st. luke's in cathedral hill -- duplicates services at st. luke's and cathedral, does not have opposed acute facility, as limited a variety of services, and fails in the eir to properly consider alternatives that could provide greater access to services with your negative environmental impacts. cpmc sutter promises to provide its fair share of charity care and commits itself to spent a dollar amount under the project that is less than it currently spends on such care. cpmc sutter promises to produce it in the health plans, but it allows it to charge the city and workers higher prices than other providers for health services when using out of network providers in particular. it promises to improve clinical outcomes but fails to offer a compelling case for the superiority of the proposed project over other alternatives,

particularly because the alternatives considered are too narrowly cpmc defined narrowly sutter promises to provide information necessary to evaluate this project, but consider, a beat -- you are being asked to approve a wholesale reversal of pet -- of planning policy in the most heavily transit corridor in san francisco without the zoning changes provided in advance, without a complete development agreement to assess the quality and effectiveness of the indications of. without legitimate analysis of the environmentally superior product alternatives and without the job a mitigation, air quality productions, job guarantees, or the appropriate jobs-housing balance to ensure this project delivers quality health care services to san franciscans. thank you. >> mr. president, i believe -- >> i am handing in comments on

the eir, and i would ask that my comments be incorporated on section c, page 8. very basically, the eir, in doing this for 30 years, looking at major project eir's, i have never seen one that sun it lacks the discussion and planning index of an affordable housing on the city's affordable housing program as this eir does. specifically, it centers on the failure of the discussion and around the van ness quarter plan in the very notion of sustainable development, which has been incorporated in the 2009 housing element, and you supposedly now, after sb 375, a guiding principle for regional planning, which this city applied for and receives a grant to do sustainable development at th. at the heart of sustainable the

balladist the heart of the van ness plan, the jobs-housing balance. the notion that you could put in a major job generator and require no housing in an area plan that is meant to seek a balance between jobs and housing along a transit-rich corridor is a bizarre and not being analyzed in the eir. the eir is massively incomplete and inaccurate in its failure to analyze the impact on policy, established policy by this commission of the changes being proposed to accommodate this project. but most importantly, what this a failure of analysis has done is limit the city's ability to negotiate a real development agreement housing program. what we have is basically lipstick on a pig.

now, we may admire, as some of you have already done, the shade of the lipstick and the skill with which it has been applied to the pgi, but it is still mayor lee lipstick on a pig. -- is still just listed on a pig. this will have a net increase of 1,490 households, 2.3 person households generated by the work force of this development. we're talking about mitigating 300 units, and we only reached 300 units if we use existing city subsidies to subsidize the wealthiest hospital in san francisco. it makes no public policy since. -- no public policy sense.

you have been given in our analysis of what needs to be changed in the development agreement. but the failure of any good -- the dollar agreement skillfully negotiated by the city with its hands tied by the lack of analysis on the the eir, on the importance and impact of a jobs- housing imbalance. we're asking for a dynamic relationship between housing and jobs. that is the essence of sustainable development. that is the essence of smart growth, which this commission has adopted in plants from the market octavia to the eastern neighborhoods. you cannot abandon on a project- by-project basis broad city policy that seeks to strike it -- why are we allowing in this project and ownership program when the need is for net new housing units? and ownership program adds not one that new unit. we have a perfectly functioning

downpayment assistance program. if they want to do ownership, make them contribute to the existing program, but why are we giving them credit? we are producing, in effect, less than 160 studio -- a net new studio units. or, in terms of two bedrooms, we are producing a brand new total of the 25 million, about 85 new two-bedroom units. [bell rings] the demand is for 1490 units. it is inadequate. rejected the eir. amend the development agreement. thank you. >> thank you. paul. he may be downstairs. that is the last. >> while we wait, can we start with seniors and disabled? >> the next category are those

who pre-arranged special accommodations for seniors or disabled persons. i will call some names. if you want to make your way up here, you can line up on the left-hand side. romni, mimi, and bernie. ready? >> well, 84 years old gives me the privilege. >> absolutely. >> anyway, i am resubmitting unacknowledged submissions from several weeks ago for san francisco tomorrow, which is a citywide organization.

