commissioner antonini: i modify my motion. i'm not going to repeat the motion, but where applicable, on the record, we have talked about, conditional uses or whenever, i'm going to move what has been mentioned and agreed upon. we will sever 2a, adoption findings of ceqa. >> so you're taking this separately at this point? the motion is for item 2a, the adoption of ceqa findings. on the motion to adopt ceqa findings. commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner miguel: aye. commissioner moore: no. commissioner sugaya: aye. president fong: aye. >> the motion passes. commissioner antonini: now we move to 2b, st. louis general plan amendment. -- st. luke's general plan amendment. >> did someone have their microphone -- on the motion to approve -- recommend approval to the board of supervisors the general plan amendment to the st. luke's campus. commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner miguel: aye. commissioner moore: aye. commissioner sugaya: aye. president fong: aye. >> the motion pa

commissioner antonini: ok, good. of this group, we are saying that no less than 40 will have to be san francisco residents. and i think coming from situations such as the health care cut -- academy or the community benefits organizations. >> correct. the 40 that i am focus on of that 100 is mostly in entry- level health care. so there might be other kinds of areas of, not so much health care, but entry level that is not captured, but we would still work with cpmc to capture as many additional entry level as we could. it is just the focus is really on entry-level health care to really move that, because that is a growing sector here, a booming sector. commissioner antonini: we also have another 1500 new jobs projected to be created, permanent jobs, over 10 years, of which we are saying 222 will be entry level under the previous qualifier or about 22 per year. that is above and beyond the ones we talked about in the attrition situation. >> correct. yes. commissioner antonini: ok, good. the other thing i want to point o

commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: thank you. a couple of things. first off, i know there was one speaker who talked about, you know, banks all being from somewhere else offhand amazingly enough we have banks headquartered in san francisco -- wells fargo, first republic bank of the west and the american part of union bank although it's owned by the japanese and charles schwab, it's still headquartered in san francisco. i'm not defending the banks but there is a reason why we have branch banking which began here as most of you know by apg to allow smaller depositors to be part of the process because you need a number of people, if you're going to take care of somebody with $2.37, as i was as a kid putting it in my pass book, you have to have a lot of people to be able to make it possible to service people with small needs and seniors and disabled do need to have services that are close to them and most of them, as is the case with me, want to have contact with someone personal, we don't want it through a computer. we don't want it to have to travel t

commissioner wu: commissioner antonini. commissioner antonini: there are some parts that have a long way to go. let's start with the simple ones. most of staff -- what staff recommended sounds fine. it -- i noted this group housing situation in these conversions were you limit it to convert to one unit which could be a huge everett issue and we have had a few big arguments over those -- huge neighborhood issue and we have had a few big arguments over that. we have to watch that one. on our surface parking which gets confusing, what we're saying is under the staff recommendation, we're going to grandfather existing surface parking lots, they can obtain the temporary use permit for five years and they have to get a cu, is that correct? >> hannity's come out there aret -- yes. there are two cu uses. we recommend they become conditional uses. that -- the new ones can come in but only with conditional use. under the c3, the surface parking lots are nonconforming uses. what the legislation does is it takes out the line that says

commissioner antonini: yeah. but we make laws citywide, not just -- because sometimes those laws might have effects on people who are not necessarily residents of an area but do business there and need a branch bank or another service and even though the residents may not want it, they don't control the entire city. they do control their neighborhood to some degree. we just have to look at it from both sides. >> i understand. vice president wu: i would add that i am also supportive of the legislation and of the idea of looking at sales and services, comma, retail, with the other broad category. i believe sales and services, other retail and there's a number of other broad categories within the current definition that we could take a longer look with community members around how those could -- we might want to see them changed. and the last thing i want to say is that, yes, the big banks may invest money in the neighborhoods but they are also required by the community reinvestment act so wanted to remind us of tha

