tv [untitled] July 21, 2012 4:30am-5:00am PDT
not mind, we would be happy to respond to that as part of the appeal. >> i am happy to have that conversation tomorrow, but i don't find it believable. i would like to believe by tomorrow. it would be helpful to get a little bit of information between today and tomorrow. another issue -- you use 2006 information as opposed the most recent data we have, which is 2009. by that, you under-inflated some of the traffic impact numbers. it appears the traffic modeling you did was done -- frankly -- it was manipulated to help you arrive s.a. -- are right that a certain result. the data you received is frankly just not believable. i'm wondering if anybody could respond to that in a way that could help me understand this in time for tomorrow's hearing? >> i understand what you are asking and i am confident in the analysis we performed an would be more happy to drill down on
some of the numbers you are citing a particular intersection. right in front of me and would have to double check. supervisor chiu: today, this hearing was supposed to drill down on these issues and that's why i'm asking these questions. get supervisor campos: -- supervisor campos: if i could follow up on that, wondering why your definition of significant impact is? >> that a very good question. when an intersection goes from the existing level of service d to e or worse, that means it has increased. there are many instances where we have a situation where an intersection is already congested. when that happens, we calculate the projects contribution to the critical movement which controls the overall level of service.
if that constitutes a considerable contribution, it is considered significant. that is 5%. supervisor campos: how did you arrive at that definition? >> that preceded me and has been used by the city for a very long time. supervisor campos: i'm wondering if i can hear from the transportation focus on whether or not that is the definition of significance that the city is going by? >> those significance thresholds are set by the planning department. we think they are reasonable. supervisor campos: we talked earlier about this assumption that 40% of trips would happen on public transit. we heard that it seemed a blow.
if the assumption was higher -- that seem low. >> if you used a .e assumption of people driving, you would read do the analysis and get a larger volume of vehicular traffic as a result the project. supervisor campos: we also heard from president chiu that the passenger data was 2006 data and we have data from 2009 available. if the data upon which this finding was based was 2009 date as opposed to 2006 data, do you think it would have impacted the outcome? >> i can't answer that right now. supervisor campos: is it possible? >> it is certainly possible. >> if i may address the 2006- 2009 question, we did do the
analysis with the latest data and the impacts were the same or similar to what was identified in the draft and final environmental report. we redid the analysis with the 2009 data. supervisor campos: by your analysis based on the 40% we talked about earlier? >> correct. supervisor campos: could that higher percentage lead to a different result? >> its possible. moving on8'e 2015, we identified significant an unavoidable impact on the 19th pole to 38 than the 38 carry and the 49 van ness mission lines and 20, 30, those lines are9] impact on the 47 van ness and the three jackson. impact on other lines were less than significant but that's not to say cathedral hill is not going to be adding riders.
while the impacts are identified as significant an unavoidable, this forces mitigation measures that would compensate and to a financially for the agency to provide transit service needed to service hospital. on the bicycle and pedestrian impact, there will be more friction just by virtue of putting more people on this site. we have found that impact on bicyclesxv significant with this project and similarly would be less than significant for pedestrians. there are streetscape and other improvements being added that we can cover in detail. the construct- related pedestrian impact willt- discuss a minute. we did find a significant impact as far as for large trucks
pulling in off of franklin. that is mitigated with making sure the loading hours for large trucks are restricted. for emergency vehicle access, given the location of the sites and major arterial, we found the impact to be less than significant. supervisor chiu: can we talk about the emergency vehicle impact? if we have a lot of traffic here and a new hospital, we will have a lot of new emergency vehicles trying to get in and out. there has been a concern raised by the neighborhoods around this that there will be an overwhelming number of emergency vehicles trying to get in and 5#ucout stuck in traffic. in the finald claim is that this is not a concern because you have multi- lane roadway and emergency vehicles can get in and around these intersections. the from my own experience there, given how much gridlock is already there, i don't see how that happens.
could you talk about -- do you have any idea how many emergency vehicles are expected to go through these intersections what percentage of the time they're going to need to divert to side streets? give us a sense of what an emergency vehicle situation is like. >>lsf;p might understanding is t the vehicles turn on their sirens and people are able to move out of the way. there is some congestion but the emergency vehicle drivers are able and no one the congestion is and how it occurs and are able to get to the hospital. supervisor chiu: what does that mean? if the of the emergency vehicle that needs to get to and from hospital and you have gridlock, cars cannot move out of the way. >> let me ask staff for some help. the vehicles do tend to get a little bit out of the way, but
there is some of gridlock and intersections not all the way of venice. if there are intersections they cannot get by, they will use the opposing lane of traffic. it is not ideal, but it is possible. supervisor chiu: but if there is gridlock on one side, there is typically gridlock on the other side. >> it is not ideal. from what i understand, the central lane would also be available for emergency traffic needed. they would have to weave in and out of transit, but it would be available. d chiu: if t some more information about that because there wasn't anything in the environmental impact report that gives me a lot of confidence around emergency vehicles. >> a couple of numbers i have in my note -- 5% r code 3 which means they have their lights on.