my concern is based on extensive experience, that the california ceqa mandate is critically lacking regard and analysis of the cumulative impacts that are required to be studied and mitigated. and i give you a legal citation that you can use and should have used. cumulative impacts, particularly like the tenderloin area, includes the twitter area, an area of impoverished people that would be affected by speculative land speculation that will raise the price of housing. with san francisco and new york being the highest cost of living

cities in the nation, it is abusive to assume that there is a market rate solution. i have attached at least one proposal of how the city, through its efforts, with public-private partnerships can readdress that situation. it is nets, in st. -- nuts, insane, that this is not been addressed. it is the lack of a public- private partnership of the city's share -- public-private partnership. the city's share, particularly given the seismic event inevitably, over 1 million people will be here for three months without service. despite the so-called blue ribbon committee that sutter health is a non-contributor to a

live beating -- to alleviating disaster relief. two-thirds of the city will be left helpless. secondly, the -- [bell rings] there is a gas pipeline within damage range of this building that, can -- commendably, sutter health has looked into. there is a city-sponsored it strange, and it is volatile. i do not know why the hell it has not been dug. thank you very much for your attention. please certify -- [bell rings] commissioner fong: thank you. we will go back to the person we called earlier. >> good afternoon, commissioners. thank you. my name is paul.

i will hope to be brief. i have a letter and supporting documentation. the eir, and i want to focus specifically on traffic issues, clearly, according to the documentation in the response document, follows the standard requirements, ceqa requirements. it has gone through the appendix g checklist. it has used san francisco standard practice. based on that, it looks at the individual modes of transportation. pedestrian, bicycle, vehicles, transit. however, that does not necessarily answer the questions that affect the quality of life of residents in the surrounding neighborhoods.

and these are issues that we have raised repeatedly cpmc, both repeatedly -- repeatedly, both with cpmc and with planning staff, in prior communications. so, the first key comment is that the peak period level of service analysis that is used is inadequate to assess the impact of a high use facility in residential neighborhoods. what we see are transient traffic phenomenons that cause pedestrian hazards, bicycle hazards, and vehicular hazards. because of driver behaviors. we see congestion at that changes the way people in the community walk, drive, and live their lives during the business hours. this is not something that looking at a peak hour level of service captures. in tr 10, it asserts the intent

of analyzing the transportation network during the peak hour was to capture the network went maximum use would occur, as such any and all impacts would be included. that holds true only of the impacts are the impacts measured by levels of service. that is not what we're talking about. we're talking about unobstructed visibility on crosswalks. we are talking about cars failing to yield to pedestrians because they are trying to get through the lead because they have been stuck behind vehicles letting off passengers that are unloading goods. because there is not proper maintenance. the loading zones are not properly used, and more. these are all medical issues if people follow the code -- of these issues can all be mitigated if people follow the code and it is enforced. regrettably, it is not. that is the failure of action on the part of cpmc and city

agencies and result in adverse impacts from the use intensity that are not considered or not mitigated. it should be pointed out that metrics other than los can do a good job of looking at adverse effects on the community, as opposed to just looking at impacts on other vehicle traffic. the second point is that there was an ss position wastr 13 that the significance criteria address all modes. that is speaking of someone who uses two of the three modes and used to use the third mode, bicycle, a lot. that is about half true. the pedestrian assessment looks at -- are the sidewalks widened enough? is the cross for quite enough to handle the traffic? it does not look at such things as, did the pedestrians actually yield to the turning traffic or does that cause a major back up

because the right lane does not move forward? it does not look at such things as a white zone adjacent to a bicycle lane, which is a very high pick up and drop off trade with the doors opening into the bicycle lane. to me, that is an accident waiting to happen. it does not seem to be considered. the plan -- the response in tr 75 addresses a comment about japantown parking. it is interesting. it is conclusion -- its conclusion is based on an unratified 2005 draft to japantown better neighborhoods document that this commission sent back to the community to refi. it is based specifically on data

that was contest it in public comment at this commission when it was being heard, and when we looked at that data in detail, we found that, while, yes, on average the capacity of the garage was good, but at peak times when large numbers of customers would use japantown, the garage was at one under present capacity, and there were significantly decreased revenues. we understand parking as such is not an impact. but the impact of parking on the community, if there is a demonstrable adverse impact, is something that can be considered or should be considered. finally, various responses demonstrated the analysis did not understand or pay attention to actual conditions. a couple of examples.

these common responses assert that they look at times when the san francisco unified school district was in session and did not find any adverse impacts. the problem is they looked in june, and in june, the private schools that drive the adverse interactions are out of session. so they missed peak traffic impacts that do play a significant role. they asserted that the newcomer high school site was nowhere in -- nowhere near any pacific cpmc facility, ignoring the fact that the newcomer high school site, the physical side were that building used to be, is on a jackson and webster, and its use was undetermined. so there are major gaps in terms of the gauge that was used for the analysis, attention to adverse impacts on a residence that occurred throughout the

day, and are frequently less during the peak commute hours than they are during the midday times. and therefore, they're totally and captured by the focus. these are all major gaps that, on the traffic section, indicate that it is and inadequate and insufficient analysis that does not lead you, as policy makers, as says the trade-offs between benefits an adverse impact on the community. until that is addressed, i urge you to not certify this document. thank you. commissioner fong: thank you. >> good afternoon. i am george, a member of unitarian universalist church. i am here to speak in support of creating a mitigation

