don't have permanent gridlock all over this area? and so that we can accommodate not just this part of the city, but the entire transit system. and right now i don't see what we're doing to actually do that. we had a hearing a few weeks ago where we on only one-third of weekdays do we have enough light rail vehicles to serve as the bare minimum needs of the muni system. on one-third of days for the bare minimum. we're going to need a lot more in the future. we're going to have to maintain them, we're going to have to rehabilitate them. which is something we haven't done until very recently. ~ we need to like sure up what we have. we need to expand it. and i don't see the plan in place to do that and we need to get that plan. and when i look at the map, and this only shows one area of many, many different kinds of development, you expand up when

you get to the giants and the potential warrior stadium. you get to all sorts of other developments with treasure island, we go down to hunters point. and that's a lot of political juice just to be blunt, in terms of changing the dynamic in city hall and forcing this building to get serious about investing in our transit system and expanding, which it hasn't always shown the level of seriousness that's needed. and, so, what are we doing to move in that direction? >> yeah, so -- >> i'm sawyer, again, i don't mean to put everything on you. this is the city, we're all responsible for this, but it's not moving in the direction it needs to move. >> right. so, i'm going to talk specifically about some of the stuff that's already planned in mission bay that hasn't been there -- some of the concerns are still a work in progress. i'll touch on what the mission bay plan already has. what else is going on concurrently is peter albert is

taking the lead on the waterfront transportation study recognizing [speaker not understood], pier 70, plus all of eastern neighborhoods. so, there is that process that is going on for city-wide for that whole range. and matt is involved in that so qua i can't get into details. what i can do is talk more about what is planned in mission bay because we have a big -- the whole flooding development 2015 we know is out there, so we've already been working with mta and the community has made it clear that we need to have better transit in place for that time period. alisa, could i get the overhead? so, we've got the ballpark here, 3rd street -- i'm sorry, 4th street, 3rd street. the mission bay plan always envisioned the t-light rail. so so that's been installed along third extra. there's a plan right now mta is working with us, we have tiger

grant turn around to the south in the [speaker not understood] area that would help [speaker not understood], give a turn around to have a larger capacity of fixed rail coming up through the area. but also this is two bus lines in plan for mission bay, neither of them exist in mission bay right now. one is i believe currently planned for the 10. it would come down 4th street, come down long bridge and then cut out 5th street just being put in. that's one of the reasons why that bus line doesn't exist. they're putting the street systems in right now. and the 22 has always been envisioned to come up 16th street, come up north on 3rd street, and loop around the park. that line, one of the problems we're running into is with high-speed rail and electrification of caltrain, both of these lines we envisioned being trolley lines. how do you cross electrified train line with electrified trolley line? my understanding is the tenant

will use the bus and we've gotten rid of that issue. the 16th is still the 22nd line is a trolley. so, what mta is working on, recognizing we have a big wave of development in 2015 is looking at having an intermittent bus that comes and connects mission bay with bart station that would come along 16th to add this east-west transit which we're missing right now. so, those are plans, plus there are some private transportation management association and shuttle bus built in, too, but that's on the private side. >> that sounds great. that raises issue with every project that comes in so you're not alone. and one part of the response is if peter albert is doing great planning, i think the world of peter albert. he's terrific. he has a lot of great ideas. but if we don't actually fund those plans, it's a significant cost to get our transit infrastructure where it needs to be if the plan is just a

piece of paper. so, if we don't have enough light rail vehicles, if they keep breaking down, if every time they go out of service it takes months and months to get them back in service, all those kinds of things that go well beyond just having a plan or an idea, it's going to be a problem. so, again, to be clear, i support this project. i think there's a lot of exciting development that's happening on the waterfront, along market street, in my district and supervisor kim and chiu's district that is terrific and exciting and needs steerious transit infrastructure to support that. and it is in not just the interest of all of our constituents who are living here now and see constantly the grading transit service. it is in the interest of every new development. not just to develop and then that's it, but to make sure that that transit infrastructure is there for all the people who are going to be visiting and living in these developments. >> i agree with you.