based on the data it at preexisting campuses, there are approximately 50 per month that we can provide more information on that. that is the data have. supervisor chiu: i'm trying to envision what it means for an emergency vehicle to come in and out of the brt line. there is going to be an impact on traffic when brt is there and then this is reduced by a lien on both sides. it is confusing for me to think about how that is actually going to happen in real life. >> understood. supervisor campos:hq!i if i coud ask that anti to come up on this issue. 'm having a really hard time understanding the analysis of what happens with emergency vehicles given the increased
a already have gridlock as it is. how was it from the mta's perspective that what we just heard makes sense? that somehow with this level of emergency vehicles be able to maneuver their way out of the van ness and to the extent they are referencing brt -- that involves the elimination of one lane on each side. how is that going to help with the passage of emergency vehicles? i'm really having a hard time trying to get my arms around that. >> good question. the brt is meant to be an exclusive right away and there wouldçóz!v be limited opportunis for emergency vehicles to use the right of way. we would have to take a close third look at the plans to tell you how it -- a closer look at plans to tell you how it affects
emergency vehicles. supervisor campos: to my knowledge, it does allow for anything other than exclusive use by brt. is that correct? >> i think emergency vehicles would be allowed to use it in the case of an emergency and they could enter at the intersection in travel for a block and exit the lane if they felt it was to their advantage to do so. supervisor campos: do you agree with the analysizzwe presentedo us around emergency vehicles? we are looking to you guys as the expert on transportation. we do not want to be in a years from now this becomes an issue. from your perspective, should we be satisfied with the level of analysis on this issue? >> we would be happy to take another look at the emergency vehicle access and get back to you tomorrow.
supervisor campos: are you satisfied with what they're saying on this issue? >> i have not read it. supervisor campos: perhaps we can hear from the mta tomorrow on this. >> just a clarification in case everyone is not aware, everything that has been presented to you and is in the environmental report has been signed off on by that mta. is want to make sure it's not that the planning does the t a. which is not to say it's not a good idea to have them look at them again. -- without asking that mta. >> it seems like of mta is not confident in this analysis. have to go back and look at it. >> if i may move on to construction. the environmental impact report
identifie'pj a structure impact and it requires the construction management plan. we did feel given the magnitude of the project and the length of big construction of five years, the closure of the travel lanes and sidewalk, particularly on gary, and the potential overlap with the van ness brt construction, the project would bevym0ñ significad unavoidable. parking may be a topic of interest. it's not considered a significant impact but we do provided in our transportation impact study because it's of interest to many people. for parking, the cathedral hill campus is proposing a supply of 1227 spaces between hospital and the 1375 sutter building. the demand we estimated was 1389 spaces, so they don't quite meet
the demand. 1317 spaces. they don't meet the demand but they could not anyway because the maximum allowed would be 1317 spaces. supervisor chiu: so i understand in the planning code section 151, there is -- there should not be more than one parking space for eight bedsore each 2400 square feet of sleeping rooms. if i trusted them matt, that's 545 beds/1 to 8, i get to 70 parking spots. you are proposing 1227 spots. could you talk to me about how you arrived at this number and i would like to ask the same question of the mta, whether they think this is the appropriate amount of parking. >> what is important to note is the last few words of that sentence in the planning code.
one for each bed or one for each 2400 square feet devotednjb sleeping rooms, whichever results in the greater requirement. you cannot choose the lesser requirement, he must do both and choose the greater requirement. supervisor chiu: so that is how you get to this number? >> that establishes what your absolute minimum is. the planning code allows up to 150% of that by right. so the number use on the slide is 150%, and it is effectively the maximum. supervisor chiu: if i could ask the mta if you let us know if you think it's appropriate for there to be this level parking in the neighborhood. >> difficult to answer. a perfect amount of parking for any particular land use, if you
don't have enough parking, you can get traffic cued up onto transit streets. the provide to much parking, you are encouraging people to use the automobile. we look at the fees for parking. they are substantial. we hope that will minimize the number of people to choose to drive, hoping only people who really need to drive are the ones to dr supervisor chiu: is there a breakdown for the number of spaces that will be used by shifts for staff as opposed to public? in that evening, there will be an awful lot of empty parking in these spaces. my constituents and their associations are concerned it will be used by patrons of bars on the pulp street corridor which is already extremely congested. -- the polk street corridor. >> about one-third is for
general staff and the remaining 20% are exclusively for physicians. we assume all of them will drive to the hospital. >> and do you know what that looks like in the nighttime? much of the staff works during the day, so that frees up parking space later in the evening. >> i don't know what that looks like in the nighttime. >supervisor chiu: i would like to have some understanding of what the night time parking looks like. supervisor campos: i have a follow-up question for the mta. i'm trying to understand in terms of best practice, it is% of the spaces are reserved -- if 50% of the spaces are reserved for physicians and staff, and i understand the importanceb=.dd f making space is available for emergency purposes and all of that, but in terms of what is
common or what is the best practice in that industry, is this a typical best practice? i'm trying to understand is in the context of transit first city that we are. -- the transit first city that we are. >> my understanding is doctors need to make a lot of trips between hospitals and it's difficult to get them to use public transportation. that is my a understanding. i have not done a survey. supervisor campos: do you know what happens in other cities? what's the general practice in other cities? yoelsi don't have a reason to question the numbers, i just want to have an understanding of how it compares to what happens in other parts of the country. >> i cannot answer that off the top of my head. i would be happy to do some research. supervisor campos: i think if we are going to reserve half the spaces for a certain population
which may be completely appropriate, i would like to have some knowledge on what is happening in other parts of the country. is this a good idea? maybe it totally is. i'm actually surprised that kind of analysis hasn't been done. >> i apologize for interjecting. there is some data i believe we have on comparative parking supplies for hospitals around the country which seems responsive to your question, and i think planning will be able to present that tomorrow. >> i'm not sure about hospitals, but the mta policy for parking is we are moving away from encouraging margin -- encouraging monthly parking. >> -- supervisor campos: were you
surprised by this piece in the proposal? >> given where the mta is going, this is not in line with what we're doing. supervisor wiener: i want to follow upon -- i want to follow up on, there was some questions about vehicle trip generation that seems to be in conflict in terms of the direction they were .i r'o 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