asking people to line up on the right side of the room. wait until your name is called before coming up. the first is marlene morgon, paul wermer, william ogborn, tom neuy, lia pimentel, tom christian, mark erickson, thaddeus lee, steve woo, sean megerra, calvin welsh, sarah pope, and others. president chiu: i unfortunately will have to leave shortly for a meeting. i want to thank city staff for their hard work. i hope to get answers to the

questions we have raised later today. iowa to thank members of the public who have been focused on this. it is my hope we will be able to move this project into a place that we can all support. i think we all want to see these hospitals rebuilt, but rebuilt the right way. i want to thank everyone involved. we look forward to feature your conversations and discussions in the coming days. chairperson mar: thank you. first speaker? two minutes per person. microphone, please. go ahead. we need to have the microphone functioning. try again, ms. morgan. >> neighborhood network. i want to talk a little bit about the effects of consolidation of all the acute

care beds on cathedral hill on the environment. i think all of you have heard a lot of testimony from other speakers about the effect of consolidation in health care. i have a couple pieces of data you might want to look at. "we were referring to earlier was a study done in 2009, by the office of the legislative analyst of the board of supervisors, to see if the cathedral hill site was going to be able to accommodate the intensity, scope, and scale of a 550 bed hospital. this was a joint project of cathedral neighbors, cpmc, and the legislative analyst. we surveyed six hospitals, nationwide. we look at george washington university, children's hospital boston, kaiser permanente l.a., mass harvard in boston, case

western university, and another. we found in these hospitals -- four of these benchmarks work -- chairperson mar: please continue with your main point, but then we will have to move on. >> in these hospitals, we found that from 371 to 1052 beds were on a minimum of 10 acres to a the average was 641 beds on 53 acres. this is what it takes to have an urban hospital. are we done? chairperson mar: yes, thank you. i was mistaken. there is a soft velvet goes off with 30 seconds to go. -- bell that goes off with 30 seconds to go. the louder one means your time

is up. >> good afternoon. my name is paul wermer. i have some papers that have been submitted previously to various people, but i would like to submit them again. i am talking specifically to the issues of traffic. i live near the pacific side, and have observed the traffic the traffic in parts for many years. i started negotiating on behalf of local members to address traffic and traffic-related issues. issues like/oxh parking directly contribute to traffic. we submitted a request to mr. rich regarding the development agreement. we do not really need money. we are asking for something much more difficult. we are asking for the city and cpmc, as part of the development

agreement, to commit to a structure that provides structured problem-solving to address parking and traffic problems. i have worked with the pacific site since 2002. we still have the problems commitment and ability to make things happen are slow. this city does not carry its share of the burden on enforcement or other actions. this is important, because it is not just congestion and level of service at intersections. when you have high traffic, when you have congestion, and people are going to the hospital or doctor's office, they are already stressed. you see a high level of unsafe driving behaviors. you see people pulling out around double parked cars without looking. you see people rushing into across work because -- a

crosswalk, because they are late. we do not have a mechanism to deal with that. >> i wish to read a statement into the record. mr. and mrs. fang have owned the building directly across van ness since 1997. it was formerly occupied by circuit city, and has been empty since that bankruptcy three years ago. many of the large storefronts have experienced the same fate. the streets are frequented by homeless drifters, and drug addicts, and graffiti appears nightly. it is difficult for large formula retail business to get a permit to operate in the city. environmental tape, historical building, and other committees take a minimum of a year to 18

months, not to mention hundreds of thousands of $1 must spend on lawyers, engineers, lobbyists. at least three large retailers consider leasing space, and eventually all dropped out because of time, effort, and unpredictable cost. for some strange reason, the city bent over backwards for the minority groups, mostly retired or unemployed, who had the time to mind -- to complain the loudest. the majority simply do not have time to show up and complain. this is what is happening with the cpmc. we have spoken about the difficulty of doing business in the city. everybody i have spoken to, from the mayor to the building department, have agreed with us that the city needs to make changes, and yet nothing has changed. it continues to make things difficult for our businesses to survive. the cpmc will revive this

neighborhood. it will bring millions of dollars of new money to the city. this will translate to new jobs, but her health care, new businesses, and an opportunity to bring life to a dying neighborhood. it is vital to the future of the city. thank you for supporting it. >> i am representingo francisco neighborhood network, and the tenderloin. when i first learned of this project, i was excited that our neighborhood was going to get a state of the art hospital. intersections where this already has crushing traffic at rush hours -- geary, van ness, franklin -- these are like

freeways. they are freeways. my neighborhood is going to bear an undue burden. when we look at it, we are not going to receive much benefit, other than being let into the emergency room. the tenderloin will not be served by this hospital, which is a luxury hospital. the fact is, there are remedies that could help address these additional 20,000 person-trips per day. actually, it is more like 28,000 person-trips, because the figure did not mention the 8000 troops that were part of the cathedral hill hotel, that were already going there before the hotel was closed. there is a simple remedy. it is called 3a in the report. with such a remedy, st. luke's

