her death was 100% [no audio] on the dirty deeds that have been done here recently, including how he got elected, it is evident that while willie brown is no longer mayor, he is in power. i'm calling on you all to get in touch with me. take action appeared together, we can get rid of criminal elements in your city, state, and in this country. thank you. president chiu: thank you. next speaker. >> my concern is going to seem petty compared to the previous speaker's. i'm speaking as an individual right now. i want to speak about etiquette

and courtesy. when the 3:00 special item, item 38 for 41, began today, many of you got up, went out of the room. some of you were reading e-mail. some of you were having side conversations. you were not showing the members of the public the same courtesy that i know you demand of each other. shame on you. shame on you. you could have called, mr. president, for a 10-minute recess so that people could take care of their bodily functions, could have gotten coffee, could have had a side conversations. i would humbly suggest and you know you are going to have a public hearing, a long public hearing, after you have conducted business for many hours, that perhaps you should schedule short recess so people can take care of what they need to take care of. i counted during the first eight or nine public speakers during that item. there were maybe six supervisors

in the room at any one time. i gather you need that because that is a quorum. i really think you should consider taking a recess before you go into a public hearing so that you will be able to come back refreshed and energized, and pay attention to what the members of the public have to say to you. otherwise, you're public hearings, your public comments sessions, are nothing but a sham. that is not what you were all elected to do. thank you very much. president chiu: thank you. next speaker. >> last night at a neighborhood meeting, there was discussion about the mayor's office of economic and work-force development making grants to our area, to what is called lower polls, but is really not hill -- lower polk, but is really knob

hill. there have been concerns about the nefarious dealings and all of the money that has come that way. i mention this because now i see a proposal for $1.2 million from a request for $2 million. the last time this was tried, although it was by reputable person who is no longer associated with the organization, it was not accepted. as a result, robert garcia did some research and found out it would all be passed on in rent increases because there are residences in this, not just businesses involved. they could spend the money whatever way they wanted. in the past, they spent grants in bizarre ways, and then the property owners who had residents could pass them on in rent increases. i urge you to make sure this does not happen.

i would say at least half a dozen people, including the former treasurer and other officers, have been saying for some time that we need to find out about grants in the past. was it $100,000? was it $300,000? where did it all go? all that we know is that the treasurer discovered there were secret bank accounts the treasurer knew nothing about. they passed it on to somebody else. there is no accountability. i'm really concerned that this is something being proposed for our district to an organization that is essentially a small group of anbar owners, hardly any residence at all, and people who use their so called neighborhood status to be permit expediters. that is the function they serve. the only people that belong, other than a couple of lost residents who try to see what is

going on, are people who want a permit, or they are bar owners. they have destroyed the mayor a really -- destroyed the neighborhood. this has to be stopped. there has to be an accounting for the money that has gone before. there is $1.2 million that must not go to them to raise people's rent. president chiu: next speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i am the executive director of library users association. i have two main points. the first is what the supervisors have done to the sunshine ordinance task force, and that is essentially to paralyze it, is really quite shameful, and it is something you should be moving most rapidly to repair. i want to talk about the library and using the overhead.

in particular, i will talk about a specific misinformation that is outright misrepresentation with respect to how this got move forward. we talked about illegalities that the task force has found with the process in six separate hearings. now, i would like to just comment on the application that of the art project, jointly with the friends made for a community challenge grant only $50,000. what they did was, they presented a proposal for the library art project that contained a major and a substantive misrepresentation. after the very first sentence, it says, or originally painted

in the early 1980's as a youth project. then it goes on to say, the existing year-old could not be restored -- existing mural could not be restored. as a matter of fact, the library commission in 2009 had said it should be restored and could be restored. many people who are export in the matter said it could be and should be including many others. president chiu: thank you very much. next speaker. >> i have green eyes.

