there's concrete stone and it involves sun shades. in this have you we're looking to the corner of franklin and post. you can say the impact of the impasse is render in glass and stone and improved. from the north the tower is dramatically sub divided and in slabs it has glass and panels. on behalf of the stone base is the glass panels. looking west this is up the improved cedar street the two buildings are appropriately

different. movie to the redevelopment of st. luke's gnaws it has a new you public plaza on the san jose highway. this has external entrances to the hospital. and the main stair will be reopened. the proposed 7 story for the hospital adds two floors. the original 3 story medical office building retains unchanged it's been changed to 35 feet. this expend from san jose to the south and the scale to respond to that thought existing neighborhood is proud through a consistent brick base and

multiple colors. in this have you we're looking north that from south the new plaza opens through chavez. the large staircase is in the concourse that leads to the upper and lower plaza. there's an emergency process here. the view from the corner is sub divide. the new hospital and the medical office building will support the gnaws with the community. seen from chavez it will provide

access to the medical believe. we were challenged to meet a lot of qualities to make those programs fit into the 21st century. the scale to fit into the neighborhood and we believe that the 5 new believes answer the challenges and those buildings will commitment the neighborhoods. thank you >> is there further presentation from staff? i'll call a number of names it you could line up on your right side of the room (calling names) if you're ready to speak you you

can approach the podium. >> ready? - david i wear many hats actually noogs in addition to the health board i serve on the board of directors and more importantly through a group called san franciscans for health care jobs and justice. we've been working on this for 6 years. we want to congratulate the city for reaching this deal. for reaching this agreement and there's a lot to like about that but we have concerns we say congratulate trust by verify. just reporting back to the you been public on the website or

traffic studies every few years is not enough. we're asking inform a collaborative agreement to come up with a way to really monitor and verify. remember this thing isn't going to be finished for 5 to seven years. and as a result, the memory that we have now in the development agreement who knows what's going to happen all this time from now. we want to make sure that the good faith and good intentions of c pmc health are catered forward. we want to true but we look at the behavior of the other areas they haven't loopholes kept to their agreement. sadly when they acquired the

psych unit there was a deal with the city attorney but they closed that unit that. this building as no psych beds. but the needs of the community this agreement needs to be verified we need a collaborative agreement >> thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please >> i'm a resident of districts 5. we're very glad to see a 1 and 25 beds on the table, however, our psychiatrists are very, very

concerned at the fact that those two buildings the hospitals will have zero psych beds. unfortunately contrary to the comments the patients the mental health patients is not the same population you're going to get in the psych unit at sf general. navigate we've he taken several of the planning commissioners here and had physicians explain to some of the commissioners on the board that the psych needs are very, very intense. the psych unit still goes on diversion 25 to thirty percent of the time.

st. luke's was the overhead facility. we were at the conference and physicians from all around the world is shocked that this is being considered so we're stating for the record that we'll be following up in other meetings. our psychiatrists we have at least thirty psychiatrists and psychologists and mental health nursing put together a dan of the acute beds as well as medical and non-medical detox beds. so this is coming from the mental health professionals

throughout northern california looking at the needs specifically for san francisco bay area. we have a statement of principles that's in line with those finding of the analysis. thank you >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners aim mark with the hart's economical incline. the - we've been involved for the last several years very actively in monitoring the proposal. i'd like to address the need for co- lateral agreement we sent a copy of the letter to the commissioners i have a hardcopy for the record and some extra

copies for the staff. specifically we're looking for 3 things one is a strong monitoring program, the proposal that was put before you is not sufficient. we think we have to have a convenient. the seconds involves the future amendments to the changing world of health care. there will be merriments that will be material and not material but making the distinction is absolutely critical. for material changes there's a good process. for modifications that are not

material even dmr under the agreement there's no a specific agreement to get notice of that change of an early enough time to get to staff. interesting and contrary to what mr. rich shouted the agreement on page 41 section 10.5 constitutes the provisions for reviewing non-material modifications and supercedes them. it's the last line in that provision doesn't seem to me own reading to provide any opportunity for pedicab interference when the planning director wants to make an

amended change. that will lead to a dramatic change in the agreement. we support the current development agreement but we also think it's important that they not change and get erode over time when there's changes of personnel and we want to come up and have a discussion but we want to have a discussion - >> your time is up. >> i'd welcome me questions. >> let me call more names (calling names) >> member of the coalition council housing organization.

let me try to continue on from profess professors remark without the legal grounding but english is my mother tongue and i can read it. we have submitted to you to the development agreement ordinance we urge you to accept for us to meet with you and try to reach on agreement on how the community and you are notified in the sole discretion of the director of planning in chapter 56 of the code in determining major and minor qualification.

