Response to Comments - Presidio Trust

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 2. Organization of Responses to Comments on the PHSH Draft SEISTOPICEnvironmental ReviewProcessSUBJECT MATTERConcurrent Negotiations with the Private Development TeamProject ApprovalsAdhering to Local Regulations and City InvolvementDepending upon the level of public interest within a topic and its subject matter, comment summariesmay encompass comments submitted by substantial numbers of commenters, or very few. Directquotations from particular commenters are included in the comment summaries where they are helpful incommunicating the essence of a group of comments. In the same instances, individual or representativecommenters are often identified by name. In most cases, commenters are not identified by name in thecomment summaries, and those seeking responses to comments of a particular individual or organizationshould consult the index of responses (Section 3) to determine their location.Responses immediately follow each subject matter summary and have been prepared by Trust staff andconsultants following review of the comment summary and the full text of the original comments. Allcomments have been considered and responded to equally. Their importance is not weighted by thesource of the comment or any commenter characteristic. Every comment or suggestion has value,whether expressed by one or a hundred commenters, and comments have been addressed for theirsubstance, not for their frequency.Responses provide explanations and clarifications related to the content of the Draft SEIS. Wherechanges to the document have been made in response to comments, these are identified. Where questionsare posed by the commenters, these are answered or acknowledged as outstanding issues. References tothe SEIS, technical analyses, and other source materials are included as appropriate. Cross-referencingbetween responses is kept to a minimum, resulting in some repetition where the subject matter ofcomment summaries are similar.ORIGINAL COMMENTSWhile the comment summaries are intended to accurately reflect commenters’ view and suggestions, theydo not replace the comments in their original form. The original comments are available for review at thePresidio Trust Library, 34 Graham Street, in the Presidio, and constitute part of the formal public record.All comments have been made available to the Presidio Trust Board of Directors, and comments togetherwith the entire record will be considered by the Board in making the final decision following publicationof the Final SEIS.6 Introduction Public Health Service Hospital
1 Responses to Comments1.1 GENERAL COMMENTS (GE)GE-1. Adequacy of Information in Draft SEISThe City and County of San Francisco (CCSF), Neighborhood Association for Presidio Planning (NAPP),and others stated that the Draft SEIS is not “user friendly” and does not present information in a readilyunderstandable format. They said it is difficult for the public to follow the logic and format of theinformation presented. Tables lack basic information that would allow the public to assess impacts of theproject, mitigation measures are vague and unspecified, and little information is provided about many ofthe required environmental topics.At the same time, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which is charged with reviewingDraft EISs prepared by other federal agencies and rating them using a rating system that provides a basisupon which the EPA makes recommendations to the lead agency for improving the document, awardedthe Draft EIS its highest rating (Lack of Objections or LO). The EPA suggested minor changes to theDraft EIS (specifically related to air quality impacts) and recognized the “Trust’s multiple objectives aswell as the effort to address prior concerns associated with the previous Environmental Assessment…”Response GE-1 – While the Trust appreciates the opinion expressed by the CCSF in this comment, itshould be noted that many reviewers of the Draft SEIS, including members of the CCSF staff, were ableto use the document with sufficient ease to provide the Trust with insightful and constructive comments.These specific comments have been responded to in this Final SEIS, which also includes a number oforganizational changes designed to make the information more easily accessible to even casual readers.For example:• “Existing” transportation data have been included in the same tables as the data for each alternative infuture year 2025.• The discussion of traffic volumes through the 14 th and 15 th Avenue Gates has been expanded toclarify how much of the forecasted volume is associated with the project and how much is attributableto pass-through traffic. Existing traffic volumes have also been added to the table summarizingtraffic volumes through the 14 th and 15 th Avenue Gates.• In response to a request from the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District(GGBHTD), geographic distribution of trips generated by the project has been included in the FinalSEIS (see Table 11).• In response to comments from the CCSF and other reviewers, Table 12 has been added to the FinalSEIS, comparing the factors considered in determining the relative significance of traffic impacts tothose used by the CCSF Planning Department.Public Health Service Hospital Response to Comments 7
Page 7 and 8: Sharon KatoAnsel D. KinneyRich Koch
Page 9: Table 2. Organization of Responses
Page 13 and 14: during the initiation of scoping fo
Page 15 and 16: within the level of activity analyz
Page 17 and 18: million more than Alternative 4. Co
Page 19 and 20: AL-5. Incorporation of Park Presidi
Page 21 and 22: Table 3. Traffic Signal Warrants An
Page 23 and 24: leads me to conclude that the Trust
Page 25 and 26: ehabilitated or redeveloped; most o
Page 27 and 28: approaches would fall within the ra
Page 29 and 30: of the alternatives would remove bu
Page 31 and 32: “unenlightening.” They noted th
Page 33 and 34: The project provides for adequate b
Page 35 and 36: used, in conjunction with other dis
Page 37 and 38: the Park Presidio Boulevard Access
Page 39 and 40: The traffic volumes associated with
Page 41 and 42: associated with the Lone Mountain C
Page 43 and 44: Table 4. Trip Generation DataWEEKDA
Page 45 and 46: to another location in the neighbor
Page 47 and 48: Response TR-12 - In response to the
Page 49 and 50: Boulevard and the proportion coming
Page 51 and 52: agrees with commenters that measure
Page 53 and 54: TR-21. Impact of Additional Traffic
Page 55 and 56: TR-25. Transportation Demand Manage
Page 57 and 58: Response TR-28 - The Trust will con
Page 59 and 60: Table 6. Existing + Project Conditi
Page 61 and 62:
TR-31. Estimated Traffic Generated
Page 63 and 64:
Table 9. Traffic Count Data at 15 t
Page 65 and 66:
• Clarification of footnotes;•
Page 67 and 68:
uilding (See SEIS Section 3.7.2). T
Page 69 and 70:
one-hour and eight-hour average CO
Page 71 and 72:
demand on weekends under Alternativ
Page 73 and 74:
any increase in storm water flow fr
Page 75 and 76:
Habitat), proposed human use associ
Page 77 and 78:
any potential effects to water qual
Page 79 and 80:
The Trust will determine whether th
Page 81 and 82:
2 Public Agency CommentsUnited Stat
Page 83 and 84:
80 Public Agency Comments Public He
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
2.5 GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE, HIGHWAY AND
Page 101 and 102:
2.6 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISC
Page 103 and 104:
Public Health Service Hospital Resp
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Chiuchiarelli, Nicky: (AL-2), 11; (
Page 119 and 120:
Knox, Aliza: (AL-4), 13; (AL-5), 15
Page 121 and 122:
Santamaria, David, Founder and Advi
show all

Response to Comments - Presidio Trust

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?