i think the view was expressed that the percentage of private vehicle trips would be much higher. d1ßthere are some questions abot the number of parking spaces in the facility being too low. one thing i want to make sure, we're not putting it -- if you have too much policy, at -- parking, you are violating our transit first policy. if you do not have enough parking, he will be generating too many vehicle trips. you'll be clogging up the roads and taking on street parking and

walking emergency vehicles. i want to make sure the way that we are analyzing this, what we need to be doing is using art cities -- the way we analyze projects. this is not the first large project. this is a very important project. it needs to betj analyzed very carefully and evaluated very carefully. every project is unique, we have approved many projects which are quite larger than that this project in terms of their transit impacts. i guess my question, you spent some time talking about the way the department analyzed the traffic impacts, where you derive the data and so forth. is this analysis -- were using

the same methodology used with other significant projects in the city? >> absolutely. supervisor wiener: did you go back in use stale data out when we were using current data and other products -- projects? >> we tweak the methodology for each individual project based on the available data. as a general rule, the methodology outlined in the slide is applicable to all transportation. supervisor wiener: i understand some of thev-u)h critiques thate coming forward. i also understand there is a debate going on about of the hospital and what is the best location, i completely understand those issues. when it comes to the zoning changes, those are legitimate

questions to ask. when it comes to the eir, it seems to me the adequacy is what is important. i look forward to the hearing hearing about other projects and this is comparable to the way we analyze those projects. thank you. supervisor% but i have to run. i do have a final question that i had on the issue of traffic and transportation. one of the things that may end up happening, if you are looking at st. luke's, to the extent that some services that are

currently offered a no longer be offered in a new rebuilt st. luke's hospital, there may be situations where residents of that neighborhood will be traveling to cathedral hill. i am wondering whether or not your analysis took that into account. >> not to the best of my knowledge. whether we accounted if those people would be traveling to the cathedral hill campus, supervisor? supervisor campos: to the extent they may not be offered in a new st. you accounted for increased travel by residents in the st. -- in the st. luke's the senate seat to cathedral hill, is that included in your analysis? w, @>> i am trying to remember what

the alternatives in the eir analyzes. each individual campus was analyzed. )1lfñit is not exactly capturing trips from one part of the city to the other. why don't we take a look at st. luke's and cathedral held a little bit closer? -- f cathedral hilej ñ little bt closer? >> i do want to offer to check with the department of public health. i do not believe the proposal assumes that any services currently offered would not be offered in the future. let me make sure i can get the data on that. i understanding is that the

services currently offered at st. luke's, would continue to be offered there. supervisor campos: the whole point is not to cast judgment. it is not that we are making judgments on individual issues. we're trying to look at the full scope of the analysis and the adequacy of the analysis. bair appreciate the fact they're using some of the same methodology and approaches that haveyb4ws been used in other projects. one thing that is definitely different is that i do not remember seeing a project that makes assumptions about public transit ridership on a survey that is 11 years old. there are some differences. i think it is important to understand that it is not about making a value judge that. it is simply understanding the level and extent of the analysis. president chiu: i had a couple of thoughts. while i do understand that the

same methodology is used for different eir is, this is a unique project. this is a project at a particular case at a particular time. before tomorrow's eir hearing, if you look at the expert testimony that is laid out in the appeal itself, there are ylíá@&e%ei particular final eir used different baselines, used different tweaks to traffic analyses to generate, reduce delay numbers, essentially, different numbers and methodologies used under the general methodology that is typically used. that is the heart of the questions i have. to the suggestion of around a contradiction, what i hear from cpmc is that they're predicting that we are not going to see significant congestion in our neighborhoods. if that is correct, i wonder

whether we need a parking structure as large as this. if it turns out that we do need a parking structure as large as this, that suggest we will see significant congestion that we need to mitigate. i look at those two scenarios in a different way than supervisor wiener. ñ a discussion that wen continue to mar. supervisor wiener: following up on not come i guess -- following up on that, i guess we will hear tomorrow. clearly, van ness and geary are two major thoroughfares with traffic issues. the bay bridge by treasure island, a major traffic issues. the city has dealt with this and many occasions -- in the many

occasions. what i'm trying to say is that while every project is evening -- has unique attributes, the city has been doing major projects for a long time and we have improved projects this sizetuj tried and true methodologies, that is something we should know. the impression may have been given during this hearing÷÷d tt there was some sort of crazy renegade methodology. that has not been my understanding. i am looking forward to hearing more tomorrow. >> we will expand on that tomorrow. i want to touch on any cathedral killed and how they -- the cathedral hill and how they interact as far as construction. ithe final eir report is expectd

