recommendations, but they were not incorporated in the commission's motion. the commission's motion only had two recommendations -- >commissioner moore: that is an incorrect recollection. >> i think in the end, you chose not to wreck -- not to change the parking signs. president olague: i remember it differently also. we should listen to the minutes. >> staff will do that. >> the historic preservation meeting did meet yesterday. a couple of items they had for review of comments. pier 36, the bourse project. after discussion, they felt

their prior letter on review and comments have not been adequately addressed. this time, they just wanted to send a letter suggesting there be altered language, altering m oa with language the interpretive program should be created by a historian that meets the qualifications of the secretary of the interiors standard. that letter should be forwarded by port staff. the natural resources area management plan, they approved sending a letter on the draft environmental impact report. they approved sending a letter that highlights four points -- the mitigation measure under mcp 7 , the icp 8, the adverse

impact when the -- the historic resources should be evaluated by a landscape architect and historian and the qualifications of the secretary of interior, before these -- as these projects move forward, it's anticipated they will undergo a section 106 process for federal permits. they want to point out the commission could not in greek on the integrity of shark park. the commission also continued their discussions of articles 10 and 11. they discussed part of article 11, but time ran out for them, so they continued it until their october 5th meeting. that concludes the report for historic preservation. president olague: can i have a

copy of the minutes? i was following what was going on with shark park. commissioner antonini: are we going to have the opportunity to weigh in on any of the considerations regarding shark park? great. [unintelligible] >> it was part of the eir for you. with that,, commit -- with that, commissioners, we can go in to our general public comment with a duration of 15 minutes. members of the public may address you on items of interest to the public that all within the subject matter jurisdiction of this commission with the exception of agenda items. agenda items may not be addressed during this category. with respect to this category, each member of the public may address you for up to three minutes.

keep in mind, the entire category has a 15 minute time limit. i do have speaker cards. president olague: [reading names] >> thank you, madame president. members of the commission, ladies and gentlemen, for 30 years, i've been a psychiatrist in the emergency service at san francisco general. i am here to address you as a member of the physicians organizing committee regarding the sutter health long-range plan and its ongoing failure to address the psychiatric needs in our community. just two days ago, the "carnival" ran a plan about st. luke's hospital. -- the "conical" ran about as a look hospital. patients can often be found on

gurneys are part in the hallway. a sick child without insurance may share a room with a smelly homeless person whose screams, spitz and swears. that patient strapped to the gurney should have been admitted to psychiatry, showered, fed and otherwise given humane and appropriate treatment. instead, according to one of my colleagues, he may spend up to four days in their emergency rooms strapped to the gurney. the reason for that is that st. luke's 32-bed psychiatric unit was closed entirely in 2005. 50 years ago, california decided the chronically mentally ill should not be segregated in government hospitals but should be treated in the community. sutter seems to be trying to reverse this with a policy of the few don't build it, they won't come. nevertheless, many psychotic or suicidal patients make their way to a medical emergency room and with no psychiatric facility, there is no way to give them adequate care.

overcrowding and my facility makes transfer very impossible and the patient's room windup to quickly on the market street sidewalk. to make matters worse, sutter is petitioning you to build a 555 dead general hospital at the cathedral hill site without a single inpatient psychiatric bed. the psychiatric resources for their entire system will be a handful of existing psychiatric beds at their pacific campus would have never served the chronically mentally ill. when the patient appears the new hospital, will they spend four days strapped to a gurney in the gleaming new emergency room? inpatient services are an integral part of a modern general hospital and desperately needed in san francisco. a product of this size has an obligation to provide comprehensive services meeting the community's needs, not just to cherry pick a profitable and fashionable. weir's the planning commission

to put senator's plan on hold -- we urge the planning commission to put solder's plan on hold. president olague: if i called your name, you can start coming to the microphone. i think i have read off about five different cards. if you perjure name, please come to the microphone. >> good afternoon, president and commission. i am dr. michael hart nenet. i do not practice at st. luke's, but i do practice in the community and took care of a lot of indigent patients that have lower reimbursements. i know how difficult it is to run an office when you are with

metical patients -- medi cal patients. the building's owners are planning to raise the rents significantly for the existing physicians and not only that, they are charging retroactive increases as much as five years. there are also adding fees for use of the hallways and after- hours office visits. to me, it's obvious that sutter is trying to drive out the community physicians that are barely making a living when there office -- in their office as it is. they're planning not to -- planning to have the right to refuse these physicians to sign

a new leases. in my opinion, as someone who has had experience taking care of these poor patients, they will have no doctor to get to and i'm wondering if sutter is retaliating against physicians practicing at st. luke's and are expressing their concerns to the plan. this is the only hospital south of market besides san francisco general. many poor patients depend on this. they're going to lose their primary care physicians, i do not want to try to speculate what's going to happen. thank you. president olague: thank you. if i have called your name, you can please come up.

