2.
Response
to
Comments
2.9
Individual
Responses
to
Comments
from
Organizations
existing
lumberyards,
site
remediation,
and
water
supply
agreement
would
occur
as
part
of
this
alternative.
[See
page
for
the
original
comment]
As
stated
on
Draft
EIR
page
“While
no
specific
wind
energy
program
is
set
forth
in
the
CREBL
proposal,
or
in
the
Energy
Solutions
or
NREL
reports,
a
number
of
wind
energy
options
are
outlined.”
Several
wind
energy
technologies
options
were
set
forth
in
the
CREBL
proposal
and
the
Energy
Solutions
and
NREL
reports
that
could
be
used
at
the
Baylands
Project
Site
including
vertical-axis
turbines,
building
mounted
turbines,
low
wind-speed
turbines,
and
turbines
optimized
for
high
wind.
From
these
alternative
technologies
and
information
presented
in
the
CREBL
plan
and
the
Energy
Solutions
and
NREL
reports,
the
Draft
EIR
analyzed
the
alternative
based
on
the
assumption
that
it
would
provide
for
installation
of
8
to
10
small-scale
turbines
generating
a
total
of
100
kW
or
less.
The
comment’s
opinions
regarding
the
environmental
benefits
of
the
renewable
energy
alternative
are
acknowledged.
The
comment
does
not
raise
significant
environmental
issues
regarding
the
EIR
analysis.
Pursuant
to
the
requirements
of
CEQA,
alternatives
are
analyzed
in
relation
to
their
ability
to
avoid
or
reduce
significant
impacts
of
the
proposed
project
(e.g.,
Baylands
concept
plan
development
scenarios).
These
comparisons
are
provided
in
Section
5.3.2
of
the
Draft
EIR.
Table
of
the
Draft
EIR
demonstrates
that
the
Renewable
Energy
Generation
Alternative
would
result
in
a
net
annual
reduction
of
6,661
metric
tons
of
CO2e
annually.
The
discussion
on
page
cited
in
this
comment
focuses
on
impacts
of
the
Renewable
Energy
Generation
Alternative
on
wildlife
movement,
noting
that
the
placement
of
solar
energy
fields
would
inhibit
wildlife
movement
between
the
lagoon
to
the
south
and
the
shoreline
of
San
Francisco
Bay
to
the
east.
The
alternatives
analysis
is
not
intended
to
provide
a
complete
description
of
existing
onsite
or
surrounding
biological
resource
habitats.
The
description
of
existing
conditions
for
purposes
of
the
analyses
of
impacts
to
biological
resources
is
included
in
Section
4.C.2
of
the
Draft
EIR.
CEQA
Guidelines
require
an
EIR
to
include
alternatives
that
avoid
or
reduce
the
significant
impacts
of
the
proposed
project
while
attaining
its
basic
objectives.
To
reduce
significant
traffic
and
air
quality
impacts,
the
comment
suggests
that
an
alternative
emphasizing
energy
and
employment
generation
be
considered.
The
Draft
EIR
provides
evaluation
of
such
alternatives,
including
the:
Brisbane
Baylands
Final
EIR
2.9.2-215
May
2015