2.
Response
to
Comments
2.9
Individual
Responses
to
Comments
from
Organizations
Renewable
Energy
Generation
Alternative,
which
stresses
minimizing
impacts
by
maximizing
renewable
energy
generation;
Reduced
Intensity
Non-Residential
Alternative,
which
reducing
the
intensity
of
overall
development
within
the
Baylands
compared
to
the
project
development
scenarios,
while
emphasizing
employment-generation
and
increasing
the
amount
of
renewable
energy
generation
compared
to
the
CPP
scenario;
and
Reduced
Intensity
Mixed-Use
Alternative,
which
reduces
development
intensity
while
still
providing
substantial
employment
and
also
providing
residential
use
in
proximity
to
onsite
employment.
Evaluation
of
project
scenarios
and
the
Reduced
Intensity
Non-Residential
and
Reduced
Intensity
Mixed-Use
alternatives
indicates
that
alternatives
proposing
reduced
development
intensities
will
be
most
effective
at
reducing
the
significant
unavoidable
impacts
of
the
proposed
development
scenarios.
Because
of
the
large
amount
of
employment-generating
development
proposed
to
the
north
of
the
Baylands
and
within
San
Francisco,
adding
high
levels
of
employment-
generating
uses
to
the
Baylands
in
the
absence
of
also
increasing
local
housing
opportunities
does
not
provide
for
“regional
balancing,”
and
will
not
be
effective
at
reducing
the
severity
of
project-related
traffic
impacts.
See
As
required
by
CEQA,
the
EIR’s
discussion
of
the
Renewable
Energy
Generation
Alternative
includes
sufficient
information
to
allow
meaningful
evaluation,
analysis,
and
comparison
with
the
four
proposed
development
scenarios.
The
Renewable
Energy
Generation
Alternative
will
generate
approximately
76
percent
less
traffic
than
would
the
CPP-V
scenario
and
approximately
83
percent
less
traffic
than
the
DSP
scenario.
However,
because
significant
unavoidable
traffic
impacts
occur
even
under
the
Cumulative-No
Project
conditions,
the
Renewable
Energy
Generation
Alternative
would
substantially
reduce,
but
not
eliminate,
significant
unavoidable
traffic
impacts
of
proposed
Baylands
development.
See
2
for
discussion
of
the
role
of
“feasibility”
in
CEQA.
While
new
and
more
efficient
renewable
energy
technologies
can
be
expected
over
the
next
20
years,
the
form
of
such
technologies
cannot
be
known
or
evaluated
at
this
time.
The
comment
does
not
raise
any
significant
environmental
issues
regarding
the
adequacy
of
the
Draft
EIR
or
its
analyses
and
conclusions.
While
new
and
more
efficient
renewable
energy
technologies
can
be
expected
over
the
next
20
years,
the
form
of
such
technologies
cannot
be
known
or
evaluated
at
this
time.
Brisbane
Baylands
Final
EIR
2.9.2-216
May
2015