Response to Comments - Presidio Trust

neighbors volunteered at the public hearing held on the Draft SEIS that they would help the Trust “makeup the shortfall in some way or another.” To quote one individual: “I know of giving circles in smalltowns in the Midwest that raise a million dollars a year. I think that San Francisco can do better.”The LSRA submitted that an alternative financing approach is available for the Trust that would generateas much revenue from a much smaller project and allow the Trust to maintain greater control over theoutcome. “That is, the Trust could obtain a higher revenue yield from a less intense usage with far lessadverse environmental consequences if it provided more core funding of this project and approached it asa joint-venture with a private developer, instead of handing the site over to a private developer tocapitalize the developers return on this valuable, habitat-sensitive site.”RPN commented that the Trust misconstrued a request to analyze an additional alternative: leasing onlyBuilding 1801 to a private developer for rehabilitation (requiring removal of the wings) while the Trustserves as the developer for all other PHSH district buildings. RPN urged the Trust to seek funding torehabilitate a portion of the buildings itself in order to reduce the scope of the project and maximizerevenue return to the Trust. They claimed if the Trust rehabilitates the Wyman Avenue residences itself,this $400,000 in revenue together with $600,000 from the JCC, Arion Press, and Lone Mountain Schoolleases would allow for smaller or no Building 1801 build-out.Response FI-2 – The essence of the comment is that the Presidio Trust’s environmental analysis isdeficient because it has not fully analyzed smaller project alternatives that might result from one or moresuggested financing approaches. Underlying the comment is a belief that the Preferred Alternative would“maximize build-out” at the PHSH. Both assertions are incorrect.First, the Preferred Alternative does not “maximize build-out” at the PHSH. In connection with theadoption of the PTMP, in 2002 the Trust analyzed the environmental impacts of a number of alternativemanagement plans in the PTMP EIS. The Preferred Alternative under this SEIS is less intensive than theuse that was adopted under the PTMP, i.e., the use that could have been pursued without preparing asupplemental EIS.Second, the project alternatives suggested by the commenters as likely to result from the recommendedfinancial solutions fall within the range of the alternatives already analyzed. For example, if a financialapproach (whether retaining Baker Beach housing or seeking donations from neighborhood groups)would make it possible for the Trust to adopt an alternative that eliminated the hospital’s non-historicwings, the result would be implementation of Alternative 3. Going further, if a financial approach such asthe retention of Baker Beach Apartments were used as justification for not undertaking the PHSH project,the result would be implementation of the Requested No Action Alternative. However, under such ascenario and under any scenario that would demolish the historic buildings at the PHSH site, the Trust’sstated purpose and need for the PHSH project would not be fulfilled.The range of alternatives considered in both the Draft and Final SEIS include everything from “donothing” (the Requested No Action Alternative) to full build-out under the adopted management plan (thePTMP Alternative). Because the projects that could result from one or more of the suggested financial22 Responses to Comments Public Health Service Hospital