not obviously, i would ask that be provided and the draft e.i.r. circulated. that's what i prefer to see. i think that's a glaring absence that needs to be included at some point, at least. also the -- as commissioner moore pointed out, there are no l.o.s. calculations from the tenderloin intersection even though most streets are one way streets including two and from vaness. there's a lot of the the outer material considered but some of the more interior ones aren't. i guess there was comments by many members of the comment of the saigon tenderloin study.

the -- also i don't really -- i think that there are some conclusions that were a little -- were not -- to me there's not enough analysis provided. and the consistency with the commerce element to me is not very developed. it needs to be a little bit more robust. i know one of the speakers today spoke about the cultural groups and how some of those issues were raised in the commerce and industry element. i feel like it's very dismissive of a lot of issues. there's a small paragraph and some justification for how the cpmc lrrd, i just don't think there's sufficient element there.

the housing element, i think there's a dismissive quality to the analysis that's provided here. a lot of it relies on 2004 housing element which were obviously bound by -- the other one dismissed. was it 2008 or 2009? a lot of this, i believe, relies on abag projection figures. i don't feel comfortable with that because sometimes a projection that's going be supplied in the city isn't in -- what tease word i'm looking for? -- what's the word i'm looking for? doesn't necessarily -- isn't necessarily met. construction isn't necessarily met even though the protection is there on what the needs are for the increased employment or

employee population. the employee population isn't always met. there need to be a little bit closer look on who's going to be working in this hospital. i heard 300 and 1,500. how many of those people will be moving into the city? what types of impact they're going to have. the pressures is going to be put on the adjacent neighborhoods and those type of issues. i'm not convinced that, you know, for instance here the housing element -- most of the objectives in the housing element are not applicable to the l.r.d. -- because it does not have that element. i find that kind of faulty, actually. let's see, there is -- i guess

i was a little concerned to -- i'm going to probably have to do a little bit of my own research on the impact that this project -- i know this isn't something necessarily studied in the environmental impact report but on the latino population, we heard a lot of latino families speaking from the tenderloin. so those are things i'll have to be researching. then one thing that was disturbing i guess, and i guess this doesn't relate to e.i.r., the number of testimonies from the filipino community who raised the quote about the discriminatory practices. that to me -- if anything that could be a human rites issues, human rights concern. maybe that's something that that commission or that body

needs to investigate because if we're going to be engaging in this type of level of, you know, this engagement with this institution, i want to be certain that there aren't discriminatory hiring practices against any community, certainly not the filipino-american community. even if there were people that were trained elsewhere and come here to start a new life, i don't there should be that level of discrimination against anyone. that was really troubling. i will also comment that i guess that the land use committee on monday, there was a resolution passed, a resolution that passed housing requirements. they too mentioned here where as the characteristic of this area plan to incentivize plan

for these units of any new area for example vannes area plan which requires that housing be built to a ratio of 3-1 is an example of such a plan. this is a sentiment that the -- and also that the housing job linkage, you know, a lot of that stuff wasn't really looked at in this document. but if this is kind of the direction that the board of supervisors is taking to hold these projects accountable, then i think that we should be looking or analyzing a project that adheres to those -- to that part of the general plan and the code. so, i might have more comments today, but and also i may have

some in writing. president miguel: i will have comments including as to parking and size and bulk, very specifically as to st. luke's. i know the concept of a development agreement is not part of an e.i.r. necessarily, although i will -- i -- i couldn't consider a project of this complexity without a development agreement with the city. i've lived south of market for 34 years now. i'm a driver as is my wife. i must come north of market, probably eight or nine times a week, a week. i would have been out of my mind and have never taken

vannes avenue seven or four times. you never take that. it's absolutely ridiculous. and to consider that as part of a traffic plan, means someone doesn't like at the traffic patterns of the city. this commission as far as i'm concerned and both commissioner su guy yeah and commissioner -- saga yeah and commissioner olague spoke to it is under a great strain. although san francisco has put into effect "healthy san francisco." and from all reports that i have had it is working or starting to work. we have failed miserably, the city has failed miserably to create a comprehensive plan

