the reagan years, everybody talks about and not place in these types of facilities. it is still an ongoing discussion that we will not resolve through this project, i don't think. but hopefully, if something positive comes out of the legislation, we're looking at the master plan around health, and then we will look at some of the issues comprehensively, with the city dictating the terms as opposed to these individual projects, institutions, corporations, i am not quite sure how to describe it. but anyway, i am tired, and it

has been a long day. i don't want to repeat what has already been said. i think i could borrow commissioner miguel's notes and it would probably be verbatim,, and look over commissioner borden's shoulder, but i think a lot of it was just coming from her heart. and some of the other commissioners as well. i agree with what i have heard here. and the members of the public. as has been stated before, the project sponsor has become familiar with the land use and zoning before proceeding with the project and to understand what the cost might be to that project, should they proceed. and have a lot of demands, as this project does.

i know that it is kind of vague. one of the points, numerous authorizations at all three campuses. at some point, i would like to see more of a breakdown. the you have that in this? we will go over it later. it i see that, yes. there are quite a few here. one thing i have been curious about, the van ness sud and the housing obligation, i imagine if the conditional use was not accepted by the commission, the requirement of the sud, what time would that be? i know the $73 million is based on the and the use fee, correct? for affordable housing, yeah.

right, yeah, so i i don't know if you have an answer. >> that is based on 20% of the full housing bill out. rigid the full house and build out. it would be the market rate. at 20% of the affordable portion, it would be the market rate cost, effectively for those 1100 units. president olague: okay, thank you. anyway, i guess i met a similar place. at some point, i don't know, it is the staff working with the block association and the neighbors? is someone from our department helping? >> commissioner, i have been interacting with the block association, facilitating our

conversation with cpmc. although there has been no resolution, those discussions are moving. i am not sure there will be resolved before the larger issues are resolved, but they're moving together in parallel. president olague: i appreciate where the mayor's office and public health and you are, so i appreciate this as a starting point and to go from here, but not to, you know, go backwards. i think this is a good starting point. at some point, i imagined conversations will start with the community that are separate from this, but i think this, as a minimum, it is at a good place, so i support so far what i am hearing from the mayor's office and dph as it relates to some of those requests. commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: thank you. i think the short answer might

be if we did not grant conditional use and required cal pacific to build the required three-one housing, as is part of the van ness plan, i think it should not be applied to institutions. as i said earlier, there would be no project. comparatively, stanford is providing the city of palo alto with $6.9 million of housing. again, you cannot always compare things, but just to give the perspective, these are hospitals, they're not in the housing business. yes, they should absolutely replace the housing have displaced and take care of the individuals, but as far as the other is concerned, i think they should do something, but not like the asking. we used to be the city that knows how. remember as a youngster my father and mother coming from the livermore valley to seek

medical care in san francisco because the hospitals were better here, the specialists were here, and that is the way it should be. we have to remain a source of excellence, and i disagree with commissioner moore with disassembly. that seems like more is being built. a new state of the york hospital and two new state of the art hospitals and the increase in davies and the increase in pacific, and possibly the california campus is converted to something else. i see more, not less. there is always a talk about the impact and the negative impact. well, van ness avenue is not the garden area of san francisco, i am sorry to say. there are a lot of vacancies, problems, it is not really vital. this will bring jobs and businesses and will do a lot for that area, deployed a lot of people who are not employed and

the whole discussion about jobs as part of the hospitals is what we're talking about. that's not always look on the dark side. the impact also include the good impact this hospital will have. i think we have to look at that. the st. luke's issue, i agree, commissioner moore, a longer time would make sense to keep it that much into the hospital. it should be here hopefully in definitely, but i think it's size is appropriate. it was a private hospital years ago. it was able to function. as times change and neighborhoods change, it became nonfunctional. it was long before cal took over that it was not going to work. and the fact they are rebuilding the hospital i think is something that is not economically the best thing for them, but it is something that the committee wanted and everybody agreed. it is not built now, and i think

