2.
Response
to
Comment
2.4
Master
Responses
to
Comments
definitions
indicate,
a
determination
of
feasibility
necessarily
involves
a
series
of
judgment
calls
by
the
Lead
Agency
concerning
costs,
technical
realities,
environmental
effectiveness
and
environmental
side
effects,
social
policy
considerations,
time
constraints,
and
other
considerations.
In
all
cases,
the
City
must
be
able
to
articulate
specific
factual
or
policy
considerations
that
justify
any
finding
that
a
particular
alternative
or
proposed
mitigation
measure
is
infeasible.
Procedural
Requirements
for
Determining
the
Infeasibility
of
Mitigation
Measures
and
Alternatives
An
agency’s
determination
of
infeasibility
must
be
supported
by
substantial
evidence
in
the
record.
“Substantial
evidence”
is
defined
as
“enough
relevant
information
and
reasonable
inferences
from
that
information
that
a
fair
argument
can
be
made
to
support
a
conclusion,
even
though
other
conclusions
may
be
reached”
(CEQA
Guidelines
Section
15384(a)).
Specifically,
the
Lead
Agency
and
each
Responsible
Agency
must
determine,
for
each
significant
environmental
effect
identified
in
the
EIR,
that:
(1)
(2)
(3)
Changes
or
alterations
have
been
required
in,
or
incorporated
into,
the
project
which
mitigate
or
avoid
the
significant
effects
on
the
project.
Those
changes
or
alterations
are
within
the
responsibility
and
jurisdiction
of
another
public
agency
and
have
been,
or
can
and
should
be,
adopted
by
the
other
agency.
Specific
economic,
legal,
social,
technological
or
other
considerations…
make
infeasible
the
mitigation
measures
or
alternatives
identified
in
the
environmental
impact
report.
(Public
Resources
Code
Section
21081(a);
CEQA
Guidelines
Section
15091.)
Brief
descriptions
of
the
rationale
for
selecting
each
of
the
alternatives
evaluated
in
the
EIR
are
provided
in
Sections
5.2.1
through
5.2.3
of
the
Draft
EIR.
Section
5.2.4
of
the
Draft
EIR
identifies
alternatives
that
were
considered
prior
to
and
during
preparation
of
the
Draft
EIR
but
were
rejected,
including
a
brief
description
of
why
they
were
rejected.
2.4.3
Master
Response
3:
Monitoring
and
Enforcement
of
Mitigation
Measures;
Mitigation
Monitoring
and
Reporting
Program
Comments
A
number
of
comments
expressed
concerns
regarding
the
enforceability
of
mitigation
measures,
and
the
extent
to
which
their
implementation
could
be
ensured.
Other
comments
question
how
certain
mitigation
measures
would
actually
be
implemented.
In
addition,
several
comments
on
the
Draft
EIR
noted
that
changes
in
regulations,
technology,
expertise,
and
project-specific
details
might
occur
over
the
Baylands
20-year
buildout
period,
possibly
resulting
in
the
need
to
modify
and
update
mitigation
measures.
Brisbane
Baylands
Final
EIR
2.4-9
May
2015