apprentice and attorney-level construction decisions by trade to be filled by san francisco residents. and cpmc contractors in cooperation with labor will develop retention program, which is key for the city graduates to journey out. that is the goal, for them to journey out in their particular trade. on the non construction side, we're proposing 40 permanent hires through the work force system per year. that is a total of 200 over five years. and provide projections of ongoing projections of entry- level employment opportunities. since probably the last time i came before you, i don't know if i have been before you since we started health care academy, which models the city filled academy, and cpmc has been a strong partner since the inception, as well as the health

department. we have had that academy the past year. we have identified additional new partners, in partnership with the good neighbors coalition, to help provide training and direct placement opportunities on the not construction-related side. our health care academy provides vocational training in both clinical and clerical areas of the medical field, and we will coordinate job notifications and cannaday peripherals through cpmc. we also have partnerships with a variety of other hospitals as well. just to give a sense of the positions and the pay scale. vocational, there is the range. housekeeping, phlebotomy work, as well as the non-clinical and clerical side. the internship and externship

around the cagey tax. that step is to engage our cbo partners and additional partners and introduce the project and assess the capacity of these organizations and finalize our service process and of limitation steps and continue with our job notification and canada it referral. we just finished up the health- care academy a few weeks ago and have continued to work with cpmc as this practice continues to go through this process. the collaboration between cpmc and oewd has been very strong and a little unusual. we had the opportunity to work with them. because they use the process and identified all of their state partners up front, which is not the norm, we have been working with them closely the past year, particularly on the city academy, and have facilitated a

number of hands on training is with our trade partners at south land industry, tile, electric, as well as ibew number 6. through these trainings, are graduates have been able to get some additional training and experience with each trade well before this project has even gone through all of this process. in addition, the trade partners have already begun to hire our city graduates. we just had a graduation last thursday. two of our graduates or sponsored into local 342 by the plumbers and steam fitters. the south land is a trade partner. and for the upcoming cycle, we will engage trade partners. that is really not the norm for us. this is a big deal and a real commitment.

last, how we have structured our portion in terms of remedies to go to our goal, if our construction opportunities are not going the proper way, cpmc contractors -- this is already part of first source -- are subject to liquidated damages through the first source hiring program. on the and the use, if we do not meet our 40 in that year, we have the right to roll over into the next year. so it if we leave 101 year, we're able to roll over and keep up those 10 the next year. and that it would be 50. if a hiring deficiency exists at the end of the agreement, the terms of the agreement will be extended until we are able to complete all of the negotiated agreements on local hires. thank you, and i look forward to any questions you may have separate -- you may have.

president olague: after the presentation is done, will be calling somebody from mta and rhonda, i believe you both may need to leave early. we will take some questions from the commission at that time to accommodate your schedule. >> good evening, commission. transportation portion of this presentation is going to focus on cathedral hill and six campuses. -- and the st. luke's campus this. we will identify the traffic impact in the eir and a mitigation measure. we will also cover some public realm improvements. this is a map of cathedral hill campus. i will briefly describe the building access and loading design.

sorry to say the ball hard to see. the bottom of the slide is kiri boulevard. in the middle is van ness. -- in the bottom of the slide it is geary boulevard. access into the hospital parking lot will be provided off geary street, egress just on post. i want to point out the grass on geary street is for emergencies only, not operational on a daily basis. on the left side, we have the building and loading dock, accessible from franklin street. the emergency department will be at the top left-hand corner of the hospital, accessed from franklin as well, and also the ambulances will access from post street.

the building located on the right hand portion of the slide, towards the bottom, ingress will be provided from keri boulevard and cedar valley, which is currently one wait each bound, but either way would it leave the hospital to receive dirt alley. part of the project involves converting cedar valley so you could turn towards polk street and will also appeal to make a left onto cedar to access van ness. finally, at the top of the slide, 1375 sutter st. building it, and access for that will continue to be the same as it exists today. that is just off franklin and that sutter.

access design underwent a number of changes as part of the informal review process. we try to minimize the number of access points into the parking. we know curb cuts sometimes conflict with pedestrian flows, and was reflected in the proposed project to minimize some of those conflicts. in addition to analyzing the access, we also covered variance. this is the access variant, with the only primary difference that you'd be able to leave the m.o.b. onto geary. you'd have the the opportunity to exit onto cedar or geary boulevard. because of that, there is no need to convert cedar 2-way and

it would remain one-way eastbound. the other access variant is 2- way post street. the only primary difference between that and the proposed project is making post street 2- way, which would allow for access in the parking garage. under the proposed project would be right turn out and and only. if it was to way, there would be for different maneuvers. -- if it was2-way there would be four detrick maneuvers. briefly to review the cathedral hill campus. in the morning and afternoon, we expect the campus to generate 600 vehicle trips are arriving at the site. as far as transit and the morning, we're looking at approximately 6 under morning trips and in the evening 550.