that is the appropriate size. every service assault on that list is being continued, as far as i can see. it seems like it is a full- service hospital, probably appropriate in size for the area. president olague: something else i wanted to mention, we are talking about, yeah, increasing the size where venice is coming up and the size in general, which we approved. mission bay i think is limited to women and children only. what we have failed to mention is we have in the past -- some of us, not all of us -- have approved developments that are fighting upwards of close to 50,000 new residents into san francisco. that being the case, we really have to start thinking about where these people will live. there is hunters point development. i forget how many tens of thousands, yeah, of residents

we're looking at there. treasure island, we're looking at close to 20,000 new residents, and then there is part merced, which is a lot of people there, too. that said, i think, you know, there are a lot of things we need to look at when we decide where the most appropriate place for health care is. i just wanted to make mention of that. commissioner sugaya? commissioner sugaya: maybe it is in some of our materials anywhere, but i cannot recall -- on the other campuses that are potentially downsizing along california and i believe also webster street, wherever the facilities are going to be downsized and the potential for sale of those properties, i want to know what the underlying zoning is and, i don't know, but

it will be if a hospital use goes away. what the underlying zoning would be. >> the california and pacific campuses are zoned rh-2, so institutional uses are permitted, but the other principal use is the two-family dwelling. commissioner sugaya: ok, cool. president olague: ok. >> if i may also just thank staff. especially elisabeth. i think the staff presentation was well organized and coordinated and answered a lot of questions. it was very easy to understand. i want to thank you for your work. also, all the departments for being here, especially the department of public health, thank you, director. i thanked one of the good thing. i think one of the good things

about these large projects is we get to collaborate with people who are from completely different fields and different perspectives. i think it is very helpful for us to learn other people's lines of business when we're doing these projects. i think you all for your work and help on this. president olague: ok. secretary avery: thank you. that concludes tonight's public informational session on cpmc. planning commissioners, you still have the general public comment. president olague: is there any general public comment on items not on the agenda? no? seeing none, general public comment is closed and the meeting is adjourned.

>> about four years ago, [inaudible] look at how beautiful this was. there is our relationship to the planet. these regions are the wealthiest, the most powerful. that really has impacted the planet. it is almost impossible now to go anywhere and had it really be completely dark.

there are very few locations that you can find. that means our relationship to the sky, there is a way where we dominate the sky. we cannot see anything really. we are blinding ourselves in a way. >> you can look at the images, they are beautiful. when i started four years ago, there was a conversation about environmental issues that was

very different. this is not being talked about in the way it is now. . this has just been like an amazing growth. i anticipate the project to be something that opens a dialogue to public interest in these ideas. so the work is really made to be seen in this environment. it's been show in museum, in gallery, but never in a public setting. and it's kind of ideal for both myself and the works to have this real dialogue with the public not only in san francisco but people coming from all over the world. >> since the dawn of electricity, that light is something that people feel connected to and inspired by.

personally, there is space to keep that alive, just finding balance. the key is to find some balance.

>> the meeting of the entertainment commission. please call the roll. [role being called] we have a quorum. >> members of the public may address the commission on members of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission. with respect to agenda items, members of the public may address the commission for up to three minutes as such time as the item is called. is there anyone here that would like public comment? seeing none, review and approve

the minutes of april 26th, 2011. >> i move that we continue the minutes of april 26th as we did not have a quorum to vote on them. we can vote on the minutes of may 10th. >> second. >> is there any public comment for commissioners comments on the minutes? same house, call. >> i want to identify if you have a proper quorum for the minute you're trying to approve. >> i move to approve the minutes of may 10th. >> second. >> any public comment?

>> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> number 3, report from the executive director. >> good evening, commissioners. quickly, i wanted to update you on ab74, previously called the rave safety act. i attached to this memo the

latest version that was amended on may 11th of this bill and now it is called the concert and music festival act. basically, this is a bill that requires any state facility seeking to hold an event with an expected attendance of over 10,000 people to create an event action plan which include specific permission considering health and public safety and law enforcement concern. this is fairly short. you can read it if you are inclined. commissioner mako, can you

update the commission. -- commissioner meko. there has been a request made by supervisor wiener to amend code section 1070 which is a police code section that we work with regarding extended hours permits. he is asking the city attorney to draft an amendment to exempt restaurants from security plan requirements. in 2009, when we had a schedule change, they were basically made it to mirror each other in terms of almost every aspect including security plans and the corrective actions we are about to do now.

it has not happened up until recently that an applicant came forward wanting to do basically food service after 2:00 a.m.. we have not faced this issue before. it was made clear to this applicant that we were previously the bagdad cafe. we will be required to have security and they requested that the supervisor make an amendment to the law. it has not been drafted but it has been assigned to -- because he has familiarity with 1070. i don't know anyone ceiling on whether this is appropriate or not but as this legislation comes forward, it will not go through its paces to have a

discussion. i wanted to let you know that the staff participated in small business week this year. it was last week. we had participated in the past at the taste of san francisco which was more of a social event. this year, we decided to have a table at the small business expo. lots of small business owners came through the expo and i repeated a lot of questions about what the entertainment question did and i handed out a lot of cards. -- and i answered a lot of questions about the

entertainment commissioned did. many get a bill from the tax collector, six or seven times of year for various licenses whether there is fire, entertainment, police. some businesses have quite a few of these things. they're trying to consolidate. one bill comes in march of each year and with that of the different licenses that they have to pay for. we will be working with the tax collector. we don't have that many in number like other departments have.

we will be working alongside the other departments to make what i believe will be a positive change for the city. it will not make it cheaper, unfortunately, but at least it will be more efficient. there's nothing to report for me on corrective action taken in the last two weeks. >> i have a question for the director. regarding this possible legislation, we have had a number of after hours restaurant who have come before the commission over the last many years. in several cases can you put

forward the applications for russians that have come for that, -- in several cases, can you put forward of the applications for restaurants that have come before us? and let's do a reality check on how this would impact the after hours restaurant businesses. >> just to speak to that for a second.

a restaurant operating before 2:00 is not its security, is that correct? >> if they don't have an entertainment permit. >> if they continue to serve food at 2:00 in the morning, security is supposed to show up. >> correct. we have the need for an extended hours permit and that permit allows them to have the public in that permit after 2:00 a.m. which also has security permits attached. >> anybody else? ok. commissioners, our report this evening which is in your binder, we are still waiting for the citation appeal for the citation we wrote to -- that decision has not come in,

we're still waiting. once we have that decision, we will inform you of our decision. the bureau of security and investigative services which is the bureau of conservative -- consumer affairs, we have been working with them and for about a year now and this last year we had their inspector down in the city and we were able to go and check a lot of different permitted venues for -- cards. the good news is that i think we found out of all the venues we visited, we only found one that did not have a card. the messages out there. we have seen a big improvement. this has been a concern to this commission, we are starting to see a tipping point going the other way. the bad news is that we're also doing following up on two different companies operating

here in san francisco. this means that they don't have the proper licensing to run a security company therefore providing staff two prominent venues. we will continue to help and beat a contact point on those cases. also, we were able to get information that we were able to get out to all the permit officers in the district stations. this is basically pamphlets and booklets that the officers can have a little bit better knowledge and understanding of the guard card system, what they look like, what they're supposed to have on them and so forth. that was really great that we requested that and they were use

were getting more as well. we're continuing to work through a lot of sound tests right now. this is about the average amount for this time of year. we have seen a portion and then it trickles down and we're right on course for the average amounts that we usually do. the inspector was there. it was a good cross-section. we had neighbors, people from the underground industry. i was not able to stay for the whole meeting but i thought was a great discussion and it opened up a lot of dialogue. these parties don't usually talk. i know myself and i know for inspector