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 have a hearing yesterday, and we asked a number of questions to the municipal

transportation agency's staff, and bob and least half a dozen cases they were unable to confirm, and i do appreciate you said they reviewed it, but yesterday we had several senior members who were unable to answer questions. today we do not see them in a row, and just for the record, because i have a feel this will probably be litigated. i want to put into the record of momentum and -- a memo. they provided a memo a round traffic mitigation, and if i could quote a couple of aspects, it says under the planning department's impact, we are expecting a number of them to degrade to e or f, and in 20 plus years, 14 intersections will hit that, and they are

stating five of the 14 intersections will be in the cathedral hill campus very good, -- cathedral hill campus area, and the final eir recognizes the proposed mitigation measures will not reduce the anticipated traffic impacts to a lessened level either by 2013 or the year 2035, so their recommendation is that they need to have a traffic mitigation fund to ensure we will be able to get to the place. they use the model of the treasure island project, which set aside $5 million to support alternative modes of traffic if we do not reach 50% by the year when the 35, and i want to mention that, because that is just add additional information i have requested as well.

>> just to address, if you would not mind sharing that, and i appreciate you would like answers to some of the questions, and i want to give my assurance i will assure they are here at future hearings. >> we are being asked to potentially make a decision tonight. it is challenging. >> the transportation authority issued a memo to m of >> i asked the transportation authority, because we did not seem to be getting accurate information to provide a quick analysis of how we can mitigate traffic issues, and we received this memo on the 11th of july, and i asked to forward it to my colleagues. i am happy to forward it to you.

>> it is possible i did not see it. >> i just want to clarify a point that was made as to the disruption of care, so i am wondering whether or not you took into account, because it has to do with the timing of the retrofit, if you took into account extensions are usually provided, and i am wondering how that changes your analysis around that point. >> to answer that question, it does the rail extensions to the seismic compliance regulations, but the project would still like to go ahead in a timely manner,

and there is a lot of work that would be required in terms of doing a detailed redesign in coming up with a construction management plan, so the fact there are these extensions, that does make it feasible this alternative could be implemented in place of the project, but compared with a proposed project, it would not mean that objective as well, but it is potentially feasible. >> it goes to the issue of feasibility, so to the extent you are basing it on a continuum of care argument, and we are looking at feasibility, my point is the possibility of expansion, that is still feasible. whether it meets some other objectives, that is something we can decide, but i think it is important for us to make that

clarification about the feasibility. >> there is a possibility of expansion, and this alternative is feasible. >> thank you. >> you are on the roster, supervisor wiener.

you want to speak? any other questions for our city departments? seeing none, why don't we hear from the project sponsor a? >> president chiu, members of the board of supervisors, i am not to dr. brown ouer. he is in turkey. i am here in his stead. it is my pleasure to speak to you this evening.

i want to thank you for holding this hearing, and especially your tenacity to hold it for so long. before my colleagues express our position as to why you should not hold the eir and deny the appeal, let me take a moment to reflect on where we may be or where we are. i know questions have been raised, and it might not be possible to reach a conclusion of holding the eir and denying the appeal tonight. i am expressing our willingness to consider continuing the appeal for two weeks. the time would not be wasted. in the intervening weeks, cpc has agreed to work to figure out a process going forward. as we head into recess and into the fall and continue our work

to solidify the deal, we are willing to talk about a structure for future projects as we put our heads together to clarify and address some of the outstanding issues the mayor's office has raised. we are committed to doing what we can to get these hospitals built, and this works to open communication. i do think you should reject the appeal, but if it is not possible to do that tonight, a request that you consider continuing this for two weeks so we can keep talking, because i think the public would like to talk tonight. i will turn it to my colleagues

to make their presentation. >> i appreciate you saying what you just said. for the past month or so, we learned a lot of information that troubled us, and we have been waiting for some sense there be a willingness to have a conversation, and i have not heard that until what you just said this very moment, so i want to say i appreciated that. can you give us a sense of what that means over the next two weeks? i understand dr. brower is on vacation. what do you envision? >> i envision the people at the highest levels will participate regularly in meetings to see if we can come up with a structure to move forward. >> who would that be? he is the ceo.

>> i am sure it will include judy, and there will be other people as needed. i do not know the list of people, but i can supply you with a list. >> supervisor campos. >> thank you for your comments. i appreciate and welcome your remarks. one of the things we have said in the course of these proceedings is the importance of making sure there is the ability of the board to have all relevant financial information, and one thing we have asked for as we remain open to negotiating in good faith is there is a commitment to share all relevant financial information, and i am wondering whether cp mc is

willing to do that. >> the answer to your question is i envision a process over the next two weeks where we will decide what information should be shared and can be shared. i am not in a position to commit now what the outcome of that process will be. good >> i do not expect you to commit to the specific way in which that process will look like. i think we have expressed our desire to negotiate in good faith and our commitment to doing everything we can to be fair to this process. good we have indicated for us negotiating includes making sure we have relevant information, making sure we agree to a timetable and that makes sense, given the importance of this project, considering the possibility of a third-party

mediator, but also as the process continues. i hope we can have a meaningful discussion, but that is something we collectively have to decide. one thing i would ask, i am very shocked that the c o is not here tonight, and i hope whatever happens to decision maker is in this room when that takes place. >> this was a long-planned vacation, and we thought we would be done by now. i am sorry he is not. >> i do not think there is much to be said after that, but why don't we proceed with the rest of the presentation hama? >> my name is joshua.

