or even a near van ness. that is the side-running alternative. this is center-running with the doors on the the right, but there is another alternative with the doors on the left. either way, the transit lane would be in the median of the roadway in steady curb. there is no entered in it -- instead of the curb. there will be access to the bus stops with the existing crosswalks. there are full crosswalks on these intersections pedestrian access from the hospital to the nearest bus stop would be quick, just one block away or on the same block. like i said, there is no driveways on van ness. even if it is side-running, it would not interfere. that concludes my presentation on cathedral hill campus. i will turn it back over to our colleagues. thank you. >> good morning. i am from the mta. nice to see you this morning. i want to talk a little bit more about the brt project. yes representing both the ta and mta. the ta is the lead agency for both the van ness and geary brt projects. this slide shows that in novembe

we have three blocks segments but that is how van ness is being sequence. we will be coordinating closely with cpmc. we do not anticipate additional costs within our cost estimate. the goal would be to coordinate inappropriately so all work and occurred during a similar time period, so hopefully we can leverage production to have to be as quick and low impact as possible for that portion of the van ness brt construction. >> and that -- commissioner miguel: i assume there will be a lot of trucks running between the two of you. >> there are fewer trucks with the van ness brt because we do not have excavation needs. but, yes, we will be coordinating closely. there is a traffic management plan. we're working closely with caltrans as well, and they're very concerned with what the traffic sequencing will be along van ness avenue during construction. this is something that is very exciting, but we're getting much more zeroed in on with the construction phase will look like, and we will get many more details of how we will be coordinating the cpmc and for the van n

i do not have the specifics of construction for cpmc or the van ness projects. i am sure other colleagues of mine could answer that question, maybe at a later point. >> good morning. michael schwartz with the san francisco transportation authority. project manager for planning and environmental review on the van ness brt project. we have been moving forward with this schedule, and we will be in front of the commission on may 10 with a recommendation for the locally preferred alternative. our construction scheduling is becoming more solidified. it will not be across the entire corridor for the length of construction. it will be different blocks as we move up and down the two-mile sequence. as we further design construction details, we will be working closely with cpmc to ensure that they're not conflicts or other ways to can accommodate to have construction that occurs during the same time. commissioner miguel: before you leave, i have found on transportation construction projects that there is often a time span prior where utilities, other things regarding prepa

i wanted to ask about the van ness brt in the geary corridor bus rapid transit as well. looks like the transportation authority is suggesting the center running brt and working with the mta to bring that forward on may 15 and to the ta on may 22 as well. my district, richmond, but i think district 5 are a justly awaiting the geary brt as well. i am wondering if you can reiterate the planning and the public outreach and the stakeholder outreach meetings and the public open houses that are coming up very soon with in district 5 and district one? >> absolutely, supervisor mar. thank you for pointing that out. there is absolutely information in the report about that as get a to shorten my report a little bit. but we do have public outrage -- outreach meetings planned for may and july in the neighborhoods to essentially look at not just the corridor in a general but the specific intersections at masonic and fillmore, which have been the source of a lot of debate, and they're the most difficult challenges that that project has. i would reiterate what i said earlier, the agreem

so we will have meetings in the downtown area, east of the van ness. and another set of meetings in the fillmore area. richmond as well. there will be a focus on the major nodes in each of these four segments. a potential option to fill the underpass. the masonic intersection which is very complex. in the western terminus will be engaging with washington high school and the school community on that part of the corridor. we are available, and we will be making the rounds to the various community groups and ensuring multi-lingual access and materials. the draft eis/eir would continue falling this round of outreach. we hope in the spring of 2013, and that maintains our schedule to small starts, the federal program later that year. the pdm partnership project is a reference to a climate strategy grant received from mtc. we're working with the department of environment, planning to permit, and sfmta on ways to figure out how the city and the players can work together to reduce vehicular trips-making and to reduce the carbon emissions from trips. in this are

ness s.u.d. which i'm sure we'll discuss today but it is our intention not to move forward on that f.a.r. bonus until we do so with the larger inclusionary piece so wanted to make that point clear. in general, all of the previous agreement -- agreements that our office has made to planning staff recommendations on the items in phase two of this ordinance hold and i want reite. after planning staff goes through them if there are any recommendations, that you particularly like, need to discuss or respond to, i'd be happy to do so on any of the substantive issues that are part of today's discussion. thank you very much. vice president wu: thank you, mr. true. >> so today i'm going to present on phase two of the true legislation. as you recall, on march 1, you approved phase one which included clerical and minor modifications, transfer of development rights, limited commercial users, bike park and signs. you voted to approve these topics and move them to the board on that date. phase two, today's top

