2.
Response
to
Comment
2.4
Master
Responses
to
Comments
Evaluate
a
solid
wall
as
suggested
by
CPA;
however,
this
could
not
occur
because
of
the
internal
roadway
systems
proposed
for
each
alternative,
and
would
not
be
permitted
under
any
of
the
development
scenarios.
Topography,
as
presented
in
grading
plans,
was
modeled
for
each
alternative
and
accounted
for
in
the
wind
tunnel
tests.
The
models
of
the
scenarios
tested
in
the
wind
tunnel
included
the
proposed
grading
of
the
Project
Site
as
described
in
Chapter
3,
Project
Description
,
of
the
Draft
EIR.
Therefore,
it
is
not
necessary
to
add
any
height
to
building
elevations
to
account
for
the
projected
finished
grade
elevation
above
sea
level.
The
“Possible
Project
Building
Heights”
illustrated
in
Figure
5
of
Comment
CPA
2
-19
and
its
text
below
that
figure
do
not
acknowledge
Draft
EIR
Mitigation
Measure
4.A-3,
which
limits
the
heights
of
structures
within
350
feet
of
the
western
edge
of
US
Highway
101
to
a
maximum
of
80
feet.
In
addition,
the
comment
does
not
reflect
the
building
heights
set
forth
in
Figure
4.5
of
the
proposed
Brisbane
Baylands
Specific
Plan
prepared
by
the
applicant
for
the
DSP
and
DSP-V
scenarios.
Figure
5
in
Comment
is
also
overly
simplistic
in
its
assertion
that
an
additional
25
feet
should
be
added
to
the
building
heights
throughout
the
Baylands
as
shown
in
that
figure
to
include
finished
site
grades
above
sea
level,
since
it
does
not
accurately
reflect
Figure
4.4,
Conceptual
Grading
Plan,
included
in
the
Brisbane
Baylands
Infrastructure
Plan
(Draft
EIR
Appendix
B).
Figure
5
in
Comment
asserts
that
buildings
could
reach
185
feet
above
sea
level
in
the
eastern
portion
of
the
site
along
the
south
sides
of
“L”
and
“M”
Streets.
While
proposed
grades
in
that
area
would
in
fact
be
25
feet
above
sea
level,
as
shown
in
Figure
4.5,
Building
Heights
,
of
the
proposed
Brisbane
Baylands
Specific
Plan,
only
the
northerly
portion
of
the
northern
area
that
Comment
asserts
as
having
160-foot
high-buildings
is
indicated
in
the
Specific
Plan
as
actually
having
buildings
that
would
reach
that
height.
The
balance
of
the
area
that
Comment
asserts
as
having
160-foot-high
buildings
would
actually
have
building
heights
ranging
from
45
to
90
feet
(70
to
115
feet
above
sea
level).
Other
differences
exist
between
Figure
5
in
Comment
and
Specific
Plan
Figure
4.5,
and
are
illustrated
below.
Examples
of
these
areas
of
differences
include:
On
lands
north
of
the
proposed
Geneva
Avenue
extension,
Comment
indicates
building
heights
as
being
90
feet,
while
Figure
4.5
of
the
proposed
Specific
Plan
indicates
building
heights
ranging
from
35
to
90
feet.
The
arena
is
shown
in
Comment
as
being
150
feet
in
height
on
both
the
northerly
and
southerly
blocks.
Figure
4.5
of
the
proposed
Specific
Plan
indicates
the
150-foot
building
height
on
only
the
northerly
parcel,
with
substantially
lower
building
heights
on
the
southerly
parcel.
With
the
exception
of
the
arena
(150
feet
in
height),
Comment
indicates
building
heights
along
the
south
side
of
the
Geneva
Avenue
extension
as
being
120
feet,
while
Figure
4.5
of
the
proposed
Specific
Plan
indicates
building
heights
ranging
up
to
90
feet
in
height.
Brisbane
Baylands
Final
EIR
2.4-104
May
2015