2.
Response
to
Comments
2.10
Individual
Responses
to
Comments
from
Individuals
An
alternative
land
use
approach
where
development
within
the
Baylands
is
redistributed
southerly
would
result
in
potential
transportation
and
biological
impacts
due
to
the
considerations
discussed
above,
but
would
reduce
effects
of
new
development
on
local
wind
patterns
and
sailboarding
at
Candlestick
Point.
While
locating
higher
intensity
development
primarily
within
the
southern
portion
of
the
Baylands
would
reduce
differences
between
proposed
Baylands
development
intensities
and
existing
development
intensity
within
Visitacion
Valley,
the
Draft
EIR
relies
on
building
design
techniques
imposed
as
part
of
the
City’s
design
review
process
to
address
the
compatibility
of
uses
between
the
Baylands
and
Visitacion
Valley.
This
is
the
same
process
used
by
the
City
and
County
of
San
Francisco
to
address
differences
in
building
heights
and
development
intensity
between
Visitacion
Valley
and
the
now-approved
Schlage
Lock
development.
The
planning-related
issues
raised
in
this
comment
will
be
considered
in
the
planning
review
process
for
the
Baylands.
The
issue
of
environmental
justice
touched
upon
in
this
comment
is
addressed
in
detail
in
Response
The
comment
is
correct
that
a
number
of
significant
traffic
impacts
have
been
identified
in
Section
4.N,
Traffic
and
Circulation
.
As
noted
in
the
Draft
EIR,
significant
traffic
impacts
would
result
from
the
cumulative
projects
identified
in
Table
6-1
of
the
Draft
EIR
even
if
no
development
within
the
Baylands
would
occur.
As
described
in
the
No
Project
No
Build
alternative
in
Chapter
5
of
the
Draft
EIR,
in
the
absence
of
Baylands
development,
the
Geneva
Avenue
extension
and
improvements
to
the
Candlestick
interchange
would
not
be
built,
and
would
be
left
for
others
to
finance
and
construct.
In
some
cases,
mitigation
has
been
identified
in
the
Baylands
Draft
EIR
that
would
feasibly
reduce
impacts
to
less
than
significant.
In
other
cases,
mitigation
has
been
identified
that
is
physically
feasible
but
not
legally
feasible
because
the
improvement
would
need
approval
of
another
jurisdiction
beyond
Brisbane’s
control
(e.g.,
Caltrans,
San
Francisco,
and
Daly
City).
In
these
cases,
impacts
are
identified
as
being
significant
and
unavoidable
because
implementation
of
the
proposed
mitigation
measure
cannot
be
ensured,
and
no
legally
feasible
mitigation
therefore
exists.
For
some
intersections,
significant
unavoidable
impacts
would
only
occur
in
some
development
scenarios
(e.g.,
CPP
and
CPP-V)
but
could
be
mitigated
for
other
development
scenarios
(e.g.
DSP
and
DSP-V).
In
making
its
planning
decision
regarding
whether
to
approve,
modify,
or
not
approve
development
for
the
Baylands,
the
City
of
Brisbane
will
review
the
impacts
that
will
result
from
proposed
Project
Site
development,
evaluate
relevant
planning
and
economic
issues,
and
solicit
additional
community
input
through
public
hearings
to
weigh
benefits
that
may
be
derived
from
Project
Site
development
approval
against
the
impacts
of
proposed
development.
Brisbane
Baylands
Final
EIR
2.10.12-3
May
2015