Comment onEnvironmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center Long Range Development Plan; FR Doc. 2012-25409; Heard, James A.

The draft EIS is not adequate because it fails to give adequate consideration of the impact on parking and traffic in the surrounding neighborhood. The existing parking deficit at the SFVAMC is already causing significant adverse impacts in the neighborhood by causing large numbers of SFVAMC workers to park in the surrounding neighborhood where they exacerbate the existing parking shortage. I know this because I see them park on my street, which is 4 blocks away. This also increases the traffic on Clement Street and the nearby north-south Avenues, as these people look for parking. The proposed expansion will, according to the draft EIS worsen the parking deficit (the difference between the number of workers and visitors and the number of on-site parking spaces at SFVAMC), and thus add to the impact on parking and traffic in the neighborhood. The draft EIS claims this impact will not be significant because the additional workers and visitors will supposedly use public transit and/or bicycles. This is pure speculation and in fact contrary to the experience of those of us who live in the neighborhood, and already suffer from the existing traffic and parking impacts. There is simply no factual basis for this assumption in the draft EIS. Consequently, the draft EIS fails to give proper consideration to the parking and traffic impacts of the project. The SFVAMC should either be required to modify the project in order to provide onsite parking equal to the entire additional demand generated by the project, or the draft EIS should be sent back for further study of the real impact of the project as proposed. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Respectfully submitted, James A. Heard