July 9, 2012
Mayor Lee To CPMC: Save St. Luke's Or Cathedral Hill Campus Is DOA
With the appeal of Planning's approval of CPMC's comprehensive development plans having been pushed to next week, and new fears that CPMC isn't committed to the long-term operation of its St. Luke’s campus in the Mission, Mayor Lee is reported to be seeking CPMC's agreement to keep St. Luke's in operation for at least 20 years, without which the Mayor will kill CPMC's plans for its Cathedral Hill campus in San Francisco.
UPDATE: In a press conference this morning, CEO Warren Browner intimated CPMC had no intentions of signing an amended development agreement, including a guarantee for the ongoing operation of St. Luke’s.
"We are committed to building (St. Luke's) here that we hope will stay open forever," Browner said, but "we stand for the development agreement as written." He acknowledged "circumstances" could alter that rosy view, insisting that CPMC’s success — and the reason it’s one of the survivors of what was once a much larger roster of hospitals in town — is that it takes its financial obligations "extraordinarily seriously."
Also intimated and noted by The Business Times, "the city’s failure to approve a development agreement hammered out over a decade and approved by the city’s Planning Commission in April, could result in St. Luke’s closure and the departure of its medical staff."
∙ Planning's Approval Of CPMC's Plans Being Appealed [SocketSite]
∙ Cathedral Hill Hotel Demolition Paperwork Filed, Poised To Fall [SocketSite]
∙ CPMC’s Long Range Development Plan Renderings And Draft EIR [SocketSite]
∙ CPMC says it won't renegotiate Cathedral Hill agreement [bizjournals.com]
First Published: July 9, 2012 10:00 AM
Comments from "Plugged In" Readers
CPMC should sell St Luke's to the City for one dollar to be operated as an extension to SFGH, along with a bagful of money to operate it.
Posted by: Patrick at July 9, 2012 10:22 AM
How many times does CPMC have to say they're committed? This is probably just a political move for Lee to call it out as an absolutely firm requirement, and put an end to the bed wetting. I don't think there is any real logic to the fear -- just progressives dumpster diving and using illegal documents as scare tactics.
Posted by: kg at July 9, 2012 10:42 AM
The St. Lukes site would be much better used as something other than a hospital. Hospitals are regional in use, not some kind of neighborhood need.
Posted by: anon at July 9, 2012 11:15 AM
Good point, anon! CPMC should scrap the Cathedral Hill project and use the St Luke's campus. After all, it's an established hospital that already serves the "region."
Posted by: PN at July 9, 2012 11:41 AM
^That would be fine by me if the neighborhood there would allow a 30 story building. Transportation connections to the rest of the city aren't great (and definitely not as good as the intersection of two of our main streets), but probably decent enough to work. Is the neighborhood willing to allow a 30 story building?
Posted by: anon at July 9, 2012 12:26 PM
What the mayor doesn't understand, as well as others is that the St. Luke's main building and a few others are completely seismically deficient.
They need to be torn down and replaced with a new hospital up to complete seismic and functional standards.
It's that simple.
Posted by: futurist at July 9, 2012 1:20 PM
"CPMC says it won't renegotiate Cathedral Hill agreement, dares San Francisco officials to kill St. Luke’s"
Posted by: gellan at July 9, 2012 2:14 PM
^^^ A call for common sense -- how refreshing. Too bad I'm still worried our supervisors have none.
Posted by: kg at July 9, 2012 2:23 PM