2.
Response
to
Comments
2.10
Individual
Responses
to
Comments
from
Individuals
2.10.8
Clara
Johnson
The
comment
refers
in
general
to
the
project’s
inconsistencies
with
the
Brisbane
General
Plan,
but
does
not
address
any
specific
inconsistencies
that
are
or
should
have
been
addressed
in
Section
4.I,
Land
Use
and
Planning
,
of
the
Draft
EIR.
As
noted
on
page
4.I-13
of
the
Draft
EIR,
inconsistency
with
a
land
use
policy
is
not,
in
and
of
itself,
an
environmental
impact
and
does
not
mandate
a
finding
of
significance.
Under
CEQA,
a
planning
inconsistency
is
instead
a
factor
for
the
agency
to
consider
in
determining
the
significance
of
changes
in
the
physical
environment
caused
by
the
Project
site
development.
Thus,
the
comment
does
not
raise
substantive
issues
regarding
the
adequacy
of
the
analyses
and
conclusions
contained
in
the
Draft
EIR,
and
CEQA
therefore
requires
no
further
response.
The
City
will
consider
the
concerns
raised
in
the
comment
as
part
of
its
planning
review
and
decisionmaking.
The
comment
refers
to
the
General
Plan’s
community
character
goal,
which
states
in
its
entirety,
“The
City
of
Brisbane...
and
its
Mountain
will
remain
a
place
independent
and
distinct,
with
a
small
town
quality
and
a
volunteer
spirit,
where
diversity
is
welcomed
and
everyone
can
participate
in
town
meetings,
and
elected
officials
carefully
consider
the
desires
and
needs
of
the
citizens,
and
govern
through
circumscribed
rules
and
regulations,
only
as
required
for
the
public
health
and
safety
and
the
protection
of
the
environment.”
Proposed
Baylands
development
per
the
DSP
and
DSP-V
scenarios
would
place
residents
and
businesses
adjacent
to
San
Francisco
in
addition
to
the
existing
Recology
solid
waste
transfer
facility,
which
spans
the
boundary
between
Brisbane
and
San
Francisco.
The
CPP
and
CPP-V
scenarios
do
not
include
residential
use,
but
would
place
businesses
adjacent
to
San
Francisco
in
addition
to
the
existing
Recology
solid
waste
transfer
facility.
The
manner
in
which
proposed
development
of
the
Baylands
site
may
be
consistent
with
the
goal
of
Brisbane
as
a
“place
independent
and
distinct”
will
be
evaluated
as
part
of
the
planning
review
undertaken
by
the
City
for
the
Baylands.
This
comment
does
not
raise
significant
environmental
issues
regarding
the
adequacy
of
the
analyses
and
conclusions
contained
in
the
Draft
EIR.
Because
“small
town
quality”
is
a
planning,
rather
than
an
environmental
issue,
whether
and
how
proposed
development
of
the
Baylands
site
is
consistent
with
the
goal
of
Brisbane’s
goal
of
“small
town
quality”
will
be
evaluated
by
the
City
as
part
of
the
planning
review
undertaken
for
the
Baylands.
Brisbane
Baylands
Final
EIR
2.10.8-1
May
2015