>> thank you. so, now mr. cohen. >> thank you, supervisors. good afternoon, for the record michael cohen managing principal with sean investment group. we are the owner and developer of block 1 in mission bay. i'll be very brief. really just want to reemphasize a couple of the public benefits we think support the amendments before you today. it's going to activate the front door at mission bay. it sat fallow for 15 years in a fenced in parking lot. it's not an appropriate use for this important site. it's going to finally bring a hotel to mission bay. we've gotten an incredible amount of interest from potential operators and investors that a 250-room hotel is truly a true mixed use project is attractive and viable. it's going to cause a really important waterfront park to be built. it's going to deliver 18-plus million dollars in affordable

housing resources that would not exist if this stayed a a hotel site. and you heard there are significant fiscal benefits for the city. this project has been very thoroughly vetted. and i think based on the merits we're proud that it's earned the support of local 2, the hotel restaurant union, the hotel council, sf travel, and sf building trades. i'd be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> mr. cohen, following up on what i said before, i don't know if this is a question for you or ms. reilly. the $21 million in one-time development revenues and impact fees, of the 21 million, how many go to transit -- for transit? >> you know, i don't know the answer to that. i know roughly 18 million of the one time number, a number of city-wide fees. but the one time fee is for affordable housing. >> do you know how much of the

million goes to the transit? because we put impact fees including transit and impact fees to pay for the transit infrastructure that will be needed to support the development. do you know the answer to that? >> i apologize, we can get that number for you. >> i would assume, so 18 million is going to affordable housing, which is terrific, we need a lot of affordable housing. so, that's very important. that leaves another 2-1/2 or $3 million left for other needs; is that right? >> yes. >> so that the most we would see for transit impact fees would be 2-1/2 million if everything went to transit? >> right. >> transes of that are probably zero. >> yes. so we'll get you that number. i apologize. it could be less than that. >> it is probably a very small percentage if the 21 million is going to transit? >> yes. >> i think that's another part of the problem. >> okay. >> okay, thank you. >> thank you. >> okay, colleagues, any other questions or comments?

great. we will now open it up for public comment. is there any member of the public who would like to comment on item number 6? you can come on up. [speaker not understood] and mission bay, we have clients in that housing. and there is a disability, my friend takes the ninth and brewin owe and i take the t-line. why are they doing this to us? we have rides and that's not fair for other people who have transportation. we don't need hotels there. we got the warriors there and we got at&t park. but it's going to be overcrowded. transportation, the buses are breaking down. we should do more transportation and affordable housing for people like me on disability. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker.

[speaker not understood] again. bernie showden. i have considerable redevelopment expertise which i wish to continue for furthering this project. the first question is getting title clearance. i don't think we have sufficient recognition of the state land's involvement in regards to land. going all the way back to 1850, the railroad and the arkansas act, that needs to be investigated. the way to under pin our rights in this would be to keep the title in public control. that way the rights of development and ground rents and so forth can be investigated to further supplement what needs to be done to mitigate the impact. the second question is earthquake safety. the inevitable 6 to 30-year earthquake. we don't have an underpinning in regard to any trust funds

for any damage that would be done. and with that, i will entertain any questions to me at a later time when it's convenient to you, but those are serious redevelopment questions. i hope [speaker not understood]. >> thank you, mr. showden. is there any additional public comment on item number 6? seeing none public comment is closed. [gavel] >> colleagues, if there's no additional discussion, do we need to make amendments to this today? no? okay. >> motion to move forward with recommendation. >> second. >> colleagues, there is a motion to move item 6 forward with recommendation. can we take that without objection? that will be the order. [gavel] >> thank you. madam clerk, can you please call items -- please call items 7 through 19 together. >> item number 7 through 19 are a legislation package related to the california pacific

medical center procedural hill and st. luke's campuses including organizations and resolutions zoning map, general plan, [speaker not understood] street vacation, change in the official sidewalk list, and improving the street enroachment, land transfer agreement, and land development agreement. ~ encroachment. >> thank you very much. so, today we have a package of items before us relating to the california pacific medical center development project. the board previously cleared the project environmentally and this is the underlying legislation necessary to approve the project. i understand that there is -- that we -- if we take action on this today, it needs to be without recommendation because there -- is that the case? >> elaine warren, deputy city attorney. i'll have to look into that because i haven't been informed on that. >> [speaker not understood]. ken rich from the office of

