california which are parts standard which deals with the health program and development standards which primarily address how the hospital functions on the interior and how it delivers services without getting too specific of what it is. i see references in here which concern me of their vagueness that might change leverage to the building that might affect the public. over hangs, facade, i'm making them up. they are unnecessary of using the justification of a medical center, this is not even a medical center are unique buildings. they are unique buildings for reasons that i say but not enough architecturally to allows those

kind of lenience. i urge you to speak to the architects, that lenience is a concern to me. all of us for the next 50 or 75 years will be the public recipient of a building that still needs to be appropriate architecturally good, whatever the add -- adjective to use. it needs to be a good building and it can't fit things which don't fit the rules to apply to the other things. i would like you to consider how you describe that and where you want to give lenience and not. that is a personal concern to me and i would like to put that to public record. thank you. >> antonini? >> i'm not going to dispute the

sutter health but being in the health care field and through the advent of dental insurance, but being covered in a significant part of it is over a part of the utilization fact. i think the percentage of utilization in dentistry is the same as it was in the beginning of dental insurance in the 70s. a lot of people don't a veil themselves for the benefits other than the cost. i hope people will take advantage of preventative care and reach other health care professionals early in their treatment so they can be treated for outpatient so we won't need the number of beds. so i'm not argue ing with that. we have seen large population and particularly job growth in the

bay area with particular evidence on san francisco bay. i think we are going to see more people in the bay area and in future years and even if areas where people think they are being set to san francisco presumably for the care they may need if they have a special condition. i'm not saying you won't in the future need more beds, but i want to make sure we have not precluded the ability to expand if that's ever necessary. my other question is the monitoring, the question about other groups having input as to monitoring. what is the monitoring? is it going to be by the mayor's office, cal pacific, who is going to monitor and make sure these things are done? >> the way that chapter 56 of the administrative code reads

is planning director is responsible for monitoring. if you tried development agreement it acknowledges the predominance of health care related obligation of the health care monitoring and includes the health department in the process of monitoring. we have met with the community coalition about the report about the complexity of the monitoring needed an the desire to have a community role. we are working on a response to that at the end of the day, the primary responsibility unless we change will still be by the planning director but i think we all recognize that we need to build a more robust plan around it.

>> commissioner hillis? >> i just want to elaborate on that. can you talk about the collateral agreement. i don't think we have done that before. we don't have many d. a.'s. >> it's in chapter -- >> do you know why it's put there. >> i just want to let you know we've been talk together city attorney to talk about what this means. we are definitely working on it. >> i agree with you. this is more complex than what we have used d. a. for. it back in the olden days when we have had redevelopment.

>> it seems like something should be done. and on the parking, you didn't quite finish. why was supervisor chiu interested in that? >> i think that a large park offering a lot of parking that probably would be mostly available in the evening would attract a lot of traffic that would park there for the bars and restaurants. again, i hope i'm getting this right. they are concerned about a lot of traffic generated to the neighborhood in the evening hours by such a generator. >> yeah. why 7 p.m.? >> it's the evening. >> okay. on the affordable housing funding, it says in your term sheet. forgive me,

this may have been discussed prior to. is there a geographic limitation to where the housing of funds? >> there are not a limitation to where the funds can be used. the reference there and probably your colleagues don't want me to spend the 45 minutes of this whole thing. this requires the cu to not have housing as part of the medical project. so it's about providing, bringing in the ability to provide affordable housing that is again generated by the project. >> the tunnel under van ness was part of the project? >> it's not new. it's been a part of the project. the approval was dealt with cal

trans long since basically waiting for that project to be an approved. >> that was the patient >> yes. it's not open to the public. it's just for transporting patients across the street. >> the development agreement ordinance was designed to deal with mission bay. at the time they did not want it to be a redevelopment area. he did not redevelopment, they did not want anything to do with redevelopment. that was sold to a national housing developer and in fact abandoned the old redevelopment agreement and it became a redevelopment area. the development particularly developed for mission bay which

had a series of open space. there were in fact 3 collateral agreements reached with with city and the community based groups. the neighborhood house was made the center of collaboration and community based to over see the employment development commitment made by the original development agreement for mission bay. an open space conservancy that now pretty much exist as the mission bay creek association was over seeing some 35 acres of new open space development for mission bay. the housing community housing organization was december made to over see