addressing the health care distribution in the city, basically a health care master plan. if we had one, this commission and the department would have had a refer rential guide. and as it is, we're in limbo. we're out in the row tpwhote the ocean without any oars. we have nothing to guide us by other than perhaps instinct and that's what we're going to have to go on which is extremely unfortunate and extremely annoying, actually. as to the nan necessary -- as to the vannes district, it's my analysis that if there is a code, a regarding an area of the city and we are having an

e.i.r. development that is within that area, then that must be taken into consideration. whether or not it's waived is an unknown. but the fact that it is a requirement, but that it's in the code has to be taken into consideration. so the effect of that housing that is required within a code would affect an e.i.r. obviously. particularly housing in that amount. i don't think it's analyzed truthfully at all in any detail whatsoever. doesn't say it has to be -- i'm not saying it has to be built if it is even required directly there. but that's a lot of housing

possibly that's already required by a code and to pretty much ignore it does not to my mind make a draft e.i.r. complete. and i think that has to be analyzed without question. so as i say, i will have initial comments as to the sniff bed and sub cubic bed. we know the city had a master plan. so we're just going to have to make the comments as we feel them. that's all we have to go by. the city's let us down a great deal on this one. commissioner sugaya. commissioner sugaya: just to follow up on commissioner miguel's comments. the whole analysis on the land use zoning section really --

and this has happened before in other e.i.r.s, says here's the current, general plans. and then there's the project. and then it goes on to say but, we're going to make all these changes to the general plan and the zoning code and the height districts and everything else and therefore there's no impact. the whole analysis seems backward to me and i've made this comment before, especially on 555 washington. the same argument was made. we're going to break the height limit by 500 feet because the planning commission will make the change and there's no impact. it seems to me it first should address the current zoning situation, special use district

situation and give us an idea. i mean, description wise we all know what the problem is. this building is two times higher than the height limit or 1 1/2, whatever it is. but there's no real analysises of that. and if that's the way sequa works, then something's wrong with the sequa process. i just have a question for staff. it's ok. it's not about the e.i.r. per se. what is -- can you give me some idea, if we wanted to, for example, suspend the comment period and ask that the e.i.r. be circulated. can we do that today? >> planning department staff. i need to check with the city torn's office about this >> i don't know the answer to

that, i'm sorry. we could find out. >> i'm not saying that we'll do it. i'm just asking a question -- >> i think my understanding is that if there were -- if there were substantial enough changes to an ermentirmentrrment, then it would have to be -- eir, then it would have to be reanalyzed. >> if they come to some sort of understanding of recirculation, would they have to take the decision right now? i don't think -- commissioner sugaya: i'm not saying that the commission is going to do this or even is thinking about it. >> i am. commissioner sugaya: the comment by commissioner olague

triggered something in my mind. so we have the period that ends october 19th. obviously, at that point you have all the comments from public testimony and written comments and then staff and the e.i.r. consultants will go ahead and prepare the responses and then there will be a response and comment that will circulate back to us, combined with the draft will be the final ermentirmentrrment, at which time i -- eir. i understand that both documents are inadequate and it needs to be recirculated. but that's going to be months away. president miguel: if i could add, i mean, the e.i.r. could make a determination somewhere before the end of that process if there was the decision that there was not enough new information required, he could make the decision that this

e.i.r. needed to be researched. and that would happen after the period -- commissioner sugaya: ok. president miguel: as to whether you could do it now, i don't know. commissioner sugaya: maybe i was asking the wrong question or posing the wrong situation. does that come back to us as a staff recommendation? president miguel: i believe it's the call of the e.i.r. commissioner sugaya: all right. thank you. president miguel: commissioner antonini. commissioner antonini: i brought up the question that as we talk this tunnel on vannes, that we look at it with a future eye of a subway because

