2.
Response
to
Comments
2.10
Individual
Responses
to
Comments
from
Individuals
4.O,
Utilities,
Services
Systems,
and
Water
Supply
4.P,
Energy
Table
6-1
indicates
the
significant
unavoidable
air
quality
impacts
that
would
result
from
Baylands
development.
See
4
for
discussion
of
the
planning
and
environmental
review
process,
and
the
concept
of
a
statement
of
considerations
in
relation
to
significant
unavoidable
effects.
This
comment
cites
the
Brisbane
General
Plan
Community
Health
and
Safety
goal,
which
states
in
its
entirety,
“Brisbane
will
be
a
place
where...
the
community
is
aware
of
the
potential
for
natural
and
man-made
disaster
and
has
made
sound
preparations;
the
City
acts
to
prevent
the
loss
of
life
and
property
and
damage
to
the
environment
by
addressing
potential
hazards
in
the
use
of
the
land;
fire
and
police
services
actively
prevent
problems
and
stand
ready
to
respond
to
community
needs;
the
residents
and
businesses
feel
safe
and
can
freely
attend
to
their
daily
lives;
and
there
is
peace
and
quiet.”
See
through
regarding
the
adequacy
of
the
Draft
EIR’s
evaluation
of
contamination
and
remediation
within
the
Baylands
Project
Site.
Analysis
of
potential
impacts
related
to
hazards
is
presented
in
Section
4.G,
Hazards
and
Hazardous
Materials
,
of
the
Draft
EIR,
public
services
are
addressed
in
Section
4.L,
Public
Services
,
and
noise
issues
are
addressed
in
Section
4.J,
Noise
and
Vibration
.
Table
4.I-1
of
the
Draft
EIR
evaluates
the
consistency
of
each
of
the
four
proposed
concept
plan
scenarios
for
the
Baylands
with
local
and
regional
land
use
policies,
including
the
policies
of
the
Brisbane
General
Plan.
Table
4.I-1
concluded
that
each
of
the
four
scenarios
was
inconsistent
with
a
number
of
existing
General
Plan
policies.
Table
4.I-1
of
the
Draft
EIR
states
that
the
DSP
and
DSP-V
concept
plan
scenarios
are
inconsistent
with
General
Plan
Policy
330.1,
which
prohibits
housing
within
the
Baylands;
however,
as
noted
in
that
table
on
page
4.I-37,
the
applicant
for
the
DSP
and
DSP-V
scenarios
proposes
to
resolve
the
inconsistency
by
amending
the
General
Plan
to
remove
Policy
330.1.
Table
4.I-1
also
states
“alternatively,
the
inconsistency
could
be
resolved
by
eliminating
residential
uses
from
the
development
plan.
The
City
will
consider
the
concerns
and
conclusions
raised
in
this
comment
and
determine
the
appropriate
means
for
resolving
General
Plan
consistency
issues
as
part
of
its
planning
review
and
decisionmaking
process.
[See
page
for
the
original
comment]
The
analysis
contained
in
Table
4.I-1
(page
4.I-37)
of
the
Draft
EIR
concludes
that
proposed
development
is
consistent
Brisbane
Baylands
Final
EIR
2.10.8-6
May
2015