employees but student to 54,000. half of our employees live in san francisco. okay. so, we also anticipate and plan to increase our housing on campus from approximately 653 units at parness and mission bay to 135 which is a hundred percent increase in our housing and similar increase in our beds. our clinical capacity is also anticipated to grow motion destly in our inpatient bed frame from 658 bed side to 628 beds mostly at

mission bay and 200 exam roops. so since i was here before you in april of 2013, the following change and events have occurred. i want to call your attention to that. we acquired a block to mission 34 and mission bay and affordable housing and infrastructure since we are tax exempt. we also are proposing to update the 1976 region resolution. we have identified the developer with which we are negotiating a ground lease for our lower campus site. the golden state warriors announced they are proposing a complex in the

arena directly across third street from our campus. we have published our draft lrdp eir and we delayed our recirculated draft on the hazard reduction measures. so this map i won't go into in great detail but just to say that our proposals include demolitions of 10 buildings, developing new housing by renovating uc hall building on the campus and constructing new faculty housing as well as converting existing house is to faculty housing and managing our open space reserve as permitted open space as well as improving other public open spaces on the campus.

this slide speaks to the 1976 regents resolution which the regents adopted in order to place limitations on the campus. the new ordinance proposes to update that resolution by the open space reserve, reaffirming the campus boundaries on the blackout line as well as the expansion and restriction areas shown in the shaded area. we are restricted from leasing residential space in that shaded area around the campus. we also are continuing to have the space ceiling or limit on total space structures on the site of 35 million square feet and excluding that from housing. it would include all

non-residential buildings within the campus site. we are maintaining housing functional zone on 135th avenue to create a buffer to the neighborhood, and we are updating the average daily population goal which i would speak to in a minute. so this slide is difficult to read and i won't and necessarily go through every line. i just want to call your attention to the top line and the bottom line. so, the top line that says 2014 space applicable to the space ceiling currently exceeds the 35.5 million by 8.3 percent. after the demolished buildings convert to housing space we expect that we will reduce that over acknowledge -- over age to

1.7 percent. we are closer to compliance to that space ceiling limit but not in full compliance to the space ceiling. this is the average population. the principal is to try and control the total population on parness side in accordance to our plan on the eir to percent 3 percent by 2025. this slide shows the mission bay campus which encompass 60 acres north 16 street, south campus, south of 16 street and east campus blocks

34. our new proposal to add nearly a million square feet development capacity to the new campus. the blocks to be developed are mostly in the north campus block 16, 18 and 15 as well as we plan to create a new outdoor recreation space on block 18 on that green yellow block, 18c and then we are also anticipating new housing on block 15, the orange zone there at the upper left. and block 33 and 34 which is the hatched east campus will contain research and office space.

so, once the mission bay hospital opens in 2015, we'll remove our beds to mission bay and close at mount zion and close the existing hospital to outpatient and office use which the the upside down t buildings, buildings a and b. we'll be des demolishing the buildings. we expect to provide additional parking as well. so at san francisco general where we have enjoyed 146 -year relationship with the city, our we have conducted medical care to public and

students. it's a compromised historic building. our proposal is to construct a new building directly south of and adjacent to the hospital shown in the red dotted line and then we'll move our research and office uses in the older brick building into the new building. we are currently in negotiations with the city for the land since it is owned by the city and we will be publishing a separate environmental impact report on this project. a word about laurel heights. as you know we own a 10 -acre site in the laurel heights neighborhood and negotiating to leasing that property

from us and any future development from that steet would be entitle to the city process. they would not be using the university's ceqa process. and if an agreement is reached, then the would continue to occupy and lease back for approximately five 5 years. so, transportation is a great interest to everyone. so i wanted to speak to that briefly. two-thirds of our employees and students commute eastern -- other than driving alone. we have a very robust transportation management program which are enumerated in this slide and will go into great detail and it has multiple aspects to it. one of those

is our shuttle programs. our shuttles provide service to students and employees in order minimize the number of trips or number of trips that our patients and students and employees would take by car. we are continuing to monitor our shuttle operations given that we know our shuttles do impact the neighborhoods but we are trying to minimize the impact. we will continue to monitor the tdm measures and add new ones to minimize the trips. i would note that our shuttle program also provides service to major bart station so employees can use public transportation and then use the shuttle as the last mile.

