2.
Response
to
Comments
2.9
Individual
Responses
to
Comments
from
Organizations
Letter
Dated
December
2013
This
comment
does
not
raise
any
significant
environmental
issues
or
issues
regarding
the
adequacy
of
the
Draft
EIR.
The
City
will
consider
the
development
potential
of
the
site,
along
with
appropriate
means
to
protect
resources
and
enhance
recreational
opportunities
as
part
of
the
City’s
planning
review
and
decisionmaking
process.
This
comment
does
not
raise
any
significant
environmental
issues
or
issues
regarding
the
adequacy
of
the
Draft
EIR.
The
City
will
consider
the
planning-
and
development-oriented
comments
set
forth
in
this
comment
as
part
of
the
City’s
planning
review
and
decisionmaking
process.
In
responding
to
the
comments
of
the
Candlestick
Preservation
Association
and
other
comment
letters,
the
City
has
focused
on
addressing
the
issues
raised
in
each
comment.
However,
in
responding
to
comments
on
the
Draft
EIR,
the
City
must
address
comments
as
they
are
presented
and
refrain
from
interpreting
what
any
unstated
“spirit”
or
“intent”
of
the
comment
may
be.
For
comments,
such
as
Comment
which
raise
planning
issues
outside
of
the
CEQA
process,
as
well
as
comments
expressing
opinions
as
to
whether
individual
project
components
should
be
approved
or
not,
the
City’s
responses
identify
where
in
the
overall
Baylands
project
review
process
the
comment
will
be
considered.
In
preparing
the
Draft
EIR
and
responding
to
comments
on
that
document,
the
City
has
addressed
the
myriad
of
environmental
effects
that
would
result
from
the
proposed
development
of
the
Baylands
Site.
These
impacts,
along
with
feasible
measures
to
avoid
or
reduce
the
severity
of
impacts
are
set
forth
in
Chapter
4
of
the
Draft
EIR.
When
mitigating
or
avoiding
the
significant
effects
of
a
project
on
the
environment,
however,
public
agencies
must
adhere
to
laws
other
than
CEQA,
including
the
state
and
federal
Constitutions.
For
that
reason,
like
any
government
exaction
or
condition
of
approval,
a
mitigation
measure
must
have
a
“reasonable
relationship”
or
“nexus”
to
the
project
impact
it
is
designed
to
mitigate,
i.e.,
the
measure
must
relate
or
be
connected
to
the
impact
for
which
it
is
required.
In
addition,
the
amount
of
mitigation
required
must
be
commensurate
with
the
extent
of
the
impact.
In
addition,
the
extent
of
mitigation
requirements
must
also
be
“reasonably
proportional”
to
the
severity
of
impacts
being
mitigated.
Thus,
a
lead
agency
cannot
simply
apply
a
margin-of-error
in
favor
of
preservation
where
a
“reasonable
relationship”
to
preservation
does
not
exist
or
apply
mitigation
measures
requiring
preservation
where
such
requirements
are
not
“reasonably
proportional”
to
the
severity
of
impacts.
Brisbane
Baylands
Final
EIR
2.9.4-3
May
2015