>> good afternoon, commissioners. i am speaking on behalf of nancy bell and then -- dr. nancy bohnnon. i have been practicing at st. luke's as an endocrinologist for 35 years. i am speaking to register my disappointment with cpnc and call upon the planning commission to hold to their charity care obligations and demand cpnc support the doctors treating the low-income population served by st. luke's hospital instead of driving the out. as a physician who does clinical research as well as patient care and publishes an presents medical papers on and a chronology, i've maintained my practice at st. luke's for all these years because my commitment shared by the hospital. i make sure my patients get the best care possible and i submit

this is the highest standard of care my patients would get otherwise. cpmc is seeking to increase rent and impose other conditions to the point they're driving is out of practice and denying patients care. we are of the opinion it would rather let the medical building lie fallow so they could justify a smaller hospital or not at all since there will be any physicians available to treat the patients. there are increasing the price for square-foot and adding hikes going back five years, charging -- and offering only leases with no right to renew and denying the right of first refusal to be in the new medical building. they have begun to charge extra for -- for having office hours past 6:00 and on the weekends, times when many people who work desire office visits. disserts doctors to seek to make their services available to those -- this hurts doctors to

seek to make their services available to those. with these increases, they're not only getting rid of established doctors, but discourage new doctors from coming. because cpmc has undermine stability by refusing to give options to renew leases and right of first refusal in the new buildings, a network of doctors to need others to him to refer. after these changes, they will say and 80-bed st. luke's is adequate. it's not true the medical staff is unanimously in support of the long-range development plan. many of us have had questions from the beginning, including how they can clean -- how can claim and 80-bed hospital is adequate. thank you. >> good afternoon,

commissioners. i am standing here as a member of the physicians organizing committee. i have been a metal -- a mental health social worker for over 60 years. their mission bayview -- i have witnessed cpmc moving services out of st. luke's hospital, even after it the removal of the 32- bed inpatient psychiatric hospital. they have continued to dismantle care. i can speak firsthand to the matter in which these have affected my clients. recently, the spanish didies class's have been closed at st. louis -- at st. luke's. -- the spanish diabetes class's have been closed at st. luke's. discontinue all cuts in services that are very concerned what will be cut next. by allowing them to downsize to

80 beds, you are determining not only the size of a hospital, but the quality of care for generations to come. i am calling for the planning commission to focus your attention not on the needs of sutter, but the needs of san francisco's this and franchise. san francisco general is overwhelmed and you must reject a plan that would remove necessary services away from this part of the city. cpmc can say they will continue to service the port but they will need to travel if -- when you are ill, have little money and fight it difficult to get around, this is catastrophic. they receive many tax breaks because of the charitable services they claim to provide sam franciscans. the truth are they are in the business of real estate and making money while health professionals do all the work. you, as the planning commission are entrusted by the people with

the responsibility of making sure there is space for housing, industrial use, and for us, at this moment, ensuring the community's health by ensuring access to physical and mental health services. do not given to their pr or claims that salutes is an albatross around their necks. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am a primary-care physician at st. luke's and i have been practicing there for decades. unfortunately, my mission to treat the low-income is being undermined the buyingcpmc. the new rate outside of office hours i hold, i used to volunteer for an organization that could not otherwise get access to care and is increasingly expensive because of added fees. i have to discontinue the

charity care i was rendering. i have to renew my lease, they will not give me the option of an extended lease, jeopardize in the future of my entire practice, casting it into uncertainty. what i asked why they will not give an extended lease, they only tell me it is the decision of cpmc. there are not any doctors interested in coming to this community set -- to set up practices, yet they are increasing rents, reimbursements are going down and with the current crisis, italy going to get worse. these specialists are frayed -- is only going to get worse. what is critical is the fact that many of my patients are losing their homes and are desperate. it's not just the latinos, but caucasians and others also. we have to be positive and reassuring because our patients are suffering from multiple psychosomatic disorders. all health-care workers should come to work with a good disposition. both of these worries and fears,

if not a good situation. the planning commission must work with the board of supervisors and mayor to act accordingly, deny the long-range plan and deny tax exemptions because they are undermining our practices. president olague: is there any additional public comment? >> i want to support the people just spoke about st. luke's and talk about a neighboring problem, mission street. i am glad to hear you had a good experience at the movie but looking at the commission, i don't think any of you depend on circulation on mission street buses. the mission street buses south of the planning department -- north of the planning department, yes. but those of us in the area of the mission no the buses really

don't work. i would ask you because you are dealing with cpmc you are dealing with brt -- the buses going down mission travel at the speed of glue. they cannot move. no one wants to face the issue of parking, traffic lanes and buses. if we don't do this, you are consigning people in the southeast part of the city to being fourth class citizens, not even third class citizens because the bus system works really well if you live in the areas that go east-west in the richmond, sunset, our entire system is built for you. we have no high speed. all we have this third street and it is way over on the edge. the people who lived in the mission, burn all, glen park,

