480. supervisor wiener: a lot of the debate in this project, one issue has been whether to shrink cathedral hill and make st. luke's bigger. that is a fair debate to have but in terms of the eir and the information provided by the eir, as you shrink the cathedral hill and make st. luke's bigger, you are improving traffic conditions but potentially worsening traffic conditions elsewhere. >> that is correct. thank you for asking that.

it is different from the van ness corridor. they do not have the same alternatives as and dennis would for traffic going in and out. as well as the compact nature of the campus as compared to cathedral hill. specifically in regard to voting, it is marcus -- more constructed. it is smaller, so that would require much more refined. supervisor wiener: i asked not to pass judgment on whether st. luke's should be bigger smaller, but i see a lot of benefit to having a larger st. luke's, but as we analyze the adequacy it is

important we make sure have -- we make sure we have all of that information. the medical care aspect of it is critical be cannot look at the traffic impact, you have to look at what the impacts would do if we shift that elsewhere. president chiu: supervisor cohen. supervisor cohen: planning, hello. thank you for your answers to many of the questions we have. a large part of the questions have been dealing with traffic and congestion and i do not understand how adding more cars decreases in traffic delays. you say there is a formula out

there. can you run that for me one more time? it is also interesting if we put this issue to the ballot, we had a conversation but i do not understand it. maybe one more time, what is it, 9:00? >> was see if he can do a better job in explaining. >> good evening. i want to say i think it is incredible that at 9:00 on tuesday we are talking about peak hour studies. i have never gone anywhere near this attention in my career. very exciting to be here and explain this to you. [laughter]

as victoria, we quantify their peak 15 minutes of traffic congestion. the bigger issue is that question and then we just have more cars going through the intersection but the level of service seems to improve and it does not make sense why it is happening. the answer to that is yes, it does not make sense. if you are putting more cars into an intersection, it must more hap -- it must have more delayed. the reason why our analysis shows that is because if you put more cars through an intersection, the overall average of the intersection could go down. sometimes. that is what we have found on a couple of interceptions. it happens all the time on other projects we have done.

you have these borderline intersections where if you add a couple more cars, the level of service improves. that is the way it works. it is more a question as to why it does that. that is the standard, and nationwide approach. it is one of the reasons -- that is a separate issue we are working on. that is what we're talking about, debating results that do not necessarily jibe with intuition. then they do not. the bottom line is, yes, obviously it is going to put a fair number of cars on the road. we have analyzed that. we have found a number of intersections where it pushed

the impact and other intersections. due to the quirkiness of the methodology, we go from e to d or d to c. but the bottom line is there a lot of traffic and there will be impacts, obviously. that is how we have applied it on all projects in san francisco. that is how other jurisdictions do it. that is how i did it in other jurisdictions across the country. it came back to the peak hour factor again, trying to quantify that practice to increase the factor to represent the spreading out of traffic as fluctuations decrease overtime but sometimes it results that do not necessarily jibe with intuition. go with your gut.

there will be more delay but -- supervisor cohen: i'm going to send a text message to sal to see what he has to say about this. there will be an impact. i do not think the eir disputes that. now i'm curious to know how much of a delay is acceptable for an emergency vehicle. it is going to be traveling down the corridors, of van ness, possibly some traffic on polk street as well. >> that is a good question, what is an acceptable delay to emergency vehicle access? we do not quantify that. i do not know. if you're having a baby, no

delay is acceptable. supervisor cohen: your building a hospital and we have to examine what the delay is going to be. >> i would say we are a densely populated city and our ambulances have to travel through congestion on 19th avenue, in the transit center, many congested areas. it is common. it is part of doing urban development. they adjust by making decisions about which routes get them to their facility the fastest. and turning on the sirens. i know it is a sensitive issue but that is the answer i have. i do not have a matrix that we use. supervisor cohen: do you study that? >> not as part of the eir analysis. it is not a standard criteria we

use. supervisor cohen: would they be able to travel down van ness when brt is implemented? >> emergency vehicles are able to utilize the transit-only main that will be provided as part of the van ness. they are allowed to do that. they will have to maneuver around some of the bosses but there will not be cars in those lines. yes, they can utilize those. supervisor cohen: i'm going to switch gears and get off the traffic and i want to talk about housing. i did not see this in the eir. maybe you can tell me if there is a breakdown in income levels, household size, or other specific demographic factors regarding the projected demand

