Response to Comments - Presidio Trust

More documents

Recommendations

Info

1.7 LAND USE, HOUSING, AND SCHOOLS (LU)LU-1. Impact on Other Planning Districts in the PresidioAt the public hearing held on the Draft SEIS, the president of the NAPP requested that the Trust assessthe impact of the project on not only the PHSH district, but also on the other planning districts in thePresidio. “That may help us to see the trade-offs that you’re asking us to make, not only on this project,but on other projects. And it will also help … groups… that try to be supportive coalitions to avoid thenot-in-our-backyard syndrome, so you don’t have to face that on a project-by-project basis.”Response LU-1 – Due to the remoteness of the PHSH district from other developed areas of the Presidio,the impact of the project on other planning districts due to the change in activity levels would be minimal.As discussed in Section 3.1.2 (Land Use, Housing and Schools), the project’s greater emphasis onresidential use (when compared to the PTMP’s educational use) would constrain the Trust from reachingthe maximum number of dwelling units stated for one or more other districts of the Presidio (so as to staybelow the overall maximum of 1,654). The smaller number of dwelling units that would be allowed inthe other districts (ranging from 20 for Alternatives 2 and 3 to 59 for Alternative 4) would reduce effectselsewhere within the Presidio, but this reduction should not be considered significant or adverse, orrelevant to choosing among the alternatives.LU-2. Residential Densities and Surrounding NeighborhoodsMany individuals and neighborhood organizations said that the scale and density of Alternative 2 arecompletely out of character with the neighborhood and threaten “our quality of life.” RPN commentedthat “[a] reduction in size is warranted to preserve the character of the neighborhood” as set forth in theTrust’s goal of seeking high-quality site planning and design compatible with the NHLD and surroundingneighborhoods. Many also proclaimed that even Alternative 3 is out of scale with the neighborhood and“barely acceptable,” but said that they were “willing to live with it” to ensure the success of the Presidio.RPN alleged that the Draft SEIS is “rife with attempts to disguise the inappropriate scale of the residentialalternatives by portraying Alternative 2’s population density as virtually identical to the surroundingsingle-family home neighborhood and Alternative 3’s density as incrementally lower than the surroundingneighborhood.” They claimed that this conclusion is “absurd” and can only be reached by spreading thepopulation over the entire 18-acre area (much of which is open space and parking areas) and comparing itto three-and-a-half square city blocks of housing with no public park space. RPN also noted that the onlybuildings in the area with more than 50 units are medical facilities, schools, and religious institutions,suggesting that even Alternative 3 is “manifestly out of scale with the neighborhood.”The CCSF concurred with RPN, suggesting that the comparison of densities of the project alternativesand the surrounding area is “very misleading.” They asked that the SEIS clarify the areas being comparedand provide a realistic analysis of the comparative densities in order to allow the public to assess theanalysis and evaluate the impacts on land use. They also felt that the Draft SEIS statement that the projectwill provide less than one percent of the total housing in the entire Richmond is misleading and26 Responses to Comments Public Health Service Hospital
“unenlightening.” They noted that the housing to be located in a large multi-story building is verydissimilar in character from the surrounding single-family, low-rise residential neighborhood, and that theDraft SEIS should reflect this difference.NAPP questioned the method for analyzing density of the project. “While square footage is one way tomeasure density, the type of resident and how they will use the space is most relevant.” NAPP requested“data be provided to compare the impact of different types of residents.” They also requested traffic databased on leasing to Presidio-based employees and on public transit policies such as car-sharing goals, aswell as explanation of underlying assumptions on use of public transportation, the number of cars perdwelling unit, and parking needs.Response LU-2 – Information provided in the Draft SEIS regarding the density associated with the EISalternatives compared with the surrounding neighborhood (Figure A-1) was included at the request ofcommenters on the EA. The commenters asserted their belief that the proposed alternatives were whollyout of keeping with the densities in the surrounding neighborhood. On the contrary, the SEIS explainsthat the number of dwelling units proposed on the site (i.e., the