it does absolutely nothing 4 van ness ave. the fact that this building is going to engage the street, what a strange idea. the difference is absolutely amazing to me. and i have to say, i was amused at the comparison with stanford hospital because stanford hospital began in san francisco back in the 1970's and that is why the pacific campus is where it is. the only thing left is the old library, the medical library that is still sitting there. that is the last of it. with all the labor and all of the managed-care and all of the needs of san francisco, we cannot, in my mind, expect one project to be the dependency for all of the ills and to do everything for everybody. i do want to complement those who have been working through the mayor's office, the health department, and the other departments that were involved in the city attorney's office in doing yeoman's work. it is not going to please everybody. it is just what it is. besides that, it is go -- it is going to go on to the board and they are going to do what they are wide

they will be coming up van ness avenue. trucks that are servicing the hospital site will make a left onto geary. they will circle around in a clockwise fashion. you can see the door symbols. those are the construction dates. trucks will be stopping all along the perimeter, all four blocks around the hospital side. van ness, make a right on two- seater, and circle around the block. get back onto westbound geary to make a left turn onto van ness. that is hal trucks will come in and out. those trucks have to stop all along the perimeter. there will be some temporary lane closures as part of the construction. that is with the graphic the picks. all around the perimeter of both projects is primarily a parking lane, and that will be removed. on most blogs, the parking lane functions as either. our -- either peak hour tow away zones. the transit line will be closed, some muni will have to operate general traffic during construction. franklin, you can see a blouson where there is also a lane closure, but that is peak hours. this is

finally we have the van ness sud. exempting affordable housing. they intended to strike this from the legislation so we can go ahead and ignore that. it will not be discussed. the second item removes the specifics in provisions from the van ness use district from the planning code and zoning map. this area would now be controlled by the provisions in section -- in se-- section 606. it would reduce the permitted height of projecting signs from 24 feett to 14 feet. the third and final item removes the one to one parking ratio on the ben s. -- on van ness ave. i do have to point out that there is a provision in the city's general plan that calls for a one to one parking along van ness ave. while this change is not consistent with that specific provision in the general plan, the department feels it is consistent on balance with the overall general plan and the city's transit first policy. with that, i'm available for questions. thank you. thank ycommissioner wu: thank y. public comment on this item? kraska afternoon. i'm a resident of district 2. supe

the county transportation authority, we actually get to vote on the environmental document for van ness and brt, and we expect that that will happen in -- sometime in may, in our may meeting. i know that plans and programs, the chair of that committee, commissioner john avalos, will be scheduling that hearing. i believe that is for may 15. this is a very important development. i want to think the two agencies commit the mta and the ta for working together. i think it is important to be on the same page for these kinds of projects. the last thing i will say is that today we will be getting a brief report from staff on some of the projects that the county transportation authority is funding in the district's two and 10. this is an opportunity to highlight some of the work that is being done in the individual districts that we represent and so our constituents are aware of what you're doing for them as a member of this authority. unless you have any questions, i will open it up to public comment. >> you spoke on a number of topics, three or four, and i want to focus on the transbay. is the

the second is map one of the van ness area plan. the project will be to designate these sites for the medical center and increase the global square-foot area ratio for the hospital at these sites. third is a map two of the van ness area plan. the fourth is a map four of the urban design area. lastly, met five of the urban design element. this will be designed to permit those dimensions of the hospital and m.o.d. site. initiation of these amendments is not a formal recommendation of the project. rather it allows the planning department to provide notice for public hearing. the planning department recommends you initiate the hearings before you today. with that, i will turn it back to ken rich. thank you. >> good morning, commissioners. it has been a long road and we are happy to be with you today. staff, as you know, spent a large amount of time working on this project. really the last several years. the really intensively for the last year. i wanted to spend a moment telling you why this is an important project. there is a state man

