2.
Response
to
Comments
2.9
Individual
Responses
to
Comments
from
Organizations
of
Preparation.
Additional
discussion
of
the
water
area
evaluated
in
the
Draft
EIR
is
provided
32.
CEQA
requires
that
an
EIR
address
the
physical
impacts
that
would
result
from
a
project.
For
that
reason,
the
Draft
EIR
has
considered
the
physical
impacts
–
the
changes
in
wind
speed
and
turbulence
in
the
CPSRA
windsurfing
resource
–
that
would
result
due
to
the
project.
Wind
analysis
undertaken
for
the
Draft
EIR
states
on
Draft
page
4.M-26
states
“Project
Site
development
would
not
reduce
wind
speeds
enough
to
substantially
impair
windsurfing
in
prime
windsurfing
areas
on
San
Francisco
Bay
or
substantially
impair
access
to
or
from
those
areas
from
the
CPSRA
launch
site.”
Because
windsurfing
would
not
be
substantially
impaired,
an
adverse
economic
or
social
effect
would
not
result.
Information
on
the
significance
thresholds
used
in
the
Draft
EIR
is
provided
in
The
citation
of
Section
4
of
Article
X
of
the
California
Constitution
or
the
San
Francisco
Water
Trail
Act
(Assembly
Bill
1296)
in
Comment
is
not
relevant
to
proposed
development
within
the
Brisbane
Baylands.
The
basic
requirement
of
Article
X,
Section
4
is
a
prohibition
against
impairing
the
public’s
right
to
gain
access
to
the
shoreline.
The
Baylands
Project
Site
is
located
inland
of
San
Francisco
Bay,
separated
from
the
shoreline
by
the
US
101
freeway.
Completion
of
the
stretch
of
the
San
Francisco
Bay
Trail
through
the
Baylands
is
included
in
each
concept
plan
scenario.
Thus,
proposed
Baylands
development
would
not
impede
public
access
to
the
shoreline.
For
this
same
reason,
the
San
Francisco
Water
Trail
Act
also
would
not
apply
to
Project
Site
development.
The
primary
purpose
of
the
San
Francisco
Water
Trail
Act
is
to
create
a
network
of
launch
and
landing
sites
to
allow
people
in
human-powered
boats
and
beachable
sail
craft
to
enjoy
the
Bay
through
single
and
multiple-day
trips
on
the
Bay
(Draft
EIR,
San
Francisco
Bay
Area
Water
Trail
Plan,
SCH#
2007112080,
June
2008).
Furthermore,
in
evaluating
an
action's
compliance
with
Article
X
Section
4,
the
necessary
inquiry
is
whether
the
proposed
project
would
prevent
people
from
going
to
the
seashore,
not
what
people
may
do
on
the
water
once
they
reach
it.
Moreover,
proposed
Project
Site
development
would
not
pose
an
obstruction
to
free
navigation
of
the
Bay
by
means
of
sailboards
in
the
Candlestick
State
Park
Recreation
Area.
The
general
focus
in
Article
X,
Section
4
is
on
actions
impeding
the
public's
access
to
waterways
rather
than
impediments
within
Brisbane
Baylands
Final
EIR
2.9.10-2
May
2015