work force development i believe will be presenting. >> good afternoon, supervisors. ken rich, oewd. i am very happy to be back in front of the committee. and we have hopefully a fairly brief presentation for you today and i was going to have this lobby from the planning department start you off and i'll come back on and do the rest of it. in answer to your question, i think we'll have the city attorneys who are working on this project up here in a moment. but i think you are correct that it does have to pass without recommendation because we are in a cu appeal period. so, with that i'll turn it over to ms. waddy. >> thank you. good afternoon, supervisors. elizabeth waddy with the planning department. and if i can have the powerpoint, please. since the board has heard this presentation on the physical aspects of the project several times, i'm going to go through this quickly emphasizing the key changes that have been made over the last year. cpnc's project consists of five new building including the

creation of new campus at van ness and geary known as cathedral hill [speaker not understood]. [speaker not understood] have not changed over the last year. the hospitals at the st. luke's and cathedral hill campuses, however, have changed. this is a chart that summarizes the previous project as compared to the proposed project. you can see that the new proposed cathedral hill hospital is significantly reduced in the number of beds, overall building size, and quantity of [speaker not understood]. st. luke's hospital is now 15% larger with 120 beds instead of 80 beds. cpnc previous system wide bed total [speaker not understood] total is now 524 beds. the st. luke's hospital has been enlarged since the previous version was presented to this committee. the inpatient capacity was increased by 40 beds and the overall height of the hospital building has increased by about

43 feet. the cathedral hill campus hospital has decreased in size since the previous version was present today this committee. the inpatient capacity has decreased by a minimum of 251 beds. the overall height has decreased by about 39 feet. and the parking has been decreased by a minimum of 237 parking spaces. [speaker not understood] neither the proposed neuroscience institute building at the corner of noe and duboce nor the provisions in the development agreement have changed over the last year. now on to the land use approval. there are many land use approvals required for cpmc's proposed five new building. to keep this presentation beef i'm only going to highlight those land use approvals subject to board approval and will do so here at a very high level. as shown on this slide, they include the development agreement which covers all campus he, general plan amendments for the st. luke's

and cathedral hill campuses, [speaker not understood], and several other approvals required by the board. the planning commission approved all of the entitlements and recommended approval the general plan, the planning code and zoning map amendments that were outlined on the previous slide. as it relates to the development agreement, the commission recommended several changes which ken will go over more in detail in the presentation. they include 4.1 2a to pay for the payments, conforming all language in the da [speaker not understood] hiring goals shall be to sell at least 40% of available entry level positions with system referrals. striking the provision in the da that would require the cathedral hill parking garage to close to the public at 7:00 p.m., requiring that the planning department provide additional notification notably to san franciscans for health care, housing and justice, of planning department's receipt of annual compliance statement, the issuance of the city

report, and any formal request to the department tov changes to the development agreement. and lastly, the commission recommended that the board consider asking cpmc to either retain their existing psychiatric beds or explore providing community based psychiatric services through the innovation fund of the da. with that i'll turn it back over to ken rich of the oewd. thank you. >> thanks. i'm going to continue on and go over the development agreement. and just first, i'm going to do a brief review of the agreement, very similar to what the full board got a few months ago. almost everything that you saw in the presentation a few months ago in the term sheet is the same and what's changed i'm going to be highlighting at the end of my presentation. so, to start we have a significantly -- or the key overall points, we have a significantly larger st. luke's hospital and smaller cathedral hill hospital. st. luke's hospital will be an integral part of the cpmc system. cpmc will be obligated to continue providing specified

