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, > 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,

the 220 unit number comes from the formula that has ari been explained for the use of inclusionary zoning, applied to this project. 20% of 1100 full units would be 2204 units. there are 25 units to replace those that will be demolished. that brings the total of 1130. we have to use these numbers, because the eir refused to penalize -- to analyze the affordable housing levels of the work force, and like every other major project eir, from mission bay through the eastern neighborhoods, which attempted to project the affordable housing needs of a work force. the planning department specifically rejected a request to tell us how many of the 1400 units need to be affordable

housing. chairperson%u%ñw mar: thank youo much. >> that is our estimate, and that is how we got it. >> supervisors, residents of san francisco, i reside in district 1. i am a member of the california alliance for retired americans senior action network. cpmc facilities to be built on van ness and st. luke's hospital, st. luke's should at . it should be remembered that cpmc is a tax? -- is tax-exempt, and needs to be held to a higher standard. it is under the administration of sutter healthcare, one of the sharks of the medical community.

it has bad administration, and promises to square things away at a price. they begin by raising prices. sutter facilities of the most expensive in northern california. the attack union benefits and contracts. i cannot come the number of times in the past 10 years i have been on a picket line at cpmc, most recently earlier this year, when the engineers were up for more than a month. //k[-- were out for more than a month. these people produce services, and their needs must be considered in any deal with the hungry sharks. chairperson mar: thank you. next speaker. >> my name is thaddeus lead. i am a member of the van ness corridor association. i lived adjacent to the project.

for years, the area where they plan to build has been vacant. likewise across the street, until they recently began a new apartment complex. often, when you walked by, it is extremely degraded. it attracts illicit activity. we are very excited about the potential of having a presence, something that is moving and alive, bringing some life back to the economy. we strongly support the project, and ask that you do as well. chairperson mar: thank you. next speaker. >> thank you for this important item. i live at franklin and bush, two blocks from the proposed cathedral hill site. ú5ermi support the rebuild plan. i often walked to coffee shops, the main library, the farmers market, or to mentor students. i love my neighborhood, but

safety is a big concern. every few months, another building those empty, with no development. rf graduate student, i frequently take the 38 to usf, yk[:but coming home, it was note to get off at van ness. we heard from the sfpd about the reduce staff the department is working with. there is a separation with increased crime in the area of the intersection, loitering, vandalism, and violence. the city does not have the resources to deal effectively with these issues. my neighborhood would benefit greatly from this hospital going in. it would add security the city cannot provide right now. homes in this area. there is a 24-7 presence the area could use. walking at night feels dangerous.

know is much needed. the hospital is important to the local economy, and i believe it will have a big impact. the neighborhood needs this project. there are negative ramifications, but i ask you to vote in support of rebuilding cpmc, without delay. chairperson mar: thank you so much. next speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is delores' bentsen. i live in bernal, and i participate in the bernal heights neighborhood senior program. my family and myself have been going to st. luke's hospital for many years for health care needs. i do not drive, and i take the bus. ktb(ñit is hard for me to get a,

especially if they close st. luke's. where will@ú without having to travel so far away? it is already hard enoughtcuvqhs seniors to get around, and having a hospital far away from our neighborhood is not ok. keep st. luke's open, please. make sure that what cpmc promised about st. luke's thank you for your time, and have a nice day. chairperson mar: thank you. next speaker. ingoody bernal heights. i have for 39 years. i am concerned that st. luke's will close. where will we go for medical care? please, looks -- please keep st.

luke's open. it is more convenient for all of us,/

-- and geary. i have been laid to church because of traffic jams at 10:30 a.m. on sunday morning. it gets worse from there. it is always crowded. there is very little give for emergency vehicles. we heard earlier that the emergency entrance to the hospital will be on franklin, as will be the delivery. we know that big delivery trucks do not just turn in. they turn wide. they back up. sometimes, they back out. that will cause a great deal more congestion. we run a program at our church which brings 100 children from the tenderloin every day for an after-school program, which has benefited not only them, but the schools. they come across west van ness and franklin at 3:00, and leave between 5:00 and 6:00, rush hour.

we are very concerned about pedestrian safety for those hundred children crossing the streets. it is not only seniors with walkers who cannot get out of the way of emergency vehicles. it is also the children. i live near uc, and was a former faculty member there. the vans that go through, taking people back and forth, is a continual problem in the neighborhood. they keep having to change the streets they go on. i wonder how possible that will be for the vans that deliver people to and from this hospital. i am deeply concerned about sutter's lack of faith, with respect to st. luke's. they are closing a hospital because of its failure to meet its 1% and operating expenses as expected. we really have to keep st. luke's open. a further comment. there was an expert -- chairperson