Response to Comments - Presidio Trust

More documents

Recommendations

Info

to include the provision of an underground parking garage as a determinant in the demolition andconstruction activities (see Table 18).TR-24. Transportation Demand ManagementSPUR noted that the Park Presidio Boulevard Access Variant “could significantly alleviate the concernsof the residents on Lake Street and adjoining areas.” SPUR also suggested a number of othertransportation demand management options, including 1) upgrading nearby transit stops with high-qualityshelters and “NextBus” information, 2) enhancing PresidiGo shuttle service and considering partneringwith other shuttles, 3) providing for City Carshare programs and creating incentives for carshare andtransit use, and 4) extending “N” residential permit parking several blocks in the surroundingneighborhood while deed-restricting PHSH tenants from purchasing residential parking permits. The SanFrancisco Bicycle Coalition requested that the project include safe and secure bicycle parking, includingracks for visitors and a limited-access storage room for residents. One individual recommended workingwith the CCSF to provide more comprehensive, integrated public transit service to and through thePresidio, including express bus or light rail from downtown to the various Presidio gates. Onecommenter suggested addressing parking and traffic issues by providing intercept parking lots, fromwhich residents and visitors would reach their destinations by bus, rail, or gondola. The same commentersuggested a gondola as a fun, useful, and unique feature that would serve as a tourist attraction as well asa commute option.RPN and some individuals suggested that unless the transportation demand management (TDM) programelements are made mandatory by being written into the contract with the developer, apartmentmanagement contracts, and resident leases, the TDM program will not be effective, and assuming theprogram will be effective potentially masks significant adverse traffic impacts.Response TR-24 – Under the Preferred Alternative, the PHSH district will include a number of thetransportation demand management strategies suggested by SPUR. The site will include a City CarShare“pod” for use by residents. Residents’ payments for parking will also be separate from their rentpayments in order to reinforce the out-of-pocket expense of car ownership. The Trust’s privatedevelopment partner, if selected, has volunteered to assist residents in the adjacent neighborhood inexpanding the “N” residential parking permit zone to protect neighborhood residents from spilloverparking effects. The development partner has also agreed to partially subsidize residents’ MUNI FastPasses to encourage the use of transit, and will provide a secure bicycle parking area within theunderground garage.The Trust has an ongoing commitment to improve PresidiGo service and PresidiGo service connectionsto MUNI and GGT. The Trust also plans to continue working with MUNI to provide efficient transitservice to the Presidio, and hopes that MUNI’s recent funding for expansion of the automatic trackingNextBus system will further advance this effort.50 Responses to Comments Public Health Service Hospital
TR-25. Transportation Demand Management ActionsThe GGBTHD noted that the website with a section dedicated to information on transportation andcommute alternative referenced in Section 2.2.5 does not include updated information on GGT routes anddoes not indicate the Golden Gate Bridge Toll Plaza as a transfer point between GGT routes andPresidiGo.Response TR-25 – The GGT information on the Presidio website has now been updated. The websitenow identifies the toll plaza as a transfer point to PresidiGo, with a link to PresidiGo scheduleinformation. In order to ensure that the information remains up-to-date, a link to the GGBHTD websitedirects web users to the most current information on route schedules.TR-26. Feasibility of Mitigation MeasuresRPN asserted that mitigation measures that lack a practical possibility of implementation do notreasonably meet the mitigation requirements of an environmental evaluation. RPN noted that some of thetraffic mitigation measures identified in the Draft SEIS would require CCSF approval, and that the SEISshould demonstrate that the CCSF is likely to approve such measures. The CCSF asserted that inaccordance with the NEPA, the SEIS must discuss the probability and feasibility of mitigation measuresthat are outside the jurisdiction of the Trust, and commented that although the SEIS analyzes a newintersection on Park Presidio Boulevard north of Lake Street as a variant, it does not provide informationon the likelihood of the variant being constructed. The Pacific Heights Residents Association assertedthat the Trust must work cooperatively with the CCSF to implement traffic mitigation measures, and wenton to suggest that the Park Presidio Boulevard Access Variant is as important to the PHSH as access fromDoyle Drive is to the Letterman Digital Arts campus.RPN also suggested that the mitigation measure for the intersection of Park Presidio Boulevard/LakeStreet would require an additional lane to be built on San Francisco Parks and Recreation land, stated thatthe feasibility of proposed mitigation measures to mitigate adverse traffic impacts has not been adequatelystudied, and suggested that proposed right-turn restrictions “will only mean that traffic will be goingaround in circles, only to end up and increase traffic on Lake Street.” One individual suggested that trafficmitigation measures should be in place before development begins.Response TR-26 – Both the Draft and Final SEIS include a number of transportation mitigation measuresthat are within the CCSF’s jurisdiction, including right-turn-only restrictions at two two-way stopcontrolledintersections. The commenters are correct in noting that the SEIS must discuss the feasibility ofmitigation measures outside the Trust’s jurisdiction. The right-turn-only restrictions could be easilyimplemented by the CCSF and, because the measures involve some additional signage and striping, theycould be implemented at a relatively low cost. The turn restrictions at these intersections would not bedissimilar to the effective turn restrictions for 14 th Avenue at Geary Boulevard. For mitigation of longdelays on minor approaches to two-way stop-controlled intersections, the mitigation measures typicallyconsidered include signalization and all-way stop control. The turn restrictions were suggested as amitigation measure because 1) the minor street peak hour traffic volumes were low enough that signalPublic Health Service Hospital Response to Comments 51
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 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: TR-21. Impact of Additional Traffic
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 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:
Public Health Service Hospital Resp
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?