2.
Response
to
Comments
2.9
Individual
Responses
to
Comments
from
Organizations
As
stated
on
Draft
EIR
page
6-17,
the
cumulative
impact
analysis
for
air
quality
“relies
on
projections
contained
in
an
adopted
local,
regional,
or
statewide
plan
or
related
planning
document,
in
particular,
the
San
Mateo
County
Transportation
Plan
and
relevant
regional
plans
developed
by
C/CAG.”
Thus,
the
cumulative
impact
analysis
for
air
quality
is
not
limited
to
an
eight-mile
radius.
In
addition,
greenhouse
gas
impacts
were
analyzed
on
a
cumulative
basis
since
no
single
project
can
cause
a
discernible
change
to
climate.
As
stated
on
Draft
EIR
page
6-26,
“the
area
in
which
a
proposed
project
in
combination
with
other
past,
present,
or
future
projects,
could
contribute
to
a
significant
cumulative
climate
change
impact
would
not
be
defined
by
a
geographical
boundary
such
as
a
project
site
or
combination
of
sites,
city
or
air
basin.”
The
full
statement
provided
on
page
6-16
of
the
Draft
EIR
states
“As
discussed
in
Section
4.A,
Aesthetics
and
Visual
Resources
,
without
mitigation
,
buildout
of
the
Project
Site
under
each
development
scenario
would
result
in
disjointed
and
inconsistent
development
across
the
Project
Site
resulting
in
a
poorly
designed
area
with
an
overall
adverse
effect
on
the
existing
visual
character.”
(Emphasis
added)
The
relevant
discussion
in
Section
4.A
identifying
the
significant
impact
on
community
character
and
the
need
for
mitigation
is
presented
starting
on
page
4.A-31
of
the
Draft
EIR.
While
the
comment
refers
to
“air
pollution
and
greenhouse
gases”
the
discussion
on
page
6-19
cited
in
Comment
refers
to
health
risk
assessments,
which
are
analyzed
for
proposed
Baylands
development
in
Impact
4.B-3,
starting
on
page
4.B-29
of
the
Draft
EIR.
The
methodology
used
to
evaluate
health
risks
is
based
on
BAAQMD’s
Health
Risk
Screening
Analysis
Guidelines
,
as
stated
on
page
4.B-17.
As
noted
on
page
6-19,
because
concentrations
of
toxic
air
contaminants
dissipate
with
distance
from
the
source,
the
BAAQMD
requires
analysis
of
health
risks
from
proximate
source
(i.e.,
within
a
1,000
foot
radius).
Therefore,
for
analysis
of
cumulative
impacts,
only
cumulative
projects
that
would
combine
to
affect
a
single
receptor
within
1,000
feet
were
analyzed
to
determine
cumulative
effects.
The
full
text
of
the
Draft
EIR
statement
referenced
in
this
comment
is
as
follows:
Although
more
mobile
species
might
be
able
to
survive
continuing
habitat
loss
by
moving
to
new
areas,
movement
corridors
are
limited,
and
less
mobile
species
could
simply
be
lost
with
remaining
habitats
limited
to
preservation
areas
such
as
San
Bruno
Mountain.
As
a
result,
the
availability
and
accessibility
of
remaining
natural
habitats
would
dwindle
and
smaller
remaining
natural
areas,
such
as
disjunct
habitat
areas
preserved
within
development
sites
may
not
able
to
support
additional
Brisbane
Baylands
Final
EIR
2.9.3-129
May
2015