2.
Response
to
Comments
2.10
Individual
Responses
to
Comments
from
Individuals
requirements
and
performance
standards
tying
the
pace
of
land
development
to
the
availability
of
services,
facilities,
and
infrastructure,
including
the
roadway
and
interchange
improvements
related
to
the
Bi-County
Program
pursuant
to
the
provisions
of
Draft
EIR
Mitigation
Measure
4.I-1.
[See
page
for
the
original
comment]
Where
there
would
be
no
impact
or
an
impact
is
less
than
significant,
no
mitigation
is
required,
and
LOS
after
mitigation
is
not
listed
in
the
table.
While
Mitigation
Measure
4.N-1a
was
determined
to
be
physically
feasible,
since
the
intersection
of
Geneva
Avenue
at
Bayshore
Boulevard
is
within
Daly
City,
the
Draft
EIR
concluded
that
because
the
City
of
Brisbane
had
no
authority
to
impose
the
measure,
Mitigation
Measure
4.N-1a
was
legally
infeasible.
The
proposed
mitigation
measure
was
intended
to
reduce
traffic
congestion,
and
any
resulting
increase
in
travel
speeds
during
peak
hours
would
therefore
be
consistent
with
the
posted
speed
limit.
No
safety
issues
would
therefore
result
from
elimination
of
existing
traffic
congestion.
Because
the
City
of
Brisbane
could
not
ensure
implementation
of
Mitigation
Measure
4.N-1a,
the
impact
was
considered
to
be
significant
and
unavoidable.
[See
page
for
the
original
comment]
Table
4.N-6
identifies
existing
transit
services
available
in
the
area
of
the
Baylands
Project
site,
and
does
not
provide
any
analysis
of
capacity.
The
methodology
used
in
the
Draft
EIR
to
evaluate
transit
capacity
utilization
is
described
starting
on
Draft
EIR
page
4.N-85.
As
stated
on
page
4.N-134,
ridership
volume
“with
or
without
Project
Site
development
is
not
forecasted
to
exceed
capacity
on
the
Caltrain
line,
based
on
the
peak
hour
service
levels
operated
by
Caltrain
as
of
April
2012
(five
trains
in
each
direction
during
the
AM
and
PM
peak
hours),
1
including
those
trains
that
currently
pass
the
screenline
without
stopping
at
the
Bayshore
Station.”
See
for
discussion
of
impacts
along
the
US
101
freeway.
The
study
referred
to
in
Comment
is
the
San
Francisco
/
San
Mateo
Bi-County
Transportation
Study.
As
stated
in
the
footnote
on
page
4.N-30,
the
Bi-County
Transportation
Study
specifically
acknowledged,
“at
the
time
of
the
Bi-County
needs
assessment,
the
best
information
known
about
the
Brisbane
Baylands
was
the
potential
for
some
additional
housing.
New
information
since
the
assessment
was
completed
has
become
available,
including
the
option
for
up
to
4,400
new
housing
units,
but
this
information
is
not
reflected
in
the
assessment.”
The
analysis
of
impacts
in
the
1
The
number
of
trains
serving
the
Bayshore
Station
has
remained
at
one
per
hour
per
direction
since
issuance
of
the
NOP
(December
2010).
Thus,
current
schedules
provide
an
appropriate
baseline
condition.
Brisbane
Baylands
Final
EIR
2.10.1-2
May
2015