(updated May 7, 2009)

Please clarify whether the revised draft Main Post Update (MPU) dated February 2009 replaces the draft June 2008 version, and if so, whether the earlier version is no longer valid and subject to public comment. Similarly, is it appropriate to comment on both the draft SEIS and the supplement to the draft SEIS?

The June 2008 MPU describes the proposed action, which was analyzed as Alternative 2 in the draft SEIS. The February 2009 revised draft MPU describes the Trust’s preferred alternative, the impacts of which are analyzed in the supplement to the draft SEIS. As stated in the Trust’s Notice of Intent to Prepare a Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (http://library.presidio.gov/archive/documents/NOI_MainPost_Dec2008.pdf), you may comment on all of the available documents. The Trust will consider and respond to comments on all of the drafts when developing the final documents.

Please further clarify if all of the documents are current for the purposes of review, then how can the design guidelines in the first MPU be applicable when the revised design of the art museum in the supplement to the draft SEIS includes features that do not fall within those guidelines? There are no design guidelines included with the revised draft MPU. Is the preferred alternative to be evaluated with regard to the original design guidelines? If not, what guidelines should the public apply to comment on this structure? Are comments based on the original guidelines relevant?

As would be expected, the more recent versions of the draft documents contain the most current information. The February 2009 draft MPU incorporates the standards and design guidelines for the Main Post that were identified in 2002 Presidio Trust Management Plan (PTMP) in addition to more recent recommendations for design treatments in the Main Post. See page 48 of the MPU. The June 2008 draft of the Main Post Update presented project-specific design guidelines that tiered from the PTMP design guidelines. In the course of the Section 106 Consultation under the National Historic Preservation Act, the Trust worked with the National Park Service, the State Historic Preservation Officer, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation to develop strategies that would allow for compatible new construction on specific sites in the Main Post. The Strategies for Conforming to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards are the result of that collaboration and were presented to consulting parties and the public in the fall of 2008. They can be found on pages 48 – 55 of the MPU. On page 49 of the MPU, the reader is encouraged “to compare the project details from the implementation section with the strategies.” The Strategies constitute parameters within which project proponents can design a project that would be compatible with the historic Main Post. The Strategies supersede the project-specific design guidelines that were presented as part of the first draft of the Main Post Update.

There appear to be different depictions of the art museum in the Trust documents, which differ from the display at the Main Post Information Center (Building 105). For example, the photo simulations of the art museum do not show an extended roof, which is different from the display in Building 105.  It also appears that lengths and widths of the new museum buildings are not provided, so it is difficult to understand the dimensions other than the square footage noted. Finally, the Main Parade structures, pathways, and surfaces should be provided to visualize and understand the proposed new construction and landscaping.

The draft finding of effect (FOE) and supplement to the draft SEIS analyze the museum as described on pages 38-39 of the MPU. The graphics in the draft FOE, supplement and MPU are massing studies based on this description, and use the dimensions (including height, width and length) that are described on pages 38-39. No attempt has been made to depict the specific design details. Reviewers of these graphics should utilize the accompanying captions and legends, which have been provided to assist in understanding the information each graphic conveys. So for example, the graphic on page 39 of the MPU depicts floor plates of the museum facility and the proposed uses within the buildings.

The display in Building 105 reflects a conceptual design based on the museum proponent’s interpretation of the Strategies for Conforming to the Secretary’s Standards presented by the Trust last fall and described at pages 48-55 of the MPU. If elements of the proponent’s response seem inconsistent with the parameters set forth in the Main Post Update, reviewers are urged to comment accordingly.

With regards to the photo simulations in the draft FOE and supplement, they depict the existing built environment with an overlay showing proposed new construction. Thus, although Building 385 is proposed for removal under the MPU, it is still present in Figure W2 in the draft FOE to serve as a point of reference. The Trust will consider all comments regarding graphics and will make changes where appropriate in the final versions of these documents.

Finally, the Trust plans to present the latest conceptual plans for the Main Parade project to consulting parties under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act within the comment period on the MPU. The plans are also on display for the public in Building 105, and will be addressed in the forthcoming calendar of public meetings.

Is the museum proponent’s submissions (on which the Trust based its overall dimensions and design elements that appear in the Building 105 display and in the MPU and draft FOE) the latest information available to the public?

The project details in the MPU are the Trust's preferred approach to new construction for the Contemporary Art Museum at the Presidio (CAMP). The display in Building 105 represents the CAMP team's interpretation of the Strategies for Conforming to the Secretary's Standards found on pages 48-55 of the MPU. That and the conceptual renderings also on view in Building 105 are the latest information about the new design for the CAMP. The design itself is in the early stages and will continue to evolve.

