valdez. if you have questions to ask the witnesses, please hit the roster button and i will acknowledge you. >> i am here on behalf of the uc hastings community and economic development clinic. i am here to talk about the after mentioned profits and patients report. we use data from the states of california as well as the irs. we prepared the report on behalf of several coalitions, and i would like to present the report to be made part of an informational document, and i am also able to make copies of the report. to reiterate some of the points brought up earlylier, this is te

largest fee-for-service hospital in san francisco. the reported net patient revenue of over $1.2 billion. they maintain 644 beds with staff. now in 2010, st. francis reported $174 million in net revenue and is home to 366 ben and staffs 355. we felt providing an absolute numbers would not provide an accurate comparison with other hospitals in said francisco. instead we looked at it as a function in order to make a fair comparison accounting for a relative size. we thought it was accurate and

adopted by the industry. i am available for any questions many of the supervisors may have as far as more details on the report. >> you have a question? >> if you could say a little bit about how you obtained this information. is this readily available? how did that come about? >> all of this is part of the public domain all of this was obtained from the report as well as through the state of california website, financial reporting data they keep for

every hospital, and we also use forms that charitable organizations submit to the irs, so all of this is in the public domain. most of it is on internet. if not, hard copies are obtainable. >> one question was to the extent we are asking to maintain the same level of care they had in the last -- historically. what is that doing going forward relative to other hospitals? >> what we did is we measured charity care as a function of net patient revenue, sir charity care to net patient revenue was 1.38%. other hospitals such as st.

francis had a ratio of almost 4.5%, so that is nearly three times as much, so i would imagine if it were to remain consistent that is markedly lower than others. >> thank you. >> why don't we hear from the next speaker? can we hear from the next speaker?

tracks to the board of supervisors, the evening. i am the executive director of the filipinos senior resource center located in san francisco. the mission is to serve the seniors 60 and over. also world war ii veterans have when and people -- and people under 18. i started the breast cancer program. in this year's funding cycle, we were not able to get funded by one of our founders, so california pacific medical center who worked together.

by giving us money to continue my own program. we started with only five, and now we are serving more than 60 survivors, and i have also reported some for free mammogram and free transportation to go to their center. this made a difference in addressing the needs of the clients, especially south of market and with the intention to give more support within the program as the years come, assuring a long-term partnership. on behalf of this growth, some of my clients are breast cancer survivors, but they are also

seen years. i would like to ask the board of supervisors -- they are also seen years. -- seniors. i would like to ask the board of supervisors to approve this. >> thank you very much. why don't we hear from the next speaker? >> good evening. when i wrote my comment, it was good afternoon, and i hope it does not go into good morning. i am here to talk about some of the concerns the community has, but first i want to thank the supervisors for making sure this is happening and there is more public accountability on what is happening and also to let folks know that many of the folks who were in the overflow room were

forced to leave early, so there are 75 folks who already had to leave before they could testify. today you are going to hear from our community and labor coalition, which represents many districts, including the tenderloin and a few-. we understand the development plan is going to fundamentally change the way health care is delivered in our city, and it is also going to set a precedent for how our sense of cisco is going to meet community needs, so that is why we are standing before you today to demand they do more in tuno address the proposals set forth. there are significant shortfalls people have mentioned again and again, and we want to point out with the downsizing of st. luke's that it is in some ways

contradictory with what we are trying to do. we are trying to reach more low- income patients. i am going to leave it at that. >> i represent the vernal heights neighborhood, and i have been working with a coalition. i want to talk briefly about the health care component. our biggest concern is that the largest and most profitable hospitals in san francisco contributed to an equitable health care system. i think there are some aspects to the system we just heard. supervisor campos raise the question. this baseline of three years replicates the record on charity care. we have to hold cpmc to a higher

