be made. i feel the weight of keeping people like anna and matt working in uncertain times. i've volunteered as a teacher and i go there to teach life skills and provide hope. i greet the eager faces there. it pains me because i want to give them jobs. it takes projects like this to do that. for 21 years, i have been on the board of directors. we support the clinic because the generous support that we were given, the free use of their facilities, and access to their doctors, and we provide surgery's free of charge to the most vulnerable people in our community. it pains me when i hear the demonizing of the charity care and the high-quality care at that they provide for free. they are a part of the common

good. why are construction workers considered transient? we are permanent members of this community. we wake up every day to find a place to go to work. this is our factory. my understanding there is only one party appealing this eir. on behalf of so many people that want it to go forward. give us a hand. help us to move this forward. >> president chiu, my name is -- i am the director of this foundation to. i would like to express my gratitude for the seriousness and which -- with which all of you are taking your responsibility. and your diligence on this

issue. i am here tonight to urge your action in approving the report that has been approved by the planning commission to approve. approve it now in the interest of the health of the people of san francisco. many of you know i am involved in public health in ending hepatitis in san francisco. every asian immigrant and every child in of an immigrant should be screened for hepatitis. the cdc recommends every baby boomer be screened for hepatitis. when you consider all of the be the boomers and asians, this is a large part of san francisco when these are the people who need to be protecting their health. the reality is we are not doing a good job in hepatitis. san francisco has the highest rate of liver cancer in the

country. worse than that, is the deadliest cancer in america. all of this can be stopped if only we screened people to find out their status and to offer them preventive measures. we have offered the most free screenings of any hospital. more than that, working with the task force, we take responsibility for each patient they scream whether they have insurance or not. this is the kind of health care we need that is why i urge you to approve this tonight. thank you very much. >> i am a board member and i am coming here today as a lifelong resident.

i wanted to thank the board for the serious questions you are asking regarding st. luke's. i also feel the concerns i have is with the one-stop health-care academy. the fact it does not seem like they are connected but nevertheless my feeling is that, and part of me would love to see it stalled so that the community -- i feel that these concerns are not necessarily connected to the eir and the need to be dealt with in a different capacity. i also feel like it is good with

the resources that are going into the traffic mitigation. i do not see how it is going to be a problem and i do not see how if it is a traffic disaster how taking 160 beds is going to be a difference. it seems like whether it is 160 or 300 it will be a disaster. as far as housing, it seems like a lot of resources going to win. most of the employees are there are already employees and there are going to be a few hundred new employees and this seems like the balance is there. i support the eir moving forward but i feel that there are issues that need to be resolved and hopefully they can be resolved as it moves forward.

>> good evening. i am the general manager, ave residential building. due to time constraints, they have submitted their comments in writing. our building represents the closest concentration to any of the various projects associated with their plans at cathedral hill. van ness avenue has enjoyed many personalities over the years. later she was auto row. many of our beautiful government buildings line van ness. this board has approved several projects which are included -- improving van ness. we have been working with cpmc and representatives from

supervisor farrell's office on issues like noise and parking to make life easier for our residents and tenants and for the surrounding neighborhood as well. cpmc has shown their landscape plans for improvement on the project. these improvements will make a difference into what is otherwise a blighted stretch of the van ness ave. i am here today to voice our support for the new cpmc medical center. we look forward to having the new hospital completed and for cpmc to be our neighbor. president chiu: next speaker. >> good evening, president chiu and members of the board, my name is -- and i live in the 4:

district. i have come before you tonight on behalf of the constituents of your respective districts who urgently needed jobs. they have been waiting for you to do something about it. now is the time to act. let us rebuild today. please. approve the eir. thank you. >> my name is kathleen anaya md tired of work force development. for the past two years, we have engaged in an unparalleled collaboration with a program that put san franciscans to work in construction. all of our work and mentoring will be for naught if these projects do not move forward. the livelihood of the people who

work here are in jeopardy. anna, steve, gary, sean, michael, david, harriet, joe, i can, bob, paul, every man, adam, michele, will, shelley, matthew, and natalie, larry, julie, melody, steve, and chalk, ralph, in charge, lonnie, laura, irene, paul, larry, i could go on and on. all of our partners. construction, traffic control, painting, rubicon buildings, at&t, janitorial services, just to name a handful. all of our development programs

will cease to exist if the projects do not move forward. as contractors, our efforts have been unparalleled. we have set the example of what it means to collaborate, and going above and beyond in our program in our local hiring efforts, unlike any other contractor in the city. we would like to continue to have that opportunity. if not, all of our work will be for nothing. please accept the eir and reject the appeal tonight. >> it is 11:00 and this is taking a toll on grandpa. let's go home. i would hate to see this go back to planning. they have done a hell of a job. i ask move forward.

