tv [untitled] May 1, 2012 12:30pm-1:00pm PDT
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 to do. >> my understanding is that the jack tar was approved by a less
enlightened diversion of the redevelopment agency. the planning commission cannot take responsibility for that. commissioner miguel: they are now exempt. >> the most -- the best way would be to vote separately on the eir and then you could took -- you could take on other items as a single vote. commissioner moore: i think this is a moment to acknowledge staff for a job which has been skillfully executed. perspective of my vote, i feel everybody has driven this project to the line and try to shape it as best as they can. i want to point to mr. richard, and he came out last friday to address comments which we had last time.
i appreciate everybody for what they did. >> i apologize. i need to a knowledge there is a person sitting here who has not spoken, up from my staff, that wrote that memo. i want to acknowledge her. commissioner moore: i want to thank everybody. the thing i have to say, i regret that this project has to become a special use district. i believe that that is not the tool for delivering a project like this. i do believe that hospitals planning and design is part of a larger city investigation for corporate site, size, location. in this case, we are having an uphill battle for the special use district turns upside down all city policies, including the van ness corridor area plan.
i regret that we have to go that way. i believe that, for many years, the transformation of van ness, which has a long history of transforming itself, into something of was supposed to become the residential boulevard, we have designed land use policies which have guided and shaped approval for design, policy, and corridor revitalization for decades. what we have in front of us was too big a move -- i am not sure as to whether we will get the boulevard we all dream about. i put that out there because i think it could have been done differently. i think that a planning
department-driven neighborhood or whatever plan which would have shaped the project more are around larger city policy in a larger context in terms of planning and physical design would have been a better way to go. commissioner borden: there are a lot of regrets in that regard. the challenge that we always have in the planning commission, we do not own land. the city owns very little land and that land is very -- we are not in a position to develop that land, the port and places that you could not put housing. it was always a challenge because those decisions about buying land are not in our hands. it would be great if cpmc worked with the city to identify those sites were all this could happen.
obviously, there are lots of regrets. we are way down the road. it is interesting because, in a lot of ways, the current, existing hospitals are not in the most accessible locations, getting to the pacific or california campuses, there are not as many options of people -- as opposed to someone who is going to cpmc. there are benefits to being on a transit corridor. you do not need an eir to know there will be major traffic impacts. look at the environmental review document and you know that. it deeply saddens me that you could not have had the transit come in before the project. that is partially our own fault for taking a long time on making decisions around brt. that is a frustration. a longer conversation about how
we get in transportation improvement in advance of some of the development we hope to see, we do a little bit of that along third street. we have not done that in many places. that is something we need to work on. at the end of the day, we know this project will maintain the jobs that we have and hopefully, create new jobs. relating to the union's issue, obviously, i would not support the project because that is deeply concerning to me. the nurses and the engineers. unfortunately, i do not have the discretion in that area. i just wish that those issues could be resolved because it does affect the health care in hospitals and it does make me scared as a patient, quite frankly. that is not the issue on the table here today.
