2.
Response
to
Comment
2.4
Master
Responses
to
Comments
address
the
extent
to
which
the
project
m
ay
facilitate
or
hinder
achievement
of
the
community’s
vision
of
its
future.
Rather,
as
required
by
CEQA,
the
Baylands
EIR:
Describes
the
proposed
Baylands
development
program,
including
each
of
its
components;
Defines
baseline
environmental
conditions;
Evaluates
changes
to
the
physical
environment
that
would
result
from
implementation
of
the
proposed
Baylands
development
program;
Determines
whether
those
physical
environmental
changes
would
exceed
identified
significance
thresholds;
Imposes
all
feasible
mitigation
measures
to
avoid
environmental
effects
that
exceed
significance
thresholds
(significant
impacts)
or
to
reduce
significant
effects
to
below
identified
significance
thresholds;
and
Describes
a
reasonable
range
of
alternatives
designed
to
reduce
or
avoid
the
significant
effects
of
the
project
while
meeting
its
basic
objectives.
While
CEQA
requires
that
an
EIR
identify
all
feasible
mitigation
to
avoid
or
reduce
the
significant
impacts
of
a
project,
it
also
permits
public
agencies
to
approve
a
project
even
though
it
would
result
in
one
or
more
significant
unavoidable
environmental
effects.
If
a
Lead
Agency
approves
such
a
project,
it
must
prepare
a
statement
of
overriding
considerations,
which
identifies
the
specific
economic,
legal,
social,
technological,
or
other
benefits
of
the
project,
including
region-wide
or
statewide
environmental
benefits,
that
outweigh
its
significant
unavoidable
effects,
thereby
warranting
its
approval
(Public
Resources
Code
Section
21083;
CEQA
Guidelines
Section
15093).
The
statement
of
overriding
considerations
must
be
supported
by
substantial
evidence
in
the
record
(CEQA
Guidelines
Section
15093(a)).
Thus
as
discussed
in
6,
whether
a
“significant
unavoidable”
impact
is
“acceptable”
or
“unacceptable”
to
the
community
is
a
determination
for
the
City
Council,
not
the
EIR,
to
make.
Planning
Review
Issues
of
social
and
economic
effects,
what
may
be
“good”
or
“bad”
for
the
community,
how
best
to
achieve
community
goals,
and
ways
to
optimize
proposed
land
uses
to
maximize
benefits
to
the
community
are
a
critical
part
of
decision-making
for
the
future
of
the
Baylands.
However,
such
considerations
are
beyond
the
CEQA
environmental
review
process
and
therefore
are
not
addressed
in
the
Baylands
EIR.
For
example,
while
the
Draft
EIR
documents
the
environmental
effects
of
residential
development
on
the
Baylands
under
the
DSP
and
DSP-V
scenarios,
it
does
not
address
whether
such
development
is
a
“good
idea.”
As
a
matter
of
policy,
this
type
of
evaluation
and
others
like
it
wi
ll
occur
as
part
of
the
City’s
planning
review
process.
For
this
reason,
the
Final
EIR
does
not
respond
in
detail
to
comments
on
the
Draft
EIR
that
provide
land
use
recommendations
unrelated
to
the
physical
effects
of
the
Baylands
development,
but
instead
notes
that
such
concerns
will
be
addressed
in
the
planning
review
being
undertaken
for
the
Baylands.
The
City
of
Brisbane
is
engaged
in
a
number
of
other
activities
which
will
inform
the
Baylands
planning
process,
including
sustainability
planning,
fiscal
and
economic
studies,
and
public
opinion
polling.
Brisbane
Baylands
Final
EIR
2.4-13
May
2015