2.
Response
to
Comments
2.9
Individual
Responses
to
Comments
from
Organizations
Chapter
6.0
also
summarizes
some
of
the
key
points
in
Section
4.M.
As
discussed
in
Section
4.M,
the
standards
in
Brisbane’s
General
Plan
and
Municipal
Code,
as
well
as
the
State’s
Quimby
Act
for
parkland
provision
are
based
on
residential
population,
and
not
non-residential
uses
(office,
commercial,
industrial
etc.).
This
is
because
the
primary
demand
for
park
and
recreation
facilities
comes
from
local
residents,
rather
than
workers
who
would
use
parks
and
recreational
facilities
for
informal
activities
on
weekdays
before
and
after
work,
as
well
as
during
lunch
breaks.
These
weekday
times
do
not
represent
the
peak
hours
for
park
use,
which
occur
on
weekends
and
holidays
when
workers
are
not
present.
The
exception
to
this
is
for
organized
team
sports
(i.e.,
softball
and
other
athletic
leagues)
where
fees
are
required
and
availability
of
facilities
can
be
controlled
by
the
City.
Nevertheless,
the
Draft
EIR
(page
4.M-21)
acknowledges
in
the
DSP
and
DSP-V
scenarios
that
area
workers
will
use
public
parks
and
recreational
facilities.
As
noted
on
page
4.M-21,
applying
the
Municipal
Code
requirement
of
4.5
acres
of
park
land
to
both
Baylands
resident
and
employment
population
would
result
in
a
need
for
up
to
122
acres
of
parkland
in
the
DSP
and
DSP-V
scenarios.
By
comparison,
the
DSP
and
DSP-V
scenarios
provide
a
total
of
133.6
acres
of
park
and
recreational
land,
exclusive
of
habitat
preservation
and
enhancement
areas
that
would
not
qualify
as
park
or
recreational
land.
Thus,
parks
and
recreational
facilities
in
the
DSP
and
DSP-V
scenarios
are
sufficient
to
accommodate
both
resident
and
worker
populations.
Draft
EIR
page
4.M-21
notes
that
the
CPP
and
CPP-V
scenarios,
which
do
not
propose
any
residential
use,
would
generate
14,707
and
14,590
employees,
respectively.
The
Draft
EIR
also
notes
that
the
CPP
and
CPP-V
scenarios
would
provide
more
than
300
acres
of
parks
and
open
space
at
buildout.
OSEC
-
420
The
statement
cited
in
Comment
on
page
of
the
Draft
EIR
addresses
the
No
Project-No
Build
Alternative,
and
draws
no
conclusions
as
to
the
adequacy
of
parkland
within
Brisbane.
The
discussion
on
Draft
EIR
page
6-42
concludes
that
each
of
the
proposed
development
scenarios
would
provide
adequate
recreational
and
open
space
area.
The
quote
cited
in
Comment
OSEC-
422
does
not
address
impacts
of
proposed
Baylands
development.
It
is
taken
from
a
discussion
of
cumulative
impacts
on
page
6-43
of
the
Draft
EIR,
and
describes
a
less
than
significant
impact
of
the
Executive
Park
project,
in
San
Francisco,
which
reads
as
follows:
“As
a
part
of
the
environmental
review
for
the
Executive
Park
project,
wind
testing
was
performed
to
assess
the
individual
effects
of
the
Executive
Park
developments
and
their
cumulative
effects
together
with
Brisbane
Baylands
Final
EIR
2.9.3-131
May
2015