would become viable. with 80 beds, it is not viable. at 200, it might become economically viable. my community, the tenderloin, would be spared some of the adverse impact>/ñkz of crushing traffic. plus the jamming up of ambulances try to get to their destination. plus deliveries blocking the roads. it is reallyw thank you for your consideration. >> michael therriot. a couple of points. the mta did not consider this, but it seems clear from some of the numbersv0sd= have seen. traffic in 2009 is somewhat less than traffic in 2006. if you were to use a year as a benchmark, 2006 might be a more telling benchmark. additionally, with regard to a

supervisor weiner's point, if you are going to accept a hospital, you will accept unmistakable traffic difficulty. you cannot have a hospital similar to st. luke's, because cesar chavez is also being narrowed. i ride by it every morning on my bicycle. there will be no rapid transit path for emergency vehicles. if you push the balloon in one spot,, this is the project to move forward. chairperson mar: thank you. next speaker.

>> my name is tom christian. i have been raised in san francisco my whole life. if you drive by kaiser on geary boulevard, there seems to be no trouble getting out of the office building. i do not see any traffic issues at all, with regard to kaiser. the same thing is true going to st. mary's. i used to have st. mary's on speed dial, because my father was there often. if i would call the house and he was not there, i would call st. mary's. there he was. very goodlevw parking. 3jlzñvery easy in and out. something was a princess. i do not see how 550 bed hospital will have more impact on parking than the existing hospitals. with regard to the concern for emergency vehicles, how can you ask why there would be an issue? if it is an emergency, should we not all get out of the way and let them get through?

this needs to be debated in a public forum. with regard to parking, kaiser has tons of parking, and it is not enough. if you go there in the wrong time, you go to the highest level of parking on the back street, or the lowest level on the theory boulevard side. if it is a hospital situation, you are going to go by car. i cannot imagine the doctor's going by bus. i think you have to allow plenty of parking for hospitals. they are not businesses, in a traditional sense. there is a human element. if you take the red carpet away, i think you will find yourself without the new cpmc, without st. luke's, and you will have less beds in the city. thank you very much. !h afternoon, supervisors. this marks the final land use

committee hearing before the full board of supervisors convenes to decide whether the development plan will be approved. we have heard people come out either for or against the project, some motivated by personal interest, some by political incentives, and others by a desire to maximize long- term prosperity. ed lee negotiated a deal that would allow for a state of the art hospital to be constructed along van ness and geary, while also renovating st. luke's hospital, bringing it up to seismic code. cpmc agrees to inject millions of dollars into affordable housing, practice improvements, and public astonishingly, there are people who would jeopardize the future safety of infrastructure to get a bigger slice of the pie. i understand there is a lot of money at stake, and everybody would like to see benefit.

i understand, on the other hand, that many are concerned with the future of st. luke's, and do not want to see it closed. if you cut yourself among these people, there is one thing to keep in mind. if you prevent this project from going forward, you will be directly responsible for the closure of the st. luke's hospital. "her than cpmc that would consider operating it, because it is not economically viable. if cpmc needs to reduce number of beds to operate the hospital, that is a sacrifice we must make. the supervisor of elections coming up on november 6, is it wise to leave behind a legacy of being the biggest job killers in the history of san francisco? make the right choice, both for yourselves and the people of the city. chairperson mar: i am going to call a few more names. jed crawford, amy kelly, tom

radulovich, angie brown, geoff rey garner. >> my name is jeffrey. i am a principal with a transportation planning company in san francisco. we were consultants to cpmc in developing the transportation program. i have three points. this is the right location for a major medical facility. they do generate a large number of motor vehicle, transit, and pedestrian trips. other than the market street corridor, there is no better location anywhere in san francisco for minimizing the impact of those trips than this fantastic location. they would take advantage of two of the most important investments in rapid transit over the next decade. to clarify a point made earlier, emergency vehicles are

allowed to use transit-only lanes. there may be no better location where emergency service vehicles can reach a medical facility, compared to other locations in the city. second, cpmc has what appears to be the best transportation management plan, required as part of their development, that has ever been created in san francisco. there is a long list of programs victoria presented to you. the shuttle commitment is 3 minute frequency, peek, six minutes off peak, and a list of other requirements. there is significant funding from the parking operation that is perhaps seven times the requirements. all of this taken together, while there may be localized impact at the intersection of geary and van ness,

reduction, because of the transportation management plan applied to all campuses, which was not counted in the eir. people will not be going to the doctor more often as part of this project. chairperson mar: thank you. next speaker. >> i am a professor of law, and economic development clinic, which has been working with the coalition of neighborhood and labor groups on this project for the last six years. three years, excuse me. that coalition is known as san franciscans for health care, housing, jobs, and justice. related to the history of this project, the mayor's initial proposal that cpmc contributes $73 million to affordable housing is much closer to the

mark than what we have now, and still makes a lot of sense. if you add the $12.50 million or so calculated for the equivalent of jobs housing linkage, you get about $85 million for much- needed affordable housing in san francisco. it could be divided between the traditional program and some program for down payments. the second two points go to some having in getting answers around the housing and how things were calculated. the van ness special use district does accept some of exceptions to the housing requirements. it requires a finding that substantial new housing is notá being significantly compromised. no such study has ever been done for this. sé2kwe have no idea the impact f this project for future housing

on van ness. second, the way the project was to find -- defined avoided having to do a serious jobs- housing linkage ordinance. a medical office building can qualify, or would fall under the existing jobs-housing linkage ordinance, but for the with the product was defined, which was a discretionary decision by the planning department to include the office building and a hospital as one institution. chairperson mar: can you elaborate on the point, how it was defined? >> this is a question of interpretation of the law. but you could also have interpreted the law to say they have on one side a hospital project, and on another site, a medical office building. over the long run, the medical off, separate from the hospital.

