|
Minutes
Of the
Presidio Neighborhood Representative Work Group
Friday, May 1, 2009 at 1 p.m.
City Hall
1 Dr. Carlton Goodlett Place, Rm. 278
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Don Green called the meeting to order at 1:15 p.m.
Present:
1. Cow Hollow Association – David Bancroft;
2. Lake Street Residents Association – Bill Shepard;
3. Laurel Heights Improvement Association – Donald Green;
4. Marina Community Association – Martin Beresford;
5. Marina Cow Hollow Neighbors and Merchants – Patricia Vaughey;
6. Neighborhood Associations for Presidio Planning – Judith Hulka;
7. Pacific Heights Residents Association – Carol Brownson;
9. Planning Association for the Richmond – Ray Holland;
8. Presidio Heights Association of Neighbors – Ron Blatman;
10. Presidio Environmental Council – Doug Kern;
11. Sierra Club – Becky Evans (and Jan Blum as member of public)
Absent:
12. Golden Gate Valley Neighborhood Association – Bob David;
13. Jordan Park Improvement Association – Rich Worner;
14. Marina Merchants Association – Peter Singh;
15. San Francisco Architectural Heritage Organization – Jack Gold;
16. Sea Cliff Properties Association – Chris Donohoe
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES By motion of Rebecca Evans and second by Ray Holland the minutes were approved.
3. CHAIR REPORT
A. Estimated time line:
This is a possible timeline allowing six months (Aug-Jan) for 106 consultations, following the August revised FOE, before reaching agreement and issuance of new programmatic agreements. If it takes three months, rather than six, the Trust issuance of final documents, short of the ROD, could be in Nov-December this year, with construction beginning in Aug-Sep of 2010.
June 1, 09: Final Date Comments received, NEPA and NHPA (106)
August: Revised 106 Finding of Effects, including changes to MPU with respect to location, size, design, footprint, schedule for each major project. A revised MPU or revised SEIS is not planned; see below re Final MPU and Final SEIS.
Sept-Oct-Nov: Resolution Phase of 106 attempt to reach agreement on mitigation, avoidance, minimizing adverse effects presented in Revised FOE, based on changes in MPU. This will determine in large part what the Final MPUISEIS/FOE will be.
Dec-Jan 2010: New Programmatic Agreements signed for Main Post. including separate Archeology Agreement. These lay down content (by reference) and procedures to follow under NHPA Section 106 in managing the Main Post Final Update, PTMP Amendment.
Feb-Mar, 2010: Final MPU, SEIS/FOE issued.
April 2010: Record of Decision (allows Trust stated 30 days to receive public comment on final docs.)
May-Ju12010; 106 public review of design documents; continuing negotiation of terms with CAMP, possibly Larkspur and SFFI, if ready with financing.
Aug-Sep 2010: Trust Preparation and signing of Development Agreement with CAMP, possibly others: lease terms, construction design and schedule.
Nov-Dec 2010: Construction begins.
B. The Workgroup’s report on the SDSEIS is due in four weeks, on June 1, but a final draft can be distributed to city agencies. By August there could be another document from Trust incorporating changes in response to comments. This may propose a smaller lodge and museum. It would likely take another 6 months after August to reach agreement in the resolution phase.
There was discussion of what the final reports of the workgroup should include. There is a need to address the vision and use of the Main Post as well as the specific details responding to the proposals in the SDSEIS. It is difficult to distinguish NEPA comments on proposed building from historic preservation issues. There is a need to address cumulative effects in addition to comments on individual building proposals. The 106 process and the NEPA process are going on concurrently, but information becomes available in one process that seems relevant in the other.
Mr. Shepard noted that the recent traffic meeting held by the Trust had brought out something new: diagrams showing were parking would be on the Main Post, included street parking where it had not been before. This is at odds with a policy of moving parking off streets and putting it in off-street lots.
