analysis because of all the deficiencies in the eir. the major ones have been around. the eir is to analyze the impact of a project, including socio- economic impacts on the environment. it is to provide a factual basis for the city to determine whether the project should be approved. the eir in this case sidesteps any project-specific housing analysis by relying only on general data about san francisco's housing supply and projected demand. the results are two major deficiencies. one is not to analyze the impact on the avenue of the changes in the special use district that are being proposed that would have an impact on the development of housing. the second has to do with doing

a real analysis of what is likely to be the impact of the cpmc'reconfigureds and expanded workforce on the demand for housing and affordable housing in san francisco. the planning code requires, if you are changing the law regarding the avenue corridor, that there be a 321 residential to non-residential mix of development on any new project, and if you are going to make an exception to that, which is what you were going to be asked to do when you rule on the whole project, that you are to find that it will not result in a substantial increment of new housing on that avenue being significantly compromised.

because there is going to be a change in the law, and it is going to create an exception to that requirement, a study under the ordinance has to be done. in addition, in late 2010, you also passed a resolution reaffirming that kind of commitment that the effect on the production of housing on that avenue has to be taken into account. most importantly, it is also the kind of analysis that should be done as part of an environmental impact report because we have here the removal of property that could come in a new configuration, contain housing that is also likely to have an effect on the development of housing elsewhere on the avenue. ceqa requires that the social and economic effects of that are going to be -- have to be

analyzed in terms of whether or not there is a significant impact on housing in that area. you have three pieces of legislation that require that an analysis be done. none was done in this particular case. the other major failure is to do something similar to a nexus study that examines the impact of the proposal -- the impact of new cpmc employees by something like wage and salary levels and other relevant demographics on the demand for and availability of market rate and affordable housing in san francisco. the planning department response to this oversight is to argue that this involves social and economic data that need not be

examined. yes, it does. it also provides key information on the kind of housing that needs to be built, particularly the need for affordable housing in light of the housing needs of the expanded and reconfigured cpmc work force. such information goes to the size, nature, and location of the housing, which needs to be built. something which is very much a physical, environmental impact and not something that needs to be ignored. with this type of information, you, as the lead agency decision makers, are not in a position to determine efficiently whether the housing mitigation is in the proposed development agreement are reasonable. it is providing this kind of information, like transportation and pollution analysis, need to be an e.i.r.

for you to be fully aware of the potential impacts and benefits. it is very important -- it is a very important basis on which to withhold, at this time, any certification of the eir. we will be back for rebuttal. we are available if you have any questions at this time. president chiu: any questions to the appellants? supervisor campos: i want to follow up on the alternatives that were considered. i want to have a better understanding of what your point is. my understanding is there is a requirement that a reasonable range of alternatives be considered. i wonder if you could expand more on what your point is in terms of the alternatives they looked at. >> thank you for that question.

the response has been, we considered a reasonable range of alternatives. that is the requirement but it is not the only requirement. you have to look at the kind of analysis that was done about those alternatives. that analysis requires you to look at the objectives that are put forward for the project. in the case law, there is a distinction made between basic objectives, which would go to something like providing health care access for san franciscans from all income levels and demographic groups in san francisco or locating a hospital at a point that has good access to public transit. those are the kind of basic objections. -- objectives. there are also narrow objectives.

a good case was when, in san francisco, there was a proposal to build an aquarium. one of the objectives was, it has to be near the bay or the ocean. that makes sense. there may be some limits on where hospitals can be built, but there is nothing so specific as that. hear, the cluster of objectives, a little bit more than 18, but 18 of them had to do with concentrating specialized services on one campus, the new cathedral hill campus. that is a method by which cpmc wants to provide hospital care services. i had, a little while ago, a student look at the literature on consolidating services. there is nothing in the

literature that concludes that the best way to provide health care services is to consolidate all services. there are good reasons to consolidate a certain specialty on a site. but not all services in terms of health care, keeping down health-care costs. what evidence is out there suggests that the only real advantage is it allows a hospital to make more money. it is more economically efficient for the hospital. [applause] everything else is, to be honest, inconclusive. there is nothing that goes to that issue that would bolster the notion that this array of very specific objectives are ones that should trump any other consideration. that was what was done here. it is very questionable in terms of a way to analyze. not just a range of reasonable

alternatives, also how you have analyzed those alternatives in light of the objectives put forward. you certainly take into account the project sponsors objectives. but they're not to be adopted by roads, automatically, without serious critical attention by a city in a project like this. and that was done. those narrow alternatives lead them to reject even the environmentally-superior alternative. supervisor campos: so to the extent that the analysis and the eir focuses on narrow objectives as opposed to the basic objectives, then you would think that -- you are saying that that analysis is inadequate and in sufficient. >> it is a flawed analysis and not the kind of analysis on which you should be asked to make very difficult decisions. president chiu: i have a couple

of questions to miss smith about transit impacts. you stated at the beginning of your presentation that you believe the final impact report manipulated data. when i read your appeal, you refer to the fact that the fdir did not disclose true impacts contrary to acceptable practices. the city increased a numerical factor to create a different result. this is fairly complicated stuff for all of us. can you take a moment and unpacked what you believe happened with this transit data? >> the coalition relied on the help of a traffic engineer, a well-respected, longtime traffic engineer who has represented numerous municipalities. he did a survey, which is in a follow-up letter that we submitted with the appeal.

