Proposed CPMC Cathedral Hill Hospital Site (Image Source:
With the wrecking crew for the Cathedral Hill Hotel waiting in the wings, the appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval for California Pacific Medical Center’s Long Range Development Plan will be heard by San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors this afternoon.
CPMC Cathedral Hill Rendering
The appeal was filed on behalf of the California Nurses Association/National Nurses United, Council of Community Housing Organizations, Cathedral Hill Neighbors Association, Bernal Heights Neighborhood Center, Jobs with Justice San Francisco, and San Franciscans for Healthcare, Housing, Jobs and Justice.
UPDATE: The hearing of the appeal has been moved to July 17, 2012.
Cathedral Hill Hotel Demolition Paperwork Filed, Poised To Fall [SocketSite]
CPMC’s Long Range Development Plan Renderings And Draft EIR [SocketSite]
California Pacific Medical Center Long Range Development Plan EIR Appeal []

24 thoughts on “Planning’s Approval Of CPMC’s Plans Being Appealed This Afternoon”
  1. Bernal Heights Neighborhood Center? New definition of NIMBY. (and, yes, I’m well aware of BHNC’s inglorious history in opposition to projects)

  2. The real issue is Sutter’s overall approach, decidedly not in keeping with their not for profit status.
    Their plans for St. Luke’s violate the promises made when they acquired the facility.
    I’m less concerned by the freebie grab bag of housing, jobs, and associated nimby opposition.
    That said, this is a great location for a hospital and the city really needs it.

  3. I was wondering the same thing. Isn’t this project a long way from Bernal? The list or organizations seem to be either local or concerned with work contract issues except for the Bernal Heights Neighborhood Center. I’m now hearing a Sesame Street tune in my head and seeing a vision of four items, one of which doesn’t fit.

  4. A bit ironic that “San Franciscans for Healthcare, Housing, Jobs and Justice” are campaigning to obstruct jobs and healthcare?

  5. The St. Lukes agreement affects Bernal; that must be the reason for them appealing. or maybe its to advocate for housing on this site as well as the hospital. who knows.

  6. I get that the construction is going to be a major headache for everyone living nearby, but the City needs this hospital, and there is no question that it is going to be built. Instead of making it more expensive for CPMC, the City should be pushing to start construction as soon as possible.

  7. Like the rest of the City, SS has largely ignored the plight of St Lukes, opting instead to showcase the larger Van Ness hospital serving Pac Heights. The hearing is for the CPMC master plan that includes St Lukes (and other campuses). BHNC wants more services and beds at St Lukes to serve the community and therefore has a vested interest in voicing opposition to CPMC.
    [Editor’s Note: Please note our piece on CPMC’s Master Plan to which we link above includes the St. Lukes development as well as all the other campuses.]

  8. ^Should I be angry that Sutter is closing the location closest to me? (I live in the Inner Richmond)
    I’m not, because the Van Ness location doesn’t server “Pac Heights” – it serves “San Francisco”. We don’t need neighborhood hospitals in a city of less than 50 square miles. It’s not a grocery store.

  9. Don’t quite get why they want to reduce the number of beds at St. Luke’s. Mission/Bernal/Glen Park is a quickly gentrifying part of town, so on a business basis it seems short sighted not build capacity over here.

  10. There is no health care reason in the world to have St. Lukes. The only reason they are doing it is to placate the nurses union who is creating jobs they cannot fill! We don’t need neighborhood hospitals in this tiny city, as was observed above. With the cost of equipment and the specialized expertise of heath care professionals today, you get better care at less marginal cost in larger facilities.

  11. “With the cost of equipment and the specialized expertise of heath care professionals today, you get better care at less marginal cost in larger facilities.”
    If you can reference one study that supports this statement, I would be interested to see it. Tertiary care hospitals like CPMC may provide better care (although even that is controversial), but at significantly higher costs.

  12. I haven’t read the appeal, but I know the St. Lukes issue is a real one. It is the only full service hospital in the south-eastern part of the city except SF General. St. Lukes is a huge resource for people in the Mission, Bernal, etc. It was a city blue ribbon task force that recommended that St. Lukes stay open to provide ambulatory and limited hospital care in the area.

  13. Give. Me. A. F***ing. Break.
    San Francisco deserves to die a sickly death by letting these obstructionist special interest groups continually gnawing at its flesh.
    Ridiculous. San Francisco. It’s the city that can’t.
    Residents should be ashamed.

  14. The “real issue” is that the issues being argued don’t matter. San Francisco needs modern, seismically safe healthcare facilities and the unions, neighborhood groups and others with special interest agendas are blocking them. They should stop now and the BOS should not let them continue to obstruct.

  15. Kddid but the proposal is for ambulatory care and hospital beds. They re following the panel’s recommendations.

  16. UPDATE: As noted on the Board of Supervisor’s Agenda, “The President may entain a motion to continue [this item] to July 17, 2012” which he did. We’ll keep you plugged-in.

  17. Would have been a great project for Mid Market which should be allowed to completely start over. Still, this provides good paying union construction jobs and at least keeps the heritage of an ugly modernist structure at this location.

  18. Considering the tone of this discussion, I’m afraid to ask how it is that hospitals are responsible for creating housing. The answer, no doubt, will be some convoluted gobbledegook that reeks of political incompetence.

  19. This is the culmination of ten years of moves on behalf of Sutter to dominate hospital market share in San Francisco.
    The St. Luke’s community isn’t mobile; these patients will NOT travel to van ness or anywhere else to get care. Closing st. Luke’s, or Reducing it’s level of care, forces these patients to sf general.
    My beef is with Sutter; they committed to keeping st. Lukes open when they acquired it.
    “Sutter spokesman Bill Gleeson said Sutter had pledged its indefinite support to allow St. Luke’s to continue as a full-service, acute-care facility.”
    Horse puckey. It was a market share issue, pure and simple.
    “The antitrust lawsuit settlement included an agreement that Sutter would maintain St Luke’s until 2005. CPMC then decided to take over St. Luke’s and keep it open through 2009, which served both as a tax write-off for charity care and a bargaining chip to get approval to build Cathedral Hill.”
    You’ve got to give them credit, they leverage their non profit status, paying $0 in income or property taxes, then searching for even more tax credits.
    Couple that with revenues in the order of $1.25 billion, and a non for profit actually has a competitive advantage over a for profit system.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *