>> good afternoon, commission. i am the owner of 14 costa street. i wanted to come here and appear before you guys. there are no changes. the project is pretty much in line. my father-in-law and i have met with the representatives, and we corrected as much as we can. we stand before you today to hopefully get approval. thank you. president olague: thank you. is there additional public comment? >> good afternoon. i am the owner of 8 costa, and we are adjacent to 14 costa street. my parents and i will be moving into 8 costa within a year. they want to grow old here.

although we are very happy they are going to rebuild this home, we do have bought major concerns -- we do have two major concerns. so, there is a privacy issue that we are looking at. there are two roofs on the proposed plan. the front deck looks right over into our deck. the rear one looks over into our deck. there are five windows that look

into the third floor. there are two windows on the second window that looked directly into the main entry. there's also a bay window at the rear -- let me show you. if you look? the roof deck, roof deck in the front, roof deck in the rear. front bay windows, side windows, all of these are looking directly into our entryway and the master bedroom. at the rear, same thing. the bay window. this is a big concern for ross. we have a roof deck that is

currently looking into one of the other neighbors homes right now -- neighbor's homes right now. ever since this was first issued, the neighborhood has totally shut down. they have closed their curtains and they have not been able to come out. that is quite a distance from our property to there's. id is are really uncomfortable feeling to walk out -- it is really an uncomfortable feeling to walk out and see. we have another roof deck on the right-hand side. [chime] president olague: thank you. >> i have one more issue. president olague: yes. everyone has three minutes. is there additional public comment? >> good afternoon,

commissioners. my name is cary milne, and i want to say two things. our groups of plants for this project approximately five years ago. the only indication i got for this discretionary review was a phone tip asking me questions about it. i did not get back to them because i had no notification, no information. so, therefore, and of no idea what our group did five years ago because i did not have a chance to look through. i would just like to let you know that, that this is the thinking, that we did not get notification. and i know there was an issue some time ago about illegal immigration that was going on,

and i do not know if they should rebuild because of that. and i do not know if there is a time period because of that. thank you. president olague: thank you. is there additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner moore? commissioner moore: could they answer the questions of the neighborhood? >> sure. mr. milne mention the legal workshop. dbi filed a notice on the project, because apparently the previous owner had started work based on an interior model permits and it was demolished. that was back in 2004. we had an extensive discussion

with dbi and received documentation that it is not illegal to proceed in alterations. since the new owners purchased the building, they decided to withdraw the alteration permit and file for a demolition permit just to be forthright about what is actually going to happen here. the building as it stands now cannot be repaired and replaced. they filed their permits and a new construction permits. i will be happy to answer any questions you may have. commissioner moore: thank you for that answer. i think it really gets to the quarter. well i normally would -- while i would normally hesitate to permit a demolition, it seems to

be the best and most expedient way to get a family home in here. i do not find anything extraordinary about what is in front of us. neither the deck or the windows are unusual. having said that, the only thing i would question is if this building is outfitted for dakar's. what does the code say to us for that? >> the project at 14 costa street is located in the burn on heights -- bernal heights. this property does not provide more than what is required. commissioner moore: so this would be code-compliant? >> exactly. commissioner moore: can you issue the notification? >> staff prepared the labels.

for many years, -- i have personally worked with the support staff and i personally saw that they went out. commissioner moore: it was just not received? >> apparently. but it was mailed out. commissioner moore: i move to approve it, including its demolition. it is the hot items. ," and can take them as one. >> second. president olague: commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: i am impressed with how this was done. i wish we sought more of this new seat replacement projects. this is beautiful. also, as far as the other thing, icommissioner moore, they are

entitled to have a roof deck just like the adjacent property is entitled to have our roof deck. you know, you're in an urban environment. you'll have to deal with shades and other things, privacy concerns, and views are not protected. as far as the bernal heights square footage, that is unusual, as was pointed out. that is something we should look for in some other neighborhoods, because, presumably, a house with more square footage involves more people and often times more people means more cars. this is good. i really like this project. president olague: commissioner sugaya? commissioner sugaya: does anybody but me have a concern

about a unit down? >> i am, a commissioner -- i am sorry, commissioner sugaya . what was the concern? commissioner sugaya: there are opportunities to put something, expand into the garage if needed. it would just be more comfortable. is that a special restriction? >> for new construction with no direct access from the ground floor, the current configuration is code-compliant. commissioner sugaya: i understand that. i would still like an nsr. commissioner moore: i support

that. i will make a motion. i support that. commissioner miguel: yes. president olague: maybe staff can explain to the person who raised some concerns, so they have a better understanding about the side windows and about code compliance. >> ," spoken with the neighborhood agency -- i have spoken with the neighborhood agency numerous times, so i believe his concerns were addressed by the department. president olague: maybe you can continue to talk to staff or something? commissioner moore: will also be so kind as to explain to the applicant -- we use that word frequently. the owner needs to know. >> absolutely. commissioner antonini: i just