just to remind everybody what is in the draft eir, traffic impact on the modified baseline conditions, we have a number of intersections that this project impacts, located at van ness and the market and a pulp and geary. for the product variants, they're very much the same, with the exception of franklin and bush, which is a conversion to 2-way. under the access variant, there is a design and pedestrian impact we identified the. that allows people to exit the parking garage onto keri boulevard. there are a lot of things going on on geary, and we expect more pedestrians, and vehicular traffic associated with the parking garage.

there's also the transit-only lane, additionally the high volume of returns from geary onto van ness. all of these things in combination, if you about cars to exit, we felt that would be hazardous impact, and that is why you are seeing on the proposed project that exit eliminated. president olague: i was wondering if you might, in laymen's terms, explain what l.o.s. means. >> sure, without getting too technical, it is level of service, which is how we measure impact to traffic. level of service "a" is a good condition, meaning a vehicle driver does not have to wait too much. it ranges from service "a" to "f," being a feeling condition,

meaning you are stuck at the intersection and you go through several cycles of lights before you cross. president olague: just for the sake of the public, level c and d on the slide, am i correct? >> yes. president olague: d and e during p.m. peak hours. is that more critical? >> d is considered acceptable. level of service e or f is considered failing. president olague: thank you for that. >> if i could have the overhead back, please? president olague: thanks. >> i did want to show a cumulative slide toward dulles the fact we studied traffic impacts of the 20/30 conditions,

considering citywide growth and the impact in combination with that growth. the previous intersections would be impacted by this project. it goes from level of service d which is acceptable, to level of service e, which means it fails and 2030. there are additional intersection sailing and 2030 project additional intersections failing and 2030. a word about transit impact. 2015 baseline conditions, the cathedral hill campus is expected to adversely impact

several transit routes. and 2030, the cumulative impact, and addition to those three lines, it will at first lead in fact -- it will adversely impact all their transit routes. we have an mta rep to talk to you about the mitigation measures to deal with this impact. before we get to that,e, wantd to cover the streetscape improvements. what this line a shelling, the blue box is the cathedral hill campus. the green is the tenderloin neighborhood and the lower pork corridor. that -- the lower polk corridor. during the draft review, we

heard many comments that we needed to take a closer look at the tenderloin and transportation impact the cathedral hill campus may have it in that neighborhood. i wanted to let you know we are doing that as part of the review and you will see what we do know today, the proposed project is going to add traffic to the tenderloin neighborhood and we are asking to have $11 million worth of improvements in this area. one of these improvements includes the conversion from one way to two way and that is shown in black dished lines. that came out of the study and that project is undergoing environmental review and will include various among other things along the polk corridor

and tender loin area and things in the green box. this is just a tool kit, an example of the kinds of things that would be done in the tender oin with this money. where we don't have the specifics, staff from several departments are working together with the community to figure that out as we speak. with that, i would like to introduce my colleague, jason lee, manager of financial services with m.t.a. to discuss with you the specifics of the transit mitigation. >> good afternoon. as victoria mentioned, the project is at the intersection of one of our -- two of our major transportation corridors

in the city, geary and van ness. there are very heavily congested and the fortunate thing is that this location is at an area of very high transit accessibility and that means there will be high transit impacts. currently eight routes stop within three blocks of the project site and what that means is that there are currently 120,000 people that board those eight routes on a daily basis or over 15% of the ridership. so we worked with cpmc and city staff to go through the e.i.r. and develop a cost and schedule module to develop the impacts of the campus on the services on a

route-by-route basis and focused on transit delay, looking at the number of vehicle trips that would be generated by cpmc and how it would slow down muni vehicles going through in that corridor surrounding cpmc. by slowing things down, that impacts everyone on board, their travel times. it requires muni to have to add service in order to same level of frequency that we can offer to our customers. we went through and we quantified how much each of these elements would cost in terms of addressing some of the delay issues both on the day-to-day operating and maintenance ex pen turs as well as capital expenditures as well as capital costs. if we had to purchase a new bus

in order to maintain a schedule, that is included on the left-hand side. we went through that and came up with an estimated cost of $2.59 million on a yearly basis and we also looked to give credit for offsetting some of those costs. the biggest one is -- we are proposing that if they help defray some of the costs of our van ness and geary projects that we would not account for the operation and maintenance costs due to the delay of services on van ness and geary. in addition, we looked at the net payroll tax and parking tax revenues that would be generated by the project. so, based on that, we calculated estimated offsets of $1.24 million annually for net annual financial impact of $1.35