commissioner antonini: that is important. i am glad you're able to clarify that. >> thank you for catching my math, too. >> still sadecki lower and a significantly smaller percentage of the total patients, and the care has to be outpatient care. that is the big demand. >> and when a patient is a non- acute but they are in an acute bed, we do not get reimbursed for them. why would an insurance agency paid for a level of care that is not necessary. it is not a financially sound way to go to put a non-acute patients in an acute bed. commissioner antonini: but on the financial side, that treatment is not necessary, and they are better off having the outpatient kind of care. >> if there is one available, that is true. commissioner antonini: thank you. i had a couple other questions. one is for rhonda simmons if she is here. commissioner fong: we want to keep on the topic. we're going to get to work force after this. commissioner antonini: ok. transportation. we will do that. thank you. commissioner fong: the you have any questions

commissioner antonini: sounds reasonable to me. there are a couple things that i would include at this point. those are my main point on transportation, i believe. it was the part of the transportation demand management plan. commissioner borden: i am glad that he brought that up because i was going to bring that out. i know that all that kind of stuff has been discussed. i think we can include the language about looking at the construction drawings, they are being called in the cu portion. the conditions of approval the create the communities -- >> it was to expand this idea of the community and advisory group. what they are doing for the davis campus for the construction when they have final contest and construction plan. >> it is a final document, that is why they wanted the draft version to review to that they can critique it before it comes final. it is kind of an ongoing and fluid process. commissioner borden: it will also circulate that same kind of document. >> you will be including these in the motion that the advisor regr

commissioner antonini: thank you. i am very excited about this being in the -- excited about this, being in the health profession myself. we are going to end up if this is approved as presented, three hospitals, new or rebuilt hospitals will be at the highest seismic levels, replacing for us ones that are not at an acceptable level seismically. another fact that has not been brought out but it is important is the quality of cal pacific attract many of their patients from outside of san francisco also. we have heard a lot about the development agreement and the good things it will do within san francisco as it should, but it is important because there is this 30% who comes in, mostly private patients, bringing resident -- revenue in that we can use as san franciscans. they perceive the quality of care to be superior. unless we move forward with something like this, we risk the fact of having a loss of patients who could go elsewhere. it is important this move forward. i had a few comments and questions. maybe mr. rich

commissioner antonini: permanent jobs. not the construction. i have heard there are only probably projected to be 100 new jobs created are permanent jobs and 40 are entry level for local hire of people who do not have specialty training. they are entry-level, they may have to be trained by the hospital. is that correct? >> i think it is a little bit more on the permanent site. there is some amount that has a turnover rate. the bottom line is the agreement thus far has been negotiated that it is 40 of those in use entry-level jobs. commissioner antonini: what i am pointing out is the actual number of new and used jobs is not that high. i heard 100 possibly per year and that is only a projection. >> how do i try to explain? the jobs peace is a lot of this thing you have heard here especially on the in use. for the purposes of my work, i have only focused on one end of that continuing. that is not the whole pie. a lot of the conversations and a lot of the speakers are talking about a much broader spectrum. above and beyond the piece that my work i

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

commissioner antonini. commissioner antonini: i would agree with the testimony we have heard. we're only basically dealing with an extension from on sunday through thursday, from the 1:00 a.m. closing to either 1:45 a.m. or 2:00 a.m. at the sounds of a project sponsor would be fine with 1:45 a.m. there are four other traditional taverns on west portal, and as is the case with any on sell liquor establishment, they are permitted to be open, as a right, until 2:00 a.m. to serve all. and as has been pointed out, it is a little different. there's nothing wrong with the four taverns' there. it is a little different atmosphere. you do not have tv's. you do not have sports on. you have a different atmosphere that some people prefer. and non-traditional schedules is another thing that was pointed out by one of the speakers. people do not always work from 8 to 5. the work schedules or they may be getting off, and a lot of people in the restaurant industry did not get off until maybe 11:00 p.m. at night or midnight, and then they might want to go somewhere to relax in the neighborhood.

