Response to Comments - Presidio Trust

arriers to access (pedestrian or vehicular) be created. SPUR suggested that instead new opportunities forinterface through pedestrian and bicycle paths and public transit should be pursued and traffic calmingmeasures should be used to slow traffic passing through the 14 th and 15 th Avenue Gates. Someindividuals agreed with the Trust’s assertion that closure of the gates would likely cause friction withneighbors of other entrances, and that instead neighbors and the Trust should be “deepening andstrengthening our relationships.” The San Francisco Bicycle Coalition expressed a desire to retainpedestrian and bicycle access through the 14 th and 15 th Avenue Gates as this access is part of an importantcitywide and regional bicycle route.Response TR-1 – The resolution introduced by the Board of Supervisors in October 2004 is currentlyinactive and pending call of the Chair of the Land Use Committee of the Board of Supervisors. Inresponse to comments on the PHSH EA, the Trust analyzed the traffic conditions that would result fromclosure of the 14 th and 15 th Avenue Gates. A summary of the results is included in responses to commentsin the Draft SEIS (Appendix A).The Trust agrees with SPUR’s position that closure of the 14 th and 15 th Avenue Gates would impede theconnectivity of the PHSH district and the surrounding residential neighborhood. The Trust believes thatkeeping the gates open is critical to providing public access to a national park, and agrees with SPUR’sassertion that maintaining this connectivity also breeds a sense of shared community at the local level.The Trust will make every effort to maintain pedestrian and bicycle access through the 14 th and 15 thAvenue Gates in order to provide the network described in the Presidio Trails and Bikeways Master Plan.However if the city takes measures to block access to the gates, it would be the city’s responsibility toensure that pedestrian and bicyclist access is maintained at these gates. In addition to reducing thenumber of dwelling units and thereby the forecasted traffic generated in Alternative 2, the Trust’sPreferred Alternative, the Trust will provide transportation demand management strategies, transit links toother parts of the Presidio, and traffic calming measures at the project site in order to address the trafficrelatedconcerns of the surrounding neighborhoods.TR-2. Alternatives to Park Presidio Boulevard Access VariantThe GGBHTD indicated that the Draft SEIS does not clearly indicate how traffic on Park PresidioBoulevard will reach the PHSH district, and asked if southbound right turns and northbound left turnswould be permitted from Park Presidio Boulevard at the variant intersection. The GGBHTD alsoquestioned whether the level of service analysis for the variant intersection accurately analyzes the lanedrop immediately north of the intersection, and requested that an explanation be provided for therelatively good level of service at the variant intersection compared to the levels of service at theintersections of Park Presidio Boulevard/Lake Street and Park Presidio Boulevard/California Street. Oneindividual asked how the new intersection would help new residents wishing to go north on Park PresidioBoulevard.One individual suggested building on- and off-ramps connecting Park Presidio Boulevard with WestPacific Avenue/Park Boulevard to provide access to the PHSH district. Another individual suggested that32 Responses to Comments Public Health Service Hospital