everybody needs green in their hearts. i am just here to remind you all, they think they're losing rights in san francisco. this is a city where medical marijuana started, aids has been found, and people do not -- just remember you, show your faces. this is ryan white. this is max robinson. he is the second person to die of aids of african descent in america. this is the shirt i had on last

week when it said, i want to fight racism, sexism, homophobia. what i did was to put a picture on that. [inaudible] he said aids was not as bad as racism. arthur ash. thank you. this is the guy, rock hudson, homophobia. princess diana, she was killed by having a man of color lover. picture. what we will tell you, san francisco, sexism, racism, homophobia is not equality. this city really wants you guys

to be better than mitt romney. thank you. president chiu: thank you. are there any other members of the public who wish to speak? general public comment is closed. can we go to the adoption calendar? item 56. >> a resolution urging the mayor, board of supervisors, and other officials including the chief of police not to pursue implementing a version of new york city's stop and frisk policy. there -- supervisor cohen: there has been a lot of discussion about a policy that mayor ed lee was considering implementing. it is called a stop, question come and for us. i introduced a resolution with the support of co-sponsors from

supervisors avalos, mar, campos, and olague, all of us were urging the mayor and other officials to not pursue implementing a version of this policy. i would like to thank my colleagues for joining me in standing in solidarity against this policy, as it is unnecessary and unconstitutional. i ask for your support in passing this resolution. thank you very much. president chiu: supervisor campos? supervisor campos: i will not belabor the point. last year, the board of supervisors actually passed an ordinance that codified community police, saying -- we were actually the first city in the country to do it. one of the things that happened as a result was that san francisco police became the first department to have a

general order that codifies community policing. at its very heart, it is about creating a good relationship with the community they represent in making sure there's trust between the community and police. that is eroded if you have something like what is being proposed. it would undermine that trust. a stop and frisk really takes us in a completely different direction from community policing. it really goes against what community policing is about. i know the chief indicated his concerns. i want to thank supervisor cohen. i know there are many people throughout the city who have organized against this stop and frisk idea. i think it is important for us

to speak out. thank you. president chiu: supervisor camp? supervisor kim: i want to express my support for this resolution as well. i compare anbar -- understand our mayor's concern about violence in our neighborhood. we certainly have to many individuals that are armed in this city. that contributes to many of the shootings and homicides that we have. every time i get that phone call, my colleagues get that phone call, that spike has started this summer, it is painful. it is hard as an official to know this continues under our leadership. i agree that we absolutely need to look for more measures, as we always have come to reduce violence in our neighborhoods. i don't believe they stop and frisk policy is the avenue to do that. i know there are many constitutional questions are around stop and frisk.

the u.s. supreme court has not taken a strong position on the area of racial profiling. i do think this opens our city up to a lot of liability and incredibly expensive legal debates and litigation debates in the courtroom as we debate those questions. for a variety of reasons, and because i know that stop and frisk does end up in racial profiling, and that is what data has shown, i think we should be looking at alternative means to reducing violence in san francisco. president chiu: supervisor wiener? supervisor wiener: i will be supporting the resolution today. i want to know that there are times when our police department and our mayor need to think outside the box when it comes to law enforcement, and try new things.

a lot of times, when new things are tried, people are called names. the city attorney implements gang injunctions and he was called every name in the book. it turned out they were not only good practice, but incredibly effective. i believe stop and frisk goes too far. i don't support it and i am supporting the resolution. i think the mayor had the best intentions. i know he made a statement about his commitment to work together to address the plague of gun violence in this city. i just don't want this resolution to be interpreted as the board of discouraging our police department or our mayor from trying and innovative ways to fight gun violence. it is that this particular proposal went too far. president chiu: supervisor mar? supervisor mar: thank you.