ok, seeing none, commissioner antonini. commissioner antonini: i would like to ask that item four be taken off the consent calendar. but i would move that we approve the other items, if i could do both. at the b-1, two, three, 5a only. >> on the motion for approval of the items as they are pressed on your calendar, commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner miguel: aye. commissioner moore: aye. commissioner sugaya: aye. commissioner wu: aye. >> thank you, commissioners. those items are approved as they have been proposed. commissioner fong: on item 5b, c and a public comment, we would be inclined to grant the requested variants. >> we will take item four at the beginning of the regular calendar? commissioner wu: yes. >> commissioners, we are now at commission matters. commissioner moore: i wanted to join the director and everybody else congratulating eir staff on winning a national planning award. there are very distinct projects which won awards, many of them went into things similar to what the cit

commissioner antonini: rick, i appreciate that. it is hard to evaluate the transportation element if we do not know what we're talking about. in my mind. i was interested to see that there is a vision and community -- visioning committee, that fifth wheel sitting out there in limbo in effect and has been in all the discussions we have had here at this commission. one on one for the last eight years since they abandoned the idea of building out there in california. i have mentioned the idea of beds, which garcia was talking about. and commissioner borden was discussing the psych bed need, which is important in san francisco as well as the rest of the sea. i was interested in the concept of an urgent care center so again, i pushed the concept of this facility -- it is not a primary hospital, does not seek -- need to meet the same seismic standards. it has been sitting out there for some time. it is sizeable. even has its own parking grudge. it does not disturb the neighborhood -- in that it would be a continuation of the same general

commissioner miguel: thank you, commissioner antonini. as the maker of the motion, i would amend my own motion to include that as a recommendation from the commission, that the provision to turnoff signs when the business closes be eliminated. i think it is necessary for business in general to have that type of advertising available. and i say as someone who capped a neon sign on my own small neighborhood business on after hours, on a timer, it went off at 11 or 12 at night and came back on at 8 in the morning. it support businesses, we're not just talking about certain districts in the city necessarily but the concept in general. i would amend my own motion to include that. commissioner w>> i will run down the staff report. i made the comments already about the automotive uses. first on the lccu's and the conditional use section and whether or not 317 is covering it. can you clarify for me what that means? if passed, what will happen if a -- it is a dwelling unit changes to an lccu or is it the a way around? >> it is when a dwelling unit

commissioner antonini: thank you. i moved to continue to may 3. >> second. commissioner sugaya: it is our understanding that there are enough issues that the product sponsor should attempt to meet with the d.r. requester in the meantime on both sides. if you could inform mr. marquez and ms. hansen that we are encouraging them to meet with the project sponsor before may. >> i certainly will. they have been encouraged to meet with each other. commissioner sugaya: ok. let's give it one more try. commissioner moore: is it appropriate to make it a part of the condition of why we support the continuance? i believe we need to expect accountability towards each other while we see the dilemma he is under having to travel. i do not want to find myself on may 3 in the same kind of he said, see said -- she said. >> i have been for a lot in my early years and the city attorney always informed the commission that although you can strongly recommend and encourage the meeting between all of the parties, you cannot demand it. commissioner moore: then we will leave it up to m

commissioner antonini: very good reports, thank you. the first thing has to do with the caltrain extension. that is and as a show part of the entire project -- that is an essential part of the entire project. i guess these are somewhat development driven. can you give me any idea about some sort of timetable in which this extension would be finished? i am not talking about high- speed rail. i am talking about an extension that would make the trains to be able to come all the way to the transit center. >> unfortunately, the commissioner, i do not know the time line off the top of my head. i believe initially, the schedule called for a completion of the downtown extension by 2019. i am not sure if that has changed. it is dependent on securing the rest of the funding. downtown rail extension, i believe, it is $2.5 million project. this plan would bring close to half a billion dollars to the table. we are continuing to look at other major forces of federal and local funding. -- sources of federal and local funding. the agreement is to put t

commissioner antonini. commissioner antonini: ok, let's see. the first thing i had was in regards to the issue of charitable care which i believe falls into our category here. again, there is representation made about the amount that is being pledged and the fact that it was lower than the year before. well, this is an average of the three years and the $86 million is a floor. it does not include the additional 10,000 medical recipients that will have to be cared for by california pacific as part of the dream, at least 1,500 of which come from the tenderloin and then $20 million to the tenderloin community care innovation fund. as audited fanning has point the out, the charitable things they are doing, the hepb and c and the chinese hospital contributions and multitude of others and other very comparable, from my research looking at other hospitals within san francisco and outside of san francisco, very comparable in terms of charitable care. that's not actually a statement, not a question, but if you disagree with me, certainly, you have anyth

