2.
Response
to
Comments
2.9
Individual
Responses
to
Comments
from
Organizations
The
paragraph
starting
at
the
bottom
of
page
4.N-103,
ending
on
page
4.N-104
is
revised
to
read
as
follows:
As
show
in
Figures
through
in
Chapter
3,
Project
Description
,
of
this
EIR,
Beatty
Avenue
would
provide
access
to
a
small
area
of
land
east
of
the
Caltrain
tracks
between
the
existing
Recology
site
and
the
Geneva
Avenue
extension
under
the
DSP
and
DSP-V
scenarios,
whereas,
Beatty
Avenue
would
be
eliminated
under
the
CPP
and
CPP-V
scenarios.
Thus,
proposed
land
uses
east
of
the
Caltrain
tracks
between
the
existing
Recology
site
and
the
Geneva
Avenue
extension
in
the
CPP
scenario
would
not
be
able
to
take
access
from
Beatty
Avenue,
and
would
instead
be
required
to
take
access
from
north/south
local
street
intersecting
with
Geneva
Avenue
to
the
south.
In
the
CPP-V
scenario,
the
Recology
expansion
would
encompass
the
entire
area
east
of
the
Caltrain
tracks
and
north
of
the
Geneva
Avenue
extension.
Should
Beatty
Avenue
be
abandoned
prior
to
the
completion
of
Geneva
Avenue
extension,
non-
Recology
lands
east
of
the
Caltrain
tracks
between
the
existing
Recology
site
and
the
future
Geneva
Avenue
extension
would
be
left
without
access
until
the
Geneva
Avenue
extension
was
completed,
and
traffic
that
would
have
otherwise
used
Beatty
Avenue
would
be
forced
onto
other
streets,
adversely
affecting
traffic
flow.
As
a
result,
the
City
of
Brisbane
would
not
be
able
to
make
the
necessary
findings
required
for
abandonment
of
Beatty
Avenue
prior
to
the
completion
of
Geneva
Avenue
extension.
As
stated
and
27,
future
development
of
approved
and
proposed
projects
is
not
included
in
the
analysis
of
existing
and
existing
plus
project
conditions.
However,
future
development
of
approved
and
proposed
projects
is
included
in
the
analysis
of
cumulative
without
and
with
project
conditions.
Table
4.N-28
reports
existing
plus
project
traffic
volumes
along
US
101
freeway
mainline
segments
for
existing
plus
project
conditions,
and
therefore
does
not
include
traffic
from
future
development
of
approved
and
proposed
developments
in
the
vicinity
of
the
Baylands.
Results
of
intersection
LOS
analysis
under
cumulative
conditions
are
presented
in
Tables
4.N-31
and
4.N-32.
Results
of
freeway
mainline
segment
LOS
under
cumulative
conditions
are
presented
in
Table
4.N-33.
The
comment
refers
to
topographic
conditions
along
US
101
in
the
vicinity
of
the
Baylands
site,
and
does
not
raise
any
substantive
issues
regarding
the
adequacy
of
the
EIR
or
its
analyses
and
conclusions.
The
addition
of
HOV/HOT
lanes
from
the
San
Francisco
County
border
to
Whipple
Avenue
(southern
San
Mateo
County)
is
part
of
Caltrans
District
4
Transportation
System
Development
Plan
(2011),
but
is
neither
planned
nor
funded.
Brisbane
Baylands
Final
EIR
2.9.2-191
May
2015