to be published by the end of this calendar year. it is undergoing review and it is approximately 18 are some months behind the van nessztafñ. it is a depiction of the configuration of the locally preferred alternative. let me focus on the construction and the relationship tof the cathedral hill campus. it3/o@ñ is going to begin in maf 2015 with the duration of 14 months. the brt is going to be constructed in three different faces. it is like to move from the northern direction of lombard down to a mission. we do think that a phase two is going to overlap a little bit with the cathedral hill campus construction. that is anticipated toó/u

40 truck trips per day. they will have to take alternate routes. the tunnel for the medical office building and the hospital is going to be constructed f cathedral hill construction periods. that tunnel is going to be already done. that construction will be occurring at night time. as far as the geary brt, 33rd avenue. between market, the transportation authority and mta are planning some near-term low- cost transit improvements. as far as the operation, at the

transportation analysis in the eir did look at impacts of the campus in combination with the van ness project. the lake is expected to increase along the van ness corridor and other streets. with the implementation of the cathedral hill campus in combination, there will be moreg intersections along the corridors that would be operating at unacceptable levels of service. those would be around -- i want to quickly convert cpmc transportation demand management program. they have a program they implement at their campuses. this includes an expansion of that existing program and would include the following components. an increased transportation

subsidy. an increased parts pricing system wide. dedicated full time programmer manager. additional promotion program. increased number of ?ñ bicycle parking spaces. an expanded shuttle service. president chiu:]=w perspective, there are two very different visions about what could happen. either we do not have contestant or we have -- ingestion, or we have a very little contestant. -- congestions. the discussions with cpmc, did you consider some sort of mitigation to take that into account?

one thing i would suggest, when we negotiated the treasure island project, there was a determined that project that sets aside $5 million to support transit if the non-car mode shares did not lead to 50% goal. that felt like a smart way of moving forward. was that something that was discussed? what do you think about that as a concept? if the picture is not as rosy? >> it is an interesting concept. there was some conversation. it is a mitigation measure for the impact on the transit lines. it is a little bit different from having that payment be tied to a particular performance goal. in our eir

analysis, we did not consider, we did not give them credit for their proposed program because it is uncertain to say whether it is going to work or not. what the eir it does do analysis on it is without credit for the program, but we do believe that it will work. it is an interesting concept to have it tied to a performance measure. >> if it turns out there is significant congestion, i would think that point, the hospital finances would be able to help supports additional mitigation. i do not think either cpmc or our city wants to see massive ingestion -- cut ingestion -- congestion in that are. i and a stand that doctors do not want to ride muni -- -i can

imagine doctors would be happy to get on a cpmc shuttle that takes them to different campuses. could you talk about what specific commitments are here with regards to shuttles and other coordination services? >> yes. they are proposing to expand their shuttle service. there is a proposed demand as they have as a part of the motion that wasomzú adopted that outlines the hours of operation, the frequencies, and where it is going, and the anticipated demand. that information is available. president chiu: the devil is

always in the details. i would want to know if whether these shuttle services and would reduce these car trips around a hospital. i would like to know how many exactly a new car spaces we're talking about as far as the transit subsidy. we know this has 810-year life to it. -- a 10-year life to it. these are things we ought to discuss. >> thank you, supervisors. i want to speak about the financial contribution the project is proposing for the mta. using the data from the eir, we looked at some of the group's -- routes impacted. 6]ykykyozthey're already at cap.

we did a model based on 2010 financial data. we looked at the impact of operations and maintenance as well as capital on the delay. and other impacts on the muni. the credits that cpmc was afforded are related to some of these contributions that are making for the van ness brt as well as the payroll tax revenue they are proposing to provide to the city as a result of the project. the financial impact on fy10 was $1.3 million. $3+lwe looked at ways before cpo contribute to offset that impact. what of the first area is -- it

exempts nonprofits so it cpmc would have been exempt. we looked at what it would cost. we looked at a mixture of funds that would help the mta. we fully understand that a large parking garage would help incentivize the use of transit. the location of cathedral pelt is one of the impacted corners of -- cathedral hill is one of the most transit impacted corners of the city. there is parking fee. it is about a 50 cent off peak, a 75 cent peak entry. we expect that to generate

