Response to Comments - Presidio Trust

Several months ago, the Trust submitted initial documentation to Caltrans for exceptions to mandatoryand advisory design standards, documentation of traffic accident history of the area, and a traffic signalwarrants analysis. Since the initial submittal of these reports, the Trust has revised Alternative 2 (onwhich the submitted analyses were based) to reduce the number of dwelling units and install morerestrictive traffic calming devices on the site. With these changes to Alternative 2, the daily trafficgenerated by the project and therefore the daily traffic that would use the Park Presidio Boulevardintersection has decreased such that the project would not meet any of the three Caltrans signal warrantsfor planned intersections.Caltrans has requested additional information regarding the traffic analysis and Fact Sheets submitted inNovember 2004, including an updated signal warrants analysis. The Caltrans warrants analysis isincluded in Technical Memorandum No. 7 in Appendix B of the Final SEIS. The three Caltrans warrantsapplying to new intersections or intersections where it is not reasonable to count actual traffic volumes aredescribed in Table 4C-101 from the California Supplement to the Manual on Uniform Traffic ControlDevices (MUTCD), which is shown below. The warrants are based on the number of lanes on eachapproach of the major street (Park Presidio Boulevard) and the minor street (new access road), andwhether the location is urban or rural. Because of the traffic signal phasing required for the minor streetapproach, the minor street would have two lanes on the eastbound approach, and Park Presidio Boulevardwould have two or more lanes on each approach. Table 3 below compares the forecasted traffic volumesfor the Trust’s Preferred Alternative (Alternative 2) to the criteria described in Table 4C-101 from theMUTCD. Caltrans is less likely to approve the Park Presidio Boulevard access intersection if none of thethree planning warrants can be met.In response to the suggested connection between Battery Caulfield Road and Pershing Drive, thisroadway connection was considered as part of one alternative in the PTMP EIS (Alternative C). Whilethis roadway connection would offer an additional access route to and from the site, the access would notoffer any advantages over the historic access points of the 14 th and 15 th Avenue Gates that are expected toadequately serve the site. Furthermore, a roadway with regular traffic volumes (beyond the shuttle andemergency vehicles) through this area is not consistent with adopted plans for the area, and could have theeffect of transferring traffic from the vicinity of 14 th /15 th Avenue to the vicinity of the Presidio gate at 25 thAvenue. The adopted PTMP envisions the conversion of Baker Beach Apartments into open space overtime, necessitating the removal of some or all of the roadways in the area. Also, the adopted PresidioTrails and Bikeways Master Plan envisions developing a multi-use trail connecting Battery CaulfieldRoad to Baker Beach Apartments and Lincoln Boulevard along the alignment suggested by thecommenter. This trail alignment traverses a natural area within the USFWS Recovery Area for SanFrancisco lessingia. Its conversion to constant motor vehicle access (as opposed to emergency or moreinfrequent access) would be inconsistent with the Presidio’s plan and could affect recovery goals for thelessingia.16 Responses to Comments Public Health Service Hospital