and approximately 538 units are in the pipeline. overall, this will result in construction of a total of 1526 units within the area. this means that more units are needed to be developed to fulfil the goal of the -- the housing goals. the remaining residential potential of the vn sud, exceeds the remaining required housing by almost 4 times. that means that the amount of capacity that the vnsud has is four times more than required to develop the remaining 674 unit s. based on this, we concluded that there will not be a housing related to development of

medical uses at the cathedral hill campus. the appellants state that the eir fails to consider the demand for housing from employees. however, we analyze it this demand. the demand can be accommodated by current residential vacancies and projects currently in the pipeline. the demand from cathedral built employees would not result in it and our mental and pets. because it comprises development of nonresidential projects on nonresidential sites, the proposed project would not conflict with the ability to comply with housing element objectives. appellants state the eir faiiled to mitigate near-term impact from air quality. the draft eir identified mass' pollutants as an unavoidable impact. the impact was identified as

single begin to even though air quality resources are regulated. and back -- regulations require the use of best available control technology. this is because the extent to which he missions achieved -- emissions reductions achieved with these regulations are not known at this time. we still considered this impact to be significant and avoidable no additional mitigation measures are necessary to make the requirement enforceable. it is a regulation that the project has to comply with. appellants state the final eir emissions is incomplete. this is inaccurate. the eir mitigation measures specify the most stringent, feasible mitigation known as

tier 4 stan disappeared near term projects specified in detail mitigation measures based on a refined construction plan and an extensive feasibility analysis. near-term pressures require the use of level three does look predicament pelters. these are capable of producing a particular matters by 85%. appellants argue that the final eir cannot rely on the cities recently adopted reduction plan to claim that impacts will be less than significant or to mitigate ghd index because of deficiencies in the cities plan. appellants argued that additional mitigation should be required. the cities qualified ghd reduction strategy for the qualified plan meets the requirement because this plan was reviewed and they concluded that ghg reduction strategy

meets the craig terry. iteria. is this my? i'm sorry. >> is your 15 minutes. thank you very much. i am sure there will be questions. i will start the conversation. so in the appellants appeal, they spend a lot of their time talking about transit issues. i wanted to talk about that for a few minutes. there are 4 categories of transit issues. we know this is a quarter that is already significantly congested. every day you can go down during rush hour -- some of the contract. we know that with this cathedral project, we are expected to see 20,000 person trips per day which are 20,000 net new wtrips. the appellants to raise the fact

that your traffic analysis shows that you will have higher traffic volumes but less delay. i am trying to understand that. if you look at intersections like kate and market, franklin and sutter, volumes increasing. if you look at seventh and market, it shows a during morning rush hour, you add one additional automobile because of this project. when we know there will be thousands of cars trying to get to this site through this points of traffic that is close to the i-80. you are calculating their only be three additional cars during the afternoon rush-hour. can you explain that inconsistency? >> thank you for your questions. i am going to have our transportation subject matter expert answer those questions. >> members of the board, victoria wise. but thank you for that question.

let me start since you ask about those two interceptions and let me elaborate more on the peak hour factor because that is what is at issue. >> that is what changed. >> and that is what the appalling claims is really what is in the crux of the methodology and why they bring to light those two interceptions. let me step back and explain something about the peak hour factor and how we used it in the analysis and what is happening. so, the peak hour factor is a way to quantitatively express the relationship of the peak 15 minute traffic volume to the full hourly traffic volume. it is a measure of traffic demand fluctuation within the peak hours. that is what that is. first, our peak hour factor that we use in the transportation

analysis is based on empirical data and based on the data we collected at these various intersections. in the future, we are not -- we are not in the future yet, so we cannot collect those data and therefore, we have to do it an estimation of what the peak hour factor will be. adjustment of this peak hour factor, increasing the factor to represent less traffic fluctuations as traffic volumes increase, is a standard approach used by the department. it is reasonable to assume that at intersections -- >> if i could ask you one question. >> i ask you these questions yesterday and you did not have the answer. it says in the eir that what you described, adjusting the peak hour factor is a standard practice used by "many transportation planning in diindustry practitioners."

can you name any other california city that uses this project -- this process? >> i cannot name any. i will tell you from what i understand from other experts, there are not any other california cities that allow this practice. let me ask you -- are you aware of any other california counties that allows this practice? >> no. but i also do not know that the opposing is true. if i may read you something from the caltrans analysis report guidelines. i quote from those guidelines. with an increase in traffic volumes and traffic congestion, the peak volume tends to spread among the 50 minute intervals in the peak hour so that travelers can avoid the worst conditions. to account for the peak hours spreading, the peak hour factor can be increased. that is from the caltrans

guidelines. it is our practice. >> there are experts that contacted a variety of experts. as majority that are contacted do not use this particular standard. >> i believe what i read is correct and caltrans does allow it. >> do you know any caltrans district that allows its? >> i believe this is for caltrans district four guidelines. >> and you're quoting from the 2002 report guidelines? >> yes. >> so we'vve been trying to look for that document. it is not on the caltrans web site. it is no word on the internet. no one seems to use it. i would love to get a copy of that. >> absolutely. >> you do not know that caltrans uses it?