deserve a functioning transit system, and that means more that there is a bus, at the bus that moves rapidly and you don't have to spend an hour getting to the planning department from my house. on the buses. it is ridiculous at times because no one controls -- the parking control does not control double parking trucks, buses get jammed, people make left turns, and no one wants to say we need to take some of the parking off mission street. you have not had a hearing on mission street as long as i can remember. i do not know. maybe the board of supervisors. what are they doing with crt? it has been on the books as a party for decades. there is no momentum to do it. there is momentum for everything

else but mission street. president olague: thank you. is there any additional public comment. >> i am mr. brown, from valencia gardens resident council. i was here and spoke to you last week. we received a continuance on the project on 15th street, and we are very grateful for that. the issue that was of concern, and i think there was communication about that last week also, it is that maybe there was something to review or looked at again for sections 311 and 312, the notification of the neighbors for a project. with not being notified about

the project on 15th street, i did receive a letter notifying me that a mobile food truck wants to use a parking space across the street from valencia gardens that had no information on the 15th street project. i think in comparison that kind of brings to light that we have a situation. if we could go ahead and put that on the agenda. president olague: we talked about having them on the agenda for october, i believe october 21. i forget the date exactly. we also talk to some of the neighbors about having a meeting with mr. sanchez, a more quiet conversation about these things so we do not have three minute rules and the things that prevail here. we will definitely work on those. >> thank you.

president olague: thank you. is there additional public comment? seeing none, general public comment is closed. commissioner sugaya: i did have a meeting i should have mentioned with the mayor's office. they filled me in on the activities involved with oscbmc. my question was whether there was discussion in the mayor's office or the agreement they are trying to forge with cpmc regarding psychiatric man's, and he said there was none. i think that is a real concern and people here need to contact mr. young in the mayor's office. that would be the starting place, i think. i am just expressing my concern after having visited the general hospital psychiatric emergency

facility. i think we ought to urge the mayor's office to take this into consideration while they are developing their agreement. president olague: we both went to s.f. general to take a tour of the psychiatric wards. it was a humbling experience for me. there was a lot i did not know about the way the things work. i think this is a bigger issue than cpmc. this is something that the looking at seriously, how psychiatric care in san francisco, especially for low- income folks, but for everybody in general -- i think it is bigger than this project. i think that conversation is long overdue. to the extent that we can put pressure on the city to look at this issue overall, i think it

is time. if we can use this as a place to raise it, i am happy to raise it to this project. i think it goes way beyond this project. i would be interested in understanding a little bit more about rent increases. i guess i will check in with staff about that. i want to know the current rate and when they have received these increases, and a little more detail about that. i am not sure how it relates to the project itself. it is important to understand how they are working with st. luke's and the physicians there. i am interested in learning more about that, but i am not sure. it is not on the calendar. i am sorry, ms. avery. >> there are more like coming

on. you guys should keep going. president olague: maybe we can put this on the agenda for next week. just put it as a brief item, and then we can ask and elaborate then. maybe we will be able to do that. commissioner antonini: i was just calling to agree with putting this important issue on the agenda for next week. commissioner sugaya: i had a different comment on a non- agenda item that i will raise anyway. it is on the status of the health care master plan. if we could ask public health.

>> thank you. commissioners, going back to your calendar -- [laughter] vice president miguel: two weeks. >> going back to the calendar, your regular calendar starts with item 10, an informational presentation on mta. that is right. the -- we skippe, the consent item. you move that to the first item on the regular calendar. case no. 2,011.0557 c, 1300 26th avenue. >> before you is a request for a conditional use authorization to establish a wireless at&t telecommunications facility at

the southeast corner of 26th avenue and irving st.. >> i am sorry. just a moment. >> within an nc-2 neighborhood commercial district. the building contains 28 dwelling units above a commercial store front that is vacant. the building contains an existing wireless facility on the rooftop operated by verizon wireless. the project was to install a wireless facility consisting of six panel antennas, six of which would be facades amounted, and two of which will be roof mounted. there will be painted to match the building. the equipment cabinets will also be located on the roof. it is a preference two location per the setting guidelines because the site is considered a co-location site. there has been one phone call

from a neighbor citing health concerns. the department of public health has also reviewed the rf report and has found the proposal coincides with current fcc guidelines. the department recommends approval with conditions, for the following reasons. it complies with general planning code policies. it is a location preference, eighth to use location, which is preferred under the guidelines -- a two use location, which is preferred under the guidelines. the antennas will be minimally visible from pedestrian level. and the project will improve the comprehensive wireless telecommunications network in san francisco. this concludes our presentation and i am available for questions. thank you. president olague: project sponsor?

>> good afternoon, commissioners. i am with at&t external affairs, representing the san francisco area. i am joined by the people who conducted the radiofrequency reports in your packet. i am here today seeking your approval to pace -- to place this facility. this is a preference two location, as adrian stated. it meets with the necessary and desirable component under section 303 of the planning code. i want to thank adrian for his and the planning department's work on this. i am available to answer questions if you have any. president olague: public comment on this item? if you would like to speak to it?