wanted to thank supervisor cohen and the african-americans who organized the rally on the steps of city hall. coalition for a save san francisco and the dozens of other organizations, 50 or more of them that signed a letter last week to the mayor urging dialogue -- i know the mayor in his comments to the board of supervisors a couple weeks ago, i think it was a question on community safety, said it is important for our own communities to find solutions. my hope is that the various organizations that for a part of this letter -- that there is good dialogue so we keep communities safe, but don't resort to repressive new york policies in san francisco. thank you. president chiu: supervisor campos? supervisor campos: i was not expecting adding anything beyond what was said.

in terms of what supervisor wiener indicated, i'm not sure we know for sure on the issue of the gang injunction that there has been any effectiveness. one of the things we have seen as we have not seen analysis of the data. i am all for innovation and trying new things. i think to the extent that this sends a clear message, i do hope that a message -- the message is clear that if the new thing that we want to try in any way violate the constitution, i don't want to try that new thing. i think it is very clear that whatever innovative program we have should be done within the confines of the u.s. constitution. that is the problem with stop and frisk. i am all for innovation, but it has to be compliant with the u.s. constitution. president chiu: supervisor avalos? supervisor avalos: thank you. i want to thank supervisor cohen

for leadership on this resolution and the leadership from the communities in san francisco who have organized a press conference. i was not going to speak until i heard a conversation about the gang injunctions. i also believe they are much more controversial than they have been touted. a lot of folks in my district believe the injunction lead to a spike in violence, especially in 2008 when it started in the mission district. that has caused a great deal of pain for our community. this resolution is about stop and frisk. i truly believe that this pathway would leave too deteriorated relationships between community and police. we still have a long way to go as a city to really establish strong community policing programs. we would go backwards with something like this. i think it is important that we make our position known.

i did hear a rumor that the mayor changed his mind on this. i guess it did not happen because i did not hear him say that today. i thought it was an opportune time for him to discuss a change of mind. i think it makes sense that we make our minds clear today by voting to affirm this resolution. president chiu: any further discussion? roll-call vote. supervisor campos: aye. president chiu: aye. supervisor chu: aye. supervisor cohen: aye. supervisor elsbernd: aye. supervisor farrell: aye. supervisor kim: aye. supervisor mar: aye. supervisor olague: aye. supervisor wiener: aye. supervisor avalos: aye. there are 11 ayes. president chiu: this resolution is adopted. could we go to our second 4:00 p.m. special order? >> items 4351, comprise the

public hearing to certify a final environmental impact report for the california pacific medical center long- range develop a plan project. it is a motion affirming the commission certification. item 50 reverses the commission's certification. item 51 is a motion directing the preparation of findings. president chiu: we have in front of us the appeal of the final environmental impact report for the proposed california pacific medical center's long-range development project. we will consider the adequacy come accuracy, and completeness of the final environmental impact report, of which you all have copies. first, we will hear from the appellant, who will have up to 15 minutes to describe the ground for the appeal. we will then take public comment from individual speaking on behalf of the appellant. each speaker will have up to two minutes. we will then hear from the planning department, who will

have up to 50 minutes to describe the ground for the certification. we will hear from the party of interest. we will then hear from people that wish to speak on behalf of the project sponsor. then the appellants will have up to five minutes for a rebuttal. why don't we get started and start figuring? i would like to ask the appellants. you have up to 50 minutes. >> thank you very much, president, members of the board. my name is gloria smith. i represent a seven-member coalition that appealed the determination on the eir. could you move the microphone a little closer to you? >> yes. we're here to ask you to review the planning commission's eir determination. today, we ask that you not certify the eir, but send it back to the planning commission to remedy some of the many sequel flaws inherent in the body of the document.

i will cover a few of the flaws today, given time constraints. the eir before you covers five facilities. st. luke's, davies, california pacific, and a proposed cathedral hill facility. despite the huge scope of this eir, over the last three years, hundreds of people have turned out to speak on this project. all of their comments have revolving around two issues in this document. the first is the 555-bed hospital and office building to be situated at the corner of gary. it is too large for the site. the second issue is the eir proposes the downside st. luke's at -- to a point the hospital will not be viable for the purpose it serves in the southeast quadrant of the city. supervisor campos spoke eloquently on that issue earlier.