residential density) is consistent with thenumber of dwelling units in a comparable area of the surrounding neighborhood. In both cases, thecomparable area includes the open spaces, streets, and parking areas associated with the dwelling units.The SEIS also explains that the PHSH hospital building – which is an existing building – is bigger andlarger than any other building in the neighborhood (see Section 3.7.2), and thus could be considered “outof scale” with the neighborhood. Because the building is already in existence, however, its dissimilaritywith houses in the surrounding neighborhood should appropriately be viewed as an impact associatedwith the building’s construction (in the 1930s and 1950s), and not with its reuse. All of the alternativesassessed in the SEIS would reuse the existing structure in whole or in part. The SEIS also explains thataccess to the PHSH site is constrained, and fully analyzes the amount of traffic that would use 14 th and15 th Avenues under each alternative. It further describes the expected population within the complex ineach alternative, and associated impacts. For all these reasons, the SEIS is not “misleading,” but offersthe required information and analysis. The effect of Presidio-based employees and transportation demandstrategies on the transportation analysis assumptions is discussed later in these responses to comments(see Response to Comment TR-11).LU-3. PHSH Project as a San Francisco Residential DevelopmentMany neighborhood organizations and individuals cautioned that maximum build-out of the hospitalwould have permanent ramifications for the neighborhood (and the park). “Once built and leased forseventy-five years, the ensuing damage cannot be undone in our lifetimes.” PAR urged that the PHSHdevelopment should be viewed and evaluated as not just an internal Presidio Trust matter, but also as aSan Francisco residential proposal. SPUR agreed on this point: “[w]hile the Public Health ServiceHospital site falls under the jurisdiction of the Presidio Trust rather than City jurisdiction, its developmentwill have a significant effect on San Francisco.” PAR asked that the analysis consider such factors as theappropriate scale and size of development in the context of city neighborhoods; the provision of utility,Public Health Service Hospital Response to Comments 27
Page 7 and 8: Sharon KatoAnsel D. KinneyRich Koch
Page 9 and 10: Table 2. Organization of Responses
Page 11 and 12: 1 Responses to Comments1.1 GENERAL
Page 13 and 14: during the initiation of scoping fo
Page 15 and 16: within the level of activity analyz
Page 17 and 18: million more than Alternative 4. Co
Page 19 and 20: AL-5. Incorporation of Park Presidi
Page 21 and 22: Table 3. Traffic Signal Warrants An
Page 23 and 24: leads me to conclude that the Trust
Page 25 and 26: ehabilitated or redeveloped; most o
Page 27 and 28: approaches would fall within the ra
Page 29: of the alternatives would remove bu
Page 33 and 34: The project provides for adequate b
Page 35 and 36: used, in conjunction with other dis
Page 37 and 38: the Park Presidio Boulevard Access
Page 39 and 40: The traffic volumes associated with
Page 41 and 42: associated with the Lone Mountain C
Page 43 and 44: Table 4. Trip Generation DataWEEKDA
Page 45 and 46: to another location in the neighbor
Page 47 and 48: Response TR-12 - In response to the
Page 49 and 50: Boulevard and the proportion coming
Page 51 and 52: agrees with commenters that measure
Page 53 and 54: TR-21. Impact of Additional Traffic
Page 55 and 56: TR-25. Transportation Demand Manage
Page 57 and 58: Response TR-28 - The Trust will con
Page 59 and 60: Table 6. Existing + Project Conditi
Page 61 and 62: TR-31. Estimated Traffic Generated
Page 63 and 64: Table 9. Traffic Count Data at 15 t
Page 65 and 66: • Clarification of footnotes;•
Page 67 and 68: uilding (See SEIS Section 3.7.2). T
Page 69 and 70: one-hour and eight-hour average CO
Page 71 and 72: demand on weekends under Alternativ
Page 73 and 74: any increase in storm water flow fr
Page 75 and 76: Habitat), proposed human use associ
Page 77 and 78: any potential effects to water qual
Page 79 and 80: The Trust will determine whether th
Page 81 and 82:
2 Public Agency CommentsUnited Stat
Page 83 and 84:
80 Public Agency Comments Public He
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
2.5 GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE, HIGHWAY AND
Page 101 and 102:
2.6 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISC
Page 103 and 104:
Public Health Service Hospital Resp
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Chiuchiarelli, Nicky: (AL-2), 11; (
Page 119 and 120:
Knox, Aliza: (AL-4), 13; (AL-5), 15
Page 121 and 122:
Santamaria, David, Founder and Advi
show all

Response to Comments - Presidio Trust

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?