Response to Comments - Presidio Trust

Also, where additional information was specifically requested by the CCSF or by other reviewers, this hasbeen provided; and where specific comments or questions were posed regarding potential impacts orassociated mitigation measures, these have been addressed individually in this summary of comments andresponses.GE-2. Request for Summary of PTMP EISThe CCSF commented that information from the Presidio Trust Management Plan Environmental ImpactStatement (PTMP EIS) is referenced but not summarized or discussed in a meaningful way in the DraftSEIS. They said the NEPA regulations require that incorporated material be cited in the SEIS and itscontents briefly described. “The reader lacks the critical information at hand to evaluate the analysis ofthis SEIS.”Response GE-2 – The requested Environmental Review Summary was included as Appendix A in theTrust’s Request for Qualifications for the PHSH, which was made available for review by the public. Inresponse to the comment, the Environmental Review Summary is being recirculated as part of the FinalSEIS (refer to Appendix C).GE-3. Significance StandardsThe CCSF stated that the Draft SEIS lacks clear standards for assessing the significance of theenvironmental impacts. They said it was not possible for the reader to evaluate or measure objectivelyagainst a standard the conclusions about the environmental impacts set forth in the Draft SEIS. The CCSFasked that this flaw be corrected in the Final SEIS.Response GE-3 –The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) imposes somewhat differentrequirements, including requirements for significance thresholds, and these may be more familiar to theCCSF. In brief, while impacts are to be discussed in proportion to their significance – which the Trustbelieves it has done – there is no requirement under the NEPA, once the decision has been made toprepare an EIS, to establish thresholds for significance. For further discussion on this issue, refer toPTMP Final EIS, Volume II Response to Comments, pages 4-34 to 4-35 (Response EP-26, SignificanceThresholds).GE-4. Incorporation of Previous CommentsPlanning Association for the Richmond (PAR) noted that it previously submitted comments concerningthe PHSH project, in both public testimony and in writing. PAR did not repeat these comments, butadvised the Trust that it considered all previous comments to be pertinent and incorporated them in theirletter by reference.Response GE-4 – The Trust appreciates PAR’s longstanding involvement in the PHSH planning andenvironmental review process. PAR’s previous comments submitted orally and in writing before or8 Responses to Comments Public Health Service Hospital