mr. riches & certification you would be involved if a comma is changed it's not sported in 10 section. indeed my reading of that section actually makes subsequent approvals far easier would no one's involvement. i think section 10.5 is going in the wrong go direction especially the amendments given to you by staff today. i think the way we solve this problem is to accept the coalitions amendments in the period of the terms of the co- lateral agreement limited to changes in this document. i'm sorry 10.5 doesn't do what

mr. rich says it does and it seems contradictory to the amendments we support given a robust public hearing on reports. it's in the report that's the issue it's the change in this merriment >> hello, i'm with the neighborhood coalition. i want to speak in favor of the co- lateral agreement. i'm going to speak on transportation. i can't illness an area like this would be more important than transportation.

we can see that the project sponsor has produced a lot of new enhancements to the proposal and survey and n defining and reviewing traffic impacts around cathedral health. we talked about changed in the agreement but the changes certify the eir today is there's a new t d m plan and it's very different has different goals than when a was approved by the board. that goal what to reduce the single trips by 50 percent to reduce 15 percent is a different

proposal. we haven't had a change the analyze it. the other thing about this document which is southerner is there's no hard facts to create those baseline figures. it's easy to see how many folks are taking the transit when your giving them a check each month. this proposal says the baseline figures are based on a survey of the employees so when they claim 16 percent are taking public transit that's not really a valid figure to add 15 percent it doesn't include the 50

percent of car trips. i want to emphasis this is why many community members want to be directly involved with provisions of that crack >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners my name is paul. i guess i can give you a heads up you're going to see me for the next round as well. i do want to take to the traffic issues. i've been involved as i say with the pacific campus activities and i realize that none of the pc p folks were involved at this time. we see folks in the neighborhood and we have some experience on

what works and doesn't work. my certain is notes the big traffic issue it's the more tact california operation issues that cause problems. for instance, i have this up yesterday. yesterday you see at the top here in the white zone a the top of a semi that's using the whites on the passenger zone for loading and unloading services. as a result, the taxi you see is stopped at the stop sign. the taxi pulls away and next you see this patient van to let its

people out. this is 3 to 5 minutes it happens over drivers get frustrated and drive balanced. i come from a tapgs background management walks around and says what's happening and so-called things change. and after management has looked things revert back to normal this happens in budgetary issues. it happens here. we've had wonderful scuzz when we've raised came in. it lasts for 5 months. we want to make sure we can do more than a one time audit.

this makes life for pedestrians it increases the risk of traffic accident and they need to be addressed more often. thank you >> good afternoon, commissioners. from california nursing association. i'm also here from the coalition san franciscans and speaking in support of the amendment. that we've brought to you around the co- lateral agreement. we excited about the improvements and the community benefits that have been negotiated our result of community involvements is the

benefit from this. so, you know, that is the spirit in which we believe this is an important agreement to have because we as a coalition bring a high he level of expertise and the city brings a level but not the same as being for example, a front line nurse. and the dp had is an excellent

unit. you know, there not the relationships and the tenderloin with clinics there to make sure that the 15 hundred lives in the tenderloin receive those services and how are those connections going to be challenged and those lives have access to the services not only at st. luke's but cathedral hill. we want community input and it's an important part of planning, you know, and that's not just about getting a report but being involved in the planning and being involved in the decision and the mixed meeting we don't know what they're going to look like. and another example on workforce

if you look at the subsection we have that subsection says if they hire 40 per year for so many years they've met their obliteration obligation >> (calling names) >> looks like age before

beauty. can we have the overhead you've all received copies of our hand out. notwithstanding the program like st. luke's there's two substantial flaws like sequa

. that needs to be done for the official approval of the development agreement either that pipeline exists or it

doesn't it has to be mitigated. secondly there's a lack of enforcement. only for the city attorney may sue the only real enforcement that's available to you is trust equity. that's ownership of the land. the other entitlements maybe the agreement of consider for the city that would produce the rate and the urban development krorms. it's done in new york city. those are 3 aspects we submit those in detail they're not a part of your records. i have substantial background as

planning director >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please >> hi i'm linda i have been at st. luke's hospital and on frontline of health care there. i see there are many needs in our community that are not being met presently. it concerns me. i agree with everyone there needs forbid a collaborative agreement and it's important we have a say of what kind of care

we're going to provide at st. luke's. we have a lot of psych patients coming in and we see them come and go with basically, no services after they leave us. but there's also a certain about some sub acute are the patients who are ventilator dependent. many of them maybeable be equivalent to go home. we have a sub acute but there are a total of assess of services in san francisco. the pacific and davis gnaws at

that particular time those patients to our icu. the nearest comfortable sources are in distant city's and that's not okay, but the community around us needs to have some say. we want a full hospital at st. luke's we are not talking about health care. i have a couple of things from other speakers who were not able to be here today >> thank you. after the next speaker