Response to Comments - Presidio Trust

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