ultimately, this is a hospital rebuild project. is it perfect? no. the planning commission, are we the body that will be able to change how it looks? no. there is a development agreement. for where we are, the only people, at this point, that are right to make any substantive changes are the mayor and the board of supervisors. i think that we had a lot of strong statements and i think we will all continue to work with the board of supervisors because there are some unresolved issues that do need to be dealt with. unfortunately, our delay would not help benefit that. frankly, i believe we need to move forward with the rebuild of this project sooner rather than later. in our own experience, the long,
drawn-out experience in dealing with this situation, is not necessarily that we saw progress by pushing back. the planning commission has not seen that to be the result of our actions 3 to me, the best decision is to move forward so that they can become the plan it needs to become for san franciscans. that we could finally get to creating the jobs and opportunities. 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 project and decided to retrofit their existing facilities, i do not know that the city would be the better for it. the alternative of not moving forward with the project as they
are, i spent eight days at the campus in california. it definitely is -- it definitely needs a refresh. that is an issue. something that is very fascinating when people talk about gridlock and traffic congestion. a few years ago, there was a big debate about helipads that general wanted to do. i grew up in baltimore. at a different times, it was the murder capital. one of the reasons it is not is because they have shock trauma helicopters to save lives. i know is not very popular and a was to put a -- nobody was put a helipad on top of van ness avenue, but that is how cities that are innovative are doing it. and those cities have less traffic congestion than we do. it is hard because what we often
want and what we often need are not going to be met in any individual project. obviously, there are other issues of schering this overall -- obscuring the overall process that make it more complicated, but at the end of the day, i am going to support the rebuild and i hope that it does make us all proud when it is finally built with all of the provisions that we put into place, that it is the hospital that everyone wanted it to be. i just wanted to say that on the record. i have been very outspoken about this project. commissioner sugaya: based on all of the testimony that was presented, both today and at the initiation, other hearings that we have had, i have always been surprised, maybe i should not be. there does not seem to be much
cooperation, sympathy, support between the unions themselves. i understand that the trades are really in trouble and have been in trouble. they are pushing for jobs. at the same time, their brothers and sisters, nurses and stationary engineers, are having their own issues. for the unions not to be able to come together is kind of disheartening, i guess. there is nothing, as commissioner borden said, that we can do about it here. it is just an observation of mine that if it were really a uniontown, the trades would say, we are not going to build it until you resolve your issues here. anyway, i do not have much more to say other than that. how are we going to vote on this
procedurally? >> on the eir and then the remaining items in bulk. commissioner sugaya: can we separate out the development agreement? >> you could vote together on the other items, but you could separate it out if you wanna do. -- if you wanted to. commissioner sugaya: that eir is separate for everything else. if you force me devote every -- on everything else, i will vote no. there are certain aspects that i could accept but it does not matter because it is like to pass anyway. -- it is going to pass anyway. commissioner moore: 3 things. i would support that we take it by type of campus and eir and
development agreement separately so that there would be four different lots of things. i have two comments to make. we have hardly, at all, talk about the eir. we'll talk about everything else, at least compared to the way we normally discussed and lay out the discussion until we find that eir complete or accurate or refine the remaining significant unavoidable impact. i want to point that out because the discussion has been 90% about other things. we have not given it quite the workover as we normally do because we have impact of traffic, pedestrian safety, the high shadow, increases in wind
speed, the list goes on. i just want to make sure that we remember that. the other thing, and we will not have much time to discuss that in detail, i do believe that, aside from the oversized campus, the architecture has come forward in a way which i believe it is responsive to many of the concerns expressed. the differentiation in the medical building massing on the corner of geary and van ness has come a major way forward. so has the variation in massing on the cpmc south corner. if i recall correctly, the changes about st. luke's, ahead of it being -- aside from being
too small, has always been comfortable. the building has gotten better. there are negotiating with neighbors and i thought that was a positive comment and should be acknowledged. the fact that it followed street scape a improvements -- and -- streetscape improvements. overall, it is a much better project aside from the details of size and environmental impact. commissioner antonini: thank you to staff, in particular. the executive summary and the commissioner questions and staff responses were very well done.
as a health-care professional, i am particularly proud of this project and i also very appreciative to efforts by staff and the mayor's office in working on getting on the development -- getting the development agreement together. harkening back to the jack tarp, it was the first hotel built in san francisco since the 1920's. a couple of years later, they said it was the box that the jack tar came in. i would like to move to certify the final eir. >> second. >> commissioners, the motion on the floor is to certify the final eir. commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner miguel: aye. commissioner moore: no. commissioner sugaya: aye. president fong: aye. >> that motion passes 5-1, with
commissioner moore voting against. commissioner antonini: commissioner moore, did you want -- deduce a one and this by campus? >> the amendments need to be made in a certain order as prepared in the agenda. you could not take them item by item, but they cannot be taken by campus. commissioner antonini: should we do each one individually? what's the next item is ceqa findings. the development agreement is the last item. you make a recommendation and you do not have final authority on the d.a. you could take items a-m and n separately. >> i will make that motion for it we will move for approval of items a-m and i will not go into
what each of these is. >> wait a minute. hold on. >> i want to point out that there were two sheets that were submitted to the planning commission for conditions of approval and the development agreement. i would suggest that that be incorporated into the approval motion. second, there was discussion about adding a transportation demand management for all the campuses. that also could be added. there was also discussion of adding a construction management strategy or program for the davis campus. finally, in a project like this
one, with many documents, there are always technical changes that the staff finds as they are preparing to bring this to the board of supervisors. i would also recommend that a motion -- that the motion include delegation for staff to make the technical corrections as they find them in the various documents. commissioner sugaya: i would agree. i was going ask if you wanted to talk about the transportation management. >> i think he hit that straight on. it would be applied on the three additional use applications and would be on the davies campus to elaborate the construction management plan to allow distribution of a draft specifically to the neighborhood but also to any neighborhood organization that chooses.
