2.
Response
to
Comments
2.9
Individual
Responses
to
Comments
from
Organizations
As
stated
in
Mitigation
Measure
4.N-1f,
a
Transportation
Management
Plan
would
improve
operating
conditions
to
acceptable
levels
of
service.
However,
the
conclusion
is
that
the
impact
is
significant
and
unavoidable
because
the
mitigation
would
require
action
outside
of
the
lead
agency.
As
stated
on
page
4.N-150,
emergency
vehicle
access
for
Project
Site
development
has
been
determined
to
be
less
than
significant.
No
reference
is
made
to
Candlestick
Park;
rather
the
Draft
EIR
uses
inputs
from
the
arena
analyzed
in
the
Candlestick
Point/Hunters
Point
Shipyard
project,
which
is
proposed
to
have
a
similar
mix
of
density,
business,
and
retail
establishments
as
the
Baylands.
As
stated
in
the
conclusion
for
Mitigation
Measure
4.N-1f,
the
impact
from
a
sold-out
arena
event
is
significant
and
unavoidable.
As
stated
in
the
conclusion
for
Mitigation
Measure
4.N-1f,
the
impact
from
a
sold-out
arena
event
is
significant
and
unavoidable
because
it
must
rely
on
San
Francisco
for
implementation.
The
proposed
Transportation
Management
Plan
would
be
developed
by
the
operator
and
be
subject
to
approval
by
San
Francisco
Municipal
Transportation
Agency
(SFMTA),
the
San
Francisco
Police
Department,
and
the
City
of
Brisbane.
Mitigation
Measure
4.N-1g
specifies
that
a
microsimulation
analysis
of
all
proposed
intersections
along
the
Geneva
Avenue
extension
be
conducted
if
intersection
spacing
is
less
than
1,200
feet.
As
stated
the
microsimulation
analysis
called
for
in
Mitigation
Measure
4.G-1g
was
conducted,
and
concluded
that
signal
timing
could
be
achieved
such
that
(1)
traffic
would
not
back
up
from
one
intersection
to
another
along
the
proposed
Geneva
Avenue
extension,
even
where
intersections
were
closely
spaced,
and
(2)
roadway
level
of
service
performance
standards
along
Geneva
Avenue
would
be
met.
See
6
for
discussion
of
“significant
unavoidable”
impacts
in
relation
to
“unacceptable”
impacts.
The
Draft
EIR
makes
no
assertions
as
to
whether
project
impacts
are
acceptable
or
unacceptable,
nor
does
it
make
assertions
as
to
whether
development
scenarios
or
alternatives
are
appropriate
or
inappropriate.
Determinations
as
to
the
acceptability
of
impacts
and
the
appropriateness
of
scenarios
and
alternatives
are
part
of
the
City’s
planning
review
for
the
Baylands
and
not
part
of
the
environmental
review
process
under
CEQA.
Brisbane
Baylands
Final
EIR
2.9.2-190
May
2015