virtually all the public opposition centers on these two issues, and all the significant impact in the eir, have to do with the ceqa violations and the size and location of the cathedral hill facility. i will talk about traffic, transit, and housing impacts at cathedral hill. for traffic, a wonkey issue, they used the peak hour factor in their software. they used it to hide the true traffic impact. at intersections such as eighth and market, the eir predicted future reductions in delays as a result of increased traffic at these intersections come as a result of the operation at cathedral hill. we all know that adding traffic

to intersections cannot reduce delays unless there is some type of physical improvements on our roadways or intersections. none of these were proposed. i don't think there are any. the eir was wrong in its assumptions that adding traffic congestion to these intersections will improve gridlock in the future after the project is built. for muni, the eir utilized 2006 ridership numbers. ceqa requires that it be established at the time of the notice of preparation, and that was in 2009. relying on 3-year-old data allowed the irs to portray more muni capacity than actually existed -- allowed the eir to portray more muni capacity than actually existed. it provided 11% more capacity, which allows the eir to minimize

the impact on muni. if the ridership numbers were not available immediately in 2009, the planning department certainly had enough opportunity to update that. it has now been three years. we have asked several times about this and no one has updated that. finally, what we identified as a very important impact was ignored in the eir, emergency vehicle access. we know that trying to get to that site now is an arduous endeavor, to say the least. it was asked that the ira analyze delays for emergency vehicles trying to reach the hospital once it is operational. the planning department said that was not an impact. we disagree. we worried there could be dire consequences if emergency vehicles are delayed trying to reach that facility.

finally, the only traffic mitigation has to do with the transportation demand management program. i will say, take a look at it. it is toothless, it is not enforceable, and it needs to be revised. despite these things, you're being asked to override 30 significant, unavoidable impacts for the cathedral hill alone. many times, you are asked to adopt a statement of overriding considerations for traffic because there are not viable alternatives to the project. this is not the case. if we were to downsize cathedral hill and make a more viable st. luke's, it would eliminate virtually all of the impacts on muni and traffic at cathedral hill. as you know, the eir does have alternative 3a. it did look at that idea appeared the problem is a proposed moving the women's and children's services to st.

luke's as a way to make a larger facility. as we all probably know, mission bay recently opened a women's and children's center. that made it redundant. it made an easier opportunity for the planning commission to reject that alternative. in the meantime, numerous members of the public proposed alternative 3a, a more robust st. luke's, but look -- but it looks as a different mix of services, moving them from cathedral hill. we have two more equitably sized hospitals. planning department rejected that. it was being the superior alternative. in my view, it would answer a lot of the health care planning issues here in san francisco. they reject it on grounds it did not meet project objectives. the eir contains 18 project

objectives which i think romero and focus solely on the business goals rather than the overarching plan for health care. overly narrow and detailed project objectives easily eliminate good alternatives. they fail to meet the developers' specific schools. the eir should not be certified. i will actually turn this over now to the professor from uc hastings law school. on rebuttal, i will come back and tell you what i think we should do with the eir. thank you. [laughter] >> we have a tag team here for you today. good afternoon. i will address principally housing issues. let me follow up on one point on the alternatives. the alternatives analysis is the way of evaluating whether this project makes sense as it has

been proposed more than another. in this case, the narrow objectives all go to the business desire of cpmc to consolidate most of its services, most of its specialty services, at the cathedral hill campus. on that ground, you automatically reject any other alternative that is proposed because it does not lead to that consolidation. those narrow objectives dominate over everything else, trumped everything else, really limiting what is a full analysis of other possibilities, either the 3a or 3a-plus analysis. incidently, that would lead to attracting more doctors to that hospital, and also more patients, making it more financially viable. now i