about why 3a looks the way it does. it is my understanding that it will be having in their facilities something similar to what is being proposed for st. luke's. how did you include that combination of services? >> to answer your question, the patient base is not the same as ucsf. i need to do further research to answer that question that they would expect they would need to travel into a different location for the women's and children's center. supervisor campos: we are trying to understand how meaningful your analysis of this was. why include that as to some other mix of services?

>> it showed what would be the physical envelope that would be required to conclude. it is possible that a different mix of program could be accommodated and this development program could be defined viz-a-viz cathedral held. what we are trying to do, the various iterations is that we have analyzed alternatives and that would not change much with a different mix of services. supervisor campos: given that you have concluded that the alternative was the environmentally superior alternative, why not go with 3a? >> the eir does not opine

whether the project or the alternative should be chosen. this is the task of the decision maker based on what it determined to be feasible. we just lay out the analysis and show how the alternative meets the objectives compared to the proposed project but we do not say which alternative for modification should be chosen. >> you talked earlier about how the alternative did not meet some of the objectives. can you talk more about that? >> we discussed some of the objectives that would not be met as well as the proposal. all the main one was the disruption to the continue of care, we tried to say that due

to constraints at st. luke's campus, we would have to redesign the program says that there was a possibility that the hospital tower we would like to keep open, keep it open during construction of the basement hospital may have to be shut down because there is not enough room to build all of this stuff. this would be against the recommendation of the panel that emphasized continuous care being provided. that was one of the main objectives that was not being met. there were others as well. supervisor campos: one issue was

about centralizing services. can you talk about that? was that an objective you took into account? >> we looked at that but there were a number of objectives balanced which ones it met. consolidation at cathedral hill was considered by the sponsor as the best way to deliver health care. this was the objective, usually taken from the sponsor in consultation with the city. supervisor campos: who set the objectives for this project? >> they were set with the project sponsor in consultation with staff. supervisor campos: are you aware that you cannot actually have a narrow set of objectives when

you are looking at these projects? >> yes, supervisor, i am aware of that but considering all of the special medical issues and the constraints of developing complaint hospitals and medical care centers, they need -- there needed to the objectives that were carefully looked at and we had attorneys look at it. they looked at those and went through them carefully. supervisor campos: during the appeal, it was talked about objectives. why is centralization and objective? why should that be an objective of this project? why is that not an artificially narrow objective under the law? centralizing services, why isn't that an example of having too

narrow of an objective for the project? >> we were looking at what definition the sponsor had put together. how did they want to cost effectively put together reprogram that would not have redundancies, duplicates services, how would they would serve the patient's best and they came to the decision if they were closing facilities, they needed to find a location that could consolidate the services they offered at other campuses. it led to coming up with ideas to centralize them. it would be within travelling distance of these patient bases. supervisor campos: i can see the benefit of centralization for purposes of cpnc. one of the benefits might be

more profit but what is the benefit of that for the city and county? >> we would like our patient base, people who want to go to hospital to have a convenient location. we do not think this objective was narrow. supervisor campos: i am trying to understand your reasoning why it was not narrowed. you said you want to have a convenient location. it is not convenient if you live in the southeastern part of the city because you have to travel to cathedral held. can you explain that? >> supervisor campos, the consolidation of hub hospital was not going to impact the facilities they were going to offer at st. luke. it was not going to affect what was already being offered and was projected to be offered for

the southern constituency. in relationship to the southern campus, it was not affecting them. they were going to offer an expanded program as well, compared to right now. >> can you lay out for us what the basic objectives of this project are? >> it is a long list so i am going to look at it and tell you. supervisor campos: i am not talking about the objectives that they think our objectives but from your perspectives. >> i am going to tell you. supervisor campos, i want to say that hospitals are specialized

facilities. their objectives tend to have some constraints that normal private residential projects do not have. that is why they are friends the way they are. i am going to read to you the overarching the goals of this project. the overarching objectives are to construct modern facilities that would remain operational in the event of a major disaster. both to serve patients and to play an important role in san francisco's of emergency preparedness. and disaster response. through the development of a new campus, in a manner that is compliant with the senate bill. that is the overarching goal.

