play. we must direct this consistent with the general plan, to protect our great wealth of historical architecture, improve our parks and recreational facilities, provide employment and housing opportunities for all educational and income levels, increased density to lessen suburban sprawl, while allowing a diversity that permits people from all backgrounds, and families with children in particular, to remain in san francisco. i always have, and continue to remain, easily accessible to all. i published my e-mail and mailing addresses, and try to promptly return messages related to planning issues. moreover, i do my best to proactively engage stakeholders and neighborhood organizations, and learn the priorities of each area of our city.

a prepared for hearings carefully, to discover the often hidden issues that surround the decisions we make as commissioners. i believe in early intervention to foster understanding between project supporters and opponents, and to craft a superior final result that can be worthy of approval. my favorite architecture is contractual and complements its neighbors. i came to work well with all, especially those with whom i may not always agree. i am the sentences in by choice, having been raised in the east bay and attended undergraduate college at santa clara university, and my dental training in the city. relationships i have developed throughout the bay area allow me to be a strong advocate for san francisco. the city clearly deserves nothing less than strong advocates.

i came to take the long route to provide san francisco with the best for all visitors and businesses, and doing so as uninformed commissioner, because of the invaluable input of the many diverse communities that weave the fabric that make these -- that make this the best city in the world. there will be many projects of great importance, regardless of their size, that appear before the planning commission. i look forward to continuing engagement with you and your staff, and allow me a richer understanding of your priorities and those of your constituents, as well as to continue my service to san francisco, the city i love. thank you. supervisor campos: thank you, commissioner, for being here, and for your willingness to

continue to serve. i was very touched by your comments about your son. i am sure he is very proud of their willingness to continue to serve the city. i have always found you to be very accessible. i certainly understand the way in which to prepare for meetings. i think it is very important to have that level of commitment. the question for me is more about your thoughts on some of the substantive issues that have, for planning, and that are likely to come before planning. there are times when we have respect for an individual who would have a different take on these issues. i wonder if we could talk about affordable housing, and meeting the needs of the city, creating affordable housing. commissioner antonini: we are not doing a very good job, particularly in what is identified as the middle income group, where we have produced

very little. we are well below what the bay area council -- rather, what is assigned to us from the regional housing allotment. i think we have to craft a way to create more affordable housing. one way, i think, is to be creative in making incentives for developers to provide more affordable housing. i had an idea of perhaps allowing some of it, although it technically is not affordable under the inclusionary statute, coming from the 150th percentile. but the percentage of housing they are required to build in that level -- there is a lower subsidy they have to provide. and they still have to provide the requisite amount of housing

at 100% area median income, or below. now that redevelopment has gone away, we are challenge. i know chair kim is in the process of crafting legislation that could do with this. i have some thoughts i would like to present as we move forward. after my years of service, i have ideas that might help us reach this incredibly important need. supervisor campos: one of the things we have seen, in terms of how the issue of affordable housing is still with by the planning commission, is that, quite frankly, there has been a failure of tracking the extent to which the approval of one project adds or subtracts from meeting our obligations. what office requested that the budget and legislative analyst do a review of the issue of affordable housing, among other things.

one of the things that was pointed out is the fact that, as you approve individual projects, you at the planning commission have not really been tracking where the approval or disapproval of lead, in terms of meeting those obligations. that is where the idea of the dash board came in. i wonder if you can speak to that. how did we get to that point? you have served on the commission. that was one of the deficiencies that was noted in that report. commissioner antonini: i think the-board is a welcome addition. my compliments to supervisor olague, who was instrumental in providing us. the-board lets us know where we are. presumably, one can assume, by reading the paper work, where this project would fall in the spectrum of affordable housing, middle-income housing, market rate housing. i think that is a good first

