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 land, the port and places that you could not put housing. it was always a challenge because those decisions about buying land are not in our hands. it would be great if cpmc worked with the city to identify those sites were all this could happen. obviously, there are lots of regrets. we are way down the road.

it is interesting because, in a lot of ways, the current, existing hospitals are not in the most accessible locations, getting to the pacific or california campuses, there are not as many options of people -- as opposed to someone who is going to cpmc. there are benefits to being on a transit corridor. you do not need an eir to know there will be major traffic impacts. look at the environmental review document and you know that. it deeply saddens me that you could not have had the transit come in before the project. that is partially our own fault for taking a long time on making decisions around brt. that is a frustration. a longer conversation about how we get in transportation improvement in advance of some of the development we hope to see, we do a little bit of that

along third street. we have not done that in many places. that is something we need to work on. at the end of the day, we know this project will maintain the jobs that we have and hopefully, create new jobs. relating to the union's issue, obviously, i would not support the project because that is deeply concerning to me. the nurses and the engineers. unfortunately, i do not have the discretion in that area. i just wish that those issues could be resolved because it does affect the health care in hospitals and it does make me scared as a patient, quite frankly. that is not the issue on the table here today. ultimately, this is a hospital rebuild project. is it perfect? no.

the planning commission, are we the body that will be able to change how it looks? no. there is a development agreement. for where we are, the only people, at this point, that are right to make any substantive changes are the mayor and the board of supervisors. i think that we had a lot of strong statements and i think we will all continue to work with the board of supervisors because there are some unresolved issues that do need to be dealt with. unfortunately, our delay would not help benefit that. frankly, i believe we need to move forward with the rebuild of this project sooner rather than later. in our own experience, the long, drawn-out experience in dealing with this situation, is not necessarily that we saw progress by pushing back.

the planning commission has not seen that to be the result of our actions 3 to me, the best decision is to move forward so that they can become the plan it needs to become for san franciscans. that we could finally get to creating the jobs and opportunities. i believe that van ness, after much heartache along the way, will actually be a lot better. we will be able to point to the future as something that has helped van ness avenue, which has struggled. various restaurants have gone on that corridor and struggle to be viable. there is still not the amount of foot traffic and activity needed to make a lot of those small businesses, particularly in lower van ness, a viable. for that, during the gentleman from the opal hotel, a hotel i'll always been by but not into, say that he believes it

will help, i do believe it will create an economic impact. because we have the great degree of liquidated damages, if i were just taking sutter to court, it would be a different conversation. because the city has liquidated damages provisions on most important areas in this development plan, it makes me feel better knowing we have a true course of action. i am reminded that this is not, even though we call it a development plan, a development plan. it is a replacement strategy for a seismically safe hospital. if cpmc did not choose to do this project and decided to retrofit their existing facilities, i do not know that the city would be the better for it. the alternative of not moving forward with the project as they are, i spent eight days at the campus in california. it definitely is -- it

definitely needs a refresh. that is an issue. something that is very fascinating when people talk about gridlock and traffic congestion. a few years ago, there was a big debate about helipads that general wanted to do. i grew up in baltimore. at a different times, it was the murder capital. one of the reasons it is not is because they have shock trauma helicopters to save lives. i know is not very popular and a was to put a -- nobody was put a helipad on top of van ness avenue, but that is how cities that are innovative are doing it. and those cities have less traffic congestion than we do. it is hard because what we often want and what we often need are not going to be met in any

individual project. obviously, there are other issues of schering this overall -- obscuring the overall process that make it more complicated, but at the end of the day, i am going to support the rebuild and i hope that it does make us all proud when it is finally built with all of the provisions that we put into place, that it is the hospital that everyone wanted it to be. i just wanted to say that on the record. i have been very outspoken about this project. commissioner sugaya: based on all of the testimony that was presented, both today and at the initiation, other hearings that we have had, i have always been surprised, maybe i should not be. there does not seem to be much cooperation, sympathy, support between the unions themselves.

i understand that the trades are really in trouble and have been in trouble. they are pushing for jobs. at the same time, their brothers and sisters, nurses and stationary engineers, are having their own issues. for the unions not to be able to come together is kind of disheartening, i guess. there is nothing, as commissioner borden said, that we can do about it here. it is just an observation of mine that if it were really a uniontown, the trades would say, we are not going to build it until you resolve your issues here. anyway, i do not have much more to say other than that. how are we going to vote on this procedurally?

>> on the eir and then the remaining items in bulk. commissioner sugaya: can we separate out the development agreement? >> you could vote together on the other items, but you could separate it out if you wanna do. -- if you wanted to. commissioner sugaya: that eir is separate for everything else. if you force me devote every -- on everything else, i will vote no. there are certain aspects that i could accept but it does not matter because it is like to pass anyway. -- it is going to pass anyway. commissioner moore: 3 things. i would support that we take it by type of campus and eir and development agreement separately so that there would be four

different lots of things. i have two comments to make. we have hardly, at all, talk about the eir. we'll talk about everything else, at least compared to the way we normally discussed and lay out the discussion until we find that eir complete or accurate or refine the remaining significant unavoidable impact. i want to point that out because the discussion has been 90% about other things. we have not given it quite the workover as we normally do because we have impact of traffic, pedestrian safety, the high shadow, increases in wind speed, the list goes on. i just want to make sure that we

remember that. the other thing, and we will not have much time to discuss that in detail, i do believe that, aside from the oversized campus, the architecture has come forward in a way which i believe it is responsive to many of the concerns expressed. the differentiation in the medical building massing on the corner of geary and van ness has come a major way forward. so has the variation in massing on the cpmc south corner. if i recall correctly, the changes about st. luke's, ahead of it being -- aside from being too small, has always been comfortable. the building has gotten better.