the application of the affordable housing agreements in the original mission bay development agreement. the principle issue was how to deal with, remember these development agreements are supposed to last. this one is projected last 14 years. mission bay, the original development agreement was expected to last for 25 years. there would be changed inevitably, changes would occur. and what the collateral agreement, what the community based groups that signed collateral agreements were to deal with were the language in the development agreement ordinance that drew a distinction between material changes and immaterial changes. the planning director can change with an agreement with the developer make small adjustments without going back to the commission or anybody

else. if it is considered to be a material change in the development agreement, it has to come back to the planning commission and if there is a collateral agreement with a community group must go before, must reach an agreement with that community group as well. so that was basically the notion of the collateral agreement. it was limited around affordable housing and other public amenities. there were in fact three signs in the original housing development for mission bay when it was aggregated and what replaced it was a project area, redevelopment area. you are functionally right. it is basically the same as cac. it has the basic function as the cac. cat l.a. did not want it

redeveloped as a redevelopment area. in many ways the redevelopment ordinance, the power was invested in the planning department as opposed to the redevelopment agency. the collateral agreement basically dealt with citizen participation. >> commissioner sugaya? >> yes. i guess mr. rich, during our hearings previous hearings on this development there were people who testified and also i think reactions from the commission revolving around psychiatric services. a lot of discussion around psychiatric services. i don't know if that's being addressed here or not. >> i will try to address that.

i would like to caveat anything i say that i'm not the public health folk. i think we can certainly by the next hearing we can have them here and we have them elaborate on what i say. there is in the health care innovation fund which is one of the requirements that cpm c funds to the tune of approximately $900 million, one of that is to provide outpatient psychiatric care to our community. she prefers to beef up the city's ability psychiatric outside of acute care hospital. if you add beds, psychiatric beds and there is no place for folks to go when

they are discharged from the hospital, then they have to stay in the hospital, which isn't good for anyone. barbara prefers to see the beds outside of the hospital and that's what this is designed to do there is no provision in here for psychiatric beds ends the hospital. >> it would be good if she or one of her representatives came. i think the question is going to come up again. also one of us who visited the psychiatric facilities, we were also given the same -- in addition to the need for additional beds. they also emphasized the need for community based services also. it would be good to hear from her. as long as you are standing there or maybe it's miss -- wadi. there is

reference here, i would like to understand now or maybe later, on section 10425, where parking should not exceed 15 -- 125 percent of the planning code. why are we choosing 125 percent. does that mean that we can, i guess i need an explanation on what that means? >> i'm sorry about my memory. we may have to get back to you on that formula

>> as part of that revised, we did reduce the percentage. >> with respect back to parking, cpm c is studying the best way to achieve the reduction of 237 spaces. i assume that study will be completed and will be incorporated in whatever new design will be looking at. >> that maximum of 990 or 125 percent is for all 3 parking garages which are part of the cathedral hill project. i think what that means that cpm c doesn't know whether they should, how big each one should be, they just know it can't be bigger than those numbers total. >> okay. that includes the 1375 sutter building. was that always part of the deal here? >> okay. commissioner moore. >> questions which you might not be able to answer today but

might have ready for the next presentation. in the previous discussions that it included garcia's conclusion, have we acknowledged the emergency response. >> i would have to remind you that we still have at saint luke's the same size emergency room that we did before. the actual provision and i don't believe, i will double check with cpm c, i don't know if the one at cathedral hill is getting smaller or not. but the emergency access. >> in case of earthquake, the emergency response. >> i will get back to you on that. >> i was going to move to

initiate. >> second. >> commissioner sugaya? >> yes. i should have said it when i had the mic before. i think i'm also in support of some kind of citizen participation and collateral agreement and c a c whatever the manifestation is around the whole development agreement and it's provision. so. >> that was a motion to initiate both sites. on that motion, commissioners? that motion passes unanimously. it places you under public comment. i have no speaker cards. >> is there any public

comment? the meeting is adjourned. >> there has been an acknowledgement of the special places around san francisco bay. well, there is something sort of innate in human beings, i think, that tend to recognize a good spot when you see it, a spot that takes your breath away. this is one of them. >> an icon of the new deal. >> we stood here a week ago and we heard all of these dignitaries talk about the symbol that coit tower is for san francisco. it's interesting for those of us in the pioneer park project is trying to make the point that not only the tower, not only this man-built edifice

here is a symbol of the city but also the green space on which it sits and the hill to which is rests. to understand them, you have to understand the topography of san francisco. early days of the city, the city grows up in what is the financial district on the edge of chinatown. everything they rely on for existence is the golden gate. it's of massive importance to the people what comes in and out of san francisco bay. they can't see it where they are. they get the idea to build a giant wooden structure. the years that it was up here, it gave the name telegraph hill. it survived although the structure is long gone. come to the 1870's and the city has growed up remarkably. it's fueled with money from the nevada silver mines and the gold rush. it's trying to be the paris of the west. now the beach is the suburbs, the we will their people lived

