2.
Response
to
Comments
2.9
Individual
Responses
to
Comments
from
Organizations
January
24,
2014
Comment
Letter
UPC
2-1
The
second
sentence
in
Mitigation
Measure
4.A-1
is
intended
to
set
forth
a
performance
standard
to
meet
the
requirement
in
the
first
sentence.
To
clarify,
Mitigation
Measure
4.A-1
is
revised
to
read
as
follows.
Mitigation
Measure
4.A-1a:
Development
within
350
feet
of
the
eastern
boundary
of
the
Baylands
Project
Site
(US
Highway
101)
shall
be
designed
to
avoid
blockage
of
views
of
the
Bay
shoreline
from
Viewpoints
1,
2,
3,
7,
8,
and
11
by
limiting
the
height
of
buildings
within
350
feet
of
US
Highway
101
to
a
maximum
height
of
80
feet
based
on
the
grading
plan
included
in
the
proposed
Brisbane
Baylands
Infrastructure
Plan.
Each
specific
plan
approved
for
development
within
the
Baylands
Project
Site
shall
include
development
standards
setting
forth
this
requirement.
These
standards
shall
require
that
buildings
within
350
feet
of
US
Highway
101
be
no
taller
than
80
feet
in
height.
UPC
2-2
The
intent
of
Mitigation
Measure
4.A-3
is
to
ensure
that
development
proposed
for
the
Baylands
would
not
substantially
degrade
the
existing
visual
character
of
the
Project
site,
Central
Brisbane,
or
surrounding
areas,
and
that
Project
site
development
would
be
visually
appealing,
well
integrated,
and
compatible
with
adjacent
development.
The
changes
proposed
by
the
commenter
are
unnecessary,
as
the
measure
does
not
preclude
the
City’s
consideration
of
appropriate
design
that
may
vary
from
these
standards,
as
long
as
it
finds
that
the
proposed
design
does
not
substantially
degrade
the
existing
visual
character
of
the
Project
site.
Such
consideration
would
occur
upon
the
submittal
of
site-specific
development
projects,
at
which
time
the
City
would
conduct
further
environmental
review
under
CEQA.
See
1
for
discussion
of
subsequent
project-specific
environmental
review.
See
Response
UPC
2-2.
See
also
Final
EIR
Chapter
4.0,
Mitigation
Monitoring
and
Reporting
Program
,
for
a
description
as
to
how
compliance
with
Mitigation
Measure
4.A-3
will
be
determined.
See
Response
UPC
2-2.
The
changes
proposed
in
this
comment
are
unnecessary,
as
the
measure
does
not
preclude
the
City’s
consideration
of
different
designs,
as
long
as
it
finds
that
the
proposed
design
does
not
substantially
degrade
the
existing
visual
character
of
the
Project
site.
Such
consideration
would
occur
as
part
of
site-specific
development
projects,
which
would
be
subject
to
further
environmental
review
under
CEQA.
See
1
for
discussion
of
subsequent
project-
specific
environmental
review.
UPC
2-3
UPC
2-4
Brisbane
Baylands
Final
EIR
2.9.15-34
May
2015