when it had asked to make that plan available to all campuses and all neighborhood organizations who so choose. commissioner antonini: the motion would be a motion to approve with the transportation management plan as part of the c.u.'s for the 3 campuses but available to other campuses. finally, staff having the ability to make technical adjustments but not to change the overall significance of any particular motion. that is a through m. that is a motion for it >> i would second that. commissioner sugaya: unfortunately, i have to vote against the whole thing. i was prepared to vote for certain things like 2a.
commissioner antonini: we could separate 2a. president fong: we have been here since 10:00 a.m.. if you want to go through each one, that is fine. 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 passes unanimously. on the 2c, the request for general plan amendments for the general hospital. to recommend approval to the board of supervisors for the general plan amendments commissioner antonini: antoniniaye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner miguel: aye. commissioner moore: no. commissioner sugaya: no. president fong: aye. >> that motion passes 4-2. item 2d. commissioner antonini: the consistency of the long-range development plan. >> that is fort st. louis,
cathedral hill, and davies. on the motion for adopting the general plan and consistency findings. for st. luke's, cathedral hill and it davies. commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner miguel: aye. commissioner moore: no. commissioner sugaya: no. president fong: aye. >> the motion passes. item 2e. planning code text amendments and planning code map amendments for the st. luke's hospital. on the motion to recommend approval to the board of supervisors for the planning code text and map amendments for the st. luke's commissioner antonini: campus antoniniaywe.
commissioner borden: aye. commissioner miguel: aye. commissioner moore: aye. commissioner sugaya: aye. president fong: aye. >> that passes unanimously. item 2f, the request for a conditional use authorization with amended conditions to include demand management. this one is for st. luke's hospital. on that motion -- commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner miguel: aye. commissioner moore: aye. commissioner sugaya: aye. president fong: aye. >> that motion passes unanimously. item 2g, request for development authorization for the st. luke's hospital campus. commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner miguel: aye. commissioner moore: aye. commissioner sugaya: aye.
president fong: aye. >> that motion passed unanimously. item 2h, consideration of a motion for the general plan referral for the st. luke's campus. commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner miguel: aye. commissioner moore: aye. commissioner sugaya: aye. president fong: aye. >> thank you, commissioners. item 2i. planning code text and map amendment for the cathedral hill hospital. commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner miguel: aye. commissioner moore: no. commissioner sugaya: no. president fong: aye. >> that motion passes 4-2. item 2j. a request for additional use authorization for the cathedral
hill campus. that includes the transit management modification. commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner miguel: aye. commissioner moore: no. commissioner sugaya: no. president fong: aye. >> that motion passes 4-2. item 2k. this is a request for development authorization for the cathedral hill campus. commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner miguel: aye. commissioner moore: no. commissioner sugaya: no. commissioner antonini: -- president fong: aye. >> the motion passes 4-2. item 2l, consideration of motion
for the general plan referral for the cathedral hill campus. commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner miguel: aye. commissioner moore: no. commissioner sugaya: no. president fong: aye. >> thank you, commissioners. that is a 4-2 vote. item 2m. this is a request for additional use authorization for the davies campus. with the trend the demand management alteration or modification. and construction management plan. commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner miguel: aye. commissioner moore: aye. commissioner sugaya: aye.