2.
Response
to
Comments
2.8
Individual
Responses
to
Comments
from
Municipalities
be
provided
to
the
San
Francisco
Office
of
Community
Investment
and
Infrastructure
as
they
become
available.
2.8.3.3
Planning
Department
SFPD-1
[See page
5-57 for the original comment]
See
Master Response 20
for
discussion
of
land
use
compatibility
between
the
Recology
facility
and
adjacent
land
uses
within
the
Baylands.
It
should
also
be
noted
that,
in
addition
to
the
development
included
in
the
CPP-V
scenario,
proposed
new
development
adjacent
to
the
Recology
site
includes
the
proposed
redevelopment
of
the
Schlage
Lock
site
in
San
Francisco,
which
includes
high
density
residential
use
(up
to
8-stories
in
height)
adjacent
to
the
northwest
corner
of
the
Recology
facility.
[See page
5-57 for the original comment]
See
Master Response 28
for
discussion
of
the
location
of
the
Bayshore
Caltrain
Station
assumed
in
the
Draft
EIR.
[See page
5-58 for the original comment]
As
discussed
in
Master
Response
28,
the
location
of
the
Bayshore
Caltrain
Station
used
in
the
Draft
EIR
was
based
on
the
results
of
Bi-County
Transportation
Study;
the
Project
does
not
propose
to
relocate
the
Caltrain
station
further
to
the
south
.
In
addition,
SFCTA’s
2012
Bayshore
Intermodal
Access
Study
recommended
two
station
alternatives
for
subsequent
planning
and
design
of
the
Bayshore
station,
both
of
which
proposed
moving
the
Caltrain
platform
to
the
south.
The
approach
used
in
the
EIR
is
consistent
with
CEQA,
which
allows
an
EIR
to
rest
its
analysis
on
reasonable
assumptions
when
future
actions
are
difficult
to
forecast.
Pursuant
to
the
requirements
of
CEQA,
the
Draft
EIR
addresses
the
physical
environmental
impacts
of
the
proposed
development
program
identified
in
the
project
description,
Draft
EIR
Chapter
3.
The
commenter’s
assertion
that
the
EIR
should
analyze
the
effect
of
relocating
the
Caltrain
station
on
future
transit
funding
is
outside
of
the
purview
of
CEQA,
which
requires
the
lead
agency
to
identify
and
evaluate
the
physical
impacts
of
the
project
on
the
environment.
[See page
5-58 for the original comment]
Comment
SFPD
mischaracterizes
the
Draft
EIR’s
significance
conclusion
in
relation
to
Impa
ct
4.N-7.
As
stated
on
Draft
EIR
page
4.N-140,
a
significant
unavoidable
impact
would
result.
Even
though
payment
of
mitigation
fees
such
as
those
proposed
in
Mitigation
Measure
SFPD-
4
is
common
for
projects
within
San
Francisco,
how
SFMTA
would
actually
use
such
funds
would
be
beyond
Brisbane’s
ability
to
control.
Therefore,
the
implementation
of
this
measure
is
uncertain,
and
the
impact
would
be
significant
and
unavoidable.
SFPD-2
SFPD-3
SFPD-4
Brisbane
Baylands
Final
EIR
2.8.3-8
May
2015
Previous Page | Next Page