economic considerations can be harmonized to the betterment of the natural environment, the Brisbane and regional community, and the individuals who will use the Baylands.” The only land controlled by the applicant in the vicinity of the Baylands is within San Francisco (Schlage Lock property), and would not, therefore, satisfy any of Brisbane’s objectives. In addition, development of the Schlage Lock property would involve similar impacts are for the Brisbane Baylands, and would not eliminate any of the significant impacts identified for the Baylands.
[See page 5-294 for the original comment] See Response BCC-407 for discussion regarding the CPP scenario and its development intensity. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 requires EIRs to describe a “range of reasonable alternatives to the project,” and states that an EIR “need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision making and public participation….” The 4.0 million square feet of development cited in Comment BCC-767 is within the range of alternatives presented by the Renewable Energy Generation Alternative (1.98 million s.f. of building area), No Project-General Plan Buildout Alternative (2.02 million s.f. of building area), Reduced Intensity Non-Residential Alternative (5.32 million s.f. of building area), and the Reduced Intensity Mixed-Use Alternative (6.81 million s.f. of building area). Thus, inclusion of an additional alternative with 4.0 million s.f. of building area is unnecessary.
[See page 5-294 for the original comment] A table comparing each alternative to the scenarios and other alternatives is provided in Chapter 3.0 of the Final EIR.
[See page 5-294 for the original comment] The analysis provided in the Brisbane Baylands EIR is of sufficient detail as to allow the City Council to select the Renewable Energy Generation Alternative as the preferred scenario for the Brisbane Baylands should the Council so desire.
[See page 5-295 for the original comment] A table comparing each alternative to the scenarios and other alternatives is provided in Chapter 3.0 of the Final EIR.
[See page 5-295 for the original comment] Because ABAG adopted the projections contained in Plan Bay Area Sustainable Communities Strategy, superseding Projections 2009 subsequent to the public distribution of the Draft EIR, all references to Projections 2009 are stricken from the Final EIR, and only references to the projections contained in Plan Bay Area Sustainable Community Strategy remain.
[See page 5-295 for the original comment] The first paragraph on page 5-7 is revised to read as follows.