There is insufficient information in the supplement to the draft SEIS and the revised draft FOE for the public to visualize the overall impact of the CAMP structure viewed from the most probable viewpoints. In addition, the visual simulations in the documents do not fully agree with other information that has been provided, nor are the perspectives optimal for showing adverse effects. The perception of the public will be a structure far more massive and intrusive than the existing bowling center.

As discussed in Section 3.8 Visual Resources of the supplement to the draft SEIS and the viewshed analysis in Section 3.2.2 of the revised draft FOE, the CAMP and Presidio Lodge would change views of the Main Post from its streets and public areas. These changes are illustrated in visual simulations provided in Figures 23-27 of the Supplement and Figures W1-W7 in the revised draft FOE. The visual simulations provide an objective and reliable means of depicting the future visual appearance (and identifying the changes in visual conditions) of the Main Post using the best information available at the time the images were prepared. The visual simulations are limited in the sense that they only provide representative fixed viewpoints as identified in Figure 22 in the Supplement and cannot demonstrate all views of the Main Post with the proposed CAMP and Presidio Lodge. owever, the Trust reviewed and determined the visual simulations to accurately represent the overall location, height, and scale of the proposed structures. Design of the structures could be refined as part of the project planning, NHPA Section 106, and approval process. The figures provide adequate information to review the change in views and scale of development for the NEPA and NHPA analyses.

Transportation

The Trust is supporting the installation of traffic lights on the Arguello Boulevard and Presidio Avenue thoroughfares as necessitated by the additional traffic that would be created by various proposals within the Main Post.  Traffic lights are inappropriate in a neighborhood consisting largely of single-family residences and small residential apartment buildings, with virtually no commercial establishments.

The Trust has not proposed traffic signals at City intersections.  As required, the Trust has identified mitigation measures for potential future cumulative traffic impacts. The traffic analysis in the draft SEIS and the supplement to the draft SEIS suggests that drivers may experience substantial delay at intersections on Presidio Avenue and Arguello Boulevard – in thirty years. Increased traffic would be due to an array factors, including regional growth as well as visitors coming to the Presidio and motorists using the Presidio as a cut-through. Traffic signals are one possible measure to mitigate the operation of these intersections to an acceptable condition. The decision about what changes, if any, to make to these intersections is the decision of the City.

The pie chart the Trust provided at the meeting on April 22, 2009 (Daily Vehicle Trips: Presidio Area B 2030) shows the projected one-way daily vehicle trips generated in Area B in the year 2030. Please provide the same information for current conditions (Estimated Daily Vehicle Trips: Presidio Area B 2008).

The pie chart the Trust provided at the meeting on 4/22/2009 shows that 53,139 one-way daily vehicle trips are projected to be generated in Area B in 2030. Does this calculation represent an “average” day or does it represent peak conditions? Also, of these 53,139 trips, please provide a breakdown between visitors and employees.

The estimate of 53,139 one-way vehicle trips reflects a combination of typical peak conditions, not average conditions.  For example, the trips for restaurant uses reflect a busy Friday rather than a slow Monday. The estimated trips for the Walt Disney Family Museum are for the day of the week the museum has planned to be open during the evening.  It also reflects a typical busy attendance day for the art museum.  Below is a chart illustrating the proportion of the 53,169 vehicle trips generated by each land use.  These are one-way vehicle trips associated with employees, residents and visitors.  It is difficult to estimate the number of trips by visitors, employees or residents.  For restaurant and retail uses, approximately 90% of the trips are made by customers and 10% are made by employees.

The pie chart the Trust provided at the meeting on 4/22/2009 shows the total projected daily one-way vehicle trips generated in Area B in 2030. Please provide a break-down of these trips for each planning district.

                Projected Daily Vehicle Trips Generated by Area B Uses

What is the Trust’s best estimate of daily vehicle trips in Area A, especially Crissy Field, so the public can understand the total vehicle trips to the Presidio?

The vehicle trips to Area A are captured by the existing traffic counts and seasonal adjustment.

Why did the Trust change the estimated number of visitors to Main Post between the SEIS and the Supplement?

The changes in visitation estimates for the Main Post are described in the table below.

How do the current PM peak-hour traffic volumes through the gates compare to the PM peak hour traffic volumes projected for 2030?

Please see the table below for past, current, and projected PM peak-hour traffic volumes through the gates nearest the Main Post.

Weekday PM Peak-Hour Gate Volumes