step. i think we have to go beyond that. especially with the demise of redevelopment, we are dependent on private industry to provide the housing, or to provide the funding for affordable housing. i am wondering. we have to incentivize builders to build affordable housing, to meet our needs, whether it is additional density and height. there are a number of ways we have been able to craft this. i think we have to be even more creative. i do not have the complete answer today. many things come to mind. sometimes, some of our most at risk housing provides most of our affordable housing. perhaps some way of asking builders to build new housing at the affordable level, at the lowest affordable levels, and be able to perhaps work on this

housing to retrofit it and make it more acceptable for habitation. it may be a way we may be able to craft something that would work. that is a discussion for another day. we could do something along those lines. we have to do it with in san francisco as much as possible. we are somewhat at a loss, because we are a landlocked city and county, with only 48 square miles, approximately. we do not have the advantage of the cities and counties which have some land in which to expand. supervisor campos: if i may add to this discussion on affordable housing, a think the larger policies of the planning commission are important. what you do in individual cases is also important. i do not have to agree with the commissioner on the outcome in a given case, but i am always interested in their reasoning. i wonder if you can talk about

your reasoning around the 8 washington project. i have a lot of concerns about that project, which created the housing for not only the wealthy, but the altar wealthy in san francisco. one of the concerns i have raised is that if you follow that trend, you will not have low income or middle income people living on the waterfront. i wonder if you can talk to me a little bit about your reasoning in your thinking around the project. i may agree or disagree with someone, but what is important to me is how we think about these issues. commissioner antonini: my process began many years ago, when this project came before us in another form. that did not reach with approval. there were issues on mapping, and a few other things. i think it was not nearly as good a project as the one approved recently.

however, a project like that has to give back to the city many things. you have to weigh what it is giving back against what it is providing. obviously, it is providing housing for people at a very high income level. however, it is not realistic to believe that site would be able to provide affordable housing at the lowest income levels. however, why i supported it was the parts that they are providing for the city, the opening of two streets, with walking streets, and their contributions to the port, in terms of rebuilding the cruise terminal. we need some kind of funding. you have to make a trade. while i do not see that as being any sort of means that we could not have affordable housing at the waterfront, in this particular instance, a thing for anything to be approved that was going to work,

it was probably going to have to make that trade. we worked hard with the developer to keep crafting the design, to sculpt it in such a way that its impact became less severe, as far as shadows, and the lowest elements of the building were closest to the water, stepped up toward the taller buildings behind there. i think it is going to give a significant amount of money to are affordable housing needs. i do not have before me the exact figure of contribution. plus, we will have an ongoing property tax contribution coming from this project. it will be significant. there will be some higher income people living there, but presumably, they will spend money at restaurants and stores in san francisco, and hopefully lead to employment of a lot of other san franciscans. the biggest thing is what the

project is back. that is my process. i can see arguments on both sides. on balance, it seems to be a beneficial project. supervisor campos: i wonder if you can expand on this idea, the notion that i think you said you did not see it was realistic to have affordable housing, at least to imagine that, along the waterfront. can you say a little bit more about that? in some respects, what is possible depends on what planning commission is willing or unwilling to do. commissioner antonini: what i said is i do not want this one project to be interpreted as saying we could not build affordable housing on other parts of the waterfront. actually, the waterfront includes hunters point and the entire large waterfront we have, and would not be restricted to that. in close proximity, there may be

sites that would be appropriate to affordable housing. given the health club that exists at that site, which is a consideration, i think it was probably about as good a situation as we were going to get, considering what the city was getting out of it. we have to take the funds we have gotten for 8 washington, and similar projects, and with them, create affordable housing. i was there to approve broadway battery, an affordable housing project, which is actually very beautiful, if you are familiar with that project. we have created affordable housing near at&t park. there are quite a few projects that are very close to the waterfront. i think more could happen. supervisor campos: following on

that note, in terms of your reasoning on individual projects, what i think is one of the most important projects i have seen as a supervisor is the parkmerced project. i think you voted for that project. it involved the demolition of housing for a lot of working, low income people. i wonder if you can talk about your reasoning behind that vote. commissioner antonini: i am a resident of western san francisco. one of the reasons i supported this is we on the west side have to do our part in meeting the housing needs of san francisco. there are not many sites available on the west side that will allow that to happen. parkmerced is a wonderful sight. i was convinced by the sponsors and by city attorney testimony

