sizing cathedral hill is simpler because it has fewer floors so it doesn't take as long to get through the process. we took a look at the scheduling processing and we called in to general hospital who is far with construction schedules for hospital and we determine in general -- we determined that cpmc would need one to two years extra to get saint luke open and that seem like a fair request. we took those liquidated damages that used to occur at the day after cathedral hill opened and started 10,000 a day and go up to 25,000 a day. so basically there's a two year period after cathedral hill opens that they can still -- they're not in violation or in default of the agreement as long as they get

saint luke open no more than 24 months earlier. we want to get saint luke open and they have a different named call delay payment. bcpmc is required and has agreed under the contract if you adopt these changes to be responsible or liable to the city to 2,500 a day for the first month. so just to say it another way from when cathedral open, there's 12 months when nothing happen and another seven months where the delay payments kick in and the liquidated damages which is default of the agreement which is more expensive, so we added these to give a level of comfort and we would ask you to amend those into the da. that

ends my presentation. happy to answer questions or wait until after public comment. >> thank you. >> thank you, ken. >> now we're going to move on the langgy approval. there's many requires for the cpmc five new buildings, i'm going to go through the key at a high level. and they're in detail in your pocket. the approval before you today includes april mrikable to the new buildings and general plan for the cathedral hill planning. and section 101.5 findings for the five buildings and saint luke, conditional youth authorization at all three near term campuses, office allocation at saint luke and general plan referral at saint luke and the da that covers all the systems.

at the saint luek campus, it will create the chavez medical use and would allow the floor area of ratio 2.6 to 1. it would allow a hike to 145 feet at the tour and 105 feet for the balance the campus. the map will be updated to reflect this new sud. at the cathedral hill campus, the amendment would create the medical use sub district and allow deviation from planning code through a conditional use and allow an frr for the medical office. the planning code would allow an increase to 230 feet for the hospital site and show the boundaries of this district. i'm happy to go through the planning deviation but in short these deviations are typical of deviations that are often rebelieved through a

develop -- it's rebelieved through a development or various process. the staff made a decision to say it's better to incore rate it into text amendment rather than requiring one more entitlement. there's others proposed that was covered during the hearing last month and the revised project before you today eliminates the need for one of the planned amendment for the cathedral hill project and that's map four that was required under the previous project last year. moving onto conditional use of authorization that's before you today. at the saint luke campus, there's a building over 40 feet tall and the kwerments, both limitations, parking,

minimum and certain obstruction. at the cathedral hill campus, there's authorizations requires and those to allow medical center to demolish units and allow wind speeds greater than 5 miles per hour and allow the code and curb cut and active ground floor uses and to modify the three to one residential to non residential square foot requirements. lastly at the davis campus there's two uses required to allow modification to the existing pud and the yard requirements. the department recommends that the commission take the required actions in order to approve cpmc long range development project. the department determined it's a -- this prosect is routed in the

approval of the agreement that tim went over which provides benefit to the city. the project would provide two new safe hospitals doubling the number of earthquake beds in san francisco and secure saint luke homes and provide jobs and retain one of the city's major employers and increase access for low income and san franciscons and providing improve. this would be at no cost to the city. it's unbalance, necessary, compatible with the neighborhood and it's beneficial to the city. in summary the department recommends that the commission approve 8 a through 8 n and

allow the long plan project to move forward to board of supervisors for final. that concludes and i'll turn it to dr. warner browner, thank you.

>> proposes to build a new hospital and an integrated hospital building from the cedar to gary. we've worked closely with the staff and to understand the development of all site work and we've organized 7 groups to this proposal. we're on say north and the medical office building is to you're right that are one was remeasuring this ascend - a

crop off plaza on the street and removing parking baselines from vanessa and then a fully integrated streetscape to provide side windows on the street. the 12 story hospital as seen here and what we're is to remove two of those. they were in the tower and one t is one of the large floors and this is especially visually the four story corner at post and van ness retains unchanged.

the hospital tower is still polgsz and has a number of benefits it improves the impacts of the tower from the impact falling on the surrounding streets. the planning that is entailed is more efficient we're able to keep the height of the lower building as low as possible and the post street wall you rise to 6 feet and the improved sicken language are really functioning from the northeast and west. the medical office building is unchanged. and the design input we received. the massing captures the cornerstone and it's separate in

the main hospital. the doorway was relocated from the corner to the middle of the block. this appraise an entry plaza to the underground parking. we're looking left on the gary street. and son van ness and the hospital where the removal of the surface parking allows us to have an expanded streetscape. the main pedestrian assess to the corn of gary and van ness is to be convenient for transit which is located on the corner and provides an internal way to

the hospital. so looking west the building their vertically sub divided. there's concrete stone and it involves sun shades. in this have you we're looking to the corner of franklin and post. you can say the impact of the impasse is render in glass and stone and improved. from the north the tower is dramatically sub divided and in slabs it has glass and panels. on behalf of the stone base is

the glass panels. looking west this is up the improved cedar street the two buildings are appropriately different. movie to the redevelopment of st. luke's gnaws it has a new you public plaza on the san jose highway. this has external entrances to the hospital. and the main stair will be reopened. the proposed 7 story for the hospital adds two floors. the original 3 story medical office building retains unchanged it's been changed to