that i think should be the way the city is looking at in the future. the law of physics says you can't put two onths in the same -- objects in the same spaces. if you really want to improve, you know, traffic and safety, you've got to avail yourself of some, you know, other uses, subterranean to at least move your transit and free up the surface level for other uses. that will be a great thing. but it certainly doesn't have anything to do with this particular project. but i think it's important that we, at least take that into consideration when talking about -- where the tunnel's going to be. couple of other things that came up, the first is that i do agree with commissioner olague. she did mention, housing jobs linkage. and my understanding is that it does apply to the medical office buildings. that's what i've been told.

i'm not sure of that. does not apply to hospitals. we could get a clarification. it's mentioned in the document and find out exactly what that entails. thirdly in terms of the vannes special use district, my understanding is that the housing would be under -- at the fact that it was applied i think it's 85% market rate and 15% affordable. so that would be what it would have to be built by that ratio or whatever the ratio is if they are required to be done. and finally, let's see the -- in terms of whether or not that has to be part of the analysis in the e.i.r. not every alternative has to be analyzed. those projects that have been

built have been exempted in the past, you know, along vanness in the passive of this. they generally were retained or some commercial on the bottom floor. and i think that's what the s.u.i. be analyzed. we don't know the effect of the framers. i think in the 1980 or late 1970. what's its applicability. and finally, i think it's really important that we continue to work on this. i think this is potentially a -- project for san francisco. while we have concerns, we have to make sure we get it done.

you may not need to and lice the 3-1 housing. so you know, no that -- i think one of the reason you don't need to analyze something is if the analysis is a nonviable situation. >> i have to check on se qua law. we have a lot of industries. we've driven in and out of it. i think we have to try to be supportive. oig i'm just asking for the analysis that's not there. so anyway. one of the speakers mentioned

st. francis hospital. one of the question was -- what was the impact of ctmc would come in, would that be a competitor in isn't francis. what physical impact might it have on the area. so that i think is a physical -- that's a question that somehow relates to the e.i.r. then the e.i.r. doesn't mention for such hiring programs. when analyzing fran situation and -- san francisco's situation. >> finally i did a little bit of looking into what's -- have

some folks to help me this. the tendor loin i giss lacks primary and secondary health care services. they are nearly twice the rate of other residents. so a significant percentage of city wide demand for charity care might be originate in that particular neighborhood. i'm not sure how accurate i am. they provide charity care. they are worse than catholic health care west. and in 2008 cpmc characters.

c.h.w. reported expenditures at 17,000 for bed. it seems that some of the comparison to other providers is quite significant. so if they do become a luxury care facility in light of the fact that we have ucsf and stanford and palo alto then we need to question in terms of the the best hospital practices that demsh the etcht of a disaster. you know someone mentioned to me what kind of plan would there be in the plan of a

disaster? and how would these institutions play into it? because it seems in many ways that it is unlikely that given their track report that it's going to be a community, serving community. i'm counting like like many others. the reason i keep on harping on it because to me any institution should be responsible on increased housing demand on the city and that provides for increase housing demand on the street shouldn't be placed on the shoulders of san francisco. so i think that's why it's important to re-examine the conclusion that there are no significant impacts around

housing, which i believe the eir. president miguel: i would like to thank everyone who came today. it's greatly appreciated. just the general public understand that the concept of an e.i.r. in my mind anyway, is to analyze the maximum impact and how many impacts could be mitigated. it doesn't mean that the project will be built to that max. it will the be built somewhere inside this. so the public should not presume that the maximum that is analyzed is necessarily what is going to result in the project. and with that, this hearing --

this hearing to take testimony is over. thank you very much. >> thank you. the biggest issue

in america today? segregation still exists... racism...

the repression and oppression of women the educational system stem cell research homeless people cloning government health care taxation announcer: so, is there anything you're doing to help make a change? i'm not really doin' anything. ummmm [sighs] got me on that one...