2.
Response
to
Comment
2.4
Master
Responses
to
Comments
implement
all
feasible
1
mitigation
measures
to
avoid
the
significant
impact
or
to
reduce
its
severity
to
below
the
identified
threshold
of
significance.
Chapter
2,
Project
Summary,
of
the
Draft
EIR
summarizes
the
impacts,
mitigation
measures,
and
levels
of
significance
before
and
after
mitigation
for
each
impact
evaluated
in
this
EIR.
While
implementation
of
identified
mitigation
measures
would
reduce
the
level
of
impacts,
certain
impacts
cannot
be
reduced
to
less-than-significant
levels
without
imposing
an
alternative
project,
such
as
those
described
in
Chapter
5,
Alternatives,
or
simply
cannot
be
reduced
to
below
a
level
of
significance,
even
after
imposing
all
feasible
mitigation.
In
other
cases,
such
as
with
several
traffic
impacts,
there
may
be
mitigation
measures
that
are
physically
feasible,
but
legally
infeasible
for
the
City
to
impose
because
they
would
require
an
action
or
approval
by
another
jurisdiction.
While
the
City
is
required
to
ensure
implementation
of
all
feasible
mitigation
measures
that
would
avoid
or
reduce
significant
environmental
impacts,
impacts
that
cannot
be
mitigated
to
a
less-than-
significant
level
are
identified
in
the
EIR
as
“significant
unavoidable.”
A
Lead
Agency
may
approve
a
project
with
one
or
more
significant
unavoidable
impacts,
if
it
concludes
that
the
unavoidable
environmental
damage
from
the
project
is
acceptable
when
balanced
against
the
project’s
benefits.
In
this
event,
the
Lead
Agency
must
adopt
a
statement
of
overriding
considerations
when
it
approves
the
project
detailing
why
the
agency
believes
that
specific
economic,
legal,
social,
technological,
or
other
stated
benefits,
including
regionwide
or
statewide
environmental
benefits,
are
sufficient
to
warrant
project
approval
(Public
Resources
Code
Section
21081(b);
CEQA
Guidelines
Section
15093).
The
statement
of
overriding
considerations
is
required
to
explain
in
writing
the
specific
reasons
supporting
the
City’s
action
to
approve
a
project
with
one
or
more
significant
unavoidable
impacts
based
on
the
Final
EIR
and/or
other
information
in
the
record.
While
CEQA
does
not
require
an
agency
to
deny
a
project
with
one
or
more
significant
unavoidable
impacts,
neither
does
it
require
an
agency
to
approve
a
project
with
environmental
impacts
that
are
less
than
significant.
As
discussed
4,
CEQA
addresses
only
physical
environmental
impacts.
Thus,
in
addition
to
the
CEQA
review
undertaken
by
the
City
through
this
EIR,
the
City
is
undertaking
a
planning
review
to
address
social,
economic,
and
other
planning
issues
not
reflected
in
CEQA
Guidelines
Appendix
G.
The
results
of
that
planning
review
could
identify
(1)
conflicts
with
the
General
Plan
or
other
issues
not
related
to
physical
environmental
effects
that
would
substantiate
denial
of
one
or
more
components
of
proposed
Baylands
development
described
in
the
EIR
Project
Description,
(2)
needed
development
requirements
or
modifications
to
one
or
more
components
of
proposed
Baylands
development
described
in
the
EIR
Project
Description,
or
(3)
benefits
of
proposed
development
that
would
outweigh
identified
significant
unavoidable
impacts
and
warrant
adoption
of
a
statement
of
overriding
considerations.
1
See
2
for
a
discussion
of
“feasibility”
as
it
applies
to
mitigation
measures.
Brisbane
Baylands
Final
EIR
2.4-18
May
2015