level of charity care to the neediest is not franciscans and about $08 million in cash for health care transportation, work force training, affordable housing and pedestrian safety. on to st. luke's, the most important part one of the most important parts of the project, it will be 120 bed general acute care hospital. it must open within 24 months after opening -- after the cathedral hill hospital opens. instead of the previous 80 beds at st. luke's hospital, we have 120 beds which is a more sustainable and compromise -- almost comprises almost 25% of cpmc's beds in the city. st. luke's is required to have the standard of excellence in senior and community health. st. luke's is required to provide all services general acute care hospitals and cpmc must submit a proposal for a new medical office building within five years. or else the city will have the right to acquire a long-term

lease for the site for the purpose of constructing the medical office building. general health care for 10 years, cpmc shall care for a baseline of about 30,000 charity care or med i kaul cal patients annually as well as fund 8 million in other services for the poor and under served. [speaker not understood] the reason we were in the process of doing an audit to determine the average of the last three years of cpmc's patients. and we have draft results from the audit which come back at 30,000 and change. so, i think that the actual number will be something like 30,200 patients so we were very close in the estimate. cpmc must be the hospital partner primarily in the new cathedral hill hospital. for an additional 5400 medi-cal managed care beneficiaries for 10 years. 1500 of these must come through a primary care provider, providing service to the tenderloin. it is important to note that

the above commitments are absolute for 10 years and do not demand in any way on cmmc's financial condition or pro general elections. cpmc will fund an $8.6 million health karin ovation fund ~ to increase the capacity of health care based providers. lastly under health care, cpmc will increase the city's health karin ovation 27a to 5% annually for years 1 and 2. excuse me, year one and two, and no more than the medical inflation rate plus 1.5% for years 3 through 10. under affordable housing, cpmc will pay $4.1 million to the mayor's office of housing as compensation for the 25 displaced housing units in the location of the medical office building on cathedral hill and 36.5 million to the mayor's office of housing affordable housing fund in furtherance of the goals of the van ness

special use district. under local hire and work force training, cpmc will absorb 30% local hire for construction jobs. included in this overall 30% is 50% local hire for new apprentice positions. cpmc will observe 40% local hire for entry level permanent jobs for 10 years of the development agreement. and they will provide $4 million to the city for work force training programs. under transportation, 6.5 million for the mta in lieu of the transportation impact development fee, 5 million for the mta for brt facilities, a parking charge at the cathedral hill parking garages, sorry, 50 cents off peak and 75 cents on peak for each entry and exit from the garages.

$400,000 for bicycle studies. also, these are new items added in the last time around. cpmc will conduct surveys evaluating the effect anivness of its mandatory tdm program and report the results to the mta and the planning department. cpmc will also fund studies every three years, once every three years. at a cost up to $40,000 and cathedral hill to assist the city in monitoring congestion. and lastly, cpmc will encourage all of its employees to purchase a clipper card through a variety of means and will equally share the cost of the card with its employees. under streetscape and pedestrian safety in the vicinity of the cathedral hill campus, cpmc will pay $4.25 million to the city for pedestrian landing and sidewalk widening in the tenderloin. will fund 200,000 to the city to fund a tenderloin safe passage pilot program. and 1.55 million to the city

for transit and safety improvements directly around the cathedral hill campus. moving to the pacific and california campuses, cpmc will fund $3 million to the city for enforcement and traffic safety improvements around the two campuses. around st. luke's there is 3.3 million of in-kind streetscape and pedestrian improvements which will be constructed along with the hospital and other things at st. luke's. and at the bayview campus also in kind 475,000 in streetscape and pedestrian improvements. the next slide which i hope is somewhat legible on the screen, but you should be able to see it in front of you, is the payment schedule which has been worked out. this was not worked out yet when we were before the board a couple of months ago. and what this does is it just takes the $70 million that we are receiving from cpmc for all of these different items and attempts to do the kind of

puzzle distributing it across the five years. and what i will point out is that there is a total looking at the first column which says effective date when the board approves the da and the mayor signs it and it's effective 30 days later, we will get this set of $6.9 million worth of payments. and then those installments, there should have been a note here to indicate that the installment -- first installment will be when cpmc starts construction on cathedral hill or when they have gotten through the period of legal challenges, whichever comes sooner. and then each year on the anniversary of that date, the next installment comes along. so, now i'm going to move to some proposed amendments. everything you heard up to now is what we presented to you several months ago when we did the term sheet and the borden doretioned the term sheet. through conversations with the community and through the planning commission hearing which happened a few weeks ago,

