2.
Response
to
Comments
2.9
Individual
Responses
to
Comments
from
Organizations
The
Draft
EIR
follows
the
freeway
mainline
impact
assessment
methodology
of
determining
whether
Project
Site
development
would
contribute
to
substantial
existing
traffic
delays
at
freeway
mainline
segments.
Table
4.N-28
presents
“existing”
and
“existing
plus
project”
conditions
to
determine
the
impact
of
project
trips
to
selected
highway
mainline
segments
on
US
101.
The
volume-to-
capacity
(V/C)
metric
represents
the
projected
volume
of
vehicles
compared
to
the
capacity
of
the
freeway
facility.
For
that
comparison
table,
the
traffic
added
by
surrounding
projects
included
in
the
cumulative
analysis
is
not
included.
Table
4.N-33
presents
“cumulative
without
project”
and
“cumulative
with
project”
conditions
to
determine
the
impact
of
project
trips
to
selected
highway
mainline
segments
on
US
101
under
cumulative
conditions.
This
analysis
does
take
into
account
local
and
regional
future
projects.
See
for
more
information
on
how
cumulative
baseline
traffic
forecasts
were
developed.
As
part
of
the
environmental
review
process,
and
pursuant
to
the
Water
Code,
a
water
supply
assessment
was
prepared
for
proposed
Project
Site
development.
This
water
supply
assessment
was
included
in
the
Draft
EIR
as
Appendix
L,
and
assessed
the
water
supplies
available
for
Project
Site
development.
Water
supply
and
demand
were
estimated
through
2035,
which
represents
the
target
build
out
date
when
the
full
water
demand
resulting
from
Project
Site
development
would
occur.
Water
supply
assessments
are
required
by
law
to
include
a
discussion
with
regard
to
whether
the
total
projected
water
supplies
determined
to
be
available
by
the
lead
agency
for
the
project
during
normal,
single
dry,
and
multiple
dry
water
years
during
a
20-year
projection
will
meet
the
projected
water
demand
associated
with
the
proposed
project,
in
addition
to
existing
and
planned
future
uses,
including
agricultural
and
manufacturing
uses
(California
Water
Code
Sections
10910-10915).
Water
supply
agencies
throughout
California
are
evaluating
the
potential
effects
of
climate
change
on
their
supply
sources.
The
SFPUC,
the
wholesale
water
supplier
to
the
Bay
Area
peninsula
communities
that
supplies
most
of
Brisbane’s
water,
has
been
a
leader
in
assessing
climate
change
affects.
As
reported
in
the
SFPUC
2010
Urban
Water
Management
Plan
(SFPUC
2011,
Chapter
7
–
Climate
Change,
p
91.),
the
SFPUC
has
conducted
a
detailed
review
of
the
current
scientific
literature
regarding
climate
change
and
potential
effects
on
water
supply
resources
and
identified
several
anticipated
trends
including
reductions
in
average
annual
snowpack,
a
shift
in
snowmelt
runoff
to
earlier
in
the
year,
changes
in
timing,
intensity,
and
variability
of
precipitation,
and
an
increased
amount
of
precipitation
falling
as
rain
instead
of
snow.
The
SFPUC
report
notes
that
while
general
trends
have
been
identified,
“there
is
no
clear
scientific
consensus
on
exactly
how
global
warming
will
quantitatively
affect
the
state’s
water
supplies,
and
current
models
of
State
water
systems
generally
do
not
reflect
the
potential
effects
of
global
warming.”
(SFPUC
2011)
Brisbane
Baylands
Final
EIR
2.9.3-69
May
2015