for it san franciscans. >> thank you for your question. the detail you requested is socioeconomic data we look at for informational purposes but we do not present it at the level of detail you are asking for. that is why you did not see it in the eir. this is information we can get to you but we do not to that level of analysis unless we have reason to believe that those issues are going to create physical environmental impacts. >> at what level do you analyze data? >> under ceqa, the impact report is focusing on physical impact. the social economic analysis is

supposed to be a separate study. it is not connected to the eir. we look at housing issues, like more people using transportation, air quality issues and noise issues but we do not focus on the defined socio-economic data you are asking for. supervisor cohen: thank you. i'm done. president chiu: i was talking to supervisor wiener about his question around the fact we have used to this expert who has focused on the peak hour factor as the basis of many of our eir calculations. i happened to remember that the most recent gridlock study of different cities just came out and you are familiar with the fact that san francisco ranks number 2 in the country for gridlock.

next to, if you know what city is number one, los angeles. as i told supervisor wiener, i know why we may have some much gridlock. [laughter] supervisor chu: as it relates to housing and the environmental document, the obligation is to analyze whether there is any physical impact if there is not adequate housing to accommodate additional employees is that correct? >> yes. supervisor chu: the way i am understanding they approached that is to what was being proposed and to analyze capacity

so the maximum number of people that could be at that loquacious -- at that location, even though that is a higher number than cpmc is providing. >> we look at the maximum capacity the building can accommodate. even if the sponsor told us they realistically think less people will be occupying the building, we populate it to the maximum. we'll look at the worst-case scenario. we take a conservative approach as to what number employees will be there and the housing demand and what kind of significant impact they could or would not have. supervisor chu: in analyzing whether or not there would be an environmental impact with regard to housing, you took a look at that number and said, based on what we know in the pipeline of housing projects, we think there

is adequate housing to supply those individuals. >> yes, a supervisor. we went back and looked at it again through the cnr document analysis and confirmed that is the case. supervisor chu: there has been conversation about the issue of affordability because sometimes the housing is not affordable to people who might be employed by different entities. with regard to ceqa, is there an obligation to say, yes, we have met the need of every income level or is it brought the whether or not the number of units are under construction meeting the needs of the people? >> it is the latter one. we do not look at the breakdown of what level ofwhat level of hd

be. good we tried to be consistent with what was in the agreement. the housing and what level it would have is not a consideration. >> we have fulfilled the needs under ceqa so long as we take a look of the general number of individuals that it would require, but in terms of affordability, that is a question of the development agreement. >> this question is also for her. i understood your answers on your opinion it has been

analyzed because it is exactly the same or similar, so the physical impact has been dominated. i wonder if you could specify about the objectives. gooit is stated in the are they would not realize the overarching objectives to provide an integrated system and high quality health care. i am curious as to what ceqa states as its guidelines about how they get selected. >> according to ceqa, a project objectives are based on the needs of the project sponsor for

the proposed development and what is feasible under their plans, and for this particular project, we look at this in consultation with the overarching city goals, but it is true we are looking at project objectives, and why does the project hope to achieve. it is about what is the project trying to achieve, and the guidelines state set the objectives are what they hope to achieve through the proposed project. >> undersea " we analyzed with the project is supposed to achieve, but you are saying about is limited to what the project sponsor would like to achieve and not necessarily with the municipality would like to achieve. >> i am going to take a few minutes to consult with my

colleagues. i believe that is case, but i want to make sure. the project objectives is a set of objectives set off alarms what they hope to achieve with the proposed development, and that allows them to look at the alternatives that should be studied, so it does inform the lead agency, and we do look at the objectives to see if this is the objective, and can we form alternatives that would be a reasonable range, primarily, it

is the project sponsor going for what they want to achieve in the budget. >> are there a limitation in terms of how they can inform what the objectives are? >> it is primarily the project sponsor objectives. the one thing we have to see is what we want to ensure they are not too narrow, but we cannot analyze the reasonable range of alternatives, but they have to be around with a one to achieve, so it has to be reasonable attainment balanced against being able to do a reasonable range of alternatives, so it is a balancing act so it is not too narrow.

