2.
Response
to
Comments
2.9
Individual
Responses
to
Comments
from
Organizations
intersection
would
be
significant
and
unavoidable.
See
for
information
on
queue
spillback
from
other
road
facilities
at
study
intersections.
The
comment
provides
an
unsubstantiated
conclusion
regarding
emergency
vehicle
access
and
safety.
As
stated
in
the
conclusion
to
Mitigation
Measure
4.N-3e
on
page
4.N-120,
the
development
impact
to
this
intersection
would
be
significant
and
unavoidable.
See
regarding
emergency
vehicle
access.
Mitigation
Measure
4.N-3f
is
designed
to
address
the
specific
impact
identified
at
Intersection
9,
Geneva
Avenue/US
101
Southbound
Ramps.
It
does
not
address
impacts
on
the
freeway
mainline
segments.
As
stated
in
the
conclusion
to
Mitigation
Measure
4.N-3f,
the
implementation
of
the
measure
is
uncertain
and
outside
of
the
City
of
Brisbane’s
jurisdiction,
and
that
the
traffic
impact
would
be
significant
and
unavoidable.
See
for
discussion
of
mainline
freeway
impacts.
The
comment
disputes
the
LOS
after
mitigation
conclusions,
but
provides
no
factual
evidence
to
support
this
assertion.
The
impact
analysis
set
forth
in
the
Draft
EIR
uses
quantitative
inputs
to
determine
intersection
delay
and
LOS.
Furthermore,
because
the
mitigation
measure
requires
designing
the
intersection
and
ramps
to
meet
forecasted
demand,
the
LOS
results
are
reasonable.
Trips
generated
by
local
and
regional
development
are
included
in
the
baseline
Cumulative
Conditions.
See
for
information
on
Cumulative
Conditions.
As
stated
in
the
conclusion
for
Mitigation
Measure
4.N-3g
and
Mitigation
Measure
4.N-3h,
the
mitigation
measures
improve
the
intersection
performance,
but
not
enough
to
reduce
impacts
to
less
than
significant
levels.
Regardless
of
the
improvements
proposed
in
the
mitigation
measures
noted
above,
both
intersections
are
outside
of
the
City
of
Brisbane’s
jurisdiction
and
implementation
of
the
measures
cannot
be
guaranteed.
As
stated
in
the
conclusions
for
both
Mitigation
Measures,
impacts
would
therefore
be
significant
and
unavoidable.
Trips
generated
by
local
and
regional
development
are
included
in
the
baseline
Cumulative
Conditions.
See
for
information
on
Cumulative
Conditions.
The
comment
correctly
states
that
Mitigation
Measures
4.N-3g
and
4.N-3h
rely
on
implementation
by
San
Francisco
and
Daly
City,
respectively.
However,
the
comment
is
incorrect
in
its
assertion
that
San
Francisco
and
Daly
City
would
be
required
to
fund
the
Brisbane
Baylands
Final
EIR
2.9.2-196
May
2015