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 project across the street there somebody been a potential impact to the those historic buildings mainly

through vibration apparently i know the construction method whether there's any pile drilling or my drilling activities and during demolition. i'm sorry i don't remember >> commissioner yes, we have the fully eir and the noise and dust have been and the. and the impacts of the historic environmental document >> okay. if it's there that's great. and on mental health. i kind of took the commissioners comment about having it's a national issue but if we think about it globally we should be

acting locally to address that. we are not pitting the entire community on c pmc but the acute beds being an issue it's a recreational issue certainly a san francisco issue. i want to ask someone here there are currently 18 psych beds and that is on the power point show that was given to us. and i was trying to read the gnaws description a lot of the the combrarz and whatnot. but what is the future of those inpatient psych beds? i'm under the impression those are the only location where

those beds are? i would hate to see them go away to the specific project itself. >> those beds are across the street from the main gnaws. acute site beds are not subject to the same seismic rules. they service folks who are coming to our facility who need psych care. we we don't see any changes at all >> let me jump in here - wait. i'm supportive of this project

and ready to see it move forward. you know, it troubles me 80 to drive by this property and it is a large anchor to venice after it will generate more jobs and activity and we need those. i think we should move forward and let those people take care of people. as far as the parking i would join my commissioners and allow the garage to be used for public parking during the night. we're battling on every item and have a garage area that's a waste of money and time and a concrete.

i don't know if we want to have that sometime after construction but we can use it >> i'm also in support for the public parking we should put it in the motion. i want to address section 2.2 also supportive of the pay schedule and the motion to asks for the entire document be addressed to the local. i want to ask the city attorney the fact that it says may that any non-material changes maybe go to the commission what did that mean? >> i may not agree that's a

clear intent here. so i list all those people saying they maybe agreed to and people have to agree to it but - >> to be clear than ever non-material change has to be brought to the board. >> yes and by the planning commissioner. >> would kind of notice do we give to the public? i think we proposed simply was the notice on the website or the changes help me out here >> i think that you're asking first of all, and the way things are done now if the staff were to bring to the commission just the way you it's done now

correct me if i am wrong but we talked to create more notice than that. >> so the idea is every single time a material or non-material change it gets put on the c pmc website so is there a way the members of public can be notified every time that changes? >> go ahead. >> we've actually reached out to our it depth but they would actually get the update but i think dated with every update so it would not be specific to the

website page. we're not sure there's a solution. >> i've harder a heard a way for the members of the coalition and the members of the public to be able to sign up on a list for the material and non-material change. we do have to pay for it and it expires around or after a year so i don't know when your membership is expired >> i like to strongly stress that we find some form by which we can indeed can depreciate the participation and we adopt the

form in front of the us. i think i look at everybody being the best participants we could find are. i would like to ask mr. sullivan whether or not it's the co- lateral agreement is that there's notification and the bloc-vote notification may not be the right form can we create a notification or is there anything like a cvc that would bridge that gap? we would like to see it but we don't have the legal knowledge. >> i think the only thing i can

say is there's a desire to create more notice. i don't see why that notice can only be arrested to. and the extent of the intent is to create a force fulfill city liability. i think we retirement that not be - >> that's something the stay can agree to. >> if it's a notice and a process the staff has beefed-up the notice in the agreement and there's an ability to talk about that. if i may also respond. to me the importance is the whole commission supports notice and notice that goes above and beyond of the 2.2.

and i think from what i hear there is a way to do that. whether the website changes or the block go notifications don't work. i want to make sure that the opt is saying we can be comfortable with that. the reason i bring up notebook notification we do have a block notice. and i'm saying that's the low tech way of doing it. what we're working on because this is obviously coming up in the sequa practice those process we're making this a more technical base. we're not talking about thousands of the permits but

one. i'm not quite finished. the workforce issue was addressed we would be incorporating those changes into our motion and i assume the mice understanding was corrected. and it was the represent of the firm could you conform it was properly interpreted. i would like the planning staff to s to say react >> i think there's been some confusions from the hill site and they would be reducing the 15 percent gnaws wide that's the confusion. we need said a 50 percent