we are also seeking to despite our robust tdm programs, we are trying to expand our alternative transportation options as noted as well as limit parking for tennants in new housing, increase the cost of employee parking over time in order to dissent -- incentivize employees and encourage working at home. so upcoming milestone we are holding our public hearing on the eir next monday. the close of our public comment is october 14th where we will continue to receive comment on eir and

feedback and expect to publish on eir in november or january of next year. this concludes my presentation. my colleague and i will stand to answer any questions. >vice-president cindy wu: is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner antonini? >>commissioner michael j. antonini: thank you. i have some questions. you did say you are planning to deactivate mofg but more would continue and you will have a significance presence. and you said if the lease is approved you would not want to occupy

the space in the future? >> right and vacate after that. thooeld have to project anything through the five 5 years but they have to go through the entitlement process which takes a while too. i was a little confused when you put the slide up about the beds. >> hospital or housing? >> those were housing beds. you said the units have more than one bedroom. >> right, when we say beds we are referring if there is one bedroom or three bedroom. each bed would count as a separate bed, but if it's a three bedroom unit, that would be one unit.1 unit. >> okay. that answers my question. and the entire area that is all open space own by uc sf is that troo you? >> yes. there is an adjacent space owned by

the city. so object -- on this slide to the right where the boundary the red buildings show to the right of that it says interior green built city, that's city owned property. still part of mount -- but there is a portion to the left of our open space reserve that is owned privately. but all the green area is our property. >> yeah. because i know that there has been a lot of discussion about that, but there is also a need for

housing. i'm not necessarily saying you would use this for housing but there is a matter of discussion because it's great to use the open space. there is a lot of space there and should be something that might be considered. also i understand there is an issue around the trees and apparently there are some plans to getting the trees out of there? >> yes, we are trying to reduce the fire hazard there. >> there was a lot of discussion that they were afraid of losing the foliage and trees but there is a way to do it to make it a healthier environment to thin out the trees and support the other ones. the other thing i wanted to ask is the historic building in mount zion hospital and i hope those are being preserved? >> well, actually the existing

hemibuilding the original mountain zion hospital we are proposing to demolish that building but we have documented it's historic nature in our eir. right now the proposal is to demolish the building and to e erect a new pace on -- space on that foot print. >> is that under the just addiction -- jurisdiction as historic? >> no. >> because it is a very nice looking building. >> yes, i appreciate that. >> finally i woulden currently -- encourage you as you do your studies to help us with the 6th street corridor and all the other things that are happening in both mission bay and mission district, we really have to

encourage the city to look for a real robust transit along 6 th street by rail that could move people because that would be the perfect solution for the two campuses to be united if there was a way to hook that up and run into the kearney metro and would serve a lot of the district and burdened they have to run buzz -- buses because they can't serve the crowd. that's something we have to look at for the future and think big about the ponlt -- possibility of a second tunnel around mount soot row thank you very much for your report. >vice-president cindy wu: commissioner

johnson? >> hello. in terms of future steps, because the uc sf with the board of regents would they be certifying the final eir? >> yes. the next question is i had the same question and commissioner antonini on your slide about existing and proposed housing and the difference between units and beds. i think i got that now. but, i think maybe my question is, is this all encompassing. i was going to read the eir, but does this level increase in proposed housing account for the increased population that the campus is going to see or is there still a gap? >> so, our housing goals and

housing program focuses or students and trainees as well as faculty. so, we do not provide on campus housing for staff. the goals that we setforth requires, we currently house about a thousand people in our housing. our goals based on our anticipated growth and faculty and students, would require another 1600 beds or accommodate another 16 hundred people. our proposed housing projects would accommodate about 1200 of those 1600 people. so there will still be a gap represent relevant iv -- relative to our goals. depending on the metrix used on determining our need, some of our staff are also being priced out of the market, but right now we have

no direct mechanisms for providing housing for them since the focus and priority has been on students and faculty. >> okay, one thing i will say about that is i know this isn't for citywide, but the mission bay, the master plan development and new housing we had a lot of conversations around providing for sf and housing. i understand that mission bay is a master plan development and you have opportunities to do that on a broader scale and say, hey, what's coming down the pipe for new construction can we be the units aside for employees and figure out the right percent but you did it.

has the board of regents considered other -- i don't want to call them deals, but deals like that across the city especially for a newer housing development. i think it's important if you are introducing thousands of new employees in the coerce course of the next few years to focus on student and faculty i don't know if that's a good enough answer so that's not something we can condition, but i think it's a request that needs to be asked. you did it for mission bay. >> briefly, as you can see in our slides we are anticipating building another 500 or so beds, units and mission bay from 431 to 950.

