2.
Response
to
Comment
2.4
Master
Responses
to
Comments
Recology
Variant
(CPP-V)
scenarios,
both
of
which
encompassed
the
entirety
of
the
Baylands
Project
Site,
as
well
as
the
existing
44-acre
Recology
facility.
The
NOP
was
revised
and
re-issued
in
December
2010
to
(1)
reflect
changes
in
the
Project
Description,
including
revisions
to
and
expansion
of
the
applicant-prepared
Specific
Plan
to
cover
the
entirety
of
the
applicant’s
ownership,
the
inclusion
of
the
entertainment
variant
to
the
DSP
scenario
(DSP-V),
and
identification
of
the
CPP
and
CPP-V
concept
plan
scenarios
to
be
evaluated
in
the
Draft
EIR
at
an
equal
level
of
detail
to
the
DSP
and
DSP-V
scenarios
and
the
proposed
Brisbane
Baylands
Specific
Plan;
and
(2)
recognize
the
time
that
had
elapsed
since
the
NOP
was
originally
published
in
2006.
The
revised
Project
Description
set
forth
in
the
2010
NOP
included
development
planning
for
an
area
nearly
twice
the
size
(733
acres)
of
the
original
Phase
I
plan
area
described
in
the
2006
NOP
(446
acres),
and
encompassed
the
entirety
of
the
current
Baylands
Project
Site.
A
subsequent,
third
NOP
was
circulated
in
October
2012
to
notify
governmental
agencies,
organizations,
and
interested
members
of
the
public
that
a
proposed
water
transfer
agreement
between
the
City
of
Brisbane
and
the
Oakdale
Irrigation
District
to
acquire
a
supplemental
water
supply
of
2,400
acre-feet
per
year
(AFY)
would
be
added
to
the
previously
described
Project
components
and
analyzed
in
the
Draft
EIR.
Environmental
technical
analyses
and
the
Draft
EIR
for
the
Baylands
development
scenarios
were
initiated
in
2010
to
address
the
revised
and
additional
development/land
plan
concepts.
Analyses
of
the
proposed
water
supply
agreement
and
relevant
text
in
the
Draft
EIR
were
initiated
in
2012
following
the
release
of
the
third
NOP.
The
CEQA
Guidelines
call
for
the
environmental
baseline
to
reflect
conditions
as
they
exist
early
in
the
CEQA
process.
However,
the
California
Supreme
Court
has
interpreted
these
Guidelines
provisions
to
give
agencies
significant
discretion
in
determining
the
appropriate
“existing
conditions”
baseline.
(See
Communities
for
a
Better
Env’t
v.
South
Coast
Air
Quality
Mgmt.
Dist.
(2010)
48
Cal.4th
310,
336.
[Lead
Agencies
have
“discretion
to
decide,
in
the
first
instance,
exactly
how
existing
conditions
without
the
project
can
most
realistically
be
measured,
subject
to
review,
as
with
all
CEQA
factual
determinations,
for
support
by
substantial
evidence.”])
In
some
instances,
information
is
presented
in
the
Draft
EIR’s
discussion
of
environmental
setting
that
differs
from
the
precise
time
of
the
NOP
publicized
in
December
2010.
This
information
is
considered
representative
of
baseline
(existing
2010)
conditions
for
the
reasons
set
forth
in
the
Draft
EIR.
Furthermore,
because
environmental
conditions
may
vary
from
year
to
year,
for
some
environmental
topics,
such
as
biological
resources,
it
may
be
necessary,
and
more
representative
of
“existing”
physical
conditions,
to
consider
these
conditions
over
a
range
of
time
periods.
In
other
cases,
e.g.,
traffic,
it
may
be
useful,
in
addition
to
comparing
the
impacts
of
the
Project
against
existing
conditions,
to
consider
a
baseline
of
conditions
expected
at
the
time
the
Project
would
be
in
operation.
Throughout
the
analyses
in
the
EIR,
any
reference
to
“existing”
conditions
refers
to
the
baseline
condition
as
of
2010
except
where
otherwise
specified.
Where
technical
studies
or
other
baseline
Brisbane
Baylands
Final
EIR
2.4-20
May
2015