that the residents who are living in the existing units are going to be protected under rent-controlled provisions as long as they live, as long as they want to be here. in fact, those units have to permanently be rent-controlled permanent units. there will be new units. they will not be the same unit. but this is very similar to the type of thing that is being done, or was done, with trinity plaza, on a smaller scale. it was crafted so that all of the existing tenants would continue on at the same level of rental in a new, safer, a larger unit. those units that are out there are no more than two-bedroom. there are no 3-bedroom units. the new project will allow this, which will be better for families. it will also densify.

i think the density, what you are doing is, in my mind -- you are keeping the same number of affordable rental units. you are adding additional market right now until units. also, some units for sale, which meet some of the needs of my children and my children's generation. that could be a possibility, when that thing is built, particularly if they want to stay there. i do not think there is jeopardy to the rent-controlled units or existing residence. my understanding is there is not. the development agreement that was crafted their pressures this. there is a possibility, although a faint one, that if our rent control laws changed and became less restrictive, existing

tenants would be in jeopardy. but a development agreement takes precedent over a law that may be passed in the future. this agreement, i think, is locked in, regardless of what may happen in the future. that is my opinion. supervisor campos: the difference between trinity plaza and partners said -- and parkmerced is there were rulings by the california court of appeal which raised questions about the development agreement, which was not the case when trinity plaza can before you. that was one of the main reasons that many of us voted against the project, their respective of the language of the development agreement. it is not clear, under state law, the protections you are talking about would be enforceable. commissioner antonini: you are talking about polymer and -- palmer and costa hawkins.

in the opinion of the city attorney, if you give something to the sponsor that is extraordinary -- additional height above zoning, additional density -- there was a list of about 10 different things that were given to the builders of parkmerced. if that is the case, you can put went control restrictions on new units that are built, that are not subject to palmer/costa hawkins type restrictions. that is something i agree with on my vote. that is what was done. we often do that with projects, to be able -- i believe you know we are now ok with rent- controlled units that are built

restricted -- that is under inclusionary terms -- restricted for ownership units. rental units are where the project came into play. i have read a number of reports that substantiate this. if you give a significant bonus or benefit to the sponsor that was not under the code, was not as a right, you can enforce a development agreement that restricts the rent on rental units. supervisor campos: i appreciate the perspective. i do not know if that is the case. it is a question mark, how the court would interpret it. i do want to ask you about one more project. it is very important for my district, and i think for the city as a whole. that is the proposal at california medical center. you voted for that proposal at

the planning commission. as you know, one of the concerns that we have had all along is whether or not the proposal will truly ensure the long-term viability of st. luke's. in the proposal that you approved at the planning commission, there is a carved out that would allow cpmc to get out of its obligation to operate st. luke's for 20 years. there is information that we learned that makes it clear that, in fact, if the project to approve went forward as it is, that it is highly likely they would close st. luke's in a matter of years, after it reopened. i am wondering what your thoughts are, what your thinking was.

something happened here in the vetting of this project, that we would get to a point where the intended outcome of protecting the operations at st. luke's, based on the information we have, was not being done. commissioner antonini: during the time we heard the vetting, they presented the trigger point as being very remote, almost not a possibility. many people testified to that. not just the project sponsor. that being said, this is a very important issue. i can appreciate it from both views -- as a private individual, a business owner in health care. i find it hard to make a pledge about how my operation is point to be in 20 years. i probably will not have an operation in 20 years. that being said, an agreement was made to keep st. luke's open. in order for this to be

approved, there has to be some sort of ironclad agreement by calpacific that this happens. it may be in the form of if we are having operational difficulties. that would not just the st. luke's. it would be the whole operation going south. the would continue to operate st. luke's until the selected time, 20, 25 years. i forget the exception amount of time. or they would sell it to a buyer that would continue the operation at the same level they were performing. i am optimistic, because it is sort of counter intuitive, that they would spend $250 million to build a new hospital and just close the thing. i am optimistic something can be worked out. i think the ball is in their court. i think they have to come up

