for that conversation. and some. o'er others who have been working on it for a long time. and it's great timing. and with the projects in the next few months. >> and i want to express the belief that this presentation made it more meaningful and there is a source to make me confident that this will proceed together with the suggestions with a lot more to be discussed and that is where the effort lies. and i believe we are in support

of other tools and i believe that working with policies, goals, and controls and programs that allow us to look more rationally at future decision making will be exactly what we need. i think we are noo n a time that will be only 20 or 30 years or longer and these are all long-term buildings which have life cycles that go beyond the normal decisions we are making that will affect the residents. and i just would like to suggest this staff that we don't make decisions too quickly and i am in full support of some of the discussions and would like to see work on those including the

reflection and with what people are talking about and on the other hand, i am not in support at this moment of a pipeline project that would be exempt. i really cannot support and for the particular reason that other institutions i understand that you are supporting it, but i respectfully disagree with you and appreciate that we get the support on opening the door. and i believe that requires further examination and particularly the history of new health care buildings in the city is far and few between. and on pine street at franklin

hospital, not much new has happened for many, many years. and i would support the department to continue to work with the supervisor. president miguel: commissioner antonini. commissioner antonini: thank you f i do support the fabrication of the health care services master plan as an advisory document that we could use to evaluate land use issues that come before us regarding health care facilities. and one thing we have to be aware of is the regional nature and for other institutions here and attract patients from throughout northern california and beyond and i can talk from personal experience where i came to san francisco for care as a young boy and came for many other issues and that exist

today. and it is particularly true with ucsf and catholic health care institution and kaiser. and in fact, being a kaiser member, it's regionalized. and if you have neurological needs, you go to one place. and if the administration is in oakland and if a lot of deliveries are in san francisco or sacramento and that is how the whole thing works and anything we do when we make these recommendation we have to realize these institutions are large institutions and the needs are pred predicated to a population that goes beyond san francisco and that is to our benefit. these are not necessarily married to san francisco, either. there is no reason why they can't pull up stakes and go somewhere else if the needs are

being better served somewhere else. we have to be careful we fabricate our policies in regards to the larger communities they serve and beyond. so that is when we do anything and we have to look at this document and when it is completed as a point that we can use in our evaluation but not as a litmus test to what is good and what is bad. these are hospitals with regional scope. i don't have a problem wit and should be paid for without existing funding and maybe from the public health department. and certainly not passed on to those being evaluated by those and we would like to see that. and as far as the individual aspects of it, i do agree with the staff recommendation and the

pipeline and i don't know if you can do that kind of business and a lot of times it's many projects and if we made a recommendation that the placed be located there and the project sponsors know there and this is what we like to see. i think we have excellent health in san francisco and from the place i come from, i do not plan to be served there.

and we have a lot of hospitals and a small geographic area and not that we couldn't improve that but we have to remember that the larger scope of the health care problem and real hospitals and different entities and while we have total control over the former, the needs of the latter have other concerns other than just our public health needs. so this is good to know them but not a deciding factor. i would be supportive of staff but not the legislation as written. that would be my position. president miguel: commissioner borden.

commissioner borden: and not too long ago we lamented looking at the institutional master plans with no basis for which to judge them that is a way to look at the institutional master plan and just like what we do with our general plan. we are able to look at those and compare how that project compares and contrasts and does or doesn't meet the elements. i was a little surprised by the reaction by members of the medical community because i don't see anything being mandated in this legislation. it even states with inconsistency you can come forward and there is nowhere in the document and i like the idea with additional use and that is

necessary or desirable which is very difficult determination in most projects, quite frankly, and what is ne or desirable is different and subjective and if there is something nice about having a playing field where people know what is in our citywide health master plan and i did think that commissioner antonini brought up an interesting point and supervisor campos to talk and look at how it would be great to get a hands on the regional distribution of met cal service with the conglomerates and how they distribute their health care. >> i do have to be on a pan nell about 10 minutes, so i'll have to run, so i apologize, but that

we will be more effective in terms of the regional involvement if we have a better sense of what our needs are and that is something like this would truly promote that level of regional planning. >> thank you very much for your time. actually, another thing talked about with master plan so we can include and take time to put that information in. and a lot of the concerns that the public has raised can be helpful and the faster plan and i think that our goal is to say that you can only provide hospitals within a radius and we love to have everybody neighborhood to have medical facilities sand not realistic there with a full-scale hospital