so that is we know that we need to solve some of our needs ourselves. we talked to a number of affordable housing developers about developing block 7, but because of the limitations on financing, taxes that do not allow affordable housing developers to restrict access to certain populations, we could not negotiate an agreement with them. the subsidies without tax credit financing would be to steep and unaffordable to the city. you raised good point about potential creative solutions in other housing projects across the city. our population tends to want

to live on campus or as close to campus sites as possible but respect to our employees we might have to look off sight. >> yes. off sight and i recognize of course you couldn't uc housing and that's part of the over all presence came. my point is there should be opportunities for other development possibly potentially even market rate one across the city to be able to do things. >> thank you. >vice-president cindy wu: commissioner hillis? >> you selected a developer a couple months ago which is great.

do they have a plan or program for that site yet? >> not yet. were you all intended to lease this property or were you up for a sale or lease? >> we considered it a sale but because of state law we would have to sell it to the highest bidder and could not negotiate a sale to based on other considerations besides bid and we went to the ground lease arrangement. >> that would be interesting how that plays out oh. there must be some benchmark of how many housing units of the size and development certainly that's what's going to drive the value of that site. >> we asked for a financial proposal

and we have been negotiating our agreement based on that financial proposal. >> when do you expect that to be the more public process to start on that? >> as soon as we consummate the agreement. which we hope to do at the end of this year. >> okay. i would encourage you to get that out sooner. obviously if the entitlement process peruse produces more or less units that is going to change the value of these terms. it's a little chicken and egg without getting too far out on the lease and whatever the program would follow. >> i'm not at a little a liberty to disclose the terms of the changes, but we are always wok, with the city and

the community and they are very interested in ensuring the ultimate development project incorporates the input in the city and the community. they could not successfully get through the entitlement process without that and to preconceive a development plan for the site, they put together a financial proposal based on what they based it on and they anticipate going to the community process and with the city in order to vet different options for development of the site. >> they will be leading that process? >> correct. we are not involved. >> okay you mentioned in your slide on what's new obviously the warriors proposal and their new preferred site, how does that impact at all your plan or is it just new information? >> it's new information that we are

trying to understand. >> okay. thank you. >> commissioner antonini? >>commissioner michael j. antonini: one question on laurel heights that you mentioned the fact if you would have sold you would have to have sold to the highest bidder at least that a lease is being structured would it be possible that you could still deal with the owner of the land and that homes purchased by individuals rather than having to be leased because that might restrict the situation because people who wanted to buy places would be leases and not having actual ownership. >> i don't know whether the ground lease would preclude ownership on the site. based on information i received because i'm not leading the negotiations and not directly involved, but based on the

information i received i believe that ownership housing could be developed on that site. >> that's an important point and we'll follow up on that in the future. >vice-president cindy wu: thank you for the presentation. city clerk: commissioners, that will put you on item 15. item 15: 2014.0487c b. bendix; 4155 575-91144 1501 folsom street - southwest corner of the intersection of folsom and 11th streets, lot 058 in assessor's block 3521 - request for conditional use authorization under planning code sections 145.2, 303, 823, 845.13 and 845.56 to expand the existing nighttime entertainment use d.b.a. calle-oncee and to establish an outdoor activity area within the wmuo western soma mixed use-officee zoning district, the western soma special use district, and 55-x height and bulk district. the proposed expansion will result in a third story up to approximately 1,480 square feet and a roof deck of approximately 1,180 square feet. the resulting nighttime entertainment use will be up to approximately 8,913 gross square-feet. this action constitutes the approval action for the project for the purposes of ceqa, pursuant to section 31.044hh of the san francisco administrative code 12341234 >> good evening commissioners department planning staff. you have been you a conditional use permit authorization and to establish an outdoor activity area with the the

wnuo with the office zoning district. the western soma special use district and a 55 height in both districts. the project includes interior renovation and an addition to create a third story and a roof deck above the second story. as part of the renovation the project sponsor team will limit live performances to second stories and will accommodate a restaurant to provide and outdoor dining area. upon authorizing of the conditional use permit this would require the project sponsor team to acquire the noise limit. additionally, the roof deck outdoor activity area would be held to a more stringent set of noise controls because it is within 150 feet of the building. these controls when it noise admission between "the hours" at 10 :00 p.m. and 6 :00 a.m.. since publication of the case report,

the department has received three letters from the neighborhood that relate to noise and debris. i will distribute these letters now. with this shortly before arriving at the hearing, one of the writers of the letter was able to withdraw his letter while speaking to one of the project. the department is requested approval of the project. the project is consistent with both the current and pending zoning controls for this immediate area. the project contributes to the city's art sector by providing greater employment and entertainment opportunities and opportunities for the city and region and because this site is well circumstantial served