Response to Comments - Presidio Trust

warrants in accordance with the MUTCD and California Supplement would not be met, 2) all-way stopcontrol at intersections of Lake Street/14 th Avenue and California Street/14 th Avenue could result inqueues extending into the adjacent intersections on Park Presidio Boulevard, and 3) in comments on thePTMP SEIS, the CCSF expressed a reluctance to install traffic signals at some of these intersections. TheTrust realizes that such mitigation measures are within the CCSF’s jurisdiction and will continue to workwith the San Francisco Department of Parking and Traffic (SFDPT) to develop appropriate andacceptable mitigation measures. SFDPT has indicated that they believe the HCM intersection analysis inthe Draft SEIS methodology overestimates traffic impacts. If the SEIS analysis overestimates impacts, itis possible that unacceptable levels of service identified in the analysis may never occur. The Trust willwork with the CCSF to either implement the turn restrictions or study further, as needed.Unlike the Doyle Drive access to the Letterman Digital Arts Center, the Park Presidio Boulevard AccessVariant is not considered a mitigation measure, because it would not improve the level of service fromLOS E or F to LOS D or better at any study intersections at which there would be a significant effect.All mitigation measures will be implemented before unacceptable conditions occur. As the project siteapproaches full occupancy, intersections expected to require mitigation will be monitored to determinethe appropriate time to implement the measures. The Trust will coordinate with the CCSF in this effort.TR-27. Financial Contribution to Mitigation MeasuresThe CCSF criticized the SEIS for referring to a number of mitigation measures outside the Trust’sjurisdiction without any discussion of how the Trust will contribute its fair share of the cost of themitigation measures. The CCSF also noted that the transit mitigation measures discussed in the SEISinclude monitoring of transit demand, but contain no standards for triggering additional service increases,nor any method for the Trust to contribute its fair share to such increases. The CCSF suggested that thesemitigation measures are inadequate under the NEPA, as they do not provide the public with any methodto measure impacts or to assess the probable timing of necessary service increases.Response TR-27 – Transit Mitigation Measures TR-10 and TR-25 from the PTMP EIS are also includedin the SEIS, and include supporting increased frequencies on transit service if monitoring revealsinsufficient capacity with the service levels scheduled at the time of monitoring. The Trust wouldcoordinate with the CCSF and/or the GGBTHD to determine the contribution of each party to the cost ofthe mitigation measures.TR-28. Transit Monitoring and Mitigation MeasuresThe EPA suggested that because of the future forecasted transit capacity problems, it is especially“important to monitor this capacity on a regular basis and continue close coordination with transitauthorities in order to implement mitigation measures.” The GGBTHD requested more details about themonitoring of GGT routes described in Mitigation Measures TR-10 and TR-25, including who willperform the monitoring, what information will be gathered, and how often monitoring will occur.52 Responses to Comments Public Health Service Hospital