and the hysteria of things in a certain geographic area and we would haven't that discretion to say there's a vacant lot here, let's put it there. that is not what could happen. and we can figure out what the goal should be and we have geographic equity and looking at the connections and things that make sense so that it is realistic of what is possible and what we are concerned about. >> and with the legislation and i think the issue about the pipeline and personally i don't think we're going to have that done in time for that and i don't think it's a real threat to the projects that are coming

up in the next year. and i don't think that is something we need to address. >> thank you. >> and pretty much agree with most everything o the other commissioners there and to be taken by the industry so to speak. and when president obama was talking about health care legislation, it was a much different kind of picture or i thought it was and what resulted and a lot of that was vetoed by the hospital in the health care industry. and i don't think that the city should be beholding to certain extent that everything is going to stop with the creation of the plan as far as san francisco.

and there were comments that there may be billions of dollars coming forth and i don't know the health care legislation that well and the comment made we to be nimble and quick and creative and all that kind of good stuff. well, that's fine if you are nimble and quick and creative to immediate the needs of health care in san francisco. and specific project are addressed to the needs here now and in the future. without this kind of plan, i think guiding not only the city but private industry, it seems like those projects are just going to be offset and result in a bigger problem. with respect to the staff, and in agreement with most of them except i am not in favor of the pipeline projects at this particular moment. as was mentioned, i believe

president miguel stated it is possible there will be an environmental report created for this plan. one is approved and maybe not totally but we have something to address with in the the environmental report that will take nine months to a year in itself. no plan is going to be adopted for at least a year or more demanding on how fast the supervisor move this is legislation ahead. that is to be taken into consideration also. and i was curious with respect to number four which the recommendation that perhaps d.p.h. should be the leading agency for consistency and i think he talked about that but it seems like some benefits of doing that with respect to analyzing the health care needs

of the city with respect to consistency rather than having the commission do it. we would have their input obviously in our decision making. i am fairly comfortable with that. as far as the proposed content for three and the condition, i agree with commissioner borden that perhaps it should be a little bit more open to clinics and i think that it's possible there should be some kind of sort of suggestions or something. i don't know how you would word that in the legislation. but i kind of like that idea that we're talking about looking at trends and the capacity of the city and land use, identifying that and making recommendations. and that should be totally in the works and there could be some acknowledgment or what a creative way to do that.

something along those lines. and some direction that might be good to have. >> i think that is what we were thinking and the legislation should be done in broad terms. like we do when we do the neighborhood plan. and about what we include there. and the level of the plan and the cost will determine that level of environmental and so much is determined there and with that legislation and to actually to figure out the level that d.p.h. has to address and spend a fair amount of time doing that. and another thing that will determine whether the d.p.a. or planning department there. >> and with the planning

department staff and beginning on line 16 of the propose d amendment and the general odd topics that should be i in the master plan without getting incredibly explicit it reads that the master plan will include policy recommendations found in equitable and distribution of health care services in the city and the elimination of health care service gaps and medically underserved and the medical uses within the city in a manner consistent with the character needs and infrastructure of the different neighborhoods that promotes and protects the public health, safety, and welfare. and that is a pretty good direction for beginning the direction of the discussion. >> thank you. president miguel: i agree with your comment and certainly those of commissioner sugaya and commissioner borden and i am in

full agreement with the comment that the negotiations are what will be important in the overall determining of what ends up coming to the commission. and that type of information and recommendations by which we evaluate what we do. and you are undoubtedly correct as to what is the pipeline and the thing in the pipeline now and probably who will be exempt just by the time problem that' involved and particularly pleased with the square footage and i think it's important on many levels and to be with the goad and we used information around the city as additional time and the department of public health is probably the better agency to determine the

need of the city and the department is. that is their bailiwick and i would see the legislation and the ensuing ordinances drafted so that they take the major input. and i am pleased by the supervisor's comments as to the budgetary financing on this. i think it's very important and not only the original. it's these three others that was, you know,, and it is that everyone has said, health care is a dynamic situation and is going to become more so across the country. and so there's no way we can do all of that. and it has to be done at least on a three-year basis. and that impacts finances. >> i'm going to go ahead and make a motion that we move this

