8 Washington is designed to take advantage of public views created when the Embarcadero Freeway came down. Sue Bierman worked to make that demolition happen. It is SUE BIERMAN PARK that will be walled off by the 8 Washington project. The extreme luxury housing on this site would eliminate a community recreation facility (outdoor swimming pools and tennis courts) serving seniors and children and seniors.
FACT - Height limits along the waterfront have NEVER been increased since they were first adopted 50 years ago.
FACT - San Francisco voters have NEVER placed a referendum on the ballot to reverse an ordinance adopted by the Supervisors. (It’s very hard to do.)
FACT - San Franciscans are out on the street gathering signatures on a referendum petition to challenge the first ever height increase - to 136’ across from Sue Bierman Park at Washington and The Embarcadero.
FACT - The height increase is for a project designed to be the MOST EXPENSIVE CONDOS IN SAN FRANCISCO - $3 to $8 million condos.
The physical petition is over 540 pages long - the size of the phone book - because the developer and City dumped documents into “the file” to force the petition to be that long. Could you help circulate a petition? Call Sue Hestor at 846-1021 or go by the NO WALL ON NORTHEAST WATERFRONT headquarters at 15 Columbus (894-7008). Petitions will be available for signing at the July 15 HANC picnic. PETITIONS MUST BE TURNED IN THURSDAY, JULY 19.
PLEASE HELP US GET THE 20,000 VALID SIGNATURES WE NEED.
SUTTER EXPANSION PLAN FUELS CONTROVERSY
At the June HANC general membership meeting a presentation was made by two panelists from San Franciscans for Healthcare, Housing Jobs and Justice (SFHHJJ) , a coalition of some 60 community, neighborhood and labor organizations seeking amendments to the draft Development Agreement for the proposed Sutter/CPMC 550 bed hospital at Cathedral Hill at Geary and Van Ness. Little did HANC members know that within two weeks of the presentation dramatic chinches would occur in the project calling its final approval into question.
Bob Prentice, former Assistant Director of the Department of Public Health and Paul Kumar, former Political Director of SEIU, Local 250 presented SFHHJJ proposals for improving access to health care at the new facility, improving Sutter’s poor record of providing “charity care” for the medical indigent and assuring the continued operation as a full service hospital of St. Luke’s hospital, acquired by Sutter in 2004. Both speakers made the case that this huge expansion of Sutter in San Francisco would give it “market control” of heath care which demands that the City, as a condition of approval of the project, make sure that it not result in lower health care services and higher health care cost.
Two major concerns were discussed: the impact on City health care costs for its workers and “Healthy San Francisco” given Sutter’s market dominance and the requirement that Sutter maintain St. Luke’s for a minimum of twenty years as a full service hospital in the medically underserved southeast portion of the City. The fact that the first issue has yet to be resolved has meant that none of the Boards conservative members have stepped forward to endorse the project.
But it was the St. Luke’s issue that now threatens the approval of the project.
At a hearing before a Board Committee on June 25th, a representative of the Mayor reported that the “deal” reached with Sutter regarding an “escape clause” which if met would allow Sutter to get out of operating St. Luke’s and originally thought to be based upon a remote set of conditions in fact, was not at all that remote and, indeed, was close to being met even before the project was approved allowing Sutter to end its operation of St. Luke’s within as few as five years, far short of the twenty year requirement in the draft agreement.
The announcement was greeted by stunned anger by the Board of Supervisors for having this significant fact held from them nearly two weeks. Not one Supervisor had co-sponsored the Mayors draft deal and with this announcement some Supervisors have called for the entire project to be sent back to “the drawing boards” and fundamentally re-negotiation.