as you know we have been through this product for a long term. goothis was completed three yeas ago. the draft er was completed two years ago we laid comments and have more comments. the process has been a vigorous debate and of public dialogue and potential environmental impacts of the project. we have had many rounds of hearings. today in the past they have essentially repeated the same arguments. they have responded in the same c tel. fat -- in the same way.

we have a thorough eir. it is accurate and complete and fully serves disclosure purposes of the eir under ceqa. it must be remembered that is the sole purpose of this hearing, to determine if it is adequate. the focus is on possible physical and environmental impacts of the project. the eir is not the place to make complaints about practices in other jurisdictions that are wholly unrelated in this project. because of the issues, the eir address them for information purposes, but there is no evidence of any connection to physical or environmental of facts with respect to those socio-economic issues.

in the continuing questions or concerns regarding these issues should be addressed at another time in another appropriate forum but not at his eir hearing. regarding the use of baselines as it has been used to night and yesterday, the comments have been made regarding who transportation mode silence involving employees surveys -- transportation mode split involving employees services. that was the best information provided at a time. gothere were analyses that considered the changes. in each time it was checked and supplemental analyses were provided, such as the

sensitivity analysis. data analyses were updated, and they were verified. in each case it was determined that the our analysis was accurate and complete. the ordinances were all in accordance with practices discussed at length today and industry standards and practices, and they were refined to reflect the ongoing operations based on detailed data over time. it should also be remembered the analysis is quite conservative in many respects. in many places, it is a worst- case scenario in order to not overlook impacts. the eir, which will include a

robust plant, testified to be one of the most rigorous in the city, includes no reduction in trips. with respect to population and employment and housing, they take a conservative approach as well. it assumes all persons are net new, although many doctors and staff are affiliated and would be relocated practices within the city. the eir also faces employment projections based on the facilities, based on rejecting employees. this is standard practice to ensure none are overlooked. they are worst-case scenarios. it assumes all the new projects

would be actually occupied immediately upon commencement of operation. good this will not occur that way. despite those analyses, they determined adequate housing capacity to accommodate demands as discussed tonight. the analysis is no different from any other project in the city. any further review may be interested in conditions regarding these or other issues for a separate time and not tonight. with respect to the alternative analysis, and i will touch on this briefly because it has been discussed in detail. the principal argument is there is not a reasonable range of alternatives. the staff has pointed out it is

analyzed in the eir. they find they need many objections and do not follows others as well. it also finds they have one benefit from a transportation standpoint at van ness and market and identified that impact would be back. appellants have are geared -- have argued it is too narrow, but you will see they are not so narrow or so specific. they are identified for the purpose of meeting basic seismic safety laws of replacing and a community hospital and meeting policy guidance for the panel or

of commissions. there are specific requirements the need to be met, but by whatever standard and regardless of what concerns may be addressed. it is time for the board to reject the appeal and certify the eir. i have additional comments on housing issues. >> in light of the fact most of the housing issues that have been raised are either policy issues or already in the curve year -- purview or have been addressed by staff, i want to make a comment about requirements, because i do not

believe that has been addressed. there need to bee impact with regard to housing. i did want to entice you as part of the findings on the conditional use permit, they were aware of the policy and did find that based on the capacity of the special use district and the fact that these were not identified as housing sites, but they were not concerned about the overall production. they found it was extremely likely given the production goals and the fact this was not identified, that there would not be an overall issue, and as to the project, they found the development agreement and the specific project would exceed the number of units, 320, as

compared to 220 that would be the result of a three-one calculation so in fact the development agreement provided funding to ensure this project would exceed its production goals for purposes of its findings. we do not view it as a ceqa issue, but i wanted to provide that information in response to your questions. >> any questions to the project sponsor? why don't we hear from members of the public? if you could line up on the right-hand side. our first speaker, if you could please step up.

>> good evening. >> if you could pull the microphone a little further, that would be perfect. >> i have been a pediatrician for the past 12 years. i spoke to many of you many times, and i initially came and spoke in front of the board voicing my strong opposition to the closure. today i am happy to have the opportunity to support the revitalizing of this hospital a. it seems like we can agree on at least one thing, from the opening remarks to the speakers on both sides. we agree that survival is vital to the health care we are going to be able to provide.

i am here to represent fellow physicians and therapists who have the privilege of chairing every day. the dedication and passion we brought years ago continues, and morale is high as we look to the future. we have been working closely to ensure that the community will continue to have access to medical care now and for generations to follow. the emergency department has been thoroughly designed as a state-of-the-art facility where we can see more patients more efficiently. tonight i implore you, please work together in good faith. find an agreement secure the condition of health care in the city. they are some of the most and

vulnerable in san francisco. it is on their behalf i asked you if you're a good >> next speaker. goo>> good evening. i am the chair for the last 15 years. i chair the quality of california and maternity services. i am speaking about concerns, and i would have to point out we have 6000, more than half of those in the city. most of those come from chinatown, inner and outer richmond, and that is an awfully long way to st. luke's, and in

dean that would put all of the maternity services in the city decides kaiser south of market. there would be no services north of market. i do not think that is a desirable outcome. we have to look at the rest of the city. putting the hospital in the center of the city allows access for all parts of the city along proven transportation routes. as i traveled back and forth, i do not go down van ness. it is hard to get to st. luke's from the rest of the city. if you were looking to encourage transit to get to the hospital, you would want to place of the hospital next to a transit center,