2.
Response
to
Comments
2.9
Individual
Responses
to
Comments
from
Organizations
2.9.4
Candlestick
Preservation
Association
Letter
Dated
December
16,
2013
This
is
an
introductory,
general
comment
that
is
detailed
in
the
comments
that
follow.
See
Responses
through
for
response
to
the
air
quality
and
windsurfing
issues
raised
in
this
comment.
CPA
provides
another
description
of
the
sailing
area.
The
sailing
area
evaluated
in
the
Draft
EIR
is
addressed
in
As
is
further
explained
it
is
not
necessary
to
measure
wind
speeds
at
all
points
in
every
part
of
the
described
sailing
area
to
determine
the
wind
effects
of
Project
Site
development.
Given
the
predictability
of
the
phenomenon,
Project
Site
development’s
wind
effects
in
adjacent
areas
of
the
Bay
(both
nearer
and
farther
from
the
shoreline)
can
be
determined
with
reasonable
accuracy,
as
described
32.
As
noted
on
Draft
EIR
page
4.M-5,
the
accumulative
GPS
tracks
used
in
the
Draft
EIR
were
provided
by
the
San
Francisco
Boardsailing
Association
identifying
the
area
that
it
considered
to
be
representative
of
the
primary
sailing
area
in
this
portion
of
the
Bay.
See
for
discussion
of
the
windsurfing
area
analyzed
in
the
Draft
EIR.
Draft
EIR
page
4.M-5
explains
how
the
area
analyzed
in
the
Draft
EIR
was
chosen.
The
northern
part
of
the
area
was
exactly
the
same
as
was
studied
for
the
Executive
Park
EIR.
See
also
Responses
and
See
which
discusses
the
significance
criterion
used
in
the
Draft
EIR.
See
for
additional
discussion
of
the
alternative
impact
analysis
method
proposed
by
the
Candlestick
Preservation
Association
(CPA).
Odor
impacts
of
the
four
scenarios
are
evaluated
in
the
discussion
of
Impact
4.B-8,
which
begins
on
Draft
EIR
page
4.B-45.
Under
the
DSP,
DSP-V,
and
CPP
scenarios,
the
existing
Recology
Tunnel
Avenue
facility
would
remain
unchanged,
resulting
in
no
additional
sources
of
odor.
Also,
as
described
on
page
4.B-46,
the
Recology
expansion
included
in
the
CPP-V
scenario
would
not
result
in
increased
organic
material
throughput
(which
would
be
the
source
of
objectionable
odors,
if
any),
and
therefore
the
expansion
would
not
result
in
additional
sources
of
odor.
Therefore,
because
the
number
of
existing
complaints
received
regarding
current
Recology
operations
is
not
substantial,
according
to
the
BAAQMD,
there
would
be
no
Brisbane
Baylands
Final
EIR
2.9.4-1
May
2015