i want to respond to commissioner antonini about jessie street being an unsafe area. we look at the 500 block where an older takes on a building which runs on both jessie and stevenson to put a presidential unit on. none of those people are here to speak against it. there is not an absence of community support. but this report is driving the opposition statement. i am in no position to not support this. that is all issioner borden: itn really interesting. it has been a struggle appear in the sense that, when it comes to mcd's we do not have a ton of tools in our tool kit. there are issues with oversaturation. it is not about safe or unsafe or not providing access. there is an issue in a neighborhood, we hear this all the time. people want to do a coffee shop or drug store. it could be a number of things. we already have a lot of that. we need a hardware store or a gym. it is something that we struggle with because we do not have a lot of tools to make that happen. the thing is, i do believe and we have not, in our current tool kit, we do not have oversaturation as an

that is commissioner fong: commissioner antonini. commissioner antonini: i am generally happy with the development agreement, and we have to remember it is a development for a very specific, very large project, but it is not meant to solve all the health problems or other problems within san francisco, which are a larger subject. we are cognizant of all these other needs, and these can still be addressed in the future. the development agreement can only do with so many things. i think it might be instructive when we come back to have some comparison to some of the things other hospitals of comparable size -- there are too many to compare them to, but you think about stanford, recently, has had approvals regarding the hospital down there, the babies hospital, i believe, and a fairly significant hospital which went through a process not unlike this. but we have to kind of look at what sort -- what development agreement was in place there. what sort of things were given to the city. i think you will find when you evaluate this against o

commissioner antonini: i have a question. i will movies, but odd item number three, part of earlier legislation, we will get some new paperwork, i would assume? >> i asked staff about it and i don't know if they send anything back. >> we still have a couple of weeks before then. it will be nice to see. commissioner antonini: i will move items to the dates specified. >> on the motion for a continuance, items one through four as they have been proposed on your calendar. [roll call vote [ ] thank you, commissioners, the items have been continued as the have been proposed the next category on calendar is the consent calendar. the item number five is considered to be routine and can be acted upon by a single roll call vote of this commission. there would be a separate discussion of this item unless a member of the commission requests, and then the matter can be removed from consent and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing. item 5, case for 2199 market street. a request for a conditional use authorization to co

commissioner antonini: move to approve. >> second. commissioner sugaya: yes. move to approve with conditions. where does that leave the pavement to parks issue? is a part of the condition or is it not part of the condition -- is it part of the condition or is it not part of the condition? quex as the up -- >> as the updated motion was read, there are -- streetscape improvements. the sponsor has requested that be a voluntary option to them, to provide to offer at their discretion and alternatives streetscape improvements. the issue is that we're on the same page about wanting the plaza to been made permanent and done in a very good way that benefits the city and the project. they are concerned and i can speak to a further about there are complications with the site and the timing and they do not want to get caught in a situation without flexibility. their proposal was to have the language say that at a minimum, the better street plan requirements have to be provided. if it is possible and they are willing, they can provide alternative improvements, improvements

commissioner antonini: thank you very much. very impressive. one area here and that is on the housing field. there were some comments as to the level of housing and the number of dollars spent. there was this figure thrown out of $73 million based on -- they began a special use district requirement -- the van ness special use district agreement -- requirement. there have been some considerable amounts talked about here. my math is there is $29 million to moh and another $21.20 $9 million -- $29 million, to people that qualifies as a for both housing and another 35 that would be money that would come back, $35 million that would come back as these are resaled from appreciation. i have that -- i add that up, it comes up to [unintelligible] >> thankyou fok you for raisingt point. i would agree with your characterization of the uses of the money. that is what we have negotiated in the development agreement. a $29 million payment that would come over relatively quickly to the mayor's office of housing tree that will go directly to the affordable hou