to approval really minus number five. which has to do with expansion of pipeline projects. i think some of us would like to see this in place and not going to be in place anyway. and i thought i would just say don't move it. and then there might be good language in there that would talk about information that the conversation continue with interested parties and come back in a few months. >> second. >> one really quick note. and on the pipeline, listed under number seven. i'm sorry. the numbers done like us. >> number seven. i'm sorry about that. and then also we're looking at the sustainable community and people talk about trying to provide more services within that realm so people want to

travel and taking care of health care needs locally and something that is credible. and obviously we always want to consider the regional scale of things but it's also important to look at the health care needs of the city and how they're being prioritized even if that regionally and then we have to understand what that means. so it's not too exclude or include the conversation or the issue of regional health care needs but always to look at it as how we're listening to the health care needs of both in the city and the institutions. that is my motion. president miguel: and that was a motion and second. all right. commissioner moore? commissioner moore: i believe that commissioner antonini

comment on specialization is an important one. and i think we should just go forward with that as one additional point and the public made many suggestions to why this would be another one because there are regional and specialization and in oakland and others -- and i am not sure about all health care providers but in the budget discussion. president miguel: commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: and our san francisco hospital and the regional centers and i was at the groundbreaking for the new hospital yesterday and another regional hospital here. i am probably not, if the motion is the recommendation about the pipeline, is that what it is? without the pipeline? and i probably going to vote against it not that i don't support anything, but i would like to see the pipeline in, so we'll see where the vote is. president miguel: on the motion to approve with modification eliminating the exemption to

pipeline projects, adding recommendation to review regional issues. >> on that motion, commissioners. [vote taken] >> so moved, commissioners. resolution passes 5-1. president miguel: we are going to take a break in a moment. but earlier i forgot to mention something that i wish to close the hearing today in honor of maritio ovela passed at the early age of 50. one of the most active activists

and i know this was in today's paper. and someone whom i had the pleasure of working with for many years on many projects throughout the city and it's a big loss. i wanted to be sure and include that while people were present and hadn't left. we will end the session today in his honor. and with that, we will take a 20-m-m >> we will be moving to the beginning of the regular calendar with items that were taken off of the consent calendar. the first of them for consideration, is item 2-a and b for case 20100518. >> this is the request for a conditional use on planning code

303 to establish a community facility. the project is recorded at the southwest corner of 30th street. the project would rehabilitate and restore the existing single- family residence, and the former home of the conceptual artist david ireland, for an archive studies center, operated by the cap st. foundation. there would be an off street parking space to be constructed at the rear. the zoning administrator will hear about the open space and parking setbacks on the street frontage is of the proposed new building. since the packets were committed -- for the proposed project, the staff believes that this is desirable as that rehabilitates a historic building and preserves a unique place of san francisco art and history in a

manner that is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. this will create an archive and study center to expand knowledge of the work of david ireland and one of his most significant projects. it will support the artists through this program and it will maintain the existing dwelling unit, and the new dwelling units, within the established area. the department's recommendation is for the approval with conditions. this concludes my presentation unless there are questions. and the project's sponsors also like a brief presentation. -- also would like a brief presentation. >> my architect has been working with carly williams on this

project and i will be brief. i think that the report of the staff is complete. you have in front of you this package, and i want to call your attention to a couple of things. this package shows the photographs of the existing structure as it is today, and we have included images of the work of david ireland, and then we will get into some renderings of this proposal. primarily, we are doing the rehabilitation of the existing structure, and we're adding the existing structure for the caretakers residents. i want to show you this view, the before and after. and i want to talk about the proposed new structure. the rear structure faces the street, and we have tried to

respect the historic building by moving the new building as far away as possible. the project is against all the adjacent property, and this is also -- you can see the neighboring buildings also occupies the rear yard of their parcel. and we have tried to not block the windows of that property. i am available to answer any questions but wanted to bring up carly williams to talk briefly about this project. >> i am the current owner of the property and i am also the founding director of the capp street foundation. i would like to do that the property once the legal matters have taken care of, for the foundation to oversee this

property. i wanted to give you a very brief history of how i got here. i have been on the board for a number of years, and it in late 2007 i was in the commission's meeting when the curator presented a sculpture by artist, david ireland. it had been traded at of a bottle of -- a matter of material that he found when he first came to this place in 1975. he wanted to incorporate this into his work. putting this in the context of the committee, she gave a brief background of the house, and at that time mr. island had moved away because of his health reasons and house was going to be on the open market. i was at the california college of arts, and i had a conversation with anne hatch.