of the public that you are relying on data from 2001 and this is a fairly important topic. what fraction of your employees were driving as opposed to using other boats? >> i don't have that in front of me but what -- as opposed to other modes. >> i don't have that in front of me. supervisor chiu: my understanding is the numbers are far different from what you are estimating that will be the new vehicle trips. these numbers -- there is a lot to be asked. if you could get that information to as quickly, that would be helpful. supervisor campos: i'm wondering if this assumption has been verified through the mta?

can we hear from the mta on that? again -- we have had many discussions over the years about how we try to get people to ride public transit. when we have had questions about health care in this project, we have asked the department of public health -- we are talking about public transit and i'm wondering ifln[9 the mta has an opinion as to how accurate an assumption that is already based on data that is 11 years old -- how reasonable assumption is that? k$bo>> i was just asking jerry robbins who was reviewing the study and he just indicated he did review the study but did not question the data significance of the data.

at this point, from my perspective, i did not review it and i was not part of that analysis. but if you want to hear from jerry, i would be happy to have him come and talk. they question i have is is the mta taking a position as to whether or not this is an accurate assumption? >> i the guy would have to agree with the assessment that the assumption of drivers verses non-drivers is probably a little low. in ourya projects, we see more automobile trips, particularly when we did the tsf study. that is what i can add to the conversation. >> -- supervisor campos: 40% in your estimation is not reasonable estimation?

supervisor mar: it is a hospital where people may be sick or injured, so that is surprising to me. s if i could just ask some follow-up information -- i understand the mta may not have done their own analysis but i ask the county transportation authority to look into this same question and one thing they concluded was even under the final environmental impact report, the planned traffic mitigation measures and travel demand management measures are not expected to be capable of reducing traffic impacts to less than a significant level for a variety of intersections. they are expecting significant transit ingestion and they suggest we consider a traffic mitigation fund to really ensure we're not going to seek total and utter gridlock at the site. do you have any reason to challenge with the county transportation authority

concluded? >> i do not, and as you will see the cathedral hill campus does produce a significant amount of avoidable impact that those intersections that i will cover in just a moment. supervisor are 30 or so of these significant and unavoidable -- >> i will get to that in just one second. thank you for your questions. i a understand where you're coming from and we will be getting back to you on those issues. speaking of the number of impacts, there has been confusion about the way the transportation chapter has been structured. ir tracks 152 impact statements and i want to drill down on this issue because of the confusion. many people think it identified

152 transportation impacts, want to tell what the profit -- but the impact really are. we apply them to every single campus in the long-range development plan. we also applied unequally to the difference circulation variants and there are other ones for the other campus and we apply them to the near-term and future year, 2030, so at the end you have different permutations of different impacts closed in the environmental impact report and those are 152 statements. those 152 statements are applicable to the cathedral hill campus. 17 are dealing with the projects and the remaining 41 are duplicative because they go over the same issues which are mutually exclusive. of those 17, six are significant

and unavoidable. i will cover the specific intersections in just a minute. three are related to trends and what is construction related and 1 loading impact we were able to get to less than significant level. with that, let me focus on the intersection and let you know what some of those impacts are. we see significant and unavoidable impact at the intersection of van ness and market. the sheer magnitude of the hospital -- and will cover that in just a few minutes. said impact that the remaining 23 intersections are less than significant. that is not to say a facility of

this size isn't going to bring a lot of vehicles, all of pedestrians, lot of trends are writers and general transportation activity to this region. absolutely will and in doing so, it will create some friction tween the district -- between the different modes. it will produce some1/ various intersections surrounding the project site. there is no doubt about that. it is just that the significant impact for the cathedral hill is that those two interceptions. s i just wanted to draw that distinction. -- be lying supervisor chiu: by travel valid -- i travel down van ness every day of the week and we have gridlock at rush hour. if i end up casting a votedcr

