Response to Comments - Presidio Trust

More documents

Recommendations

Info

TR-4. Effect of Park Presidio Boulevard Access Variant on Pedestrian and Bicycle SafetyCaltrans disagreed with the Draft SEIS’s assertion that the Park Presidio Boulevard Access Variant wouldimprove pedestrian and bicycle safety, and would like to review the data or information on which thisconclusion is based. Caltrans also asked whether pedestrians and bicyclists would be able to enter thePHSH district via 14 th and 15 th Avenue Gates.Response TR-4 – The Trust will make every effort to maintain pedestrian and bicycle access through the14 th and 15 th Avenue Gates by providing the network described in the Presidio Trails and BikewaysMaster Plan. However, if the CCSF takes measures to block access to the gates, it would be the CCSF’sresponsibility to ensure that pedestrian and bicycle access is maintained at these gates. The Trust believesthat the Park Presidio Boulevard Access Variant would improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists onLake Street as the new intersection would act as a transition point between highway conditions and citystreet network conditions. However, the Trust has no scientific data to support this conclusion. The FinalSEIS has been revised accordingly.TR-5. Encroachment PermitCaltrans noted that any project-related work within the State’s right-of-way will require an encroachmentpermit and provided instructions on how to apply for such a permit.Response TR-5 – The Trust is aware that an encroachment permit would be required for project-relatedwork within Caltrans right-of-way, and will apply for the permit should the Park Presidio BoulevardAccess Variant be implemented.TR-6. Requested No Action Alternative Trip Generation RatesRPN suggested that the Requested No Action Alternative as presented is an inadequate benchmarkagainst which to compare the effects of Alternatives 1 through 4. RPN suggested that the trip generationrates for the Requested No Action Alternative do not reflect current or recent conditions and result intravel demand projections that are “patently false and misleading.” RPN’s traffic consultant noted thatthe trip generation projection for the Requested No Action Alternative is very similar to the projection forAlternative 2, and suggested that the Trust deliberately selected a no action alternative that would yieldsuch an analysis.RPN’s traffic consultant also compared trip generation projections for the Requested No ActionAlternative and Alternative 2 to traffic counts through the 15 th Avenue Gate in 2000, and noted that theRequested No Action Alternative would generate approximately twice and three times the volume oftraffic counted at the 15 th Avenue Gate in 2000 in the AM peak hour and PM peak hour, respectively.Response TR-6 – The trip generation rates used for the Requested No Action Alternative were intendedto represent the travel patterns of the current tenants (Lone Mountain Children’s Center and Arion Press)and former recent tenant, the Jewish Community Center (JCC). The pick-up and drop-off activity36 Responses to Comments Public Health Service Hospital
associated with the Lone Mountain Children’s Center and the JCC by definition result in relatively hightrip generation rates. The person trip generation rate used in the Draft SEIS analysis is 67 person trips perthousand square feet of exterior building area, which is roughly equivalent to the rate used by the CCSFPlanning Department (67 trips per thousand gross square feet of space).Trust staff counted turning movements into and out of the eastern portion of the PHSH district in the AMpeak hour and PM peak hour when it was occupied by Lone Mountain Children’s Center, Arion Press,and the JCC (September 25, 2001). The count data indicate that 103 vehicles entered and 71 vehiclesexited the eastern portion of the project site during the AM peak hour. In addition, Trust staff observedapproximately 17 cars parking in the lot immediately west of 15 th Avenue and their drivers walking to theeastern portion of the site. Therefore, a total of 191 one-way AM peak hour vehicle trips were generatedby these uses. Based on the trip generation rate, mode split, and auto occupancy assumptions made in theDraft SEIS, these tenants would generate 224 one-way vehicle trips in the AM peak hour, which isapproximately 17 percent more than the trip generation observed while the JCC occupied the project site.Based on the findings described above, the daily, AM peak hour, and PM peak hour rates for thepreschool use were reduced by 15 percent to 57 daily person trips per thousand gross square feet, 9.1 AMpeak hour person trips per thousand gross square feet, and 10.3 PM peak hour person trips per thousandgross square feet (see Appendix B) to more closely reflect the actual traffic counts representative of theRequested No Action Alternative. The change also more closely reflects the CCSF Planning Departmentrate, since the 15 percent reduction approximates the difference between exterior building area andinterior space. This change to the trip generation rate for day care/preschool uses was also made for theother four alternatives.It should be noted that the JCC’s lease restricted the number of vehicles traveling to and from the JCCthat could travel through the 15 th Avenue Gate. For this reason, approximately 57 percent (109 vehicles)of the traffic traveling to and from the eastern portion of the project site during JCC occupancy traveledthrough the 15 th Avenue Gate and the remaining 43 percent (82 vehicles) traveled on Wedemeyer Streetand Battery Caulfield Road to use other gates. The traffic assignment assumed for the analysis of PHSHalternatives in the Draft SEIS did not reflect this pattern. For this reason, the traffic observed travelingthrough the 15 th Avenue Gate while the JCC occupied part of the PHSH district does not correlate directlyto the vehicle trips expected to be generated by the occupants at the time. The traffic assignmentassumptions for all PHSH alternatives have been revisited and refined in the Final SEIS to reflect theaddition of more restrictive traffic calming measures at the project site and on Battery Caulfield Road (seeResponses to Comments TR-15 through TR-17).TR-7. City GuidelinesRPN asserted that, because the transportation analysis did not use Transportation Impact AnalysisGuidelines (City Guidelines) (CCSF 2002b) as a source for trip generation rates for all land uses is not the“credible worst case” impact analysis “frequently required in environmental impact evaluations,” andunderestimates significant traffic impacts, rendering the Draft SEIS inadequate. RPN’s traffic consultantdetermined that if trip generation rates from the City Guidelines had been used, Alternative 2 would havePublic Health Service Hospital Response to Comments 37
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 and 30: of the alternatives would remove bu
Page 31 and 32: “unenlightening.” They noted th
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: The traffic volumes associated with
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 91 and 92:
88 Public Agency Comments Public He
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?