Response to Comments - Presidio Trust

1.17 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS (EP)EP-1. Concurrent Negotiations with the Private Development TeamRPN believed that the concurrent negotiations with the private development team have “clouded whatotherwise should be a clear cut decision to select Alternative 3” and have “effectively dictated the endresult.” RPN asserted that the Trust still prefers Forest City’s proposal for 400,000 square feet ofdevelopment and that the Trust “had already made up its mind.”Response EP-1 – The NEPA requires only that the Trust not take any action that would preclude thechoice of other alternatives (40 C.F.R. Sections 1502.2(f), 1506.1(a)). The NEPA does not require that allplanning be suspended during the EIS process. The Trust identified Alternative 2 as the PreferredAlternative, and entered negotiations with Forest City as the development team submitting a proposalgenerally conforming to this alternative. Although the Trust has begun negotiations with Forest City,these negotiations no more commit the Trust to Alternative 2 than the RFQ committed the Trust to pursuedevelopment at all. No actions have been taken that prevent the Trust from ultimately using one of thealternative scenarios, or that otherwise commit the Trust to accepting Forest City’s proposal. The Trusthas demonstrated that it is not wedded to a certain outcome by the fact that it has revamped Alternative 2in response to comments.In order to streamline the proposed project, the Trust has begun negotiations with Forest City to test thebidder’s willingness to adhere to the maximum extent to the Planning Guidelines and to the project’spurpose and need. Thus, the Trust was not precluding the selection of any of the other alternatives,merely indicating the one that in the Trust’s judgment would best fulfill its statutory mission andresponsibilities subject to the completion of the NEPA process. If there were any problems withproceeding with the Forest City proposal, whether environmental concerns or unrelated logisticaldisagreements, the Trust would be free to begin discussions with other project developers pursuant to thesame SEIS. Accordingly, contrary to any perception otherwise, the Trust has made no final decisionbefore having completed the NEPA process for the PHSH project being studied in this SEIS.EP-2. Project ApprovalsCCSF commented that the Draft SEIS lacks information about the process for reviewing and approvingthe project and how the public will have input into the decision-making process.Response EP-2 – In response to the comment, the requested information is provided in the Final SEIS.The Trust will circulate this Final SEIS for at least 30 days before making a decision on the proposedaction, and will hold a public hearing to receive comments during this time period. Although there is norequirement for the Trust to respond to comments received on the Final SEIS, the Trust will considerthese comments before making a decision on the proposed action.74 Responses to Comments Public Health Service Hospital