the other was optimize the use of its medical facilities its land use resources and the financial staffing resources to provide an integrated health care system for the city that could afford the highest quality of patient care to the patient population. and the most cost-efficient manner. those were the overarching objectives that serve the greater good in the city. supervisor campos: in light of those objectives, can you explain to me, we're trying to understand how reasonable the range of alternatives was. in light of the objectives, i can you explain to me how it is that an alternative 3a +, a

smaller cathedral hill, a larger st. luke's, with a mix of services that was considered, how is it that alternative 3a + is inconsistent with the objectives you talked about? >> if i may, obviously this is one of the critical issues of this project. obviously we are not health care experts. we a lot -- we rely on experts and other departments. there has been extensive consultation with the department of public health and the previous directors believe and have supported this alternative as the best way of meeting this objective. it is not in itself an eir issue in this sense that what we did

is we looked at the range of impact. but the alternative and the response to the alternative of why it did not meet the objectives of the project is based on those consultations. it is based on the opinions of the expert we had talked to you. supervisor campos: the subject is whether or not you looked at a reasonable range of alternative and one of the questions is whether or not a reasonable alternative was considered to and we're trying to get to whether or not the alternative they are talking about is unreasonable from your analysis. i am trying to understand why it is that the 3a plus alternative would be unreasonable given the objectives you mentioned. >> to answer your question, i

wanted to say we've looked at alternative 3a plus and we never said it was unreasonable. what we said was that it covered the physical dimensions that could hold alternative 3a plus. all of the analysis that we conducted and disclosed are already part of the eir. if the decision makers choose, they can choose an alternative to the project. we have done the analysis that looks at the physical envelope in 3a+. supervisor campos: did you actually do an environmental analysis of that alternative? >> yes, we did. the document did not reject any of the alternatives.

it presented all the information and said this is not a new alternative. this is something we have studied. there was not just one, there were several suggestions of how it should be. i wanted to put that out there for the record. supervisor campos: you said you looked at five alternatives. but that is not five, that is six. i am confused. >> we looked at it as a supplemental analysis. in the eir, we fully studied five alternatives. this was additional analysis but would look at it and we said there is some much similarity in the physical dimensions of what it could look like, that it would be a very similar to the alternative. supervisor campos: i think that

is the problem. the analysis you engaged in is not done at the same level. the reality is that in deciding whether or not this is an inadequate analysis, we have to look at that there is a meaningful exploration of all the reasonable alternatives. i do not see that in light of this discussion. >> i am going to ask our city attorney -- we can give you something. we can do additional looking into the questions that you have but i believe we studied a reasonable range and with in the 3a+, it could be fitted in. supervisor campos: we have to in gauge in independent review whether where you say you did actually happened.

the law is very clear that what and -- that without a meaningful analysis, our job for purposes of ceqa is not done. we have an obligation to engage in that analysis to make sure that what you said you did actually happened. i appreciate what you are saying. but i am not convinced that the level of analysis that is required by ceqa has taken place. >> we can have a disagreement. the point is we have done a sufficient level of analysis of all the alternatives that allows you to make a decision on any of them. we believe that has been done. supervisor campos: thank you. president chiu: supervisor mar. supervisor mar: i wanted to focus on the new work force and

how we analyze that and the mitigation that were suggested in the study. the appellants are arguing there is a policy in this city for 30 years based on the general housing element, also a section 4-13 of the code with the policy that we mitigate the impasse from big projects that are approved in the city. my first question is, i think the eir identified 14,000 -- 1400 new households in the city. my question is, what percentage would be affordable housing of that 1490 population?

this came up in the last hearing according to the analysis of the eir. >> supervisor mar, i am going to have to look into this question about the affordability. i will check with my colleague. just a minute so i do not give you the wrong answer. supervisor mar: and i know it was said that the demand of households between the years 2006-2030. what percentage would require ford to housing? -- affordable housing? >> i have a lot of administrative records to make sure i give you the right answer. maybe i can come back to the question? supervisor mar: i know for the reviewing the adequacy of eir,

