Response to Comments - Presidio Trust

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Response PN-2 – The Trust has included two project objectives specifically related to compatibility withsurrounding neighborhoods. Section 1.5.3 states the Trust’s objective of limiting traffic and parkingdemand, and Section 1.5.5 states the Trust’s objective of high quality site planning and design“compatible with the NHLD and surrounding neighborhoods.” In addition, the Trust considers provisionof adequate public services and infrastructure of the project – whether by the Trust, by the CCSF, or byprivate providers such as PG&E – to be a pre-requisite for project approval. Projected service levels,service providers, and related issues are described fully in Section 3.9, Utilities and Services. In addition,specific comments received regarding individual public services, perceived infrastructure deficiencies, orother related concerns have been responded to individually in this summary of comments and responses.1.4 ALTERNATIVES (AL)AL-1. Requested No Action Alternative vs. True No Action BenchmarkA number of neighborhood organizations and individuals, including NAPP, commended the Trust foradding the Requested No Action Alternative to the Draft SEIS. However, many expresseddisappointment that the Requested No Action Alternative is not a true “no action” benchmark because itis not based on the present low level of activity at the site. They noted that it is instead based on October2002, a point in time when there was traffic use by tenants such as the Jewish Community Center (JCC),Lone Mountain Children’s Center and the Arion Press, making it, according to NAPP, “the busiest use inrecent history.” Richmond Presidio Neighbors (RPN) believed that the Requested No Action Alternativeis “simply another development alternative” presumably “intended to mislead the public into believingthat many of the impacts, in particular the traffic, will be no worse with Alternative 2 than with thecurrent use.” Furthermore, it appeared to RPN that the alternative assumes substantial new uses of thesite, not consistent with recent uses. They believed that by overstating the amount of footage used forhigh intensity day care uses, the traffic generated by the Requested No Action Alternative was “grosslyoverestimated.” NAPP wanted to see a “pragmatic” no action alternative in the Final SEIS.Response AL-1 – The Requested No Action Alternative presented in the SEIS constitutes exactly the“pragmatic” alternative requested by NAPP in their current comments and by RPN in their comments onthe PHSH EA that were responded to in the Draft SEIS. Though a NEPA “No Action” baseline is notrequired for the reasons explained in Response to Comment A.2.2 (PTMP vs. Existing Conditions as theNo Action Alternative) in Appendix A of the Draft SEIS, the Requested No Action Alternative wasincluded at the request of commenters. It includes uses that either currently exist on the site or uses thatrecently existed on the site and could be reinstituted at any time. Lone Mountain School and Arion Pressare currently located at the site and constitute 4,750 square feet of high-intensity educational use and15,100 square feet of cultural/educational use. In addition, 4,750 square feet of office space formerlyoccupied by the JCC are currently in use by a variety of tenants. Other space that was occupied by theJCC for classroom and other high-traffic uses is currently vacant, but could be reactivated at any timewith no additional environmental analysis, since the uses would require no physical changes and fall well10 Responses to Comments Public Health Service Hospital
within the level of activity analyzed in the PTMP SEIS. The amount of space and type of use includedwas derived from the JCC tenancy.Overall types and intensities of uses included in the Requested No Action Alternative are described fullyin Sections 2.2, 2.3, 3.1.2.1, 3.2.2.1, and elsewhere, and thus there is no intent to mislead. Trip generationrates related to high-intensity day care uses are discussed further in Response TR-6.AL-2. Reconsideration of Preferred AlternativeMany commenters remained “baffled” by the Trust’s preference for Alternative 2 and questioned theTrust’s conclusions that Alternative 2 is the “best balance” and has virtually the same impacts as otheralternatives. They contended that Alternative 3 better meets the project objectives and that there is unitedagreement among diverse stakeholders that Alternative 3 is the best solution for the environment, theneighborhood, and the national park setting.The NPS expressed its “strong preference” for Alternative 3. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS) encouraged the Trust to adopt Alternative 3 because they believed it would result in the leastpotential impacts to the San Francisco lessingia, an endangered plant, compared to the other alternatives.Members of Golden Gate Audubon Society said that they greatly appreciated the Trust’s past efforts torestore the California quail in the Presidio, but were “surprised and disappointed” that the Trust identifiedan alternative that may jeopardize the good work done in restoring quail habitat. They told the Trust itshould retract its decision and instead choose Alternative 3 as the Preferred Alternative. The Sierra Clubargued that the larger 350-unit housing complex under Alternative 2 would exceed the expected demandof park-based employees. “The PTMP does not provide for building new housing units in excess of thedemand by park based employees and should be rejected.”RPN reiterated the Draft SEIS statement that Alternative 3 is financially feasible. They noted that thealternative satisfies the financial objective of generating $1 million in annual base rent by 2008 andgenerates $207 million over the 75-year lease term. Citing the Draft SEIS, they noted that Alternative 3also requires the lowest capital outlay of $55 million. They continued: “[t]he Trust maintains that itsfinancing goals generally are ‘to obtain from each building project what the market will bear, whileprotecting and balancing park values.’” They offered that Alternative 3 better protects and balances parkvalues, and better satisfies the PTMP goal as identified in the EA of “balancing the preservation of publicopen spaces and resources with building uses that support both the financial needs of the park and thegoal of serving the public.”RPN submitted that the PHSH site could best serve the public if the Trust selects Alternative 3, which ismore compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and with the sensitive habitats of national park land,and which is supported by the broader community. The Lake Street Residents Association (LSRA)echoed this position, stating that there is no financial justification for pursuing Alternative 2 whenAlternative 3 provides “generous revenues without the high capital requirements and at a level ofdevelopment more in scale with its surroundings as a project situated amidst a sensitive wildlife habitatand adjacent to a relatively quiet residential neighborhood.” The LSRA further stated “Alternative 3Public Health Service Hospital Response to Comments 11
Page 7 and 8: Sharon KatoAnsel D. KinneyRich Koch
Page 9 and 10: Table 2. Organization of Responses
Page 11 and 12: 1 Responses to Comments1.1 GENERAL
Page 13: during the initiation of scoping fo
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?