he checked with all of his colleagues to check and see how you actually use the peak hours factor. what typically happens is it is a software program where you put in a number and run everything to make sure you get the same outcome. hear, the typical number that agencies put in, let me just make sure, is typically around .95. we will use this for the basis of the argument. what happened here was the city ratcheted up and put .98. at that point, there is a lot more increment in the flow. the more traffic you put in an intersection, it smoothes out the flow indicative to its logical conclusions. the more traffic, the less feel

-- the less failing intersections that you have. that makes no sense. the only way to improve traffic flow is with physical improvement. does that answer your question? president chiu: it does. thank you. supervisor olague. supervisor olague: i was wondering if you could speak a little bit more about why you feel that additional analysis should have been given to the van ness special use district requirements around housing? with a conditional use, it could exempt a project. >> in this case, the exception is going to be created by creating a special medical use district within a larger van ness use district. what is going on here is you are changing the wall. you can do that, but there should be a factual analysis for this kind of change as to why

the law should be changed to create this exception. it has to be looked at in light of the overwhelming emphasis on housing along this corridor. i remember when the special use district was adopted. dianne feinstein was mayor. she had a big press conference and talked-about van ness avenue becoming the champs- elysees of san francisco. she had the note action of stores on the bottom and housing above. that is what we have. we have the removal of a big plot of land. there have been speeches arguments around wide to do that. one was the van ness special use district. that is species. the agreement has expired.

the planning laws apply. of course, it did not apply to the hospital site. the van ness special use district itself requires it. as a ceqa matter, there is an added reason to include that information, that kind of analysis. instead, they did not do any of it. they sidestepped the issue and came up with a series of justification's for why they did not have to. none of which, i think, hold any water. supervisor mar: i would just like to follow up. you are suggesting that adequate analysis of the housing needs and impacts would have looked at socio-economic data on a project basis? not figures that are broader? could you go into that more?

what would have been more adequate? >> what would have been adequate would have been something like the jobs housing nexus study that was done when san francisco enacted the jobs-housing linkage ordinance. the jobs-housing linkage ordinance does not cover hospitals. the way this was defined, which i have some questions about, it could be done for the medical office building, which might have been covered by that. what that does is it gets you into examining the nature of the work force that is coming year. this is san francisco's second largest private employer and they are anticipating an increase in their work force. it is a pretty substantial thing. they should be looking into the income levels of the different workers. a lot of hospital workers are low-wage workers.

they will seek housing nearby because they often worked after hours. where are they going to look? they are going to look in the tenderloin. we know the demand for affordable housing in san francisco in a place like that. you want to take into account the income level of the different workers. doctors will be looking for a different kind of housing than those who are the janitors or other kinds of things. that was not done. instead, the only figures you get are the overall numbers projected of workers. you also do not have any sense of whether or not they have families or are single and the size of housing that may need to be built. affordable housing is an important point. all of that potential need for housing construction is a physical impact that should be considered. that is the relationship of social and economic considerations to what is supposed to appear in an

environmental impact report. >> i just want to make a quick point about that. you will probably hear that socio-economic impacts cannot be considered under ceqa. when they translate to actual environmental impacts, as they do here, in terms of increased traffic and reduced air quality, it is well within the purview of ceqa. i just wanted to make that point. thank you. supervisor mar: i was going asked about the jobs-housing linkage fee. it came up in the land use committee yesterday. the office of economic and work- force development argued that the fee does not apply because of the specific exemption that they said was related to the planning code. it was not an expressed exemption. their interpretation was that it was because of a medical institution. can you explain how that is being exempted?

to me, it seems like the jobs- housing linkage should be applied and there shall be more money that goes into mitigating the housing impact. can you explain why some housing advocates are arguing why it should not be exempt from litigation's? >> let me go first. regardless, they should have done a study like this because of the size of the work force. as i understand it, the project developer came forward with the definitions of the project. with respect to cathedral hill, they defined both the medical office building on a totally separate parcel across van ness avenue, and the hospital, as part of the same specific project. they have some room to do that. one of the reasons they did it was, envisioning mainly doctor's

office and medical offices in a hospital, is that medical offices as well as patient rooms count as part of a hospital and hospitals were not included in the original ordinance that we enacted. they went further and said that even a separate office building will be controlled. there is some sense in the languages -- offices affiliated and controls -- and controlled by the hospital are considered part of the hospital. people can vary on this. i think that is a bit of a stretch. i would have hoped that they would have looked at the project as involving different parcels of land. if that was the case, the medical office building, at least you had an argument, would have fallen under the jobs- housing linkage ordinance. the hospital itself was

