Response to Comments - Presidio Trust

More documents

Recommendations

Info

een shown to result in 24 percent more vehicle trips in the PM peak hour than estimated in the DraftSEIS.Response TR-7 – As stated in the response to a similar comment made on the PHSH EA, the trafficanalysis in the EA, Draft SEIS, and Final SEIS uses the City Guidelines as one among several sources fortravel demand characteristics of the PHSH district. The travel demand characteristics provided in the CityGuidelines do not accurately reflect the Presidio’s environment in all cases, nor do the City Guidelinesinclude trip generation rates for the AM peak hour. For these reasons, information from other availablestandard data sources accepted and commonly used by traffic analysis professionals, such as the State ofCalifornia Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), aswell as the City of San Diego, were also considered (see Table 4).The trip generation rates chosen for the PHSH traffic analysis are in fact very similar to the tripgeneration rates provided in the City Guidelines, with the only material difference being the PM peakhour trip generation rate for residential uses. The daily trip generation rate for a dwelling unit in the SEISanalysis is the same as that provided in the City Guidelines for a two-bedroom dwelling unit, 6 but ratherthan assuming that 17.3 percent of the daily trips to and from a dwelling unit would occur in the PM peakhour, the PHSH transportation analysis assumes a smaller percentage of trips (10.5 percent) would occurin the PM peak hour. The results of using these rates are that daily trips associated with all dwelling unitsare the same as would be projected using the City Guidelines, but the percentage occurring within theafternoon rush hour is about 6.8 percent less. The lesser percentage and the results achieved through itsapplication are considered more reasonable by the Trust’s transportation professionals and consultantsbecause they are consistent with the ratio of PM peak hour trip generation rates to daily trip generationrates for residential uses from all other sources considered (see Table 4 below for sample data). The 2001National Household Travel Survey was also consulted; the survey results indicate that 7.9 percent ofhousehold trips occur between 5:00 PM and 6:00 PM.Table 4. Trip Generation DataWEEKDAYTRIPS / UNITNUMBER OFSTUDIESWEEKDAY PM PEAKHOUR T RIPS / U NITNUMBER OFSTUDIESPM PEAK HOURPERCENTAGE OF DAILYTRIPSInstitute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual (Sixth Edition)Single-Family Detached Housing 9.57 348 1.01 294 10.6%Apartment 6.63 80 0.62 78 9.4%Low-Rise Apartment 6.59 22 0.58 26 8.8%High-Rise Apartment 4.20 9 0.35 17 8.3%6 The Final SEIS transportation analysis conservatively assumes a daily trip generation rate of 10 person trips per unit for alldwelling units, regardless of the number of bedrooms.38 Responses to Comments Public Health Service Hospital
Table 4. Trip Generation DataWEEKDAYTRIPS / UNITNUMBER OFSTUDIESWEEKDAY PM PEAKHOUR TRIPS / UNITNUMBER OFSTUDIESPM PEAK HOURPERCENTAGE OF DAILYTRIPSResidentialCondominium/Townhouse 5.86 53 0.54 57 9.2%High-Rise ResidentialCondominium/Townhouse 4.18 4 0.38 5 9.1%Mobile Home Park 4.81 37 0.56 24 11.6%The City of San Diego Trip Generation ManualMulti-Family Dwelling UnitUnder 20 dwelling units per acre 8.00 NA 0.80 NA 10.0%Over 20 dwelling units per acre 6.00 NA 0.54 NA 9.0%Single-Family Detached UnitUrbanized Area 9.00 NA 0.90 NA 10.0%Urbanizing Area 10.00 NA 1.00 NA 10.0%Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers 1997; City of San Diego 1998.Note:NA = not applicableTR-8. Neighborhood Quality of Life and Residential Level of Service (RLOS) CriteriaSeveral individuals expressed concern about the project’s generation of additional traffic and the effect onneighborhood streets near the PHSH district, and felt that the additional traffic generated by the projectwould worsen congestion and further compromise safety in the neighborhood. Many of these individualsasserted that introducing fewer cars is the only way to mitigate the traffic impacts on the adjacentneighborhood, and many expressed a preference for Alternative 3 for this reason. One individualspeculated that using traffic calming measures to slow traffic where the existing speed limit is already25 miles per hour would not adequately address neighborhood residents’ concerns, and suggested that asmaller project was the best solution.One individual, however, suggested that immediate neighbors of the PHSH district “also have contributedto the overall increase [in traffic], as most of the households currently own and operate more vehicles thanwhen the homes were first constructed. New development should attempt to minimize increased noise,and traffic, and with that increased air pollution, but the project should not be held hostage by one class ofinterested parties.”Public Health Service Hospital Response to Comments 39
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 and 40: The traffic volumes associated with
Page 41: associated with the Lone Mountain C
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 93 and 94:
90 Public Agency Comments Public He
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?