monitoring, reporting, and enforcement committee has requested by the coalition of san francisco for health care, housing, jobs, and justice. our historic sanctuary at the unitarian church is located across the intersection from the proposed cathedral hill hospital loading dock. our magnificent stained-glass windows will transfer noise from the loading dock, including the beep, beep, beep of delivery trucks, and the significant and unavoidable noise of oxygen in deliveries and medical waste removal equipment. in addition, there remains the potential for delivery trucks creating blocked intersections with frustrated drivers on and geary and o'farrell streets

laying on of their horns. i appreciate that the representatives agreed to even stronger medications than originally proposed to address these challenges, but many of those medications are contingent -- many of those mitigations are contingent to closing those doors which will is not going to happen and then trying something else. over the years, i can foresee these mitigations being forgotten and ignored. for that reason, i urge you to support at least this one suggestion from the coalition and required the creation of a mitigation reporting and enforcement committee. thank you. commissioner fong: thank you. tim, joseph, pat.

pat, joseph? you'll have to pull down that microphone. >> let me change it. ok. >> thank you very much. my name is joseph flanagan. i am the vice chair for the department of developmental services supervisory committee. i would like to say two things. one is i am supporting cpmc fully with the cooperation,

helping, and support that they gave me. number two is i am hoping that the planning commission of san francisco will support him as well. thank you very much. commissioner fong: thank you. >> hi, thank you very much for this opportunity to speak. i want to thank linda avery in being a wonderful and helping with my accommodations. i do believe that the commission and the deputies need a little better training in how to accommodate people with disabilities for these large

hearings. my name is patricia lovelock. i am one of the neighbors to the west of this project. it is as if we do not exist. i live within the area with the heavily used arterioles that go through the city, and i see every single day the traffic, the particulate matter on my plants that i have to wash off daily. i see pedestrian safety problems. in fact, when i was one day trying to just across the street in front of the pacific campus, they had so many vans double and triple park across waccamaw i went in and asked them if they could please keep the crosswalks clear, and i was laughed at. this kind of attitude that people who have had experiences with cpmc is exactly why we do not trust them to do just common

sense mitigation. some of these mitigations they need to be doing where they are now, and they will not. i think it is reprehensible that we have to take the arm and twisted. i want this to be a magnificent institution for health care for people. the eir does not address the issues of the noise, the haunting that happens when the car's back up. i have seen emergency vehicles on franklin street have to go on the sidewalk to get through. and they backed up into traffic. the traffic will not part for them. the idea of having even more is very frightening. additionally, the brt program, including more traffic onto franklin street and polk street,

the other parallel streets to van ness, and now we are going to be faced with all of these driveways on franklin street accessing the hospital. it is already a very difficult issue for pedestrians and traffic. [bell rings] we have other projects that also happening that are going to have driveways. taxicabs are not going to go into those in driveways, the interior driveway. there is also no place for paratransit vans that have to wait for passengers. and the are only for managed care. many disabled are on medicare and medi-cal. we have the right to choose. august or september 2010, i requested to see somebody ought patient for that insurance and was flatly denied by cpmc.

commissioner fong: thank you very much. if i called your name, come on up. have i called your name? marlena, carlito, stanley. >> ok? good afternoon, commissioners. my name is angelina, 81 years young. i am a senior and lived in the tenderloin for 27 years now. i am also in member of the tenderloin filipino american

community organization. as a resident in the tenderloin, i have spoken several times about why we should not approve cpmc's planning of this. i have spoken several times about why we should disapprove cpmc's plan. it will not serve us. we need a hospital that will accept seniors and low-income families as well. we demand that sutter cpmc do its fair share of serving low- income patients. cpmc should not have the burden of -- [unintelligible] sutter cpmc should be made accountable and pay back what they owe in terms of providing services to low-income

residents. we want to make sure that medicare and patience and families -- we are demanding cpmc for a partnership with the community-based clinic in the tenderloin so that residents can have access. we want cpmc to address these issues by having a community benefits agreement that is acceptable for the community. [speaking foreign language] ok. commissioner fong: thank you. [laughter] >> my name is teselle, a resident of the south side. i support 3a because we need at st. luke's to operate at full

capacity. our area is already underserved. this is the district's nine, 10, 11, the whole southeast side. if you recall when they made their presentation, they talked about st. luke's by saying secure the future for st. luke's. how is that possible with only 80 beds? we asked you revisit alternative 3a as the most appropriate basis for the project. it is also the best option to meet the whole city is in need -- city's need. thank you. commissioner fong: thank you. i called everyone's name here, right? >> commissioners, thank you for this chance for the community to address you. my name is alex, and i am here becausi