>> of some of the goals of the project objectives of the projects sponsor are to provide the most high quality and a fission patient care than meets the needs of the project sponsor, how is it of the alternative -- if you are stating that the principles are broad enough and are not too narrow, how do they meet these needs? >> they are saying the proposed project would be did better than the alternative, but it does not mean the alternative is not feasible. it is feasible, and it is available to adopt. >> i appreciate your saying that. they do not object the alternatives. and when it may not achieve as well as the proposed project before us.

it does not mean the objective as well as the proposed project. >> could you walk me through -- i apologize if the questions seem repetitive. i think it is a complicated statute. could you clarify why it was determined that it would not realize the overarching objectives as much as the proposed project? >> one day is it would not meet the objective of providing continuous care of your good -- providing continuous care. there would be a strong possibility that they would be decommissioned and that it would

not be functioning so there would be a provision temporarily. good thought was not one of the objectives we did that was not one of the objectives, so that was one, and there are a few others. good >> are you saying that one of the outcomes is disruption of care, because of disruption of the larger hospital might not meet its time line? a wax the phasing would require the hospital shut down and -- >> the facing requires a shutdown of for the replacement hospital, because the juggling act would be such that it would be hard to get its functioning while still keeping the hospital tower operational. >> that i understand.

thank you a very much. >> thank you, mr. president. i do want to thank supervisor kim for the question she is asking, because i think the issue of how artificially narrow the objectives are is definitely very relevant to the adequacy of the analysis, but i do want to go back to the issue of traffic, and i was wondering if you could let us know whether or not in looking at the traffic impact, if you look of the traffic that could take place from folks who live near the st. louis area who are traveling to cathedral hill and whether or not you took that into account in your analysis.

>> i am going to have this twice answer that question -- miss weiss answer that question. >> in your analysis, when you look at people travelling who cathedral hill -- to cathedral hill, to the extent there are more services to? could you look at that issue? >> yes, as part of our calculation and as part of the distribution and understanding where people are coming from and where they are going, that is considered. 13% of total trips are coming from that area. >> one of the questions was a question of assumptions of were made in terms of people going to

cathedral hill, whether they are driving or taking a public transit. can you shed light on what the assumptions are in terms of the individuals driving or taking public transportation? >> absolutely. let me put that oup. thank you for your patience. goolet me give you an overview,d i will break down by population. at cathedral hill campus we anticipate approximately 50% overall would be arriving there

by autumn, and that includes single occupancy vehicles but also car pool, and the rest would also be travelling on other monmodes. and we assume that every single one of them will be driving to the site. good for the staff, we assume a total of 37% would be arriving by driving alone or by car pooling. 50% would be arriving by public transit commo, and 9% would be e walking or other modes. the assume a higher share would- b be driving, and that stands up 59. approximately 10% would be

walking with the remainder traveling with other modes. good >> one of the questions asked yesterday was from the perspective of the transportation agency, whether or not those figures seem accurate, and there was no confirmation provided at a hearing yesterday. they seem to be on willing to confirm that seemed like a reasonable assumption. >> that is correct accounting, but a minor clarification. when we talk yesterday, we kind of focused on a calculation of 40% are rising by vehicle, -- are arriving by vehicle, and that did not account for occupancy of the vehicle being more than one person, and

average occupancy is 1.25, so the actual percentage is 50% of people arriving to cathedral hill campus in our vehicle, not 40, and it is the 40 number that we could not confirm either way. i believe there may be staff here today. good >> is there any staff to confirm or verify that? >> he may have left. >> i think one of the questions we raised yesterday, the extent to which we are talking about issues related to transportation or traffic, whether we can get that trends in -- that information from the agency. >> i understand your concern. one thing i would offer is of the municipal transportation agency and their staff to review

every single portion and endeavour study. -- in their study. we have a number of them that we go through, and it is done in every transportation study we produce. to the extent to the address their comments, we have been a full participant in the results, and i am sorry they are not here to speak to die. >> i appreciate that. i do think it is important to have representatives from those agencies present when those come up, and we appreciate the work of the planning department and their staff, but i think it is important to hear directly from the folks who have professional expertise in that specific area on behalf of the city working for those agencies. >> we did havea