commissioner comment. >> well, i'll certainly this day has arrived again. i have to agree size matter and a bigger project would be better. maybe a 5 hundred cathedral bed and st. luke's would be oil ideal. i don't know why we have groups that lobby against this and knock out over 1 hundred beds. i know everybody's on board but it would have been a better situation but what's been done has been done very well. the other thing that doesn't makes sense to me is the call

for a co- lateral agencies to monitor what happens. certainly anyone is certainly encouraged to monitor on their own even as a group to make sure things are being done but to give them governmental power is saying our governmental agencies can't be trusted. we've got the planning commission and the board of supervisors and we've got the city attorney all of when would combeefrn. and i heard the material issues to go to the board of supervisors. but i thought this of the the government role to provide for

things that couldn't be provided for privately. and to monitor those. so it doesn't seem right to me. and the other thing this is odd if you create this additional agencies i'm not sure there are that might be some connoting agencies that would have jurisdiction of some sort it might open us up for some legal problems. what do you think about it that you thank you we've heard a lot of backseats about the collateral all the times. i can say i think the co- latter all the time doesn't seem to be

a nice fit though it's not relevant. there doesn't seem to be a change but the public bins have been exhaustly looked at out for. so there's no -- i don't hear imply request to the change of the public benefits. i think it comes down to possess. i staff made a recommendation that the best way to address the process is to put it open to everybody and to make sure. i have worked on a lot of

agreements the park merry sedate and others and there's more public review baked into this document than any of these other transactions. with the changes that have been proposed by staff today. when it comes down to this community roll in monitoring i want to the extent it would in any way effect the c mc issues. i think that c p m y won't agree to that. i think my office would ask you not to give the group the right inform sue us for the enforcement of our contract.

so that's why the staff has focused on the process and make sure that everybody's aware whatever going on, on this project that we give notice to the rest of the world. it touches on this issue but it addressed the issue of material changes. i think that is important. it's worth everybody looking at it and see what the material changes are. it's pretty exhaustive. it means any modification. we know it when we see it and if disagree we can take to court.

any material xhoefgs that would change this or which relate to and we list a few things like the terms the permitted uses 3 the public benefits. so the public benefits is all the hospital commitment and as well as all of the you know the things we care about the exhibits that define all the public benefits. so the document is written to define the change to the public benefits. ken is correct when you look at section 2.5 based on my advise. any non-material to the agreement requires the commissions approval. i'll read to you

there's been some confusion because of the notation of the permits and the like so building permits and a routine things. we arrested that we would essentially issue those all the times to billed the project. however, if there's an attempt in one of the subsequent agreement you must amended the agreement to amend this amendment navigate it says required the terms of that agreement will prevail over that school district approval that conflicts that the agreement. i'll read it verbatim any

approvals that's not a material change as determined by the planning director and by any city agency maybe arrested to by the planning commission and the city administrator in their sole discretion. then it gongs to say any material change should be subject to the review and approval of both parties as well as the board of supervisors by ordinance. so i think the document is clear we couldn't do an amendment to the amendment without the approvals of the commission and if it's material at the board of supervisors. i also that that, you know, you've seen the public review process that's been baked into the document as a result of the request.

i think it's an appropriate place to put the process that we think the city should go through terms of the actions of the agreement. thank you, mr. southern california have an it sounds like it has written into the language the prevailing authority anything else for the jurisdiction. i would add i don't expect an answer today but before this moves no to the board of supervisors it maybe good to hear about the stanford situation they're not as stringent but the best practices to see if there's any such thing

>> i think staff did look at those documents and to compare the public benefits. i think the public benefits are comfortable >> i remember before this was modified our benefits were above and beyond the beds were 6 hundred and so that part i would expect the monitoring is more stringent but i have a couple of comment. so other things that came up we've had this discussion about the sub care. and all hospitals throughout the bay a area have to do their share of this type of thing iowa's basis what a as with the kinds of st. luke's it doesn't make sense but it has to be

dealt with. and the other initial or issue that came up is traffic. many folks talked about the traffic issues we're cutting some of the parks out of this but we'll have more than enough parking. i agree with the neighborhoods who came and spoke about the ability to keep their garages open at night and they felt the situation of the hotel i think that's going to be worse or the construction process it only make sense those spaces could be used >> next speaker in the evening hours. we think if you don't provided parking there will be no cars. people are going to be driving to designations not only to the

hospitals but who need the parking lot to survive. so i urge staff. a lot of talk about the psych situation. certainly it's a national problem as someone pointed out. we have to work on this on a nationwide area to be able to provide for the folks who can't take care of themselves. there's a lot of these things that can be done but you can't drop it on one institution we have to look at the entire you situation that we have bed and laws to be able to care for people who have problems. that's one the biggest reasons. that's pretty much all of my things i think that one speaker

talked about the into you and it's make sense the road is still highway 101 and it if you take away two baselines it forces everybody else either more traffic. this is something the city has to move on. as the design is being proposed on the tunnel underneath on van ness avenue we have to look at this in the future to some subway this tunnel will be just a little bit low-grade. those are my general feelings this is important to move this forward today >> commissioner. >> so thank you all first of

all, for getting this to us. the mairdz and the community and the instructors offices that i agree with the supervisor about keeping that garage open last night 7 o'clock. i think the testimony was kneeling. it will give it more identity and it will hurt them to shut the garages by 7 o'clock. on the issue of the co- lateral

