2.
Response
to
Comments
2.9
Individual
Responses
to
Comments
from
Organizations
Similarly,
inclusion
of
a
900-foot
wide
district
as
part
of
a
new
EIR
alternative
was
also
determined
to
be
inappropriate.
Since
a
significant
impact
on
windsurfing
resources
was
not
determined
to
exist,
analysis
of
an
alternative
primarily
designed
to
address
impacts
on
windsurfing
resources
would
be
unnecessary.
In
addition,
the
Renewable
Energy
Alternative
would
establish
a
large
area
within
the
eastern
portion
of
the
site
with
minimal
structures,
similar
to
the
suggestion
in
Comment
However,
a
900-foot
wide
Waterfront
Preservation
District
would
encompass
the
eastern
portion
of
the
existing
Recology
facility,
necessitating
demolition
of
a
large
portion
of
the
existing
facility.
Unless
Recology
were
to
be
able
to
acquire
additional
land
to
relocate
existing
facilities,
their
ability
to
continue
processing
San
Francisco’s
solid
waste
would
be
jeopardized.
For
these
reasons,
neither
a
mitigation
measure
not
an
alternative
establishing
a
Waterfront
Preservation
District
is
provided
in
the
Baylands
EIR.
The
City
will
consider
the
recommendations
provided
in
Comment
as
part
of
its
planning
review
and
decisionmaking.
This
comment
recommends
architectural
requirements
to
reduce
the
wind
effects
of
Project
Site
development,
which
the
City
has
determined
do
not
need
to
be
incorporated
in
the
Baylands
EIR
either
as
mitigation
or
as
part
of
a
new
alternative.
Such
measures
can
be
considered
as
part
of
the
planning
review
undertaken
by
the
City
for
the
Baylands.
While
CEQA
requires
implementation
of
all
feasible
mitigation
measures
when
a
significant
impact
is
determined
to
result
from
a
proposed
project,
CEQA
also
does
not
provide
the
Lead
Agency
with
authority
to
require
mitigation
measures
when
no
significant
impact
is
determined
to
exist.
As
discussed
in
Section
4.M,
Recreational
Resources
,
of
the
Draft
EIR,
impacts
on
windsurfing
resources
were
determined
to
be
less
than
significant,
and
no
mitigation
is
required.
In
addition,
since
a
significant
impact
on
windsurfing
resources
was
not
determined
to
exist,
analysis
of
an
alternative
primarily
designed
to
address
impacts
on
windsurfing
resources
would
be
unnecessary.
Reducing
building
heights
in
the
easterly
portion
of
the
site
(the
area
closest
to
the
Bay),
is
already
required
by
Mitigation
Measure
4.A-1,
although
not
to
the
degree
requested
by
Comment
A
requirement
for
future
development
not
to
exceed
existing
elevations
within
the
former
landfill
area
could
constrain
the
ability
to
provide
the
required
landfill
cap
as
part
of
formal
landfill
closure
and
potentially
eliminate
any
economic
use
of
the
former
landfill
area
following
formal
closure.
Brisbane
Baylands
Final
EIR
2.9.4-21
May
2015