million. based on that analysis, we are looking at three proposed measures in combination that would help out with our transportation situation. one is, as i mentioned, we have two projects in the vicinity of the cpmc and one time contribution to help fund the stations, would go a long way in terms of making the vehicles on geary and van ness go faster, our muni vehicles. the second element is a parking fee that would be assessed. each time a person entered or exited cpmc's proposed parking garage and what we are proposing right now is a 50-cent fee to enter or exit the garage during weekday business hours and 25-cent fee to enter and exit

other times of the day. if someone entered and exited on sunday, that would be 50 cents and these numbers would adjust based on inflation. and finally, in conjunction with the city's transit-first policy, we were looking at having cpmc provide a muni fast pass to each employee that requests one and cpmc would be responsible for paying the face value of those passes which are either $60 for the muni-only pass or $75, muni plus bart and pay 60% of the total number of employees. and we are proposing that we would use the funding to offset some of the operating and capital expenditures associated with maintaining and improving transit, bicycle and pedestrian access along the corridors

adjacent to the facility. and these corridors would be identified -- what we have identified in our transit project. with that, i would like to turn it over to the t.a. rachel, who will talk about the specifics of the project. >> good evening. transportation planner with the san francisco transportation authority and i'm the project manager for the van ness project and geary project manager is also here. i would like to show you -- give you an overview of what b.r.t. is. this is visualization of the van ness b.r.t. project, one of the several alternatives under evaluation right now on van ness

avenue. the geary and b.r.t. -- geary and van ness b.r.t. projects were recommended in muni's vision plan back in 2000 and were recommended as the city's transportation expansion strategy in the 2004 county-wide transportation plan. the authority-led feasibility studies for these projects that were adopted in 2006 and with adoption of those feasibility studies, those boards recommended that the project concept and alternatives be environmentally assessed. right now geary and van ness alternatives are undergoing environmental review. both the geary and van ness projects include a couple core features and the purpose is to provide rapid transit, true rapid transit using rubber-tire vehicles on these two critical

corridors that currently lack it. all alternatives do provide a dedicated lane for buses and differentiated further from the current diamond lanes by colored pavement or by a small curve or other clear differentiation. all alternatives include high quality station platforms with level loading. passengers can load and unload the bus through any door and would be able to roll straight on if the passenger is in in a wheelchair or carrying a stroller. all alternatives include signal priority, which is technology that allows buses to extend the green light at traffic signals in order to reduce traffic signal delay. all the alternatives include new buses, large capacity buses, so articulated buses that have a

particular look. so you will be able to know that this is a b.r.t. or rapid route. finally, because every transit start or pedestrian trip, all alternatives invest in transit improvements. accessible pedestrian signals and countdown signals, curb extensions and new curb lamps. the geary and b.r.t. alternatives differ in their costs because they are different lengths, geary being a much longer corridor. both projects are eligible for federal funds, federal depunding program known as small start and it is a program designed for projects such as b.r.t., which are a lot cheaper per mile than conventional light rail or subway type of projects. both projects are eligible up to $75 million. van ness because we are

currently along in our process has been acknowledged as a candidate for small start funding by the federal government and been rated highly. in fact, the most competitive project for small start funding in the nation. we expect geary to do -- bid competitively for those funds. the funding includes the local property sales tax. the expenditure approved in 2003 identified a portion of the funds for van ness and geary b.r.t. the size of the remaining funding gap various again -- the total cost is $118. that ranges but that is the middle ground but for geary, no more than $250,000. this is a great shape for a

project like van ness. 20% funding gap and we are only at the environmental stage of the process. that project is in great shape financially but we still do have a gap and geary has a gap as well. the sources that we're seeking include an array of federal -- other federal programs, but those have to be matched as well as state programs. they have to be matched by local dollars. the implementation time frame for each project, again both projects are at the environmental review stage right now in neepa and ceqa environmental reviews. the time frame is shown on top and van ness on the bottom. we do expect the van ness b.r.t. project to circulate, state and

federal process this year so maybe at the end of the summer going into the fall, later this year, we will be circulating after we receive public comment. we at m.t.a. will recommend a preferred alternative for authority board and board adoption and work on the preferred alternative. the final design shown and the certification of the e.i.r. shown as the next phase depending on the corridor, geary is a much longer corridor so it will take longer time to get to implementationtation but would like to have service up and running by the end of 2015. thank you. >> good evening, commissioners. if i could have the overhead, please.

as we did for cathedral, i'm going to go through the circulation plan -- briefly, circulation for the buildout is proposed to be as follows. patients would be dropped off and picked up from a new loading zone and with improvements. parking below the medical office building will be accessed from around the corner. we have the intersection in the top left corner, and the new hospital is slightly east of the street along chavez and medical building is on the corner of valencia. >> as i was mentioning, thening tering