i believe that van ness, after much heartache along the way, will actually be a lot better. we will be able to point to the future as something that has helped van ness avenue, which has struggled. various restaurants have gone on that corridor and struggle to be viable. there is still not the amount of foot traffic and activity needed to make a lot of those small businesses, particularly in lower van ness, a viable. for that, during the gentleman from the opal hotel, a hotel i'll always been by but not into, say that he believes it will help, i do believe it will create an economic impact. because we have the great degree of liquidated damages, if i were just taking sutter to court, it would be a different conversation. because the city has liquidated damages provisions on most important areas in this development plan, it makes me feel better knowing we have a true course of action. i am reminded that this is not, even though we call it a development plan, a development plan. it is a replacement strategy for a seismically safe hospital. if cpmc did not choose to do this pro

in particular to the proposed van ness area. the final eir recognizes that building a hospital of this size and magnitude of the cathedral hill campus would result in over 30 significant and unavoidable impact just to traffic. you would think, given all these significant impacts, there would be a thorough look at alternatives to reduce these impacts. this was absolutely not the case. the eir violated every alternative legal requirement in that type of analysis. it set forth a narrow set of project objectives. it failed to analyze a reasonable range of alternatives. and it set forth really disingenuous reasons for not following through with the alternatives. under ceqa, the lead agency may not give the project's purpose and artificially narrow definition, but this is exactly what the eir does. it states that a project objective is to consolidate specialized services and women's and children's services into one acute-care hospital. whether our efficiency basis for consolidating a particular type of service in one place, there's no

that is dangerous -- what is dangerous about van ness. i am not sure if we have unlimited, maybe 1 to one and you would need a cu to go above that. if you can convey that to the president chiu. >> we are looking at adjusting the rc4 numbers if that makes sense. commissioner miguel: thank you. commissioner sugaya. commissioner sugaya: is this in or out as regarding commercial uses? >> let me grab the chart and i can read what we said. commissioner sugaya: it says while the department supports these efforts, lccu's should not be amended without further examination. >> this is the only staff recommendation we partially agree with. let me explain. what we said in february is partially agree -- we partially agree. in no way would we change the provisions for octavia, we will review after the five-year review. we are interested in continuing discussions outside and the other districts this applies to. there are real situations we have heard about where property owners are looking to put lccu's in. we are interested in continuing that discussion

van ness is already highly congested. so these cars will surely find other ways through the tenderloin, and that will cause more traffic and jeopardize the safety of our pedestrians alas, who once a hospital that does not plan to help address the health care needs of the low- income residents in our community? cpmc should be held accountable to the people. we demand that cpmc do its fair share of serving low-income patients. we should not let them pass on their responsibilities to the city. cpmc has the obligation to prioritize service rather than being a non-profit entity. i urge and ask the planning commissioners insurer cpmc do its fair share for low-income people in our community. thank you. commissioner fong: i am going to call some names. gloria, -- carina, henry. >> good afternoon. i am currently enrolled in a city built. i think the hospital will be a wonderful job, because we need more hospitals in our community. also, we, as san francisco residents, can come together and provide healthcare, more jobs, and a safe

cursor during to find a fast way to get to van ness.astoundingly, although the eir identifies regardless of these the public transit, cathedral hill will result in to a dozen more cars traveling to the site. the supplemental traffic study that was just released as part of the final eir says there will only be one car, maybe three cars, at the outside added that the seventh and market intersection, despite the fact that seventh street is the main arterial to leavenworth that extends to heavily trafficked highway 80 freeway exit, leading directly to the foreclosed site. providing for additional street lighting in the tenderloin as the development agreement currently does is a good thing for deterring crime, but it would be several years before those payments are made. it does not address the problem of increased traffic through the tenderloin in an attempt to avoid congestion on and van ness. second, while the development agreement provides for cpmc to provide funds for bus rapid transit on and van ness and geary, it ignores the impact of

that is geary to van ness to golf. that is the existing boundary. >> people came to testify before us and we made changes for people here every time they come to testify but we have forgotten about the people who came before the last one and that is what i am very concerned about, we keep going back and forth and we have gone back on our word. basically. chairman mcdonnell: we have agreed we can revisit our own decisions and we have not made a commitment to anyone. we have not come back -- gone back on our word. where we are now in the process is our highest priority which is population. all other interests from my point of view are secretary to our population challenge. unfortunately, that is going to cause us to have to revisit or in other cases, not be able to accommodate public comment, no matter how strong the case might be. that said, per our list of south of st. luke's. 27th and duncan. >> is it still possible to suggest a couple more tweaks or smaller scale tweaks in this northern part? >> yes. >> one is a ques

van ness is already highly congested. so these cars will surely find other ways through the tenderloin, and that will cause

