2.
Response
to
Comments
2.10
Individual
Responses
to
Comments
from
Individuals
measures
are
not
required
for
reducing
construction-related
DPM
emissions.
From
an
operational
standpoint,
the
Project
Site
development
scenarios
would
generate
new
vehicle
trips.
Most
common
land
uses
such
as
commercial,
retail
and
residential
uses
proposed
as
part
of
the
DSP
and
DSP-V
generate
a
very
small
percentage
of
diesel
vehicle
use.
Gasoline-powered
vehicles
do
not
produce
DPM.
Increased
cancer
risk
values
estimated
for
operation
of
the
four
development
scenarios
included
a
diesel
fleet
mix
of
approximately
8
percent
as
specified
in
the
CalEEMod
model.
The
risk
estimates
use
future
year
emission
factors
developed
by
the
California
Air
Resources
Board
(CARB)
that
account
for
implementation
of
CARB’s
On-Road
Heavy-Duty
Diesel
Vehicle
Regulations.
Dettmer-3
[See page
5-539 for the original comment]
The
impacts
of
Baylands
development
on
air
quality,
along
with
mitigation
measures
for
such
impacts,
are
set
forth
in
Draft
EIR
Section
4.B,
Air
Quality
.
[See page
5-539 for the original comment]
See
Master Response
3
for
discussion
of
the
enforceability
of
EIR
mitigation
measures.
Methods
for
implementation
and
enforcement
of
mitigation
measures
are
set
forth
in
Chapter
4.0,
Mitigation
Monitoring
and
Reporting
Program
,
of
the
Final
EIR.
[See page
5-539 for the original comment]
In
addition
to
analysis
of
traffic
in
Section
4.N,
Traffic
and
Transportation
,
a
health
risk
assessment
was
undertaken,
and
is
discussion
in
Draft
EIR
Section
4.B,
Air
Quality
.
While
the
Draft
EIR
evaluates
the
physical
environmental
impacts
of
proposed
development
within
the
Baylands
based
on
the
significance
criteria
specified
in
each
section
of
Chapter
4,
the
Draft
EIR
makes
no
assertions
as
to
whether
Project
Site
development
or
its
impacts
are
“acceptable”
to
the
community.
Determinations
of
acceptability
will
be
made
as
part
of
the
City’s
planning
review
and
decisionmaking
for
the
Baylands.
See
Master Response
6
for
discussion
of
differences
between
“significant”
impacts
and
“acceptable”
impacts.
“Gridlock”
is
not
defined
as
a
significance
criterion
under
CEQA.
As
stated
on
page
4.N-34,
Brisbane
General
Plan
Policy
38.1
states
that
LOS
for
all
arterial
streets
and
intersections
within
the
City
shall
be
LOS
D
or
better,
except
for
Bayshore
Boulevard
/
Old
County
Road
and
Bayshore
Boulevard
/
San
Bruno
Avenue,
which
shall
be
LOS
C.
Thus,
the
assertion
in
Comment
Dettmer-5
that
LOS
C
needs
to
be
maintained
at
all
intersections
is
incorrect.
While
the
Draft
EIR
identifies
significant
unavoidable
impacts,
it
makes
no
assertion
as
to
whether
any
impact
significant
or
less
than
significant
is
“acceptable”
or
“unacceptable.”
See
Master Response
6
for
discussion
of
“significant
unavoidable”
as
compared
to
“unacceptable”
impacts.
Dettmer-4
Dettmer-5
Brisbane
Baylands
Final
EIR
2.10.2-2
May
2015
Previous Page | Next Page