commissioner antonini: i move to certify the final environmental impact report. commissioner miguel: i would like to second that and add that i was remiss in not mentioning in my previous remarks the letter presented by peter from will. any individual is spent 16 years as the executive director on ee has a depth of knowledge of this area of the city far more than i could ever have. for the majority of people who are in this room or have been in this room today. i think that his recommendation should be acknowledged. >> planning commissioners, there is a motion on the floor for item number one, the proposal to certify the final environmental impact report. if the motion has been seconded. on the motion to certify the final environmental impact report. commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner miguel: aye. commissioner sugaya: no. vice president wu: no. president fong: aye. that motion passes 4-2. may i call item 2a? the proposal to adopt the environmental quality act. is there a motion? commissioner antonini: i moved to adopt the findings.

commissioner antonini: going on from there. i was pleased today that we heard from some voices we have not heard from before. although it's difficult when you try and read through an agreement such as this because of its technicality. i have read through the development agreement. i did so for many reasons. principally because as the body had said much earlier, and as many of us have said going way back, we're not going to consider anything regarding cpmc's rebuild unless there was a development agreement in effect and now it is not. it is a long way from where it was. i went back and took a look at my notes from june 9 of last year which is approximately when the mayor put out what were termed -- his asked. i had some disagreements with them. i thought they fell short in some instances but others were on track. i am pleased things have moved to where they are now but i still have some questions. dr. norale made a statement in her presentation for minker san francisco needs -- her presentation that san francisco needs st. luke'

commissioner antonini: i appreciate all the comments we have heard, and there are issues. i am having trouble identifying donthem. one issue is height. i hear people saying if you make it shorter it will be satisfactory. the dwelling units on north point are quite a bit higher than beach, and i believe the height of this is only 2 feet into the bottom of the places on no. 0orth point. >> that is correct. the height of the building proposed incentives approximatee same height as the building to the rear, so the roofline would not be any higher than the roofline of the rear of the project, and it would be lower on the north point purblind -- curbline. >> i cannot see any blockage of light to the buildings on the rear of north point? >> that is correct. >> the next area would behin st. hyde -- wiould be hyde street. it looks like a height is 43.6, and the buildings to the west, the martin lawrence building looks like it is 33 feet, and there is a building further to the west that is 37, and further to the west it looks like it is about 56 feet. there is no shadow study, but i

commissioner antonini: well, thank you. the distinction which you pointed out which is important is we are really measuring new housing or net new housing construction as opposed to new methods to make it more affordable which is led moh does and other agencies to do. but i think it would be helpful in perhaps addressing the shortfall in middle income families, because we heard last week about a possible idea of a downpayment assistance where we made housing affordable to a much larger group by the down payment assistance, and you know, this might, even though it is not per se new housing, it might make it -- incentivized builders to be able to build housing. it would be remarkable to people at more modest income levels with this kind of a program and others. the other thing i talked about earlier was the idea of building -- making the subsidy lower, so the builder can build more units at a lower price if they do not have to subsidize so deeply. so if they were required to build perhaps 20% or 25% or even 30% of their produ

commissioner antonini: and we combine that with housing since it is sort of related to? questions and comments, we were asked about the special use district, and i guess this is a question or comment for director lee. you know, we are allowed by conditional use, as an institution, it is not obliged to provide a three times the housing to commercial. but i think everyone pretty much felt that there should be some contribution to the housing particularly because of the impact. what we came up with his $62 million plan here which is significant, provides more housing ultimately that would be the case of using this very clever and very useful addressing middle income housing. the first time, i can remember where we targeted the group that we are having the middle income housing, i know the plan exists on downpayment assistance. it addresses their impact that probably will be significant. we're talking about 6200 existing jobs turning over at the rate of 400-600 a year, projecting 1500 new ones over 10 or 15 years. 15% of the workers live in san francisco now. the reason to b

when we compare other cities, aside from the fact that commissioner antonini mention we are living with land scarcity, i would be interested to see in which intensity ranges other communities are best addressing affordable housing and in what