on the bottom and the poorest people lived on the top because it was very hard getting to the top of telegraph hill. it was mostly lean-to sharks and bits of pieces of houses up here in the beginning. and a group of 20 businessmen decided that it would be better if the top of the hill remained for the public. so they put their money down and they bought four lots at the top of the hill and they gave them to the city. lily hitchcock coit died without leaving a specific use for her bequest. she left a third of her estate for the beautify indication of the city. arthur brown, noted architect in the city, wanted for a while to build a tower. he had become very interested in persian towers. it was the 1930's. it was all about machinery and sort of this amazing architecture, very powerful architecture. he convinced the rec park commission that building a tower in her memory would be

the thing to do with her money. >> it was going to be a wonderful observation place because it was one of the highest hills in the city anywhere and that that was the whole reason why it was built that high and had the elevator access immediately from the beginning as part of its features. >> my fear's studio was just down the street steps. we were in a very small apartment and that was our backyard. when they were preparing the site for the coit tower, there was always a lot of harping and griping about how awful progress was and why they would choose this beautiful pristine area to do them in was a big question. as soon as the coit tower was getting finished and someone put in the idea that it should be used for art, then, all of a

sudden, he was excited about the coit tower. it became almost like a daily destination for him to enjoy the atmosphere no matter what the politics, that wasn't the point. as long as they fit in and did their work and did their own creative expression, that was all that was required. they turned in their drawings. the drawings were accepted. if they snuck something in, well, there weren't going to be any stoolies around. they made such careful little diagrams of every possible little thing about it as though that was just so important and that they were just the big frog. and, actually, no one ever felt that way about them and they

weren't considered something like that. in later life when people would approach me and say, well, what did you know about it? we were with him almost every day and his children, we grew up together and we didn't think of him as a commie and also the same with the other. he was just a family man doing normal things. no one thought anything of what he was doing. some of them were much more highly trained. it shows, in my estimation, in the murals. this was one of the masterpieces. families at home was a lot more close to the life that i can remember that we lived. murals on the upper floors like the children playing on the

swings and i think the little deer in the forest where you could come and see them in the woods and the sports that were always available, i think it did express the best part of our lives. things that weren't costing money to do, you would go to a picnic on the beach or you would do something in the woods. my favorite of all is in the staircase. it's almost a miracle masterpiece how he could manage to not only fit everyone, of course, a lot of them i recognized from my childhood -- it's how he juxtaposed and managed to kind of climb up that stairway on either side very much like you are walking down a street. it was incredible to do that and to me, that is what depicted the life of the times in san francisco. i even like the ones that show

the industrial areas, the once with the workers showing them in the cannery and i can remember going in there and seeing these women with the caps, with the nets shuffling these cans through. my parents had a ranch in santa rosa and we went there all summer. i could see these people leaning over and checking. it looked exactly like the beautiful things about the ranch. i think he was pretty much in the never look back philosophy about the coit. i don't think he ever went to visit again after we moved from telegraph hill, which was only five or six years later. i don't think he ever had to see it when the initials are scratched into everything and people had literally destroyed

the lower half of everything. >> well, in my view, the tower had been pretty much neglected from the 1930's up until the 1980's. it wasn't until then that really enough people began to be alarmed about the condition of the murals, the tower was leaking. some of the murals suffered wear damage. we really began to organize getting funding through the arts commission and various other sources to restore the murals. they don't have that connection or thread or maintain that connection to your history and your past, what do you have? that's one of the major elements of what makes quality of life in san francisco so incredible. when people ask me, and they ask me all the time, how do you get to coit tower, i say you walk. that's the best way to experience the gradual

elevation coming up above the hustle and bustle of the city and finding this sort of oasis, if you will, at the top of the hill. when i walk through this park, i look at these brick walls and this lawn, i look at the railings around the murals. i look at the restoration and i think, yeah, i had something to do with that. learning the lessons, thank you, landmarks meet landmarks. the current situation at pioneer park and coit tower is really based in public and private partnership. it was the citizens who came together to buy the land to keep it from being developed. it was lily hitchcock coit to give money to the city to beautify the city she loved of the park project worked to develop this south side and still that's the basis of our future project to address the

north side.xú . >> okay. i don't have a gavel but let's pretend i banged the gavel. i am tommi mecca and i am the chair o