>> when we ask these questions yesterday, we did not get any answers. tonight, we do not have definitive answers but we have experts for the appellants stating the opposite. it would be helpful to understand this. >> ok. so, would you likely to continue with a thin market etc.? >> sure. >> just a couple of things to note. i am going to get in the weeds a little bit. but i want to quote from the appeal letter response that addresses these to intersections directly and read to you. the appellants states that increased traffic volume should result in increased delays. that is the argument they have made. this often occurs, as it did in most intersections analyzed in our eir. averaged a clay can decrease if the increase in traffic volumes at the intersection results in changes to the critical movements or increases occur on

movements that have a lower than average delay for the highway capacity and annual standards. when using the highway capacity man a methodology, the level of service is calculated based on the average of the total vehicle to lead per approach, weighted by the number of vehicles at each approach. although traffic fines would increase on franklin and sutter, and for that specific intersection, traffic volumes on sutter are forecast to increase at a greater rate than those on franklin. the sutter street would operate on an accepted level. and the franklin street approach would offer -- would operate a lower service. the average intersection delay per vehicle would decrease. let me step away from the technical explanation.

>> from my perspective, i am trying to understand if you add traffic to a congested intersection you are saying it will reduce the delay. >> if you add that traffic to an approach which has lower volumes, yes. it is a formula and that happens. let me step back to the eir and tell you this. at the sutter and franklin intersection, the level of service at those intersections is already an acceptable level e and f respectively without n with the project. even though the delayed increases by a couple of seconds, the effect to the project is not going to change par. >> because it is so gridlocked, when you add 28,000 more cars, it's pretty gridlocked already. >> that is not what i'm saying. those intersections experience a

substantial number of the lead. a respected of the peak hour factor, the impacts reported in the eir would not change. >> if i could ask. i know you had pierce experts that changed your peak hour factor. there is not anyone else identified as transportation, planning industry petitioners that have utilize this approach before. can you name any other experts, firms or individuals of that have altered this factor as you have done? >> we work with other transportation consulting firms such as lcw consulting, chs, and because this is a standard accounting practice, all of those consultants do that is the work on city projects. >> i appreciate all of them working with your department, but have any of those actually altered the merkel factors you're talking about? do you know that to be the case? >> yes, because that would be

our practice. >> i think that is not the case but we can hear from them on that. >> may i follow up on the intersection in market street? >> sure. >> so, supervise is, just to explain a little bit more on that in terms of traffic is perdidistribution. we paid very careful attention on how traffic is distributed. yesterday i presented to you that during a p.m -- the a.mm. peak hour there is expected to be 600 vehicle trips that would be generated. but not all of those troops are coming to that intersection oven 7th and market. those trips are distributed from all portions of the city and regional as well. some are coming from the north, some from the western portions of the city and approximately 1/2 of them are coming from the direction west or north of that. so you can off of 600 you can cut that down 50% because those

trips will not go through that intersection to access the cathedral hill campus. of the remaining trips, we looked at the distribution very carefully. and some of those trips are regional. they are coming from the peninsula or they are coming from the east bay. we do believe quite a few of them will be utilizing the freeway system and we distributed them to the streets accordingly. so quite a few of them go to the central freeway and access the facility off a franklin street. additionally, i would say that the trips that are coming from other neighborhoods, yes, some of them will be coming to the intersection of seventh and market, but there are other streets that diffuse that traffic that would be utilized by people like ninth street and van ness avenue. all those things taken into things taken into consideration, yes, the

calculation is correct that we are adding a total of 12 trips to the intersection and i understand that sounds like very little but when you apply the methodology we used, that provides centthe explanation. >> i cannot say it makes complete sense. it delays going down at the intersections we are talking about. it does not intuitively makes sense and i think the methodology used, we do not have other experts that are calculating members in exactly the same way. but i appreciate the perspective. if we could shift to a different topic that i asked you questions about, the fact that the transit analysis relied on 2006 data rather than 2009 data, we know

that the draft was not issued until the middle of 2010 and the final was released in march 2012. it seems like there was a lot of time to get baseline transit data. but that data was not part of this, right? >> thank you for that question. at the time we undertook the analysis, it is true what we had from mta was from 2006 for the formation of that project. that was the best data available to us so we used it. mta does not collect ridership data on a line by line basis at every single stop every single year. they do that every so often. now when the data that we have available that to us from 2011 has become available as part of the environmental impact study we are currently doing, we did

use that data and analysis in order to see if the impact we identified would be any different with the 2011 data that we are now receiving and starting to use in all of our documents. what that showed is that the impact would be the same or similar as what we identified in the eir. they would not create any new impact that was not disclosed in the eir we have published. we actually did do that analysis to answer your question. >> i would love to see that. i know the 2009 data was hired in 2006 which seems to suggest if you are using a lower passenger boarding rates, which would create additional capacity, it did not exist in 2009, used you all your numbers. >> that analysis is responded --

provided in our response to you. it includes the table that shows this analysis as part of the package. i would be happy to e-mail that to you and walk you through it. >> can we talk about the transformation -- transportation demand? this issue is to deal with transportation management. right now, and they have 6000 employees in san francisco but there is no statistical data about how it is managing transportation. all that we have our interviews from 11 years ago. >> we have the data that consultants have collected at a number of campuses. they are surveys that are statistically significant and nonetheless i am happy to talk to you about the program being proposed.