reductions the next issue is talking about the responsiveness of the meeting those challenges with w which the community has over the size of the building. i do believe p the balance has been struck it is being supported by the neighborhood the beds doesn't create a building that overwhelms the neighborhood. the public component a balance including the execution of the agricultural. i could say the same thing about the cathedral hillside i live

close by and have a villain but the hospital we're fully support. but i believe that what we see today in the form that was presented shows a much softer and toned down believe. it doesn't necessarily speak to the money contrary believe that is stoned by colors including the surrounding areas. the other committal which is outstanding is reflecting open the neighborhood who are displays in parking. the east, west streets are at

the trial difficult straights partial will i because they carry heavy traffic. we see the elimination of the curb parking i think some mechanism needs to be devised by which the parking lot accommodates are area. the parking area has other effects of food traffic and people coming and going throughout the night. i ask our consideration to support the neighborhood parking where you come at night and a go home but not make it a garage

for other activities at night. i'm not interested in a public night time garage. >> commissioner. >> i'm so much - so much has been said. i want to commit about the buildings are much better and i think that was frail critical apparently i think it really does respond a lot better and the massive building forms is a much superior improvement. i confine the community and team. in terms of the transportation i guess i have a couple of questions about i know that - i'm glad to we got a report open the phasing.

will we be at a point where it will have to be shut down? i was wondering what that looks like >> i'm with the planning staff. i want to acknowledge point fte staff has gone home but which we looked at the cooperation and there would be a overlap and there would be a lot more coordination as well. and the closure the pedestrian tunnel will be at night >> there will be poirgsz of the

van ness. >> there can be an overlap but it requires much better coordinations. some of the studies and the opening payment and the focus open loadship is the right strategy. and that's a great approach. in terms of the development agreement i agree with adding an additional notice. i think maybe in looking at the section 8.2.2. maybe when you have a report realized the third party review and the ad and public notice we add in the major group and other parties that would give them

thirty days to have the report before the hearings that would happen. i do know this requires them to have an advisory - the part of the agreement process is the hospital has for each of their individual gnaws they have to interhave a board >> the advisory boards are appointed by certainty criteria in the agreement but their required to have and consult about the activities on the gnaws. maybe >> maybe we can add those so they can also convene about that. i imagine along the way

different project sites there's going to be different issues. when the hospitals are functioning there will be issues when the people in the immediate community will have and we could ask c mc to consider including some of the coalition members among the board members. but if you could think about incorporating that this could be an center degree of certainty. i had looked at and talked to anothers about the cpc services their administering benefits and their determining where the benefits go. i think because of the third party monitor and the process we

can deal with that if there's issues where there's non-agreement we can deal with that by adding the additional notice. that makes a lot of sense. i also agree with making sure we put in the agreement the 40 periods of time. i guess the final issue i recognize there's not much to be done in the situations but the city can continue to work with the challenge of what's going on in the city of what's in the psychiatrist bed. last night some person was

yelling at the top of his lupgz and obviously i don't know where he should be but we need to work on this. i don't expect the c pmc should shoulder the whole problem but maybe at a later date i know we have to have a hearing from the health department and i don't know the status of that. i think there's an eir going on; right? >> hi. commissioners we are doing mitigated desk and we're both about to send out a notice for the health care services master plan >> so when we have a hearing we

can talk about that and how the change would health care helps provided or doesn't froird more sports. >> to bring back our part about the eir process the culminate structure impact and with the c p m promise and we had a measure that said it would help produce some facts as you unrelated and this is kind of different is there some kind of public works? are we going to make sure we're doing everything at that time like the department of public

works. so if there's any need to tear up venice >> to know what we were doing the impact analysis we looked at the two variances but to do something in the future that's being proposed beyond we wouldn't have saw i think you're talking about future reasons to tear up the street. the city has a better understanding of what needs to be torn up >> and when we do the environmental review to look at what's being proposed and to coordinate. i want to make sure we

coordinate. they said have to go to the fire and police. as well as they benefit from the california trance facility and they have permits >> so the question is after this is approved and it's going through it's being considered it would go through the process again? >> yes when they get closer to construction yes. >> i'll go ahead and make a motion we'll move to approve - should i just involve that move all the items. >> i have a list of what i think you want