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 them to be accountable to all of san francisco. we need to have a guaranteewe ht them. thank you. president chiu: next speaker, please. >> thank you. my name is -- and i am and employee. we are not against the new

hospital, but we want them to be comfortable with the agreements, because in the time that i have been in the city, we see all of the reasons that we have, and it does not follow that. for example, a few minutes ago, we had this for the union. the managers are still saying that we do not have a contract, that we are against this. this is not true. it should be in a good direction, where the labor union has a right to organize and have it, but right now, what we have

is a smear campaign, said to tell the truth, i was fighting to have a voice. before, they were colluding with the city. because of that, and another co- worker -- organize for the other union. they have never followed the agreements with the labor union. they always try to go around and do what they want. thank you. president chiu: thank you. next speaker, please. >> ♪ and now, the time has come

that i would like to mention that you have all of the medical departments without the exemption to think you did all of that, you did all of that along the medical highway what is more, you did the right way. what is an item? what has it got proof -- what has it got? all along, i had no doubt that you would talk about it and working out the records showed that you really know and you will fix it up the right way the records show that you really know and can fix it of the right way ♪

[cheers and applause] president chiu: next speaker. >> good evening, president chiu and supervisors. my name is -- and i am the former president of an asian association. i support this because they would provide many job opportunities for san francisco. not only will the project as create jobs. this is in the construction industry. i local small businesses employ many san franciscans. there is and local hiring goal. they are still trying to recover this. it will help to kick-start the local economy. there is no question that this project will stimulate our local economy.

this provides long-term benefit. we think so. this is on what would be the state of art, a rise in export -- expert care for the surrounding economy. community. the updated facilities will provide much-needed services to come. all san franciscans will recommend this updated facility. there have been some objections. this can be overcome by careful planning. detail planning can mitigate traffic gridlock. we fully support this project and hope that you can support it. president chiu: thank you.

next speaker. >> we have experienced unemployment rates as high as 35% and a decline in hours of approximately 50% with obvious devastating effects. i am speaking today in support of the projects that would generate 1500 union construction jobs once it is approved and breaks ground. although there has been a recent uptick, in san francisco this is effectively in a construction depression, and it should be proof enough. each and every project with a solid commitment with wages and benefits is critical to survival. severe long-term employment has

taken enough casualties with the community of which we are apart. our union has a large history of working with community-based organizations to recruit san francisco residents into our apprenticeships. even throughout this recent economic decline. we are concerned not only for our existing membership but also to provide new hope to young individuals who are trying to build their future by learning a trade and securing a good paying job. in the end, when the negotiations can go no further, it is to vote for this project. this is a decision that they are going to face. president chiu: thank you. next speaker. >> thank you, members.

i am the reverend, representing the san francisco naacp and the san francisco economic council. i support the rebuild. it is necessary. it is needed. at the age i have gotten to, i hope they do it fairly quickly. but at the same time, i do have some concerns. supervisor mirkarimi, we are going to miss you in the western addition. once again, you are exactly right. we have not been involved in the process. when this discussion started, this was still there, and this may come as a surprise to a lot of folks. the proposed hospital is in the western addition, and it is in what was formerly the redevelopment area, so they talked to us again, and as soon as the redevelopment left, we were once