actions at these sites, <strong>to</strong> the extent they are known and reasonably related <strong>to</strong> the project, are described indetail in the SEIS (see, e.g., Sections 3.2.2.8, 3.2.2.9, 3.3.2.2 through 3.3.2.5, 3.3.2.7, and 3.5.2.7; seealso <strong>Response</strong> <strong>to</strong> Comment ER-2). Additionally, the mitigation measures described in the SEIS fullyaddress and reduce any potential impacts of the project as they relate in any way <strong>to</strong> the remediationactivities at these sites (refer <strong>to</strong> Section 3.11.3, Mitigation Measures). Comprehensive informationregarding the planned remediation activities at these sites has been made available <strong>to</strong> CCSF and othermembers of the public through the <strong>Presidio</strong>’s independent decision-making process that includes formalpublic notice, review, and comment. As stated in the SEIS, final remedies for these sites will be subject<strong>to</strong> additional public participation and comment prior <strong>to</strong> remedy implementation (see Section 2.2.1).Further follow-up by the public regarding these sites, including the nature of hazardous materials present,timing for remediation, involvement of resource agencies with jurisdiction, and moni<strong>to</strong>ring and reportingrequirements, may be addressed at that time. For more information regarding these sites, see also RevisedFeasibility Study for the Main Installation Sites (<strong>Presidio</strong> <strong>Trust</strong> 2003d) and Landfills 8 and 10 FeasibilityStudy Report (Erler & Kalinowski, Inc. 2005).ER-2. Impact on Lobos Creek from Landfill 10The CCSF asserted that the presence of hazardous materials on the PHSH site at Landfill 10 is onlymentioned tangentially in the discussion of hydrology, wetlands, and water quality. The CCSF contendedthat because of the adjacency of Lobos Creek, a source of water supply for the [<strong>Trust</strong>] and NPS, this is acritical element for any environmental impact discussion and this discussion is missing from the SEIS. “Asection should be added <strong>to</strong> the SEIS <strong>to</strong> characterize the hazardous materials and evaluate the potentialimpacts from all the alternatives…” They continued: “[t]he SEIS acknowledges the potential forcontamination of the Lobos Creek watershed, but provides no specific information about how <strong>to</strong> protectagainst the contamination…” And concluded: “[t]he mitigation measures themselves could yieldenvironmental impacts, particularly with respect <strong>to</strong> installation of s<strong>to</strong>rm water drainage system upgradesand slope stabilization. Because the SEIS does not provide any detailed description of the measures <strong>to</strong> beundertaken, it is impossible <strong>to</strong> evaluate either the effectiveness of the mitigation measures or possible sideeffects of the measures.”<strong>Response</strong> ER-2 – To the extent necessary, information regarding the environmental conditions at Landfill10 and mitigation measures <strong>to</strong> address potential effects on water quality associated with Landfill 10 arediscussed in Section 3.11, Hydrology, Wetlands, and Water Quality and other sections in the SEIS. TheSEIS includes mitigation measures <strong>to</strong> adequately eliminate any potential effects on water quality,including potential degradation of surface and groundwater quality due <strong>to</strong> runoff. The mitigationmeasures identified include maintenance of existing and new drains and culverts <strong>to</strong> ensure that runoff isnot altered or diverted <strong>to</strong>ward Landfill 10 or the Lobos Creek watershed and groundwater basin (seegenerally Section 3.11.3, Mitigation Measures, and specifically Mitigation Measure NR-15 WaterResources Best Management Practices: “[d]ue <strong>to</strong> the presence of hazardous waste underlying the largeparking area west of the PHSH, the diversion of subsurface drainage around the underground parkingfacility will not divert <strong>to</strong>ward Landfill 10”). In addition <strong>to</strong> the implementation of water resources bestmanagement practices, the implementation of a S<strong>to</strong>rm Water Pollution Prevention Plan will further reduce72 <strong>Response</strong>s <strong>to</strong> <strong>Comments</strong> Public Health Service Hospital
any potential effects <strong>to</strong> water quality (see generally Section 3.11.3). For additional information regardingthe planned remediation activities in the PHSH district, including the remediation of Landfill 10, seeSections 2.2 and 2.2.1. See also Revised Feasibility Study for the Main Installation Sites (<strong>Presidio</strong> <strong>Trust</strong>2003d).A separate section <strong>to</strong> further characterize environmental conditions within the PHSH district <strong>to</strong> evaluatethe potential impacts from all alternatives is not necessary or required. The potential impacts associatedwith each alternative, including Alternative 2, are adequately discussed in the SEIS and will be avoided ormitigated. For further information regarding remediation activities on sites in and near the PHSH district,see <strong>Response</strong> <strong>to</strong> Comment ER-1.The SEIS includes mitigation measures that would minimize adverse effects on the Lobos Creekwatershed and groundwater basin, including eliminating any potential degradation of water quality due <strong>to</strong>runoff. Among the mitigation measures identified is the maintenance of existing and new drains andculverts <strong>to</strong> ensure that runoff is not altered or diverted <strong>to</strong>ward Landfill 10 or <strong>to</strong>ward Lobos Creek (seeMitigation Measure NR-15 Water Resources Best Management Practices in Section 3.11.3 for moreinformation). With respect <strong>to</strong> Alternative 2, any alteration <strong>to</strong> the existing basement structure in thevicinity of Building 1801 and Landfill 10 will be completed in a way that prevents alteration ofsubsurface groundwater flow. Further, “[d]ue <strong>to</strong> the presence of hazardous waste underlying the largeparking area west of the PHSH, the diversion of subsurface drainage around the underground parkingfacility will not divert <strong>to</strong>ward Landfill 10” (see Mitigation Measure NR-15).1.16 OTHER TOPICS (OT)OT-1. Sustainable TechnologiesThe SFPUC encouraged the <strong>Trust</strong> <strong>to</strong> include in the SEIS project-specific sustainable technologies thataddress the use of recycled water, minimize s<strong>to</strong>rm water runoff, and incorporate s<strong>to</strong>rage and reuse. SPURexpressed interest in the applicant’s intention stated in the SEIS <strong>to</strong> incorporate sustainable developmentand building practices leading <strong>to</strong> a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating.<strong>Response</strong> OT-1 – The requested project- and alternative-specific information cannot be made availableearlier than the design phase (i.e., 100-percent construction documents), as the <strong>Trust</strong> will not select aprivate development partner that will develop the sustainable measures until after the environmentalreview process is completed and the Record of Decision is signed. Nonetheless, both development teamshave expressed a keen interest in green design and LEED certification. For a discussion of impacts onSFPUC water and wastewater systems, refer <strong>to</strong> Section 3.9, Utilities and Services.Public Health Service Hospital <strong>Response</strong> <strong>to</strong> <strong>Comments</strong> 73
- 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 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: Habitat), proposed human use associ
- 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: 82 Public Agency Comments Public He
- Page 87 and 88: 84 Public Agency Comments Public He
- Page 89 and 90: 86 Public Agency Comments Public He
- Page 91 and 92: 88 Public Agency Comments Public He
- Page 93 and 94: 90 Public Agency Comments Public He
- Page 95 and 96: 92 Public Agency Comments Public He
- Page 97 and 98: 94 Public Agency Comments Public He
- 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: Public Health Service Hospital Resp
- Page 107 and 108: Public Health Service Hospital Resp
- Page 109 and 110: Public Health Service Hospital Resp
- Page 111 and 112: Public Health Service Hospital Resp
- Page 113 and 114: Public Health Service Hospital Resp
- Page 115 and 116: Public Health Service Hospital Resp
- 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