2.
Response
to
Comments
2.9
Individual
Responses
to
Comments
from
Organizations
improvements
included
in
the
transportation
analysis
are
considered
to
be
reasonably
foreseeable,
they
were
included
as
a
cumulative
2030
baseline
condition.
It
is
acknowledged
that
Caltrain
would
be
the
preferred
choice
of
transit
for
trip
ends
to
the
south.
According
to
Table
4.N-21
(page
4.N-87
of
the
Draft
EIR),
a
very
small
percentage
(between
of
transit
trips
would
occur
between
the
Baylands
site
and
Central
Brisbane.
The
news
article
dated
May
2013
from
Palo
Alto
Online
identified
by
Comment
states
that
Caltrain
is
operating
above
capacity;
however,
pursuant
to
CEQA
Guidelines
Section
15125(a)
the
existing
conditions
used
in
the
transit
impact
analysis
were
documented
at
the
time
of
the
NOP
for
Project
Site
development.
The
traffic
impact
analysis
in
the
Draft
EIR
assumes
the
transit
improvements
described
starting
on
page
4.N-53.
The
baseline
conditions
assumed
in
the
impact
analysis
are
based
on
the
best
information
available
at
the
time
of
the
Notice
of
Preparation.
It
should
also
be
noted
that
the
EIR
for
the
Brisbane
Baylands
analyzes
Baylands
development
at
a
program
level
as
discussed
1,
and
provides
a
starting
point
for
subsequent
planning,
design,
and
environmental
analysis
of
site-specific
development
and
future
implementation
activities.
As
discussed
1,
future
site-specific
development
proposals
within
the
Baylands
will
be
subject
to
further
environmental
review.
At
that
time,
the
need
for
new
mitigation
measures
or
adjustments
to
existing
mitigation
measures
would
be
considered
and
could
be
imposed
if
necessary
to
mitigate
significant
impacts.
The
CalEEMod
model
used
to
calculate
GHG
emissions
uses
countywide
emission
factors
for
San
Mateo
County.
These
are
composite
emission
factors
comprised
of
adjusted
VMT
weighted
emission
factors
for
each
speed
within
a
given
vehicle
class.
Consequently,
the
model
indirectly
assumes
an
“average”
vehicle
speed
within
the
county,
which
typically
is
somewhere
around
30
to
35
miles
per
hour.
This
includes
freeway
travel.
While
new
nearby
developments
would
likely
house
Brisbane
Baylands
workers,
this
would
occur
for
both
the
DSP
and
CPP
development
scenarios.
The
worker
pool
would
also
be
drawn
from
nearby
existing
neighborhoods,
intra-city,
intra-county,
and
inter-county
residences.
That
is
why
vehicle
trip
lengths
for
home-to-work
trips,
as
well
as
all
other
trip
types,
must
rely
on
average
trip
lengths
for
aggregate
level
analyses
such
as
a
GHG
assessment.
For
the
Baylands,
vehicle
trips
assumed
default
trip
lengths
for
urban
land
uses,
which
are
embedded
in
the
CalEEMod
model.
Because
the
GHG
analysis
uses
vehicle
trip
generation
projections
for
each
Brisbane
Baylands
Final
EIR
2.9.3-72
May
2015