2.
Response
to
Comments
2.9
Individual
Responses
to
Comments
from
Organizations
See
and
for
information
regarding
cumulative
conditions.
While
it
is
reasonable
to
assume
that
there
would
be
transit
demand
growth
in
the
off-peak
direction,
Muni
transit
screenline
analysis
does
not
take
into
account
off-peak
direction
as
capacity
constraints
are
in
the
peak
direction.
The
cumulative
impact
analysis
undertaken
for
the
Draft
EIR
includes
reasonably
foreseeable
future
transit
and
infrastructure
improvements.
The
Geneva-Harney
BRT
has
been
part
of
multiple
studies,
including
the
Bi-County
Transportation
Study,
and
was
included
in
the
list
of
transportation
improvements
used
in
the
analysis.
Geneva-Harney
BRT
is
also
a
project
feature
of
the
Candlestick
Point-Hunters
Point
Shipyard
project,
and
SFMTA
has
committed
to
its
operation.
Should
the
proposed
transit
improvements
described
on
pages
4.N-53
through
4.N-58,
including
the
Geneva-Harney
BRT,
not
be
implemented
at
a
pace
equal
or
greater
than
that
of
Baylands
Project
Site
development,
site-specific
development
proposals
within
the
Baylands
may
not
be
able
to
be
approved
in
reliance
of
the
traffic
analysis
contained
in
the
Brisbane
Baylands
EIR
as
there
may
be
new,
previously
unidentified
or
more
severe
traffic
impacts.
In
such
a
case,
updated
traffic
analyses
and
mitigation
measures
would
be
required
prior
to
the
approval
of
subsequent
site-specific
development
proposals
within
the
Baylands.
The
specific
route
for
an
onsite
shuttle
is
currently
undetermined.
For
the
purpose
of
impact
mitigation
and
to
reduce
transit
demand
on
San
Francisco
transit
screenlines,
the
shuttle
was
assumed
to
connect
to
the
Balboa
Park
BART
Station
and
the
Baylands
site.
Actual
routing
would
be
proposed
as
part
of
site-specific
development
reviews
following
approval
of
a
land
use
plan
for
the
Baylands
as
part
of
the
required
specific
plan(s)
for
the
Baylands.
The
comment
restates
the
Draft
EIR’s
conclusion
from
Mitigation
Measure
4.N-7
on
page
4.N-139
that
the
City
of
Brisbane
cannot
control
the
way
fair-share
contributions
that
Baylands
development
would
be
required
to
provide
toward
SFMTA
capital
improvements.
The
Draft
EIR
therefore
concludes
that
the
Impact
4.N-7
is
significant
and
unavoidable.
The
comment
restates
the
Draft
EIR’s
conclusion
that
Mitigation
Measure
4.N-7
is
beyond
the
jurisdiction
and
control
of
Brisbane
to
ensure
implementation,
and
that
Impact
4.N-7
is
therefore
significant
and
unavoidable.
Brisbane
Baylands
Final
EIR
2.9.2-199
May
2015