this project, i want drivers and residents to be cursing me in five, 10, 20 years for gridlock at this site. when i first took a look at the final environmental impact traffic analysis, i was pretty surprised that it appeared you minimized significant impact here. so i have a couple of questions. these are issues raised in the appeal but i want to understand at this point. taking one datapoint, the corner of seventh and market street, you are familiar with the discussion are on the potential impact there. there are going to be 20,000 new trips of individuals trying to get to this hospital. hundreds of more cars through most of the major intersections close to hospital. yet the analysis you approved stated at seventh and market ( (p&culation there will only be one additional automobile thatbe will go through that intersection to get to the

hospital and in the afternoon after -- in the afternoon traffic, only three additional cars per day. do you find that believable? should we find that believable? >> that is the analysis and since it is the subject of the hearing tomorrow, if you would not mind, we would be happy to respond to that as part of the appeal. >> i am happy to have that conversation tomorrow, but i don't find it believable. i would like to believe by tomorrow. it would be helpful to get a little bit of information between today and tomorrow. another issue -- you use 2006 information as opposed the most recent data we have, which is 2009. by that, you under-inflated some of the traffic impact numbers. it appears the traffic modeling you did was done -- frankly -- it was manipulated to help you arrive s.a. -- are right that a certain result. the data you received is

frankly just not believable. i'm wondering if anybody could respond to that in a way that could help me understand this in time for tomorrow's hearing? >> i understand what you are asking and i am confident in the analysis we performed an would be more happy to drill down on some of the numbers you are citing a particular intersection. right in front of me and would have to double check. supervisor chiu: today, this hearing was supposed to drill down on these issues and that's why i'm asking these questions. get supervisor campos: -- supervisor campos: if i could follow up on that, wondering why your definition of significant impact is? >> that a very good question. when an intersection goes from the existing level of service d to e or worse, that means it has

increased. there are many instances where we have a situation where an intersection is already congested. when that happens, we calculate the projects contribution to the critical movement which controls the overall level of service. if that constitutes a considerable contribution, it is considered significant. that is 5%. supervisor campos: how did you arrive at that definition? >> that preceded me and has been used by the city for a very long time. supervisor campos: i'm wondering if i can hear from the transportation focus on whether or not that is the definition of significance that the city is going by? >> those significance thresholds

are set by the planning department. we think they are reasonable. supervisor campos: we talked earlier about this assumption that 40% of trips would happen on public transit. we heard that it seemed a blow. if the assumption was higher -- that seem low. >> if you used a .e assumption of people driving, you would read do the analysis and get a larger volume of vehicular traffic as a result the project. supervisor campos: we also heard from president chiu that the passenger data was 2006 data and we have data from 2009 available. if the data upon which this finding was based was 2009 date as opposed to 2006 data, do you think it would have impacted the

outcome? >> i can't answer that right now. supervisor campos: is it possible? >> it is certainly possible. >> if i may address the 2006- 2009 question, we did do the analysis with the latest data and the impacts were the same or similar to what was identified in the draft and final environmental report. we redid the analysis with the 2009 data. supervisor campos: by your analysis based on the 40% we talked about earlier? >> correct. supervisor campos: could that higher percentage lead to a different result? >> its possible. moving on8'e 2015, we identified significant an unavoidable impact on the 19th pole to 38 than the 38 carry and the 49 van ness mission lines and 20, 30, those

lines are9] impact on the 47 van ness and the three jackson. impact on other lines were less than significant but that's not to say cathedral hill is not going to be adding riders. while the impacts are identified as significant an unavoidable, this forces mitigation measures that would compensate and to a financially for the agency to provide transit service needed to service hospital. on the bicycle and pedestrian impact, there will be more friction just by virtue of putting more people on this site. we have found that impact on bicyclesxv significant with this project and similarly would be less than significant for pedestrians. there are streetscape and other improvements being added that we can cover in detail.

