Response to Comments - Presidio Trust

More documents

Recommendations

Info

• The potential for increased auto congestion interfering with the 1-California MUNI line should beconsidered, based on the expected volumes of auto traffic.• Pedestrian access to transit should be encouraged and auto use should be discouraged in order to“alleviate ever-increasing congestion.”• Increasing auto volumes on residential streets to the point where the street would requiresignalization, dedicated turn lanes, or multiple lanes is a policy matter that should be seriouslyconsidered and discussed with the CCSF and the neighbors.• If the project makes minimal effort to encourage transit over car use, then the project does not helpfurther the MTA’s overall traffic and transit goals and should therefore be asked to fully mitigateevery auto and transit impact.Response TR-33 – The 1-, 1AX-, and 1BX-California MUNI routes are considered perfectly adequate intheir existing configuration to serve the project site. The Trust sees no need or justification to relocate theroute(s) to improve proximity to the project site at the expense of other parts of the Richmond district.Alternative 2 has been revised in the Final SEIS to provide a maximum of 230 dwelling units comparedto the 350 units included in Alternative 2 in the Draft SEIS. This has resulted in an estimated 16- to 20-percent decrease in projected peak hour transit trips generated by the alternative. However, if MUNI doesnot increase service frequencies beyond current levels, the PHSH district could contribute to cumulativepassenger loads that would exceed capacity. Mitigation Measures TR-10 and TR-25 include supportingincreased frequency for transit service as needed. The PHSH alternatives would add traffic to CaliforniaStreet; however, based on the level of service results, the alternatives are not expected to add an amountof traffic that would substantially affect the operation of vehicular traffic (including transit vehicles) at theintersections. Mitigation measures for cumulative traffic and transit impacts are identified in the FinalSEIS.As discussed in Response to Comment TR-9, the Trust’s private development partner, if selected, hasagreed to implement a number of transportation demand management (TDM) measures that wouldsupport and encourage transit ridership. The Trust’s TDM program also includes measures to supporttransit ridership.TR- 34. Clarifications and Editorial CommentsThe CCSF requested several clarifications, more detailed descriptions, and explanations. Specifically,commenters requested:• A discussion of the history of the 14 th Avenue Gate and its closure to vehicular traffic;• Description of the service hours of the MUNI express routes on California Street;• Specificity in naming intersections that would or would not operate at LOS D or better;60 Responses to Comments Public Health Service Hospital
• Clarification of footnotes;• Clearer indication of analysis year in all tables;• Discussion of project’s contribution to increases in transit ridership;• Clarification of whether pedestrian and bicycle trips are internal to the Presidio or external;• Origin of parking turnover rates for particular land use types;• Comparison of future parking demand and supply by alternative to the number of existing parkingspaces;• Clearer discussion of cumulative impacts;• Clearer distinction of mitigation measures and any inclusion in definition of alternatives;• Explanation of why modified signal timing was only applied with the Park Presidio Boulevard AccessVariant; and• Indication of whether the 14 th Avenue Gate would be opened before or during project construction orafter construction activities are complete.Response TR-34 – To the extent possible, the Final SEIS has been revised to address the abovecomments.1.9 HISTORIC RESOURCES (HR)HR-1. Lowering of Building 1801 WingsThe NPS was concerned that the proposal in Alternative 2 to lower the non-historic wings of Building1801 would result in a hybrid of the historic structure and the 1950s additions that would “cloud thehistoricity of the building and the historic structure of the district by adding one more overlay thatdiminishes the overall feeling, association and setting of the NHLD character-defining features.” Theyasserted that the treatment does not conform with guidance for rehabilitation projects provided in theSecretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating HistoricStructures, which recommends recovering important character-defining elements. They believed that, inorder to meet the spirit of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, the wings should either remain as partof the changes made to the building through time or be removed to recapture an important characterdefiningelement of the building.SPUR voiced an interest in a more forward-looking treatment of the non-historic wings of Building 1801,possibly expressing contemporary ideas about ecological building, while also conforming to Secretary ofthe Interior’s Standards for visually distinguishing historic and non-historic building elements. Anindividual offered his opinion that the removal of the top two floors of the wings under Alternative 2would disfigure the building, stating that “it seems architecturally illogical to have 4-floor wingsPublic Health Service Hospital Response to Comments 61
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 and 56: TR-25. Transportation Demand Manage
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: Table 9. Traffic Count Data at 15 t
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 115 and 116:
Public Health Service Hospital Resp
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?