2.5.4 California State Lands Commission


[See page 5-12 for the original comment] The Draft EIR recognizes that the Baylands site occupies various types of lands subject to California State Lands Commission (CSLC) jurisdiction, including filled and unfilled tidelands and submerged lands that were sold into private ownership by the Board of Tideland Commissioners. The City also acknowledges that the State Lands Commission has determined that any lands within the Guadalupe Canal will require a lease from the CSLC, and that the Commission has requested the City contact the CSLC “as soon as possible to discuss leasing requirements.”

The portion of the proposed Project located within Guadalupe Canal is land in private ownership. The City will work with the landowner and the State Lands Commission to ensure that appropriate leases are in place.


[See page 5-13 for the original comment] The fourth full paragraph on page 2-15 is revised to read as follows.

In the case of the Baylands, the No Project-No Build Alternative would not be environmentally superior since it allows existing site contamination to remain without remediation. The No Project-General Plan Buildout would also not be environmentally superior since it provides for future development of the site without a reliable water supply as envisioned in the General Plan, reduces or avoids many of the significant effects of Project Site development, provides for remediation of Project Site contamination, provides a firm water supply to support Project Site development as well as 400 acre-feet of firm supply to facilitate citywide buildout of the General Plan, and meets most of the basic Project objectives, as described in Section 5.3.2, No Project-General Plan Buildout Alternative. Of the Project Site development scenarios and alternatives evaluated in this EIR, the Renewable Energy Generation Alternative would has been determined to be the environmentally superior alternative since it is consistent with the Brisbane General Plan, involves minimal impacts compared to other scenarios and alternatives, and meets key project objectives including:

The revised wording above is consistent with the conclusions of the Alternatives Chapter of the Draft EIR (page 5-66).


[See page 5-14 for the original comment] CEQA requires an EIR to describe a reasonable range of alternatives to a project that could feasibly attain most of the basic project objectives while avoiding or lessening the project’s significant effects. It also requires an EIR to identify the environmentally superior alternative, although adoption of this alternative is not required.

Previous Page | Next Page