and wait to goad giants, they won tonight. >> thank you for the -- i appreciate that. it is dumpy and looks like hell. and you, i'm a fundamentalist christian and i know some people like me are not supposed to live in this town but i will tell you, we really need this. we need the jobs. we need a new hospital. . we need to replace that hospital. it is going to get worse and worse and worse. it would really help this city. i certainly hope that you folks

do the right thing. president chiu: are there any other members who wish to speak? why don't we hear from the appellant. you have up to five minutes for your bottle. -- rebuttal. >> i would like to turn back to the eir and ceqa compliance. appellants are here by asserting their right to talk about peak hour factor some more. no one is saying that should not be used as an analysis in its traffic studies. what we are saying and i am going to read quickly from it so i can be clear, adjusting the peak hour factors in the manner that the city did is not the normal practice in our traffic

and engineering planning profession. i have reviewed hundreds of studies and documents in my career and have not seen this methodology before. i have also discussed the eir's approach with several colleagues and they agree that increasing the peak hour factor will result in inconsistent and potentially flawed analysis. other agencies do not allow such manipulation of the peak hour factor, i.e. caltrans requires the use of a continued peak hour factor of 0.92 for all scenarios. while they must certainly be assumed, the bottom-line results must be reasonable and credible. the adjustment in the analysis has created an unreasonable and non-credible results that defies all logic. carrying this approach to the extreme in the case that adding

more traffic would improve intersections and reduce delay even further. and ultimately resulting in free-flowing conditions. clearly that will not happen at this project. at the palace want to be clear they are not trying to kill this -- that the appellants want to be clear they are not trying to kill this project. no one likes the vacant lots currently sitting at a mass -- at van ness. we seek analysis of other hospitals. this would achieve and reduced traffic impacts at cathedral hill that we have heard so much about, reduce patient transfers, and more equitably serve low- income populations. provide a mix of health-care services, reduce parking

problems, and minimize air quality impacts from reduced vehicle trips. i would like to give you some suggestions on what a revised eir could look like if we sent it back to the planning commission to get a ceqa analysis. the revised eir should include an analysis that looks at alternatives such as 3a. that are not so narrow as to eliminate feasible alternatives and utilizes a generally accepted input parameters for analyses. it proper baseline to ascertain the actual impacts on muni. evidence will mitigate the impact and is totally enforceable and will be

monitored. analysis of impacts on emergency vehicles due to traffic congestion and i would like to say that the staff said they looked at impacts to delay of emergency vehicles and they found those to be less than significant. it is not true because it was not analyzed. you cannot do it after the fact. analyzing by income level demand for market rate and affordable housing as a result of changes in the distribution and the size of cpn's work force. if the proposed project and medical office buildings were built. these are things that i assume the planning department could look at quickly and make this a much more legally defensive

document. thank you for your time. we ask it to uphold the appeal. president chiu: colleagues, any further questions? supervisor campos. supervisor campos: i want to thank all of the parties for their presentation and i want to thank staff for all of the work that went into it. more importantly, all of the members of the public on all sides of this issue that have come out and spoken on this important matter. there may be differences of opinion about what the outcome should be but the goal and the intent is the same. i have a question for the lead counsel for cpmc. if they may ask -- if i may ask

that he come up. president chiu: is he here? great. supervisor campos: thank you. i want to reiterate my appreciation for the comments he made. i have a number of questions about this appeal, about this project and the eir specifically comment a number of issues have been raised. one of the questions i have is, we talked about a willingness on the part of cpmc to negotiate in good faith. i want to make sure that if there is a possibility of going down that road, we're talking about city officials actually engaging with individuals that have the ability to make decisions, not only on behalf of a cpmc --

can you speak to that? >> i place to call to the president of the hospitals, which is the entity that owns cpmc. he is the senior guy in the region. i can commit to his some of men. -- his involvement. supervisor campos: are want to make sure we are talking about individuals that are going to make decisions that are binding on cpmc. >> he can make decisions that are binding on cpmc. supervisor campos: that is the only question i have. president chiu: ok. supervisor kim. supervisor kim: can we start to make statements? president chiu: but me ask if there are any other questions people have to the parties involved. supervisor campos? no. with that, this hearing has