what we did move to was to look at the residential requirements from the van ness sud. in this case, we wanted to look at what new residential would be required based upon the van ness sud zoning, and then calculate it based upon that new residential requirement, and inclusion dairy unit requirement and an inclusionary feet requirement as the basis of our negotiations. out of the negotiations can this agreement. $25 million to m.o.e. f. funding to the 100% affordable housing developments. this would be approximately 145 units based upon an average subsidy of $200,000 per unit. this is units that typically serve people at the 50% the medium and the low, and often serving people at much lower incomes if possible given alternative sources like rental assistance. or the city's local operating subsidy program, which we manage in conjunction with the department of health and human services agency. there would be an additional $29 million provided to moh for a new down payment loan assistance program for cpmc employees, earning up to the median income. based upon a maximum of

i am talking about the mission hotel at 520 south van ness on south van ness between 16th and 17th and between south van ness and mission. and the all-star at 2791 16th st. which is at 16th and folsom. vice-chair lam: the time is up. thank you. the speaker. >> i do want to thank you, you have done a marvelous job. i'm here to talk about one specific census block. since bought 3001 to confirm it has no population so it is possible. i want to spend my time is telling you the story of the neighborhood and how hard we of worked. i am in that area. i was starting to speak with uc- berkeley a couple of years ago tried to convince someone it would be a good idea to take walls that were tagged in part on them. after getting a letter signed and -- uc-berkeley said ok. we started painting in 2010 and we continue to this day. over 30 artists have worked free. it is a community driven projects. the time, talent and energy of the artists who have grown up in the lower heat. and in many cases grown famous. 55 laguna is on haight street. it is the main artery for the lower and upper hate. the majorit

the reason that was in there is because most of the development on van ness was commercial. they wanted to encourage housing above commercial. that is why that was in there. institutions were exempt. the other thing, i marked the difference between stanford lucille packard with more than 1 million square feet of development and cpmc with more than 1 million. there is a lot more being done here. trying to squabble over the small amount of difference based on the van ness, my compliments to the city for doing this. if there is anything else to add, i am happy to listen to any corrections on my analysis. >> i think you have described the concept. thank you. president fong: if you do not mind, i would like to jump in for a second related to housing. i think the 220 units is significant. it may not be enough, but it is still new housing that we're putting into the city. m

my final reason for supporting this is the help and support for the van ness corridor association. we dream and work toward creating a neighborhood that is healthy and full of promise and we dream of a place in a city that is a destination. reflecting the heart and compassion of this great city and we feel their presence will contribute in a positive way to the environment of our neighborhood. the economic vitality of our merchants and sustainability manners. thank you very much. >> good afternoon, mr. president and planning commissioners. i am a healthcare architect and i strongly support the project in front of you today. i understand the issues associated with such a project. the challenges, the opportunities. i am personally engaged with similar projects at kaiser permanente in oakland medical center, currently under construction. three reasons why i support the project. place and function. over the years there has been effort with great success for the integration of buildings and neighborhoods. health care services are both in with a focus and our the focus. leading to embrac

that is why it is very important for cpmc to follow the van ness and area plant requirements to build affordable housing. therefore, i demand that cpmc should it do more affordable housing in the community. we cannot add to the housing problem of the community, but in said -- but instead, we want cpmc to help our community housing needs. to help the low-income families in our community. thank you very much, commissioners. >> good afternoon. i have lived in the tenderloin for the past 23 years. i am a senior citizen, and i am also a member of the tenderloin filipino american community organization. i am also here to ask the commissioners and your members to ensure that cpmc does its fair share of serving low-income families in our community. we need a development in our neighborhood. cpmc should also serve our needs. tenderloin residents need better access to hospital care. cpmc must accept

are actually one floor lower across the podium, which produces street walls on the majority of van ness and frankly -- franklin. these are actually lower than the existing buildings on the site today. this also improves the sideline, obviously from the neighbors to the north for the tower is more removed, and also the east and west with the thin shape of the tower is subdivided is easier to see by. the design of the medical office building has been completely changed. very much thanks to your comments from the informational hearings and working close with a stop after that. generally we feel comfortable with the direction this is headed. we have really responded to the strong line on the eastern side of vaness and separated the design of the medical office building from the hospital. we believe having the own image is very consistent with the natural variety and scale. the main doorway has been moved to the center of the buildings. there is light colored concrete with a stone base that we think is consistent with the look of the avenue. cedar street is really completely redesigned. it i