2.
Response
to
Comments
2.8
Individual
Responses
to
Comments
from
Municipalities
[See
page
for
the
original
comment]
Comment
mischaracterizes
the
Draft
EIR
by
implying
that
the
CPP
and
CPP-V
scenarios
do
not
have
a
bicycle
circulation
plan.
In
fact,
bicycle
circulation
plans
for
all
four
scenarios
are
provided
in
Figure
4.N-17
and
Table
4.N-7.
The
proposed
development
being
analyzed
includes
a
concept
plan
and
General
Plan
level
information
for
all
four
scenarios
and
specific
plan
level
information
regarding
development
for
the
DSP
and
DSP-V
scenarios.
No
site-specific
development
projects
have
been
proposed,
neither
have
any
specific
tenants
for
onsite
development
been
identified
with
the
exception
of
Recology
modernization
and
expansion
in
the
CPP-V
scenario.
Because
a
specific
plan
only
for
the
DSP
and
DSP-V
scenarios
is
currently
proposed,
the
Draft
EIR
makes
the
reasonable
assumption
that
the
CPP
and
CPP-V
scenarios
would
provide
equivalent
bicycle
mobility
as
the
DSP
and
DSP-V
scenarios.
This
assumption
is
reasonable
given
that
the
original
intent
in
preparing
the
CPP
and
CPP-V
scenarios
and
analyzing
them
at
an
equal
level
of
detail
in
the
Draft
EIR
was
that
the
CPP
and
CPP-V
scenarios
would
differ
from
the
DSP
and
DSP-V
scenarios
in
their
mix
of
land
uses
(main
taining
the
General
Plan’s
prohibition
on
residential
use)
and
development
intensity,
but
that
the
provision
of
open
space,
transit,
bicycle
and
pedestrian
improvements,
and
renewable
energy
production
would
be
equal
to
or
greater
than
the
DSP
and
DSP-V
scenarios.
Mitigation
Measure
4.N-11
sets
performance
standards
for
the
provision
of
bicycle
circulation
plans
in
the
required
specific
plan(s)
for
the
Baylands,
stating
that
the
requirements
of
the
Mitigation
Measure,
along
with
the
equivalent
bicycle
access
shown
in
Draft
EIR
Figure
4.N-11
be
included
in
any
specific
plan
approved
for
development
within
the
Baylands.
This
is
an
introductory
comment
to
the
more
specific
comments
regarding
development
scenarios
and
alternatives
that
follow.
As
such
Comment
raises
no
substantive
issues
regarding
the
adequacy
of
the
Draft
EIR
or
its
analyses
and
conclusions.
No
further
response
is
necessary.
The
reference
in
Comment
SFMTA-
29
to
Figures
4
and
5
in
relation
to
the
DSP
and
DSP-V
scenarios
is
unclear
since
no
such
figure
numbers
appear
in
either
the
Draft
EIR
or
in
the
proposed
Brisbane
Baylands
Specific
Plan
or
Infrastructure
Plan
prepared
by
the
applicant
for
those
scenarios.
See
for
discussion
of
mode
splits
and
for
discussion
of
the
Bayshore
Caltrain
Station.
Figures
4.N-
15
and
4.N-16
show
proposed
BRT
route
and
an
intermodal
station
connecting
BRT
to
the
Caltrain
station,
as
well
as
transit
routes
through
the
Baylands.
Brisbane
Baylands
Final
EIR
2.8.3-23
May
2015