 the construct- related pedestrian impact willt- discuss a minute. we did find a significant impact as far as for large trucks pulling in off of franklin. that is mitigated with making sure the loading hours for large trucks are restricted. for emergency vehicle access, given the location of the sites and major arterial, we found the impact to be less than significant. supervisor chiu: can we talk about the emergency vehicle impact? if we have a lot of traffic here and a new hospital, we will have a lot of new emergency vehicles trying to get in and out. there has been a concern raised by the neighborhoods around this that there will be an overwhelming number of emergency vehicles trying to get in and 5#ucout stuck in traffic. in the finald

claim is that this is not a concern because you have multi- lane roadway and emergency vehicles can get in and around these intersections. the from my own experience there, given how much gridlock is already there, i don't see how that happens. could you talk about -- do you have any idea how many emergency vehicles are expected to go through these intersections what percentage of the time they're going to need to divert to side streets? give us a sense of what an emergency vehicle situation is like. >>lsf;p might understanding is t the vehicles turn on their sirens and people are able to move out of the way. there is some congestion but the emergency vehicle drivers are able and no one the congestion is and how it occurs and are able to get to the hospital. supervisor chiu: what does that mean? if the of the emergency vehicle that needs to get to and from hospital and you have gridlock, cars cannot move out of the way. >> let me ask staff for some

help. the vehicles do tend to get a little bit out of the way, but there is some of gridlock and intersections not all the way of venice. if there are intersections they cannot get by, they will use the opposing lane of traffic. it is not ideal, but it is possible. supervisor chiu: but if there is gridlock on one side, there is typically gridlock on the other side. >> it is not ideal. from what i understand, the central lane would also be available for emergency traffic needed. they would have to weave in and out of transit, but it would be available. d chiu: if t

some more information about that because there wasn't anything in the environmental impact report that gives me a lot of confidence around emergency vehicles. >> a couple of numbers i have in my note -- 5% r code 3 which means they have their lights on. based on the data it at preexisting campuses, there are approximately 50 per month that we can provide more information on that. that is the data have. supervisor chiu: i'm trying to envision what it means for an emergency vehicle to come in and out of the brt line. there is going to be an impact on traffic when brt is there and then this is reduced by a lien on both sides. it is confusing for me to think about how that is actually going to happen in real life. >> understood. supervisor campos:hq!i if i coud

ask that anti to come up on this issue. 'm having a really hard time understanding the analysis of what happens with emergency vehicles given the increased a already have gridlock as it is. how was it from the mta's perspective that what we just heard makes sense? that somehow with this level of emergency vehicles be able to maneuver their way out of the van ness and to the extent they are referencing brt -- that involves the elimination of one lane on each side. how is that going to help with the passage of emergency vehicles? i'm really having a hard time trying to get my arms around that. >> good question. the brt is meant to be an

exclusive right away and there wouldçóz!v be limited opportunis for emergency vehicles to use the right of way. we would have to take a close third look at the plans to tell you how it -- a closer look at plans to tell you how it affects emergency vehicles. supervisor campos: to my knowledge, it does allow for anything other than exclusive use by brt. is that correct? >> i think emergency vehicles would be allowed to use it in the case of an emergency and they could enter at the intersection in travel for a block and exit the lane if they felt it was to their advantage to do so. supervisor campos: do you agree with the analysizzwe presentedo us around emergency vehicles? we are looking to you guys as the expert on transportation. we do not want to be in a years from now this becomes an issue. from your perspective, should we

be satisfied with the level of analysis on this issue? >> we would be happy to take another look at the emergency vehicle access and get back to you tomorrow. supervisor campos: are you satisfied with what they're saying on this issue? >> i have not read it. supervisor campos: perhaps we can hear from the mta tomorrow on this. >> just a clarification in case everyone is not aware, everything that has been presented to you and is in the environmental report has been signed off on by that mta. is want to make sure it's not that the planning does the t a. which is not to say it's not a good idea to have them look at them again. -- without asking that mta. >> it seems like of mta is not

confident in this analysis. have to go back and look at it. >> if i may move on to construction. the environmental impact report identifie'pj a structure impact and it requires the construction management plan. we did feel given the magnitude of the project and the length of big construction of five years, the closure of the travel lanes and sidewalk, particularly on gary, and the potential overlap with the van ness brt construction, the project would bevym0ñ significad unavoidable. parking may be a topic of interest. it's not considered a significant impact but we do provided in our transportation impact study because it's of interest to many people. for parking, the cathedral hill campus is proposing a supply of

