Response to Comments - Presidio Trust

TR-21. Impact of Additional Traffic on City ResourcesThe CCSF suggested that San Francisco’s Police Department, Department of Parking and Traffic, andPlanning Department will need to address any increase in public safety problems in the adjacent arearelated to the increase in traffic traveling to and from the project site, including traffic-related complaints,traffic accidents, and enforcement needs.Response TR-21 – The CCSF is correct in noting that City agencies will be responsible for enforcementactivities and responding to concerns about traffic safety within San Francisco. Similarly, the UnitedStates Park Police (funded by the Trust) and staff of the Trust (in Area B) and NPS (in Area A) havethose responsibilities within the Presidio. It is estimated that approximately 50 percent of the traffictraveling through the Lombard and Presidio Boulevard Gates and 23 percent of the traffic entering the25 th Avenue Gate does not begin or end in the Presidio.TR-22. Construction Traffic Management PlanThe CCSF noted that the SEIS does not provide specific information on construction routes, timing, andpossible impacts of the rerouting of traffic during construction. The CCSF asked who would beresponsible for drafting, implementing, and monitoring a Construction Traffic Management Plan. Oneindividual asserted that such information needs to be included in the SEIS. The GGBHTD requested that,in lieu of inclusion of construction truck routes in the Final SEIS, the GGBHTD be consulted duringdevelopment the Construction Traffic Management Plan.Response TR-22 – The project developer will be responsible for developing a Construction TrafficManagement Plan in cooperation with the Trust, and the Trust will review the plan and monitorconstruction traffic for conformance to the plan. The Trust will consult with the GGBHTD duringdevelopment and review of the Construction Traffic Management Plan.TR-23. Variance in Construction Traffic ImpactsThe PHRA noted that the impact of construction activities (in both duration of activities and truck trips)on city neighborhoods varies dramatically among the different alternatives.Response TR-23 – The differences in duration of construction and construction-related traffic among thePHSH alternatives are based on the differences in amount of soil to be excavated, which is largely basedon whether an underground parking garage is included, whether the building wings are removed orretained, and how much new construction and demolition is planned. For example, because Alternative 2includes underground parking, demolition, and new construction, it would generate the greatest averagenumber of daily truck trips. Alternative 1 would have no demolition and no new construction, andtherefore would generate the least number of average daily truck trips aside from the Requested NoAction Alternative. Alternatives 3 and 4 would include demolition, and in the case of Alternative 4, newconstruction, but because neither alternative would include underground parking, the number of trucktrips would be somewhat smaller than that estimated for Alternative 2. The Final SEIS has been revisedPublic Health Service Hospital Response to Comments 49