they did not. the key issue where there is a question of interpretation is something that did not come up. it is whether they could even reach the result they did. to do that, they had to find that the medical office building was affiliated in controlled by the hospital. -- and controlled by the hospital. that may not be the case down . we do not know what the future will be. they may have made another choice in interpretation.afha chairperson mar: thank you, professor. thank you for being here. next speaker? >> my name is steve wu, from tenderloin neighborhood development. we are a member organization. we are here to ask you to not support the development agreement until there is more done to address the impact on housing and traffic that this project will have.

i am here representing our community, the tenderloin, the low income neighborhood adjacent to the project. the community has a lot of the ims large institution will have on our neighborhood, in terms of the affordable housing stock, and also in terms of the traffic that will be coming in and out of our neighborhood. the eir is projecting almost 1500 new san francisco households over 30 years as a result of this project. we are not quite clear how the development agreement is addressing this impact. we want to ensure that the housing impact -- that the tenderloin does not directly shoulder the burden. this is one of the last remaining affordable never hurts in san francisco. also, district 6, soma and tenderloin, have the highest pedestrian fatalities in san francisco.

with this project coming in on van ness, a very busy corridor, we are concerned that cars will divert to our neighborhood, which they already do when van ness is clogged. we do not feel, at least, that there has been enough analysis done to figure out how to prevent a further traffic nightmare in our neighborhood. it is not good enough, the analysis, the way the analysis is, given that district 6 has the highest amount of pedestrian fatalities. thank you. chairperson mar: i forgot to mention earlier, we have about 50 more cards to go. az0á@if there are any more seni, children, and families, and people with disabilities, you can also come up, even if your name has not been called.

>> i worked as a community organizer. as someone who is regularly knocking on doors and meeting folks, people upset privately owned sro's and others in the tenderloin, i have seen a lot of changes in the demographics. people may say:9-oa that the tenderloin, central city, south gentrification is possible. we have been seeing different communities moving into the edges of the tenderloin. students are organizing folks who can afford to live in the low-rent neighborhood. they could not afford to live in this rapidly-changing, rapidly- developing central city area. i love the tenderloin. it is not just a fear that these

people will be pushed out, but it is a very possible threat for folks who live in "unprotected housing." they would be priced out by the changes that are xçñádning, cpmc being one of them. there is redevelopment agency money going away that nonprofit organizations or less and less able to buy and build new housing, let alone rehab old housing for people who really need it. when a project like this comes to the neighborhood, and they fail to negotiate with the community in the mitigate the negative impacts, and meet the real and actual demand on affordable housing, the community has to wonder whether this is a good enough deal for san francisco. what we are asking is that cpmc be accountable to negotiate with

the community, a long-term commitment to not displace the residents in this area, and actually help the people who will be using these services. chairperson mar: thank you. >> california and w -- calvish n welsh. i would like to make two points expanding the professor's points. there are two policies of the board of supervisors, the development agreement and eir. the policies are toñ fully, and this was passed in your 2009 housing element, the net new impact of new employees on major employers. that is the jobs-housing linkage formula, if you will, which the planning department chose not to apply to this development.

also, there is a policy statement done two years ago, which says if you change the zoning within an area plan, you must substantially meet the housing impact of this plan. the planning department chose to apply that to this project, even though the law, the inclusion arizona law, does not require a non-residential -- the inclusion mary -- inclusionary law does not require a non-residential development. we are stunned. why pick one policy over another policy? our position is both policies should be pursued. only one is, which dramatically understates the affordable housing impacts of this project. there are, in fact, and i have handed out papers to that áie2ñeffect, some 1130 affordabe housing units we estimate are

generated by this project. dealing with only 200 of them means that we are going to have to, as a city, meet the housing responsibility, having sector to transfer the responsibility to the taxpayers of san francisco, which is an absurdity. chairperson mar: can you explain how you got to that 1100 number? >> i surely will. as you mentioned in your presentation, supervisor mar, the eir, table 4.3-5 lays out that there are some 1490 housing units needed to house the net new work force or the 30 year life of the program. it is interesting that they assume there are 2.3 employees, cpmc employees, for each of these household units. cpmc is assuming not only will

cpmc marry each other, but they will produce a third of a child that will also be employed debt cpmc -- employed at cpmc. yñ6othey are saying 2.3 cpmc employees per household. i would,