2.
Response
to
Comments
2.8
Individual
Responses
to
Comments
from
Municipalities
nothing
more
than
permitting
a
degree
of
residential
use
in
either
the
No
Project-
General
Plan
Buildout
or
the
Reduced
Intensity
Non-Residential
Alternative.
While
including
residential
use
within
the
overall
buildout
of
either
of
those
alternatives
might
result
in
a
slight
increase
in
transit
usage
and
thereby
slightly
reduce
traffic
generation
and
resulting
air
pollutant
and
GHG
emissions,
none
of
the
significant
unavoidable
impacts
of
proposed
Baylands
development
would
be
reduced
to
a
less
than
significant
level
and
the
additional
alternative
suggested
in
Comment
would
fall
within
the
range
of
alternatives
already
addressed
in
the
Draft
EIR
for
the
following
reasons:
Aesthetics
(Nighttime
Lighting)
:
Because
the
additional
alternative
suggested
in
Comment
would
have
total
building
and
open
space
areas
within
the
range
represented
by
the
No
Project-General
Plan
Buildout
and
the
Reduced
Intensity
Non-Residential
Alternatives,
there
would
be
a
similar
amount
of
building
area
and
open
space
being
lighted
at
night
as
for
the
range
of
alternatives
already
analyzed
in
the
EIR.
Air
Quality
(Construction
and
Operational
Emissions)
:
Because
site
remediation
and
grading
would
be
a
prerequisite
for
development
if
the
additional
alternative
suggested
in
Comment
it
would
have
the
same
area
of
disturbance
and
amount
of
soil
movement
as
the
Project
Site
development
scenarios
and
other
alternatives
involving
site
development.
Since
the
total
amount
of
building
area
would
be
within
the
range
represented
by
the
No
Project-General
Plan
Buildout
and
the
Reduced
Intensity
Non-Residential
Alternatives,
air
emissions
during
construction
would
be
within
that
range.
In
relation
to
operational
emissions,
as
discussed
in
Chapter
5,
even
the
Renewable
Energy
Generation
Alternative,
with
substantially
less
building
area
(and
traffic
generation
than
the
additional
alternative
suggested
in
Comment
would
result
in
significant
operation
air
emissions.
Thus,
the
operational
emissions
of
the
alternative
suggested
in
Comment
would
fall
within
the
range
of
impacts
already
analyzed
for
other
alternatives.
Because
increasing
the
internal
capture
of
home
to
work
and
home
to
shopping
trips
and
increased
transit
use
would
reduce
trip
generation
and
resulting
air
emissions,
the
alternative
suggested
in
Comment
would
result
in
fewer
air
emissions
than
the
Reduced
Intensity
Non-Residential
Alternative.
However,
even
at
only
2.0
million
square
feet
of
total
building
area,
internal
capture
of
trips
and
use
of
transit
would
not
be
great
enough
to
reduce
air
emissions
below
those
of
the
Renewable
Energy
Development
alternative,
which
would
itself
result
in
significant
air
quality
operational
impacts
as
discussed
in
Draft
EIR
Chapter
5.
Thus,
operational
air
quality
impacts
would
be
within
the
range
of
alternatives
already
addressed
in
the
Draft
EIR.
Biological
Resources
(Sensitive
Species)
:
Because
site
remediation
and
grading
would
be
a
prerequisite
for
development
if
the
additional
alternative
suggested
in
Comment
it
would
have
the
same
area
of
Brisbane
Baylands
Final
EIR
2.8.3-11
May
2015