have a procedural question. we did put these two motions together, and the motion, i assume, was to not take the dr. can we add special restrictions without taking dr? >> i believe we can. president olague: if you want to briefly mention your concern -- briefly -- then you can, but usually only -- people only get three minutes. >> on the current plans, it indicates an encroachment issue, that our property is encroaching on their property from zero to one inches. there was nothing mentioned. i communicated with the applicant. i asked, hey, are you going to

work with me? president olague: ok. maybe you can continue to work on these issues? >> it is not within our per year. president olague: no. it is not. >> commissioners, the motion on the floor is to require an nsr be placed on the project, and the motion is actually for both the demolition and the new construction. on the motion -- [roll-call vote] thank you, commissioners. the motion -- plural -- passes secretary avery: this is the

5:00 calendar of the planning commission meeting today. before we get started, and i that, the room is crowded. it is very important that you cannot block either of the monitors and that you not block the doorway. we cannot allow the public to come beyond the railing on either side. if you could respect to that, i would appreciate it. i will ask you all to turn off your cell phones and electronic devices that may sound off during the proceedings. in crowded rooms like this, it is real important that if you feel the need to engage in a secondary discussion that you take your discussion outside. it becomes extremely disruptive to the process. if everybody could respect to that, we will very much appreciate that. we will not be able to get an overflow rooms until 6:00 p.m.

until then, we have to live with each other and be respectful of each other. thank you. roll call. [roll-call] secretary avery: thank you, commissioners. at this time, you have before you california pacific medical center long-range development plan. >> thank you. good evening. i am elisabeth with the planning department. if we could have the overhead, please? tonight's informational presentation is the third of five scheduled hearings on cpmc's long-range development plans. at tonight's presentation will be divided into two parts. the first half will include the land approvals necessary for the cpmc project to move forward and responses to most of the questions raised at the informational hearing.

the second half of the presentation will include an overview of the city's half of the development agreement. we have staff from several city development departments that revolved around their respective agencies. before we get started, i'd like to outline the upcoming hearings that are currently scheduled for cpmc. the next hearing is scheduled july 14, or will present a draft development agreement, along with the revised plans based on the feedback provided at the may 12 hearing. we also have the initiation of the planning code in general plan amendment scheduled for that hearing. certification of the final eir and the land-use approvals are currently scheduled for about a month thereafter on august 11. the first half of tonight's presentation is organized campus by campus. this includes general overview of cpmc land-use approvals. we're still fine-tuning some of the approvals, so there may be

minor changes in the coming weeks. we will start with st. luke's. the new hospital and medical office building at st. luke's require land use approval for the need of a general plan referrals to about street vacation for a portion of san jose avenue, creation of st. luke's sud, change of the parcel and will change the height and bulk designation to 105-e. there are several conditional use authorization required, including modifications to the existing planned unit development, the need for general plan amendments to make conforming height changes to 105 feet, office allocation for the medical office building, and several other approvals from other city departments. at the may hearing, the commission requested a

comparison of the existing and proposed hospital facilities at st. luke's. this slide show some basic numerical comparisons that relates to the size and capacity. of the two to nine licensed beds, at st. luke's, 150 are licensed four acute-care. of the 229 beds, 139 are in use. at 60 of the 150 acute beds and all 79 skilled nursing. the project proposes 80 licensed beds in single occupancy rooms that are expected to generate a higher occupancy rate. the emergency department will increase by 70% and the outpatient care capabilities will more than double. at the may hearing, the commission asked for a comparison of the existing and proposed medical services at st. luke's. there is a memo that outlines all of this information. in summary, this slide shows most of the existing inpatient

services will be retained. st. luke's inpatient psychiatry unit was closed in 2006, and all of the inpatient psychiatry services systemwide are performed on another campus, and there are no changes proposed in this project. there have been several recent changes at st. luke's that have resulted in increased services, as the services are indicated by the asterisks. this is a continuation of the inpatient service comparison at st. luke's, which shows the service line changes at the hospital. pediatric services were the required care is more than 24 hours stay. patients would be transferred to the geary hospital. the existing skilled nursing beds would not be placed on site. director garcia will go over the skilled nursing issue in more detail as part of the development agreement discussions. last, subacute beds will be eliminated and patients will be

transferred to comparable facilities in the community. this will also be discussed by director garcia under the development agreement section of the presentation. this slide shows the same comparison, but for outpatient services at st. luke's. there is no reduction of outpatient service lines proposed, but there are outpatients services that have been expanded, again, indicated by the asterisks. this is the continuation of the outpatient service chart. now we move on to the baby's campus. it -- for the davies campus, there is a small list of required land approvals. they need conditional use authorization and general plan referrals, along with a few other approvals from other departments. there was a question at the may hearing inquiring about the