with something that makes it clear that under no circumstances this hospital is going to close before the agreed upon time. the rest has many benefits for san francisco, for jobs, for affordable housing, for benefits to adjacent communities. also, we draw 33% of the patients at cal pacific from outside san francisco. that is important, because this brings revenue into san francisco. if that were not here, health care would be sought in other places outside of san francisco. i am addressing not general terms, but your concern about st. luke's. i am with you on that for sure. supervisor campos: i am a glass half full person, so i am optimistic as well. i want to trust, but there is an old saying by ronald reagan,

"trust, but verify." many of us on the board of supervisors are not ready to vote on any project where a trigger is based on projections given by cpmc, unless we see those projections. did you look at the projections on which that was based? commissioner antonini: they presented the history of the operation over a long time. we had seen nothing that was even coming close to the area that would have allowed for the trigger to take effect. we kind of felt this was a fairly remote possibility, or extremely remote. i guess they needed something. this had been negotiated between the mayor's office and california pacific over a long time. the mayor's office felt

comfortable that they had the assurances. maybe that is not the case. i think maybe we have to get rid of the trigger and have something that assures the continued presence of the hospital. supervisor campos: the mayor's recommendation was based on projections that were given to them by cpmc. did you look at those while verifying it was a remote possibility? commissioner antonini: that was the way it read to me. i read all the material. it looked that way, having read it, and having talked to outside sources. i talked to other people in the health care field. they seemed to verify that this sounded like a pretty safe thing. that being said, there are concerns being raised now. i think that whether or not these concerns are substantial or realistic, we still have to

be sure. the community wants st. luke's. it might be one of the most profitable parts of their system. it would still serve the people of the neighborhood extremely well. i think it is really important that this be taken care of. supervisor farrell: i appreciate the line of questioning, but, to be fair, what was the vote at the planning commission on cpmc? commissioner antonini: i am trying to remember. i think it was 5-2. it might have been 4-3. supervisor farrell: everyone and knowledge as they might have wanted more information. in all fairness, there was another commissioner before us earlier who was not asked about her vote. i appreciate the questions here, but we do not want to single people out. if we are going to ask of one commissioner, we should ask the other.

chairperson kim: it was a 5-1 vote, and commissioner wu was absent. commissioner antonini: thank you for reminding me. there may have been parts -- commissioner sugaya like to break out parts of the votes. that does come back to my mind. i was about to say that commissioner wu might not have been on, but she was recently on the commission at that time, and was not able to be there and vote on that issue. supervisor campos: it was my understanding that commissioner wu was not there when the vote took place. had she been there, i would have asked for that. i want to be fair, but i think it is important for us to understand your thinking. i appreciate that.

commissioner antonini: i am on your side about getting very to it -- verification, and i have spoken to people about the necessity to do that. chairperson kim: we appreciate your advocacy for the city in that sense. i want to bring up another vote. of course, there were a number of commissioners who voted with you. there was one project that was important to me. we are a diverse board as well. we all bring of projects that some of us support and some of us oppose. i did want to bring up 800 presidio avenue. in 9 vote, you were the sole dissenting vote on the commission. housing for transitional age youth is a priority for the city. it is often challenging for us to find spaces where we can do that type of affordable housing. you have stated we are not

meeting our affordable housing goals. i was curious as to your thinking, why you decided to oppose the project. commissioner antonini: there was a long discussion on this. there was a version that would meet all the needs of the immense appeal to youth, in terms of the number of rooms provided, but would have made fewer rooms for affordable housing. there were many parts of this. there were the immense pitted use parts, and the affordable peace. there had been permissions on this, which had gone on for years. you might be able to build a smaller project if you took the affordable part of it, and put a few market rate units in. you could bring the money from there to build a project that was not quite as tall. there were many