been held in closed. this matter is in the hands of the board. supervisor campos: thank you. i know a number of questions were asked about subjects with respect to the eir. i want to comment about the one area where i asked a number of questions having to do with the question of whether or not a reasonable range of alternatives was considered under the eir. i have to say that while i respect the work that was done by planning staff, i believe that the level of analysis was not adequate. i am concerned that even though the alternative 3a, which was deemed to be environmentally superior to the option before

us, that that was deemed to be superior and there are still questions raised. it was rejected by the eir based on a set of objectives and i think there are about 18 in the eir that, from my perspective, were narrow and focused more on cpmc's business objectives rather than the basic goals we as a share -- as a city should have. that narrow approach makes the analysis and around the alternatives in sufficient, in my view. i know there are a number of other issues that president chiu, supervisor mar, and others have raised and looking at what has been presented, for me, the

insufficient analysis around alternatives and other issues would be sufficient if we were to vote today for me to vote to uphold the appeal and to reject the eir. that is where i am today if a vote was taken. however, as the supervisor for district 9, which includes st. luke's, it is important to do everything we can to ensure the viability of this project. if it is the case there is a willingness to negotiate in good faith and to look at some of the conditions of what it means to i really want to hear more about what they have to say on that

tonight. i think if we go down the road of doing a continuance if that is where colleagues want to go, it is important for colleagues to make sure that something changes. that we have a willingness to really do this in a good faith way that allows members to have access to information that is needed on this front. to the extent that there is a need to bring in a third party control. and also the concerns that members of the community are taken into account. i believe is important that the people that are in the room are the people that are willing and able to make decisions on the parties. i am concerned that that has

not happened so far. i will look forward to hearing what my colleagues have to say. >> after giving a lot of thought to the appeal of this eir is the elephant in the room. there is no proposed project. the only leader proposed that there is the project without greater assurance. this is the commitment of the operation of st. luke's. i commend the project sponsor for making clear the interest of the city. this project hinges on a viable

st. luke's. it is the one thing that everybody in this room agrees on publicly. let's go over what was evaluated in the eir. if it was determined that they were all -- not optimized for project objectives because it carries the real risk of disruption, the logic follows for me. there is new information the questions whether this proposed project is feasible. the project that was analyzed in the eir was based on operating functions which are false. the most current financial

figures makes this project potentially unfeasible and were not able to optimally meat product objectives. i believe that the eir is not adequate, complete, or throw. if i had to vote on the appeal, the most responsible thing to do is to uphold the appeal. i am glad that the project sponsors announced that they would spend the next two weeks coming up with the structure for the board of supervisors. one that i assume would lead us on a project that could fully meet the project objectives. i think that is what the project should be focused on. >> president chiu. >> i want to thank everyone. the city staff, the project

sponsor come up all of the members of the public that have come out and the work that everybody has done on this. i think everybody shares the goal of rebuilding these hospitals the right way. the decision we have in front of us is whether to vote on this project tonight. i do want to make it clear that if i had to vote tonight, i would not certify to have the eir. as a supervisor who borders the corridor, i do not believe the product addresses the traffic the facts. the concern that more traffic leads to less the lake, the outdated baseline and writer ship numbers, they are ignoring significant impacts of emergency access. others have outlined how the eir and ignores environmental alternatives and describe the

product in an environmental setting. that being said, i think everyone on this board and are mayor understands that there are aspects of this project that can be negotiated. three weeks ago at our land use committee we learned about the existence of troubling information that the proposed agreement had serious flaws. we were never provided that information directly despite repeated requests. when we receive information that there were repeated concerns that it could be shut down within five years, there were answers. thus far, we have seen zero movement on that point. last week, when it was clear that we were at an impasse, i reached out to management. until tonight, i was disappointed to hear no public

indication of any real desire to do so. tonight's statement by general counsel from my perspective was a bare minimum gesture. we are going to need to hear more soon about commitments to verbal discussions that will get this project done. that being said, if this is what colleagues would like to do, i am open to waiting two weeks on this before voting on the final eir. there might be changes to cover the project that is proposed to us. colleagues, i look forward to furthering the discussion. >> supervisor mar. >> thank you, supervisor weiner. >> this probably makes it about 30 hours of various hearings on this im.