standard. they should be providing at least the same care as a hospital. we applaud the health department and the mayor's office for anticipating national health care reform and requiring 10,000 beneficiaries to be enrolled. ironwood director garcia said about the limits of capacity when -- i heard what director garcia said about the limits of capacity. finally, the rebuilding us save lives is 1/3 of the capacity of five hospital. the only hospital with a history of serving low-income patients, yet they will not even agree to maintain the hospital for 20 years. that is unacceptable. we understand this agreement is part of land use, but i hope you will consider health-care implications of what they are proposing and try to make them

more accountable to providing equity for san francisco. >> i have a question. i am wondering as a member of the community who have been working to keep st. luke's open, what are your thoughts about this issue of the escape clause that has been mentioned around st. luke's? i am wondering what you and some folks in the community think about that. >> i am worried about the prospects. st. luke's is part of an integrated health care system, which means they depend on the rest of them to function. if they were to become dependent on an 80-bed hospital there is a good chance they would not survive.

the question is who is willing to take over st. luke's and operate as a larger system, or they will not survive. we lose the only private hospital in the southwest of the city that has that history of serving low income communities. >> next speaker. >> thank you very much for this opportunity to address the board on this critically important matter. there are health care impacts and affordable housing impacts this massive developments will have, and they will be met either partially in partnership with cpmc or by us, the taxpayers, because poor people

will continue to exist and need housing or health care whether or not this project is built. this will create a new set of demands for affordable housing. it is disappointing the mayor's office has chosen such a narrow focus. the housing element has policies. good the housing element has former los -- 4 allows, actual projections of what -- the housing element has formulas and projections to meet the needs. there are moderate needs and low income needs. to ignore the needs of a workforce demand on housing in virtually needmeans all of us wl

pay for housing the work force. i would be happy to answer any questions. >> just explain the main housing demands and how far off the proposal is from the coalition's demands. >> what he has said has been absolutely accurate including his role in drafting a policy statement that requires not merely the zoning requirements but to substantially meet underlying housing requirements. the substantial meeting of housing requirements we calculate at about 2850 unisys of housing for people earning moderate to extremely low. that is across income guidelines. there is a 25 units replacing

the housing units demolished by actual construction. there is 325 units which would be the inclusion rezoning requirement should cpmc only be required to meet that element of the plan. a substantial element which be closer to the 1100's units required without special who views they are asking for. san francisco has rigid without special use they are as before. so for this cause -- san francisco who was a policy to minimize the impact on employers. it is part of the general plan of the city and county of san francisco, and that no general

plan allocates affordability levels. 40% of all housing built in san francisco, including housing created by this project, that is how we get to 2850 unisyts, whih is the real housing cost of this project. we are solving 350 units. the difference of 2500 units is those people will not disappear. the housing demand will not disappear. we will pay for it. we will pay for it by higher housing costs. we will pay for it by using a general fund money to do affordable housing production to meet those housing needs. furnishes fleet, the program is

only a down payment program. we are giving a break tuesday it is 350 innocents. -- 350 units. one could argue they are creating competition for existing units thoughand driving housing up. one could argue -- i would not make that argument. >> i appreciate it. >> some people are getting confused by the bells. there are two bells. one is to indicate you have 30 seconds left, and there is a timer, so you can maximize your time. >> i am speaking for the san francisco neighborhood network.

transportation and i am going to focus on cathedral hill, because a lot of them are less the tab. -- are less detailed. we are looking at 28,000 additional automobile trips every day. they propose to mitigate that. i am going to point out that in all of their years of operating in san francisco, they have not reached close to 50% transit share. they are at 29% of employees to take transit. even with giving people $100 to take public transit, they cannot get 50% of employees out of their cars. we have 1600 employees everyday

driving in automobiles to van ness and puree. -- geary. they will seek parking, as they are in campuses, which is creating tremendous problems as is. sending you need is not enough. there has to be incentives to find new name. -- to find muni -- to fund muni. 50% of employees come from out of the city. we have an ecological environmental disaster at the corner, which is not mitigated by anything we see before you.