4.REVIEW OF DRAFT REPORT COMPOSED BY DOUG KERN
Page-by page consideration of the draft resulted in a number of editorial changes in wording and organization. A question was raised about an apparent increase in size of the addition to the theatre that should be reviewed.
Mr. Bancroft noted that it is still the case that the SEIS is defective because the alternatives presented are not alternatives that address the stated purpose and need. Mr. Kern pointed out that having a restored parade ground would meet the purpose and need of revitalizing the Main Post. Ms. Vaughey concurred, noting that the Marina Green is an active and vital space precisely because no permanent attractions are located there: it provides a space for people to come and relax and play, and they do.
There were questions about the fact that the Trust has revised the parade ground plan, but it is not clear by what process.
Visitation, Transportation, and Parking.
A. Comprehensive traffic plan. Mr. Green contacted the Victoria Transportation Center who maintain the TDM Encyclopedia (http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/index.php), and Nelson\Nygaard, a firm that has served as transportation planning consultant on several projects in the Presidio. In these discussions he concluded that the Trust needs a comprehensive parkwide (Area A and B) traffic management plan including parking, and a Transportation Management Plan, not just program options available. Just looking at the Main Post ignores opportunities for parking in areas not in the Main Post and does not take into account specific likely growth in other areas of the Park. The MPU SDSES proposes addressing traffic and parking problems in a variety of ways as they may arise. But it does not provide the basis for an informed judgment of the impacts of the proposed changes in the Main Post in the context of the long term outlook for the Park.
B. Visitation. The numbers the Trust uses still don’t look good. (At the transportation meeting Mr. Richard P. Emerson, on the Board of Trustees of the California Academy of Sciences, said they had 4 or 5 times the number of visitors they anticipated based on the use of building square footage.)
The Trust staff now agrees that weekend traffic will be as significant as weekday. Mr. Green will submit expanded comments for D. Kern on Visitation by next Wednesday.
C. Parking. Literature suggests: 1. the more parking spaces you provide the more traffic you get. 2. With a parking fee comparable to downtown, demand decreases by 10-30 %, not the under 5% assumed in the SDSEIS.
A specific competitive fee structure should be incorporated in the SEIS demand for spaces, rather than tacked on as a TDM tool to use if needed.
Mr. Green presented some new approaches to parking lots around the main post. Others thought that developing such detailed proposals would be trying to solve the Trust’s problems for them; the workgroup’s task is to point this out as a particular problem they need to solve. The Trust should reduce the total number of places and get them out of the Main Post. Extensive parking in the Main Post is against Park Service guidelines.
Question: if parking lots as well as parking structures are considered new construction. The DSEIS does not include surface lots or underground parking in total square footage of new construction. Perhaps underground parking proposed should be included in the SEIS total construction area.
Mr. Green proposed the Trust be asked to re-negotiate contract with Lucas, and suggested that the Lucas garage should be available on weekends.
D. Traffic on Presidio Avenue. The number of cars at peak hours on Presidio Avenue is expected to rise by 60% in next 10 years. That includes both drive-through traffic, and traffic going to the Presidio. A problem on Presidio Avenue is children crossing the street to schools. Residents want the Trust to stop the cut through traffic. But traffic still will be increasing with new attractions on the Presidio. Arguello has the same situation. The Trust should commit to a plan to reduce cut through traffic. The Trust should also provide a clear view of what growth in traffic is expected on these streets. There should be a specific plan to address this increase in traffic. The TDM statement now in the SEIS that a variety of steps may be taken, where several would seem either unlikely to occur, or to be effective, is not adequate to understand the impacts likely to occur and how to remedy them.
#. PUBLIC COMMENT
It was noted that May 28 & 29 at 2 p.m. students in Environmental Science from Galileo HS who have been working with Doug Kern at the Presidio will show their graduation projects. He has also been involved in toxic waste and restoration of Tennessee Hollow while working on drafting the document for this workgroup.
#. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 2:45 p.m.
|