we need: formation so we can make decisions. it is also important that we adjust the affordable needs of the city. i know that the appellants have said that there should have been a steady of jobs. where would people live, what would be the backgrounds of that workforce, and how can we plan for that as a city? those are questions i have in my determination of whether your analysis is adequate or not. >> thank you for the question. supervisor mar: that if you could point to where the analysis is done but also so i can understand that information before moving forward on an agreement or any other part of the project. >> i want to tell you that socio-economic issues of the

project, we touch on affordable housing for informational purposes but a that is not what the eir usually does. we do not do an affordability study. we may not have a lot of information but i am sure i can get you what you want. supervisor mar: even from september 2010, following up on the policies of the city, anytime the support and existing area requirement that no area plan with the requirements should be amended to allow development in that area unless that new development project to fulfill the housing goal as a condition of granting an exception. what i need to know is are we producing enough affordable housing so that we are meeting

our longstanding policy? >> we will definitely get to that information. >> the analysis we did showed there was sufficient supply in the van ness corridor to meet the housing demand. no. -- supervisor mar: what was the impact? supervisor campos: it is not typically a ceqa issue in and of itself. the issue of the affordable housing comes in with all of the discussion we have had in addressing the the affordable housing question but in the eir it is not something we've looked at. supervisor mar: it seems necessary for me looking at our

general plan and other policies to have that information as we make decisions. you are saying it is not required in in eir but that seems unnecessary for me to have a thorough analysis so we can mitigate these impacts. but i understand what you are saying. president chiu: supervisor wiener. supervisor wiener: a question about traffic impacts. there were a series of questions about the methodology used by the planning department and i want to make sure i get the name right of the adjustment to the peak hour factor? is that what it is called? >> correct. supervisor wiener: there was a debate about whether that is used by any other jurisdiction. my question is, obviously i want

to know what other jurisdictions use but what else has san frisket -- san francisco done? we have done projects that are bigger than this one. we this city in many private developers. you look at some very large projects in terms of the eir that has come to this board, treasure island, park merced, mission bay, and a hospital project like the chinese hospital, which was recent, and the kaiser extension. there was traffic analysis done in each of those. was this a peak hour factor

methodology used? >> for every project you named. every single one of those you listed. supervisor wiener: and i believe those have been certified eirs. >> to follow-up about other jurisdictions, i consulted with the firm that did the analysis for this project and i want to let you know that this methodology was used for the kaiser medical office in oakland, berkeley, the macarthur bart, it has been used in sacramento county as part of its 101 hov widening. supervisor wiener: it is good to know it was used in those other places but equally important is what we have done in san francisco because as we analyze

projects, it is important to be consistent. every jurisdiction is unique in its own way. san francisco is unique in a lot of ways. but that is something important to know. i also want to -- there is a lot of discussion from supervisor campos over 3a and 3a+. a lot of us are committed to st. luke's, the one thing that occurs to me, and it is basically in supervisor campos's district, and i know that cesar chavez and various streets in that area are traffic disasters

right now, especially along caesar chavis. so, in terms of -- i do not think any of the alternatives went up to 555 beds, but in comparing the number of beds and the activity in the current st. luke's and the alternative 3a+ st. luke's, was analysis done know what the different traffic impact would be a long season champ says in those various scenarios? >> let me invite my colleagues to speak to that. >> without the project, there are six intersections that currently operate. i will run through them and what that means for the alternatives.

we have cesar chavez, 27, and south manas. all of those operate with or without the project. with the analysis, we looked at those intersections and the others that were operating in found that the contributions to those intersections would not be significant and it is generally based on a 5% contribution that is failing. and then if we look at alternative 3a, that adds to the development as well as to the beds at the hospital. when we look at those contributions, we found that those contributions would not be a significant contribution.

it did not identify any additional or significant impacts. for alternative 3a+, which is not addressed specifically since it nearly doubles 3a, we looked at that by looking at what it would be a few double the traffic of 3a. when we did that, both for the size of the hospital, when we did that, just by looking at the amount of a project trips that would be added to those intersections, and what those contributions would be, we identified three that could go

to a significant contribution, which would likely to be a level service under cumulative as well as caesar chavis and delores and mission. that is with 3a+, essentially doubling that traffic. supervisor wiener: how many beds? >> i look at the project and double dose. i would have to confirm -- supervisor wiener: beds. how many at st. luke's? >> we lookedat