Response to Comments - Presidio Trust

RPN suggested that the level of service (LOS) criteria typically used to evaluate traffic impacts on theoperation of key intersections is not appropriate for residential streets, and suggested “quality of life”criteria are more appropriate for assessing impacts to neighborhood residential streets. As an alternative,RPN suggested that the residential level of service (RLOS) concept be used because it considers howtraffic affects a resident’s ability to walk across a street, ride a bicycle, or back out of driveways.Response TR-8 – The Draft SEIS appropriately assesses potential impacts on traffic congestion anddelay, as well as Presidio gate volumes, transit services, pedestrians, and bicyclists. The residential levelof service standards suggested by the commenter are not necessary or appropriate for assessment of theproject’s impact on San Francisco streets, and are not a generally accepted standard among transportationand traffic analysis professionals either in the Bay Area or nationwide. The RLOS concept has not beendeemed appropriate by the CCSF Planning Department for adoption as part of their Guidelines forEnvironmental Review. At the Presidio and in San Francisco, impacts on bicyclists, pedestrians, and“quality of life” are generally discussed qualitatively, and impacts on traffic are quantified using widelyapplied and accepted methodologies.TR-9. Parking Demand AnalysisRPN suggested that the parking demand analysis is incomplete and may have underestimated evening andweekend parking demand because it does not explicitly include short-term demand associated withvisitors of residential tenants or national park visitors who may wish to use trails from the PHSH district.RPN also asserted that the project’s impacts to on-street parking conditions in the neighborhood have notbeen evaluated, stating “there is no doubt that the project alternatives will have an impact onneighborhood parking regardless if there is an existing shortfall and such impacts must be evaluated.”One individual suggested that some parking should be included in the building and that parking should beretained at the trailhead for hikers and bicyclists.Response TR-9 – The parking demand analysis does account for demand created by people visitingresidential tenants. Although not explicitly separated from the parking demand of residents, a portion ofthe parking demand rate for dwelling units is attributable to visitors. The parking demand estimatesincluded in the SEIS do not include estimates for recreational visitors (i.e., trailhead parking). However,the alternatives do provide a modest surplus of parking on the lower plateau, ranging from 12 spaces withAlternative 3 to 135 spaces with the Requested No Action Alternative. The surplus of parking spaces onthe lower plateau would provide parking spaces for use by recreational visitors.The parking analysis indicates that the parking supply in the PHSH district is estimated to exceed theparking demand for each PHSH alternative. Since none of the alternatives would result in a parkingshortfall and all parking spaces for the project would be more convenient than spaces in the adjacentneighborhood, parking demand from the site would not be expected to “spill over” into the adjacentneighborhood. Observations of the vehicles parked in the lot in the PHSH district immediately inside the15 th Avenue Gate indicate that many of the vehicles parked in the lot have “N” zone residential parkingpermits and belong to residents in the adjacent neighborhood. These vehicles would likely be displaced40 Responses to Comments Public Health Service Hospital