exempted. a study was done that involved the nexus study done for the ordinance way back. this discussed hospitals. in the end, the legislation did not include hospitals as covered. it is all in the definition of the project and it indicates how a lot of difference has been given to the project sponsor all along as this process has gone through. president chiu: i have one more question related to an argument that was raised about how the environmental report did not accurately describe the project. there was an argument made that there should be an analysis for regional disclosure of cpmc's current regionalization process. and what the context of the

cumulative effects of the plan would be. i wonder if you could address that argument. >> i will defer to ms. smith. >> ceqa requires that a project look at the regional settings. that changes for every project. if it is a small project, the regional setting can be very narrow. a large project like this one, the regional setting can be quite large. cpmc talks about how this centerpiece facility at cathedral hill will draw workers and patients and even educators and students from all over the bay area and northern california. when they make that kind of assertion, it begs the question on whether or not it will have impact throughout the bay area. down in the peninsula, they have the facility down there and also in the east bay. we know that would potentially increased traffic, have impact on housing, people coming and

going, the regional setting was way too narrow. they just look at san francisco but talked about how it would be a regional facility of excellence. that is the argument. it is a definite flaw in the environmental impact report. president chiu: what is your understanding about what regional process solder is going through at this time? >> it is downsizing much of its facilities and it wants fewer hospitals throughout the bay area. it is definitely downsizing unprofitable facilities. it is also eliminating unprofitable services. again, that translates into a very real impact because there are patients who are not being seen where they were before. there are less hospital beds,

less psychiatric beds, and that creates the environmental impact because people are traveling around trying to find the care that they need. there is a lot of literature that says that is exactly what sutter is doing throughout northern california. supervisor wiener: i have a question for your colleague. we're going to make you get a workout by the end of the night. i just wanted to ask for a clarification. you made a statement about the 3-to-1 ratio, that it is being legislatively changed. i understand it was done by a conditional use. >> it is not being changed at all legislatively. what is being done legislatively is to create a medical sub district. the effect will be, arguably, removing the hospital site from

potentially the overall requirements in the van ness special use district. there are conditional uses involved. supervisor wiener: conditional use was what shifted from the 3- to-1 requirement. it was handled separately in the da and it was not appealed to the board. i just want to make sure. if i misunderstood or am wrong, please correct me. >> i would not read it that way. i do not see that as what has happened when i look at the original application. the conditional use is very much needed. it could not happen with just the conditional use. supervisor wiener: we will get clarification from planning when it is their turn. president chiu: any follow-up questions to the appellants at

this time? seeing none, why don't we hear from members of the public who wish to speak in support of the various appellants? if you could line up on the right-hand side, that would be greatly appreciated. why don't we hear from our first speakers? two minutes per speaker. why don't we hear from our first speaker? >> if we could have the overhead, please. president chiu: sfgov tv, if we could have the overhead projector. >> i am bernard from san francisco tomorrow. i have heard some of the

environmental legislation from the state so i have some expertise. in regards to the privacy of public feasibility over that of any private concerns. i have submitted that and it was removed from the contents of the public. secondly, the statements by the member of the board that repeated abuse of eir's approving projects by repetition makes it feasible. i refer to your counsel as to whether this is possible or an abuse of power. secondly, there is a possible gas pipeline which has a urgent exposure and the department of public works and this board has

refused to dig the hole to find out whether we are all in danger. third, there are thousands of health workers whose access to the union membership is being violated by a small minority of so-called representatives who have spent union dues to influence your vote. i think that is impossible, exercising culpability and abuse of power. i have more if you would like. i will take questions. president chiu: next speaker. thank you very much. >> my name is mary and i am a 40-year r.n. at saint luke's. if you look at the current plan, st. luke's look like it -- looks like a clinic. it does not look like a

hospital. it is designed to be a clinic. we have talked about many things for four years now. unions, jobs, contracts, jobs, jobs. all are important. i want to refer to my license as a registered nurse. it says, "i will advocate in the best interest of the patients that i take care of." that is why i have been here for 40 years. taking care of the port -- of the poor is very important to all of us. i just want to say, you guys have a very serious obligation. to me, this is the most serious thing i have ever faced. we are going to determine the fate of health care for generations.

i hope you take it as serious as i take my nursing license. thank you. [applause] president chiu: i want to take a moment to remind the public that we do have a rule in the board chamber. we ask folks to refrain from applause or any indications of opposition to statements that are made. if you want to use silent hands, that is more than acceptable. if we can keep the sound to a minimum so we could move forward that would be great. thank you. next speaker. >> i have been a registered nurse at cpmc for 15 years and an employee for over 20. i was born in the old presbyterian hospital. i love my work. i love my profession. i love my city. i have been involved with this rebuild going on five years now. if there is one thing i have learned, it is this. iu'