changes that have occurred to the babies project since the previous approval in 2007. in summary, there have not been any substantive changes. it -- with the babies project. -- with the dacies project. the sidewalk has been modified, but the building itself has not been changed. now we move on to the van ness and geary campus. the project requires several land-use approvals, including general plan amendments to the van ness area plan to support a high density medical campus, a general plan referrals for the tunnel under van ness avenue and the lane reconfiguration, sidewalk widening, and underground storage, creation of the van ness medical subdistrict within the van ness special use district to allow increased floor ratio at the hospital side from 7 to 9 and at the medical

office site from seven to 7.5. and to allow projections over the street, reduce tight for the loading spaces at the medical office building, and to allow block modifications for conditional use. it also includes mass amendments to all-out increase height from 130 to 265 feet, and there are several conforming map amendments to go along with this. there are several conditional use authorization is requested, including additional unit. a conditional use for demolishing five housing units and to allow modification within the van ness special use district. also, allocation is required for the medical office building, and there are several other approvals from other public agencies. i will touch on the caltrans approval for the tunnel in just a moment.

at the may hearing, the commission requested a comparison of what was driving the size of the facility at van ness and geary. although cpmc has indicated that the program at van ness and geary is primarily driven by the consolidation of inpatient services at the california and pacific campuses, this slide shows some of the basic numerical comparisons that specifically relate to the size and capacity. between the pacific and california campuses, there are a total of 594 licensed beds, 295 of which are on average occupied. the proposal is five under 55 licensed beds, all in single occupancy rooms -- 555 licensed beds. the existing of patient care capabilities will mostly remained at the pacific campus, resulting in only a small amount of outpatient services at the van ness and geary campuses.

at the may hearing, the campus request -- the commission requested an analysis. this chart covers the major components of the van ness special use district. the medical center, the height as proposed to be increased by 135 feet, the bulk propose to be modified through the proposed medical subdistrict and conditional use, the proposal to increase the hospital side from seven to 9-1. the required three-one housing requirement to be modified through it conditional use if certain findings are made by the planning commission, as is the case with residential demolition is. cpmc is requesting c.u.'s for both and this will be discussed in this presentation. at the last hearing, the

commission asked for a graphic representation of the project, juxtaposed to the code complying project. this slide shows the comparison in the form of massing diagrams. the image on the left is the existing hotel. that is slightly taller than what is a code complying, being approximately 137 feet, and it exceeds bulk limitations. the middle is the hypothetical massing diagram, meeting the code requirement, meeting the bulk limitations, and meeting the seven-one that limit. the image on the right is the massing diagram of the proposed hospital project at van ness and geary, two but a 65 feet tall on the southern side of the site, requiring modifications to block and includes sar of 9-1.

-- it is at 265 feet tall. this slide on the left is the existing development along the project site. the mittal diagram is the hypothetical project that is a code complying meeting the book limitations. the third diagram on the right is the proposed project which is code complying at 130 feet tall, but not meeting the bulk limitations and exceeding the the sar by 0.5. idoes slide shows and television how the hospital compares with the code comply at the height limits. the image on the left is the view of the hospital from van ness. the slide on the right represents the view of the hospital from the court looking south. on the obligation on the right, the tallest most portion of the diagram is in the background, and the massing is along the

north elevation, shown by the lower-level below the height limit. this is the same elevation comparison, but with the medical office building site. on the left is looking north from gary. on the right is looking east from van ness ave. at the may hearing, there were questions about parking. this slide shows the existing cathedral hill hotel and office buildings compared with the proposed hospital as it relates to parking. the bottom chart shows the project is a code complying with regards to parking. last, at the may hearing there was a question about the status and the likelihood of cpmc obtaining the necessary approvals from caltrans of the underground tunnels that connect the hospital to the medical office building under van ness ave. in short, caltrans has issued a

conceptual approval letter for the tunnel based on a few contingencies. that concludes the first half of tonight's presentation, and now i would like to turn it over to the office of economic and workforce development. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. that has been my task to work with cpmc and the other stakeholders to negotiate the development agreement which will memorialize the benefits that cpmc receives from the city and provides for the city. since you have seen a few proposals later, i will not go over the basics, but i could do that if you wish. on may 16, the city issued a detailed set of requests for cpmc in return for the long range development plan. this was a few weeks ago and we are in the process of discussing

each of these in detail with a hospital. there are no agreements yet, and we cannot finalize the development agreement until there is agreement. but we are presenting tonight is an explanation of the city's staff from the different departments. one thing i wanted to emphasize and i hope is apparent from the presentation is each and every portion of the request arises out of months of discussions within the city family about the best way to ask cpmc to respond to the impact of the project and to do its fair share to meet the needs of sansome systems. project of san francisco residents. as you know, under a development agreement, but the city and project sponsor receive benefits. on the screen above, these cons