need to a knowledge there is a person sitting here who has not spoken, up from my staff, that wrote that memo. i want to acknowledge her. commissioner moore: i want to thank everybody. the thing i have to say, i regret that this project has to become a special use district. i believe that that is not the tool for delivering a project like this. i do believe that hospitals

planning and design is part of a larger city investigation for corporate site, size, location. in this case, we are having an uphill battle for the special use district turns upside down all city policies, including the van ness corridor area plan. i regret that we have to go that way. i believe that, for many years, the transformation of van ness, which has a long history of transforming itself, into something of was supposed to become the residential boulevard, we have designed land use policies which have guided and shaped approval for design, policy, and corridor revitalization for decades.

what we have in front of us was too big a move -- i am not sure as to whether we will get the boulevard we all dream about. i put that out there because i think it could have been done differently. i think that a planning department-driven neighborhood or whatever plan which would have shaped the project more are around larger city policy in a larger context in terms of planning and physical design would have been a better way to go. commissioner borden: there are a lot of regrets in that regard. the challenge that we always have in the planning commission, we do not own land. the city owns very little land and that land is very -- we are not in a position to develop that