2.
Response
to
Comments
2.10
Individual
Responses
to
Comments
from
Individuals
2.10
Individual
Responses
to
Comments
from
Individuals
2.10.1
Anonymous
Anonymous-1
[See page
5-536 for the original comment]
As
stated
on
Draft
EIR
page
4.N-5,
the
intersections
selected
for
analysis
in
the
Draft
EIR
were
chosen
based
on
proximity
to
the
Baylands
Project
Site,
their
location
on
key
access
roads,
and
the
likelihood
that
each
location
might
be
adversely
affected
by
Project
Site
development-related
trips.
In
determining
which
intersections
to
analyze,
the
City
of
Brisbane
incorporated
input
received
from
San
Francisco,
Daly
City,
and
San
Mateo
County.
The
Bayshore
Boulevard/Airport
Boulevard/US
101
Ramps
and
Airport
Boulevard/Sister
Cities
Boulevard/Oyster
Point
Boulevard
intersections
were
not
included
for
study
since
the
majority
of
the
land
use
is
concentrated
at
the
northern
section
of
the
Baylands
site
and
would
be
most
logically
accessed
via
the
Beatty
Avenue/Alana
Way/Harney
Way
interchanges.
Anonymous-2
[See page
5-536 for the original comment]
The
cumulative
traffic
analysis
undertaken
for
the
Draft
EIR
includes
consideration
of
the
buildout
of
the
Sierra
Point
Subarea
within
the
City
of
Brisbane.
See
Master Response
23
for
discussion
of
impacts
along
the
US
101
freeway
and
Master Response 22
for
discussion
of
cumulative
traffic
analysis
conditions.
Anonymous-3
[See page
5-537 for the original comment]
this
comment
raises
no
significant
environmental
issues
regarding
the
adequacy
of
the
EIR
or
its
analyses
and
conclusions.
Anonymous-4
[See
page
5-537
for
the
original
comment]
Table
4.N-31
identifies
cumulative
traffic
conditions
without
proposed
project
site
development.
In
the
absence
of
development
within
the
Baylands
Project
site,
no
mitigation
from
Baylands
development
is
provided.
Thus,
the
far
right
hand
column
(LOS
after
Mitigation)
is
left
blank.
Starting
on
page
4.N-43,
the
Draft
EIR
discusses
the
rationale
for
including
future
roadway
improvements
under
cumulative
without
project
conditions.
As
noted
in
Draft
EIR
Table
4.I-1,
General
Plan
Policy
337
requires
development
within
Baylands
to
include
“a
phasing
schedule
for
development
to
limit
the
adverse
impacts
of
too
rapid
growth.”
Table
4.I-1
notes
that
the
DSP
and
DSP-V
scenarios
are
inconsistent
with
this
policy
since
the
proposed
Brisbane
Baylands
Specific
Plan
“does
not
tie
the
rate
of
land
development
to
the
availability
of
infrastructure,
which
could
lead
to
the
establishment
of
new
uses
outstripping
the
capacity
of
infrastructure
during
initial
phases
of
development
prior
to
project
buildout.”
Unless
the
City
modifies
or
removes
Policy
337
from
the
General
Plan,
any
specific
plan
approved
within
the
Baylands
will
be
required
to
establish
2.10.1-1
Brisbane
Baylands
Final
EIR
May
2015
Next Page