agreement. i read the code as it relates to co- largely agreement i agree with the city attorney. the way you kind of take the language and make the benefits of the programs in way the code reads to provide and implement programs. it seems like to be used where there's a group outside the development agreement that needs to do something other than monitor. and you go on with the 3 things you want to happen we we and the city wants to happen. i'm feeling a disconnect the

city is proepd and what you're asking for. so can you help us your - >>. you're talking about the co- lateral agreement but it's been presented >> i definitely think it's a priority issue. for example, going to our third point having advise groups like you have in the agreement long-term project. i also and people can disagree but in all candor i believe it includes the kind of monitoring

functions we're talking about. let me be clear we're not asking to take the responsibilities to create another agency we're trying to get sufficient and timely notice of some critical decisions to be made so we can fully participate in processes. your reading could be read that way and i thought about that but i think it can be read to include the kind of function we're talking about here as well >> i guess then what's the difference; right? if we call it a co- lateral agreement if you took what we were presented to today. and the discussion about material vs. non-material changes.

hadn't that satisfied what you asked for there? >> in terms of the monitoring it certainly strengthens the language but i still think there's a difference in respect to the amendment. because it substitutes out the weaker changes and as i see that and maybe it's something we can workout it doesn't allow for any community participation. the language that mr. sullivan read said you may get the agreement of the planning commission it doesn't say shall with respect to the material changes and it doesn't indicate in my way what the processes

will be because section 10 is sported to super seed the non changes in the particular section there. and let me stress no question we have confidence in currently staff this is what can happen over time and what keeps being a priority and nonetheless the institution in some ways you lose the expertise and sometimes, people make decisions over time they're not aware who took place a long time. there's still a discretion decision and things can slip by and no one here today what is

what is consistent with what we understand intend. we're not asking you to make the decisions >> and i get that but i still don't quite depreciate what the difference is between a co- lateral agreement and given i defined you're saying you don't want to, you know, replace the directors authority so there's a built in process we're kind of adding on to that hadn't been done. every project has some level or some group that's been involved in shaping that. it's kind of built in so, now what we've done is we're going

to add onto the process and make sure people know when theirs changes and people are aware every year. so i'm not getting why doesn't that work? >> one it we want to inconstitutelize it would be done for the general public and specific individuals over minded are time. so no matter what the decision happens here some community opportunity for community involvement. the second does go to an issue i think it's been over played that the city is sensitive about the ability to enforce anything. we're not looking to enforce

anything. we're looking at to establish a set of procedures a process if, in fact, the city doesn't do something we could enforce but it has a specific language that no specific party could enforce that. but we want to have an honest process with the city. what you have the the ability to enforce it. and what's interesting >> to the depends upon what you're that you haven't in the co- lateral agreement and just to be able to - if we could sit down with the director and who have been open informally but try to reach some kind of an

agreement some processes that would guarantee the city you're going to have another set of ice and areas so the maturates don't blew up in public. and we would like to enforce that kind of thing against the city. we would like to work on the terms and what c pmc is interested in refinancing some of the terms. also involving the community the errors like the one that mr. rich talked about in terms of the workforce. there's 2 hundred and 25 pages here. and i get it. you know, it's just an unusual process.

but thank you. i mean, we see people here not involved necessarily in the the night grit negotiations right so there is this broader community. we have nothing against involving the broader community. >> one question for mr. rich. i guess to get to that .2 potential committals. would it be possible to specifically call out s fha j to receive they will receive the city report and we'll forward the cb mc pooling upon receipt. so the planning department of public health has many ways to

look at this and i'll defer it to the gentleman to be able to do that. we have situations where we notify people's of sequa action because this that doesn't involve hundreds and hundreds of actions it should be okay to notify people of the changes it should not be a problem. >> if we specifically call those out -- >> i think probably the thing to do is allow people to let us know who wants to be notified. in terms of not to call out one or two groups we'd put out a

call and a is if you're interested in being notified let us know so we're not frankly playing favorites. >> i guess i don't - i get that but i don't mind them calling out parking lots in this document. >> if we want to call out particular groups in the document and allow other groups to sign on in the notice. >> it will people will be notified the same group i i mean this group and whoever wants to know about the material and non-material changes - >> i think there's two events folks want to know about when

their changes and the notifying of the report. i don't know if the changes you have addressed. >> when we prepare the annual report? >> okay. i'm there's several things we are talking. when we prepare the annual report we would send notice. speak shouldn't be an issue >> how about when theirs material changes? >> partly because of trojan limitss we can certainly do that the only particular issue would be 5 hundred and year i don't imagine there would be.

i sort of want to remind you that there will a notice >> given a -- i know in lazy sign in my own professional world we've got to notify the bank. so obviously they want their information currently >> yes. i'd like to support that last line of kwedz. i think it's important to have some kind of ongoing community participation. i like to think of this something like that maybe an official body that's recognized by the city and they have some specific duties.

and we can always start with the current organizations being on the list. there would be a number of neighborhood organizations and other professional and union portions would be interested in the ongoing process surrounding c pmc so i'm supportive of the addressed process. also in terms of parking usually not a big parking person but if we're going to have the garage we should have it open. my farther pet peeves is when i go to whole foods there's a parking lot neck door is virtually unparked it's a church

parking lot. so, so see it sort of sitting there vacant is sort of american people irritation. so i agree with the fellow commissioners. and i don't remember we'll going gone through the environmental impact that treats the tommy's issue but the new buildings and whether or not there are any provisions for protects during construction. and i don't remember that. particularly. yes, ma'am one project that's this big the adjacent