1227 spaces between hospital and the 1375 sutter building. the demand we estimated was 1389 spaces, so they don't quite meet the demand. 1317 spaces. they don't meet the demand but they could not anyway because the maximum allowed would be 1317 spaces. supervisor chiu: so i understand in the planning code section 151, there is -- there should not be more than one parking space for eight bedsore each 2400 square feet of sleeping rooms. if i trusted them matt, that's 545 beds/1 to 8, i get to 70 parking spots. you are proposing 1227 spots. could you talk to me about how

you arrived at this number and i would like to ask the same question of the mta, whether they think this is the appropriate amount of parking. >> what is important to note is the last few words of that sentence in the planning code. one for each bed or one for each 2400 square feet devotednjb sleeping rooms, whichever results in the greater requirement. you cannot choose the lesser requirement, he must do both and choose the greater requirement. supervisor chiu: so that is how you get to this number? >> that establishes what your absolute minimum is. the planning code allows up to 150% of that by right. so the number use on the slide is 150%, and it is effectively the maximum. supervisor chiu: if i could ask the mta if you let us know if you think it's appropriate for there to be this level parking in the neighborhood.

>> difficult to answer. a perfect amount of parking for any particular land use, if you don't have enough parking, you can get traffic cued up onto transit streets. the provide to much parking, you are encouraging people to use the automobile. we look at the fees for parking. they are substantial. we hope that will minimize the number of people to choose to drive, hoping only people who really need to drive are the ones to dr supervisor chiu: is there a breakdown for the number of spaces that will be used by shifts for staff as opposed to public? in that evening, there will be an awful lot of empty parking in these spaces.

my constituents and their associations are concerned it will be used by patrons of bars on the pulp street corridor which is already extremely congested. -- the polk street corridor. >> about one-third is for general staff and the remaining 20% are exclusively for physicians. we assume all of them will drive to the hospital. >> and do you know what that looks like in the nighttime? much of the staff works during the day, so that frees up parking space later in the evening. >> i don't know what that looks like in the nighttime. >supervisor chiu: i would like to have some understanding of what the night time parking looks like. supervisor campos: i have a follow-up question for the mta. i'm trying to understand in terms of best practice, it is%

of the spaces are reserved -- if 50% of the spaces are reserved for physicians and staff, and i understand the importanceb=.dd f making space is available for emergency purposes and all of that, but in terms of what is common or what is the best practice in that industry, is this a typical best practice? i'm trying to understand is in the context of transit first city that we are. -- the transit first city that we are. >> my understanding is doctors need to make a lot of trips between hospitals and it's difficult to get them to use public transportation. that is my a understanding. i have not done a survey. supervisor campos: do you know what happens in other cities? what's the general practice in other cities? yoelsi don't have a reason to question the numbers, i just want to have an understanding of

how it compares to what happens in other parts of the country. >> i cannot answer that off the top of my head. i would be happy to do some research. supervisor campos: i think if we are going to reserve half the spaces for a certain population which may be completely appropriate, i would like to have some knowledge on what is happening in other parts of the country. is this a good idea? maybe it totally is. i'm actually surprised that kind of analysis hasn't been done. >> i apologize for interjecting. there is some data i believe we have on comparative parking supplies for hospitals around the country which seems responsive to your question, and i think planning will be able to present that tomorrow. >> i'm not sure about hospitals, but the mta policy for parking

is we are moving away from encouraging margin -- encouraging monthly parking. >> -- supervisor campos: were you surprised by this piece in the proposal? >> given where the mta is going, this is not in line with what we're doing. supervisor wiener: i want to follow upon -- i want to follow up on, there was some questions about vehicle trip generation that seems to be in conflict in terms of the direction they were .i r'o