of the project. we expect to use those funds to improve transit service and to move individuals out of cars. /l+gzpresident chiu: i know this slated to provide a little bit of an incentive for people not to come in cars. after 10 years, that disincentive will no longer exist. would you assume that is no longer the case? >> i would concur. it is about 10.4 million. it is based on several buildings, it would be collected overtime as each0úz nw building is completed. the fund from this would be used for transit improvements,

signal priorities, as well as equipment to support system reliability. there is also a $400,000 contribution to bicycle and traffic calming studies. president chiu: it is for studies and planning, not for the actual work? one time contribution? >> that is right. i think that is the end of mine. i will just fin"y+2, contributions negotiated in the development agreement regarding pedestrian safety, physical improvements. for each of the three campuses we are dealing with, there are

two sets of street scape type improvements of what you to be aware of. e the projt itself. those are not in the development agreement, but they are part of the project as proposed to the planning department. they're mandated as part of the approvals. i want to focus on the second set. there is a second set of additional improvements, less directly connected to the buildings themselves, but more about the neighborhoods. for davies and st. luke's, they're very simple. there is a list for each. cpmc is required to fulfill those lists and have their own contractors build these things. they are conditioned t2 those before they are permitted to open the hospital buildings. inrimu the case of cathedral h, because the conditions were removed from the campus, because

they were not studied in the eir, we cannot have cpmc do them directly, we used a different approach. they would be obligated to pay the city a sum of money for a list of things the city would do with that money. do the projects. starting with davies, and i will focus on the second set of improvements. tree island improvements, replacement of those trees, pedestrian walkway, visibility and safety improvements, visual upgrades of the perimeter fence, and a pedestrian scale lighting at the entries point, crosswalk and striping. those are estimated to cost about $475,000. ÷mbbzwhatever the cost, cpmc is

obligated to do them. the cost is just a reference point. for st. luke's, we have the same basic structure. upgrades to the small parks project, that would be taken from a temporary to a permanent facility. new pedestrian -- extensions that cesar chavez, a new pocket park, another upgrade to the campus fencing, repairing the perimeter wall around a 1912 building, widening the sidewalks on the west side of valencia, pedestrian lighting along the campus sidewalk. it hasc+rf been pointed out tht

is possible that the city -- would be done through other sources ahead of time. we'll get to make this change, but we have a conceptual agreement from cpmc if the city found other resources, they would work with us to give us back the value of those improvements. moving on to cathedral heill, do not have a diagram. what we worked out was a total of $9.3 million over several years. it is aimed at having -- i think i have a slide. we're able to build these things in concert with opening the hospital. it would be about five years after the da is signed.

president chiu: i appreciate the pedestrian safety mitigation. i've been these are important to run a different neighborhoods. i question is around the $9 million these are for pedestrian safety and streetscape improvements blocks away. they are not in the immediate vicinity. for the thousands of pedestrians who will be using the intersections at franklin, then as every day, there don't seem to be investments in crossing times. we have an underground tunnel that is for folks who are parking in the garage, but not for folks who are disabled. what was the rationale behind that? it would seem to me that you would want to invest in pedestrian safety at least in the immediate vicinity. it seems pedestrian safety right around that. this super important. >> i do understand the question.

i do not want to give the wrong impression. the project itself does make all the sorts of improvements are from the four sides of the campus. that is not included%yx -- i apologize, i do not have a diagram. it is not to say that it is not there. there have been improvements on all sides of the campus. in terms of -- i am guessing those are included in the project. i do not know if someone -- was that a nod, greg? to go through the fields, the

first 8 million are dedicated to pedestrian lighting up to 25 blocks. that is the first 4 million. also dedicated, the second 4 million is dead -- -- making it go from one-way to 2-way. doing other physical pedestrian safety improvements connected with that. we do have instruction -- there may be a slight cost differential, slightly more than $4 million, but the program here is to do the lighting and to do the street stuff i proposed. we have $200,000 for a tenderloin pilot program which is to help children navigate through the tenderloin into the

bart station. the lower polk neighborhood to establish the cbd. there is a $1 million grant to use for the kinds of things to do physically improvement in the neighborhood. if it does not manage to get established, the militant dollars would go back to the city to do things in that -- the million dollars from the back to the city to do things in that neighborhood. that is all that i have for you. i do not know if there are further questions. supervisor mar: any other questions, colleagues? >> that completes our presentation. supervisor mar: i have about 80 cards of people who have signed up to speak. we will open it up for public comment, colleagues.