2.
Response
to
Comments
2.9
Individual
Responses
to
Comments
from
Organizations
relevant
regional
plans
developed
by
the
City/County
Association
of
Governments
(C/CAG)
of
San
Mateo
County.
SBMW-27
[See page
5-503 for the original comment]
Analysis
in
Chapter
6
of
the
Draft
EIR
appropriately
concludes
that
the
continuing
loss
of
upland
habitat
is
a
significant
cumulative
impact,
but
that
the
contributions
of
the
Project
development
scenarios
would
not
make
a
cumulatively
considerable
contribution
to
this
significant
cumulative
impact.
As
discussed
in
the
analysis,
sensitive
upland
habitat
on
the
Baylands
Project
site
(Icehouse
Hill)
would
be
preserved
as
open
space.
(Draft
EIR,
page
6-21.)
The
Draft
EIR
also
analyzes
the
growth
inducing
effects
of
proposed
Baylands
Project
site
development.
The
Draft
EIR
concluded
that
with
the
exception
of
major
roadway
improvements
designed
to
serve
regional
development
in
the
Bi-
County
San
Francisco/Daly
City/Brisbane
area,
infrastructure
improvements
associated
with
Baylands
development
would
only
serve
the
Baylands
Project
Site,
and
would
not
result
in
a
growth-inducing
impact.
The
Draft
EIR
also
concluded
that,
by
improving
access
to
US
Highway
101,
the
major
roadway
improvements
designed
to
serve
regional
development
in
the
Bi-County
San
Francisco/Daly
City/Brisbane
area
would
remove
a
major
obstacle
to
development
and
facilitate
population
growth
in
Daly
City,
as
well
as
development
of
the
San
Francisco/San
Mateo
Bi-County
and
Bayview/Hunters
Point/Candlestick
Point
PDAs
described
in
Plan
Bay
Area.
However,
while
these
regional
roadway
improvements
would
remove
a
major
obstacle
to
development
and
facilitate
population
growth,
future
development
proposals
would
still
be
required
to
provide
for
mitigation
of
project-
related
impacts.
(Draft
EIR,
page
6-4.)
Finally,
the
Draft
EIR
concluded
that
the
400
acre-feet
of
water
allocated
in
the
proposed
water
supply
agreement
for
use
outside
of
the
Baylands
was
for
use
in
portions
of
the
City
for
which
development
has
already
been
approved
(e.g.,
Sierra
Point)
and
would
not,
therefore,
result
in
significant
growth
inducing
effects.
Brisbane
Baylands
Final
EIR
2.9.8-10
May
2015
Previous Page | Next Page