|
Minutes
of the
Presidio Neighborhood Representative Work Group
Friday, April 10, 2009 at 1:00 p.m.
City Hall
1 Dr. Carlton Goodlett Place, Rm. 278
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Meeting called to order by Acting Chair Don Green at 1:12 p.m.
Present: Cow Hollow Association – David Bancroft; Golden Gate Valley Neighborhood Association – Bob David; Lake Street Residents Association – Bill Shepard; Laurel Heights Improvement Association – Donald Green; Marina Cow Hollow Neighbors and Merchants – Patricia Vaughey; Marina Merchants Association – Peter Singh; Neighborhood Associations for Presidio Planning – Judith Hulka; Pacific Heights Residents Association – Carol Brownson; Planning Association for the Richmond – Ray Holland filling in for Redmond Kernan; Presidio Environmental Council – Doug Kern; Sierra Club – Becky Evans.
Absent: Jordan Park Improvement Association – Rich Worner; Marina Community Association – Martin Beresford; Presidio Heights Association of Neighbors – Ron Blatman; San Francisco Architectural Heritage Organization – Jack Gold; Sea Cliff Properties Association – Chris Donahoe.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of April 3 meeting: Acceptance moved by Becky Evans, seconded by Ray Holland, accepted.
3. CHAIR REPORT
Vice-Chair Don Green reviewed items from two meetings since last Friday’s meeting of the Workgroup. At Tuesday’s open meeting of the Presidio Trust Board Craig Middleton said the Presidio had no plans to put in traffic signal lights, either inside or outside the Presidio. There was discussion of how this comment should be understood in light of proposals for traffic mitigation and the mention of signals in the PTMP.
2. Meeting with Superintendent Brian O’Neil (NPS-GGNRA) a. Cumulative impact on Crissy field of total visitation. He will be asking for about the total impact on traffic in the park and the impact of the proposed action singly. b. The question of the obligation of a federal agency operating within a city of county to cooperate with the local government was discussed. O’Neal said it was normal procedure not to ignore a park’s impact on local jurisdictions or to ignore the Park Service’s general goal to reduce traffic in National Parks.
4. REVIEW DRAFT REPORT
Doug Kern reported that the draft is largely complete except for visitation, parking and traffic. There is an issue of how to define the “footprint” of the new construction; Park Service’s definition is “disturbance of the land” while proposed development uses only the square footage occupied by the building. Many of the group’s previous comments to the DSEIS still apply to the SDEIS.
5. UPDATE FROM MTA STAFF
Jerry Robbins of MTA joined the meeting at 2:05 p.m. Process the city uses in deciding on new traffic signals was discussed. MTA review of the transportation portion of the document found it did not tell a clear story. The analysis does not look at existing conditions compared with existing conditions plus the project. The existing conditions were compared only to the 2030 projection of all cumulative growth, which is very speculative. This makes it hard to discern what growth in traffic can be attributed to the proposed project.
There was discussion of appropriate traffic data to collect for this type of project; what data was used for GGP concourse, what data currently exists for neighborhood streets in proximity to such projects. Whether Level of Service, appropriate for commuter routes, is useful for analyzing traffic problems in this case was raised. Weekend data is also significant. Mr. Robbins said he would check on what data MTA has collected on neighborhood streets near main routes into the Presidio.
6. PUBLIC COMMENT
A question was raised about the nature of the “gift” from the Fishers. There was discussion of various conditions apparently imposed by Fisher, including maintaining sole curatorial authority which was thought inappropriate.
There was also discussion of problems with the process involving the public. Recent meetings with the labeled by the Trust as “informational” have only taken public comment, whereas the meeting with the Board which was labeled as taking public comment presented new information on the art museum.
7. TIMELINE
We should be 95% done by next Friday. April 27th is the deadline for both 106 and SEIS comments. We need more time to be granted by the Presidio Trust to do an adequate job.
|
