Response to Comments - Presidio Trust

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
Response TR-28 – The Trust will continue to monitor transit passenger loads in the Presidio. Thelocation of monitoring will vary by the transit route/line being monitored. GGT routes will likely bemonitored by transportation department staff at Richardson Avenue, at the Golden Gate Bridge TollPlaza, or at Park Presidio Boulevard. Frequency of monitoring will depend on the general degree ofoccupancy of Presidio buildings in the area. Transit ridership information is also gathered from Presidioemployees and residents through Presidio employee and resident surveys. Also see Response toComment TR-10.TR-29. Readability of SEISThe CCSF commented that it was difficult to sort through the traffic analysis and get a clear assessmentof the data being reported, and made specific suggestions about how to incorporate existing plus projectdata to make the intersection LOS tables more understandable. The CCSF and some individuals alsosuggested that Table 13, which compares traffic volumes at the 14 th /15 th Avenue Gates under the variousalternatives, also separately list the existing volumes at the 14 th and 15 th Avenue Gates in order to showthe changes in volume on each street under the various alternatives, and that project-generated traffic beshown separately from cumulative growth traffic and cut-through traffic. One individual commented thatthe traffic section of the SEIS was “vague, lacking in substance and sometimes simply unrealistic.”Another individual stated that “the data that underlie the trip generation numbers presented in the SEISdoes not allow one to calculate the numbers that are presented in the SEIS.”Response TR-29 – The Final SEIS has been revised to describe more clearly the incremental results ofeach step of the analysis methodology, including trip generation rates, internal and external splits, modalsplits, trip linking, and trip distribution (see Appendix B). The existing (2005) gate volumes have beenadded to Table 15 for reference. Table 15 also now shows traffic not generated by the alternatives andexpected to travel through the gates. The existing plus project analysis has been updated to reflect the2005 traffic counts and transit data as well as the revised trip generation rate for preschool use (seeResponse to Comment TR-6). However, the analysis has not been incorporated into the main body of theSEIS, but instead is provided in Response to Comment TR-30 and Appendix B.TR-30. Existing plus Project AnalysisThe CCSF requested that the transportation analysis clearly show the project-specific impacts and howmuch traffic is attributable to the project, and that the existing plus project analysis be included in themain body of the SEIS rather than the response to comments. The CCSF noted that the CCSF regularlyand methodically uses the Existing plus Project analysis as a method to clearly show project-specificimpacts.Response TR-30 – The Existing plus Project analysis previously included in the responses to commentsin the Draft SEIS has been updated and included below for informational purposes. An “existing plusproject” scenario is by definition an artificial construct, because it assumes that a project can beconstructed overnight and does not make allowances for traffic growth or other changes likely to occur inPublic Health Service Hospital Response to Comments 53
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 and 54: TR-21. Impact of Additional Traffic
Page 55: TR-25. Transportation Demand Manage
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:
Public Health Service Hospital Resp
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?