several changes have come through. some were directly amended by the planning commission, some have not been in front of the planning commission, and some are simply recommended by the planning commission. in any event, it's the final call of this committee and then the full board to make any or all or none of these changes. so, it's in your hands. first one was the planning commission recommended striking the provision around requiring the cpmc cathedral hill parking garages to be available only to employees, visitors and staff after 7:00 p.m. the next one is this one we brought to the planning commission and they approved it. the idea is just giving you a little bit of reminder of history, the first time around, the requirement was a very serious and central requirement, was that the st. luke's campus must open the same day as cathedral hill. if they did not open the cathedral hill campus until they were ready to open st.

luke's. with the resizing of the hospitals, cpmc came back to us and said, in fact, st. luke's is going to require a whole permitting process through the state and cathedral hill is more of a change, making the building smaller but not as much of a change. is and, so, in fact, cpmc came to the conclusion ~ that it would take one year longer to get st. luke's open than it would for cathedral hill instead of at the same time. what we agreed is -- and understanding that the city was going to impose fairly onerous liquidated damages if that deadline were missed, then cpmc i think understandably wanted a little padding. so, we agreed to let the liquidated damages which are a default of the contract and very serious amounts of money, would kick in if cpmc had not opened st. luke's by two years africa thea doctoral hill. but because we're not sure they actually needed the two years and some of that is just a safety valve, and because of

how important it is to the city to make sure this happens, we instituted another layer of payments called delayed payments which start at one year. as you see in the bold face here, they're not damages and they don't represent a default. but starting one year africa thea doctoral hill opens, if st. luke's has not opened, the late payments start at 2,500 a day for the first five months and increase to 5,000 a day for the next seven months. after that you'd be at the two-year mark and you'd have the actual liquidated damages because then cpmc would be in default of the da if they didn't open it. so, that was a nice change approved by the planning commission. on the work force training we're getting $4 million, as i mentioned. the idea here would be for three of this 4 million to be funneled through the san francisco foundation in a way very parallel to the way we are funneling the $8.6 million for

the health karin ovation fund through the san francisco foundation. and the funds would be dispersed with a joint approval of the city director of work force development, the foundation, and cpmc. the same general guidelines that are in the da for expanse ridden funds would be there, but there would be another layer of process and transparency around the use of the funds. if you note in the payment schedule, that first million dollars is -- we're getting it, we asked for it in year -- right after -- at the effective date because the city's work force training system needs to gear up for construction training. and, so, that first million would not go through the foundation, but the second 3 million would. in moving to probably the most involved set of changes and concerns is monitoring and enforcement. i'm going to give you a little bit of background first. so, we note that the da has a variety of obligations in it.

cash obligations are actually the majority of the obligations and they are obviously simple to monitor and enforce. some of the obligations obviously are performance obligations and they require more oversight. these are health care, work force and traffic transportation. things where cpmc is not just writing a check to the city. we have city departments with the expertise to monitor these items, public health, mta, oewd, planning. i want to note that the da already requires an annual report from cpmc on compliance with all obligations with appropriate back up documentation, that this has to be submitted to the city along with a third-party audit on the baseline charity care obligations. we also note that the city attorney can initiate enforcement action if the directors of planning generally with the da, the director of planning, we explicitly included the director of health as well. if any of those directors find cpmc not in compliance, they can go to the city attorney and

initiate action. the board of supervisors already has through the charter and had administrative code the ability to direct the city attorney independently of these city departments to take an action if the board so wishes. ~ and had there had been discussions throughout the last few weeks of having the city enter into some kind of contractual or collateral legal agreement with the community coalitions that have been helping us work through this in order to give them some kind of right to monitor or enforce, and changes we're going to get to. we don't think it's advisable to go the contractual route, but the conversation did really open our eyes to the fact there was a lot more that we could do around transparent and robust public process so that everyone can sort of see how the city is monitoring and enforcing the agreement. and, so, we worked with the three supervisors who had been doing the mediation d