Laserfiche WebLink
7.A <br /> 9/30/2010 9:36 AM Page 77 <br /> > currently largely devoid of significant numbers of residents <br /> eor <br /> businesses . " The implication here is that there is no real <br /> justification <br /> > for the streetcar line in that location - the land use map <br /> does not <br /> > currently allow for residential growth adjacent to Seaport <br /> Blvd. , and the <br /> > hoped for ferry terminal at the Port is still a gleam in the <br /> eye and not <br /> > specifically part of the plan. However, we ' re all aware of <br /> the elephant <br /> > in the room on the SE side of Seaport, and the fact that a <br /> streetcar line <br /> > would likely promote growth along its alignment . Therefore, <br /> the City' s <br /> > decision not to properly evaluate the Saltworks site and the <br /> growth <br /> > aspect of the Seaport Blvd. line grossly minimizes the <br /> environmental <br /> > impact of the GP plan to include one there . Of course, the <br /> other <br /> > implication is that the addition of the streetcar in the <br /> II/plan provides <br /> > an a priori justification for development of the Saltworks <br /> site (without <br /> > an analysis of its impacts) . This seems to be a backdoor <br /> approval by the <br /> > City for a General Plan amendment to permit development of <br /> Saltworks , <br /> > without a proper CEQA analysis of the streetcar line ' s <br /> effects on the GP <br /> > as a whole . <br /> > <br /> > The City ' s response to Save the Bay ' s comments were to <br /> reference a <br /> > comment on Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Master Response #1 . <br /> Both seem to <br /> > me to be totally non-responsive to STB ' s main point on <br /> segmentation. In <br /> > fact , there are several statements in the Master response <br /> that only seems <br /> > to strengthen STB ' s contention that leaving out the Saltworks <br /> • site from <br /> • > consideration in the DEIR, while including the streetcar, <br /> amounts to <br /> 2 <br />