Response to Comments - Presidio Trust

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
The Trust will determine whether the Final SEIS meets the standards for EIS adequacy under the NEPA,the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA Regulations, and its own NEPA regulations (36 CFR1010), and will make a final decision on the proposed action in a Record of Decision (ROD). The RODwill be a written public record explaining why the Trust has taken a particular course of action and willdescribe:• The decision on the proposed action;• Factors considered in making the decision;• Alternatives considered and the environmentally preferred alternative;• Any adopted mitigation measures or reasons why mitigation measures were not adopted; and• A monitoring and enforcement program for those mitigation measures that were adopted.The ROD will enable the Trust to move forward to implement the proposed action. However, before anyon-site demolition or construction activity begins, implementation will involve a complex preparatorydevelopment process that includes:• Negotiating a development agreement that establishes conditions to the parties’ obligation to enterinto a long-term lease agreement and that addresses matters including deconstruction, demolition,abatement of hazardous materials, necessary permits and approvals, and other on-site preparationissues;• Negotiating a ground lease that establishes appropriate terms and conditions for the long-term use ofthe site;• Performing preliminary site investigation work such as due diligence investigations forenvironmental, archaeological, and other site-related matters;• Securing any necessary permits and approvals;• Soliciting, through competitive contracting procedures, demolition and construction contractors andnegotiating applicable contract terms; and• Preparing architectural design documents, consulting with historic preservation agencies, and seekingpublic input at periodically scheduled public meetings.The Trust currently employs a design and construction review process as part of its permit issuanceprocedures for building and landscape rehabilitation projects. This review process ensures both codecompliance as well as compliance with The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment ofHistoric Properties. The design review process for rehabilitation of buildings at the PHSH district willlargely follow the design and construction permit review process already in place, with the exception ofcreating more opportunities for public input in the design phase.Public Health Service Hospital Response to Comments 75
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 and 76: Habitat), proposed human use associ
Page 77: any potential effects to water qual
Page 81 and 82: 2 Public Agency CommentsUnited Stat
Page 83 and 84: 80 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 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?