2.
Response
to
Comment
2.4
Master
Responses
to
Comments
Conservation
As
described
on
pages
4.O-2
to
4.O-4,
following
adoption
of
the
WSIP
in
2008,
the
SFPUC
in
2009
adopted
a
new
Water
Supply
Agreement
with
its
Wholesale
Customers
that
replaced
the
original
1984
agreement.
The
2009
Agreement
continued
the
184-mgd
Supply
Assurance
established
in
the
1984
Agreement.
This
Supply
Assurance
is
the
total
maximum
annual
supply
amount
allocated
to
the
Wholesale
Customer
group.
It
is
not
a
guarantee
for
water
delivery
in
every
year,
but
rather
the
basis
for
establishing
individual
allocations
to
each
wholesale
customer.
These
supply
allocations
can
be
reduced
during
water
shortages,
emergencies,
or
maintenance
of
the
system,
and
the
2009
Agreement
establishes
the
rules
and
procedures
for
such
delivery
reductions.
As
described
in
the
Draft
EIR
on
page
4.O-
3
under
“Water
Shortages,”
in
ord
er
to
address
water
allocation
during
dry
years,
an
Interim
Water
Shortage
Allocation
Plan
(IWSAP)
was
created
to
implement
supply
delivery
reductions
of
up
to
20
percent
for
the
SFPUC
and
its
Wholesale
Customers
(as
a
whole).
Under
normal
hydrologic
conditions,
Wholesale
Customers
receive
69.4
percent
(184
mgd)
of
the
SFPUC
annual
total
supply
(265
mgd).
A
20-percent
systemwide
drought
reduction
scenario
results
in
a
28-percent
reduction
in
deliveries
to
the
Wholesale
Customer
group;
the
delivery
cutback
percentage
to
individual
agencies
within
the
Wholesale
Customer
group
could
be
higher.
Thus,
as
one
of
the
Wholesale
Customers,
Brisbane
must
already
prepare
for
and
accommodate
significant
supply
reductions
in
dry
years.
In
addition,
as
described
on
pages
4.O-30
to
4.O-31
and
analyzed
on
pages
4.O-31
through
4.O-44,
the
Specific
Plan
includes
an
aggressive
water
savings
program
that
reduces
water
demands
from
Project
Site
development,
including
a
recycled
water
plant
to
provide
water
for
irrigation
purposes.
2.4.30
Master
Response
30,
Windsurfing:
Significance
Criteria
for
Analysis
of
Windsurfing
Impacts
Comments
A
number
of
comments
questioned
the
threshold
used
in
the
Draft
EIR
to
determine
the
significance
of
impacts
on
windsurfing
resources.
The
comments
also
included
assertions
that
the
City
of
Brisbane
should
have
adopted,
but
did
not
formally
adopt,
a
threshold
used
in
the
Draft
EIR.
Some
comments
asserted
that
the
threshold
used
in
the
Draft
EIR
provides
an
inadequate
basis
against
which
to
determine
the
significance
of
impacts
of
proposed
Baylands
development
on
windsurfing
resources
at
Candlestick
Point
State
Recreation
Area
(CPSRA).
In
addition,
some
comments
asserted
that
the
threshold
was
inappropriately
taken
from
an
EIR
prepared
by
the
City
of
Burlingame.
Response
In
response
to
a
San
Francisco
Boardsailing
Association
(SFBA)
letter
on
the
Notice
of
Preparation
for
the
Brisbane
Baylands
Draft
EIR,
a
detailed
analysis
of
the
impacts
of
Project
Site
development
on
the
CPSRA
windsurfing
area
was
undertaken
for
the
Draft
EIR.
Including
that
Brisbane
Baylands
Final
EIR
2.4-90
May
2015