>> thank you, mrs. morgan. are there any staffers who are here? i would like the mta to respond to any statistics. i think these are disconcerting. >> we will make sure to relay the question and get an answer back. >> thank you. >> i am joanne, a member of the community coalition. in may of 2009, the attorney wrote a letter saying, significant developments in the national and local economy have affected all employers. thus far, they are treating fewer patients than expected. while they have made efforts to

reduce costs, more reductions are required. net profit had a staggering weight from 120 42 159 million. the c o was granted a 59% wage increase. the disparity highlights of hallmark. it is what allows the company to come before city officials for approval of the product while denying current employees the right to transfer to it, despite huge community repercussions that would result from a loss of jobs. that same sense of privilege also allow them to exercise of gender bias double standard.

also denying the rights to the registered nurses work force, which is 95% female. 40 jobs per year for five years for a projected 4100 new jobs and who would be laughable if it were not so tragic. >> thank you very much. next speaker. ÷:÷>> i am a san francisco resit and attorney working with the coalition on these issues. i wanted to talk briefly on the agreement. the community benefits agreement

is considered very important by community groups because it provides ongoing accountability, cannot be changed over time the with the development agreement can be changed, so there is a lot more confidence over time. it is also important from the city's perspective of the time it is being approved, because successful negotiation provides more of a win-win outcome. you have broad community support, and you have a controversial issue presented with an issue like this. i have presented about a dozen agreements, and when it works, it works really well. it has gotten much better over time. this is a private project.

it is not being subsidized, but it is not being considered the way of purely private project would be who. this is a huge project. they are asking for a development agreement the council can take, and you have full discretion to decide who whether you think it is a good thing. finally, having sat across the table and negotiated these kinds of agreements before, i think when a developer said here is one provision that is going to be the first thing that goes if we get in financial trouble, putting the provision -- >> mr. rose, can you answer the question. why is it the city cannot negotiate a deal with all of the community benefit issues of the

agreement? >> i think the city can and should negotiate a strong deal with range of benefits. i think that is what the administration is trying to do. the community benefits agreement supplements that agreement. it is next to that agreement. it is another layer of accountability, and in a lot of cases, the community groups will cut a stronger deal on certain community benefits, because the press the hardest on those things, and it is much stronger who overturned. it does not obviate the need for the city to negotiate a strong agreement, but it supplements if in an important way if they have assurances these benefits are going to be provided. supervisor avalos: you mentioned other urban areas have actually

formulated community agreement -- community benefit agreements. >> the l.a. lives-staples arena lives. we have about one dozen community groups and labor unions supporting the project. at the time of approval, there was widespread community support, which is almost never the case. over time, the community group has had a good relationship. they have met their requirements and then some. when there have been things that turn out to be hard to negotiate, who have turned certain terms into a land trust, and it has been widely studied academically. there has been a lot of interest among community groups in the country, and the developer talks about what a great benefit it

was in terms of community support was very important in terms of getting the project through. that is one example of many that i could refer you to. >> why don't we hear from the next speaker? >> good evening. i am one of the founders of the occupied movement, and from what i understand this is a corporate health-care apparatus with a profit in excess of $180 million a year. it has a troubled history with labor and the suspect relationship with politicians. sutter health care 62 undermine humane treatment of rape victims -- seeks to undermine humane treatment of rape

victims. it is my belief they funnel wealthy patients into a new hospital and leave underfunded patients in the cold, which is reprehensible and indicative of the typical behavior of those who seek to aggrandize themselves at the expense of the poor. the agenda in favor of building more misery for profit corporate health care franchisees will likely cause more problems than it seeks to address. we feel it admirable that the board of supervisors, led by such informed and sympathetic officials as mr. avalos and mr. mark, can draft resolutions to end the war in afghanistan, and yet we consider it irresponsible to neglect the more important issues that will exasperated conditions for our burgeoning mentally ill and homeless problems.

i ask you to revoke and decide in favor of people, not profits. >> next speaker. please step up. [applause] >> if i can remind folks we have a board rule that does not allow people to applaud or express opposition so we can move proceedings along. next speaker. >> we are here with solidarity of the coalition. the speaker had 15 years of experience, securities for work. our work is dangerous. our community holds them accountable. we need