>> in this program, are there any regular reporting requirements about successes or failures? >> at me say that the program that we are proposing is part of the conditions of approval adopted by the planning commission and therefore it is enforceable and yes, the plan, the way it is structured, it has a near-term goals to start implementing and future term and they will be reporting on those. >> but there are not requirements back to the city on that. >> if i could consult. the answer to that is, they are not required to report to the planning department but we can ask for that. actually, to clarify, we will have to go through the imp

process and report on the success of their program. president chiu: how often? >> every tubing years. -- two years. president chiu: there are not penalties for non-compliance. if the program is out of compliance, it is not clear when they have to comply. the reason i ask, i feel like if we are going to have monetary provisions for this plan, to really offset transit impacts that are unavoidable, 8 you need to have some teeth in these provisions. >> my understanding is that, the way hiut has -- it has been

outlined, -- president chiu: except for the fact there are not scheduled monitoring third parties or any penalties for non-compliance. >> that is correct. president chiu: we know it is difficult for emergency vehicles to move down van ness. we talked about how many we would be getting to. one thing that is stated in the eir is that emergency vehicles would not be impeded given the roads that allow emergency vehicles to maneuver. could you explain, and i asked

this yesterday, when you have gridlock on venn -- van ness, how do these cars and other vehicles do with emergency vehicles? >> thank you for the opportunity to address this question. a couple of things about that, yes, correct, the campus is surrounded by arterial road ways on all sides. that means there are a number of lanes that are all on of these roadways. when you think about them themselves, the wit is approximately 11 feet wide. the wicked -- width of the car is about 6 feet. there is sufficient right of way as the siren turns on four cars to move out of the way and allow for the passage of those

emergency vehicles. that is one reason why we said the impact was less than significant. president chiu: have you ever seen an ambulance during rush hour? >> yes, i have. i drive to work on van ness. a couple more. says why we determined it would be less than significant, it is anticipated they will have 23-26 emergency vehicle calls per day. of those, 22% are going to occur in the nighttime hours. between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. a substantial proportion of that is on the streets when there is virtually no traffic. the remaining portion -- 22%. 80% during the day spread out throughout the day. some portion of that is going to

occur during the p.m. or a.m. hour when we have the most vehicles on the street but what i want to point out, the p.m. is the most congested time of the day. what our analysis found is that the intersection is that we have analyzed for this project, 85% in the near term and 73% in our kim and olivier operate at levels of service -- there is not gridlock. that is what the eir discloses. i wanted to throw that in there and say that only a small portion of this our code to recalls of less than tabanid day. that would require an ambulance to turn on the siren. the final point we touched on is the ability of the emergency vehicles to use the right of way

we anticipate that will be on van ness avenue. >> you are not planning for them to be used brt during the day? >> they can as the drivers see fit to get to the hospital. given the level of congestions they have. president chiu: my understanding is to move bosses as quickly as possible. it will be hard for emergency vehicles to come in and out of those lines. -- those lanes. >> while they will need to do some maneuvering comment they have the right of way on the streets they can use. president chiu: they will also be allowed to travel in the opposite direction. in other words, going the wrong way during rush hour with

vehicles going in the opera -- opposite direction. do you feel that is an ideal situation? >> i have observed that on van ness ave. president chiu: supervisor campos. supervisor campos: thank you for your presentation and i appreciate the questions. i have to say that i am still at a loss for understanding how we can say that analysis is sufficient given the questions that have been reached and if it is the case that when it comes to, that many industry practitioners follow and yet we

cannot really name a county or a city or who goes industry practitioners are. i do not think that is the level of analysis we want to see. but i want to talk about an important issue, the consideration of a range of alternatives under ceqa. there is a requirement that a reasonable range of project alternatives be taken into account. i want to follow up on the comment that was made about that. under the case law that has interpreted ceqa on this, there has to be a meaningful analysis of alternatives. that does not mean you have to consider all alternatives but you have to consider all reasonable alternatives.

i want to know if that happened. >> commissioner campos, supervisor chiu, yes, i believe that we cover a reasonable range of alternatives. we looked at the public meeting for the eir what the public said about the things it wanted to see in terms of different programming and we tried to take those suggestions and come up with alternatives that could be fully analyzed. we also have a number of eir alternatives that were considered but rejected. we even looked at those to see why they did not work and did an analysis there. in ceqa,