35 feet. this expend from san jose to the south and the scale to respond to that thought existing neighborhood is proud through a consistent brick base and multiple colors. in this have you we're looking north that from south the new plaza opens through chavez. the large staircase is in the concourse that leads to the upper and lower plaza. there's an emergency process here. the view from the corner is sub

divide. the new hospital and the medical office building will support the gnaws with the community. seen from chavez it will provide access to the medical believe. we were challenged to meet a lot of qualities to make those programs fit into the 21st century. the scale to fit into the neighborhood and we believe that the 5 new believes answer the challenges and those buildings will commitment the neighborhoods. thank you >> is there further presentation from staff? i'll call a number of names it

you could line up on your right side of the room (calling names) if you're ready to speak you you can approach the podium. >> ready? - david i wear many hats actually noogs in addition to the health board i serve on the board of directors and more importantly through a group called san franciscans for health care jobs and justice. we've been working on this for 6 years. we want to congratulate the city for reaching this deal. for reaching this agreement and

there's a lot to like about that but we have concerns we say congratulate trust by verify. just reporting back to the you been public on the website or traffic studies every few years is not enough. we're asking inform a collaborative agreement to come up with a way to really monitor and verify. remember this thing isn't going to be finished for 5 to seven years. and as a result, the memory that we have now in the development agreement who knows what's going to happen all this time from now. we want to make sure that the good faith and good intentions of c pmc health are catered

forward. we want to true but we look at the behavior of the other areas they haven't loopholes kept to their agreement. sadly when they acquired the psych unit there was a deal with the city attorney but they closed that unit that. this building as no psych beds. but the needs of the community this agreement needs to be verified we need a collaborative agreement >> thank you.

>> thank you. next speaker, please >> i'm a resident of districts 5. we're very glad to see a 1 and 25 beds on the table, however, our psychiatrists are very, very concerned at the fact that those two buildings the hospitals will have zero psych beds. unfortunately contrary to the comments the patients the mental health patients is not the same population you're going to get in the psych unit at sf general. navigate we've he taken several of the planning commissioners here and had physicians explain to some of the commissioners on the board that the psych needs

are very, very intense. the psych unit still goes on diversion 25 to thirty percent of the time. st. luke's was the overhead facility. we were at the conference and physicians from all around the world is shocked that this is being considered so we're stating for the record that we'll be following up in other meetings. our psychiatrists we have at least thirty psychiatrists and psychologists and mental health nursing put together a dan of

the acute beds as well as medical and non-medical detox beds. so this is coming from the mental health professionals throughout northern california looking at the needs specifically for san francisco bay area. we have a statement of principles that's in line with those finding of the analysis. thank you >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners aim mark with the hart's economical incline. the - we've been involved for the last several years very actively in monitoring the

proposal. i'd like to address the need for co- lateral agreement we sent a copy of the letter to the commissioners i have a hardcopy for the record and some extra copies for the staff. specifically we're looking for 3 things one is a strong monitoring program, the proposal that was put before you is not sufficient. we think we have to have a convenient. the seconds involves the future amendments to the changing world of health care. there will be merriments that will be material and not

material but making the distinction is absolutely critical. for material changes there's a good process. for modifications that are not material even dmr under the agreement there's no a specific agreement to get notice of that change of an early enough time to get to staff. interesting and contrary to what mr. rich shouted the agreement on page 41 section 10.5 constitutes the provisions for reviewing non-material modifications and supercedes them. it's the last line in that

provision doesn't seem to me own reading to provide any opportunity for pedicab interference when the planning director wants to make an amended change. that will lead to a dramatic change in the agreement. we support the current development agreement but we also think it's important that they not change and get erode over time when there's changes of personnel and we want to come up and have a discussion but we want to have a discussion - >> your time is up. >> i'd welcome me questions. >> let me call more names

(calling names) >> member of the coalition council housing organization. let me try to continue on from profess professors remark without the legal grounding but english is my mother tongue and i can read it. we have submitted to you to the development agreement ordinance we urge you to accept for us to meet with you and try to reach on agreement on how the community and you are notified in the sole discretion of the

director of planning in chapter 56 of the code in determining major and minor qualification. mr. riches & certification you would be involved if a comma is changed it's not sported in 10 section. indeed my reading of that section actually makes subsequent approvals far easier would no one's involvement. i think section 10.5 is going in the wrong go direction especially the amendments given to you by staff today. i