2.
Response
to
Comments
2.9
Individual
Responses
to
Comments
from
Organizations
2.9.9
San
Francisco
Baykeeper
SFB-1
[See page
5-504 for the original comment]
Please
also
see
Master Response
1
for
a
detailed
discussion
of
program
and
project
level
analysis
in
an
EIR
and
Master Response
5
for
a
discussion
of
compliance
with
regulations
as
mitigation
under
CEQA.
As
discussed
in
Master Response
1,
this
program
EIR
does
not
evaluate
site-specific
development
within
the
Baylands.
Consistent
with
CEQA’s
requirements,
the
specificity
of
the
program-level
analysis
in
the
EIR
corresponds
to
the
level
of
detail
that
is
currently
available
for
the
Baylands
Project
components.
(See
CEQA
Guidelines
Section
15146.)
As
stated
by
the
California
Supreme
Court,
“it
is
proper
for
a
lead
agency
to
use
its
discretion
to
focus
a
first-tier
EIR
on
only
the…program,
leaving
project-specific
details
to
subsequent
EIRs
when
specific
projects
are
considered”
(
In
re
Bay
Delta
(2008)
43
Cal.4th
1143,
1174).
Until
specific
development
projects
are
actually
proposed
through
subdivision
maps,
conditional
use
permits,
site
development
permits,
or
similar
actions,
project-level
analysis
would
be
speculative
and
therefore
is
not
required
under
CEQA.
As
further
discussed
in
Master Response
3,
because
CEQA
requires
that
mitigation
measures
be
formulated
as
early
in
the
process
as
possible,
often
before
site-
specific
engineering
and
design
details
are
available,
CEQA
allows
Lead
Agencies
to
defer
the
implementation
of
mitigation
measures
in
such
cases
as
long
as
they
specify
performance
standards
for
mitigating
a
significant
impact
that
might
be
accomplished
in
various
ways
(CEQA
Guidelines
Section
15126.4(a)(1)(B)).
The
establishment
of
performance
standards
allows
the
agency
to
ensure
that
the
impact
will
be
mitigated,
without
forcing
it
to
design
the
specific
components
of
the
mitigation
measure
at
an
early
stage
of
the
planning
process
before
sufficient
detail
is
available.
The
Brisbane
Baylands
EIR
thus
includes
performance
standards
in
its
mitigation
measures
to
allow
for
detailed
development
and
engineering
design,
as
well
as
implementation
of
mitigation
measures
at
the
appropriate
time
in
the
planning
review
and
development
process,
which
is
common
practice
for
large
projects
being
reviewed
at
the
General
Plan
or
specific
plan
stage.
CEQA
does
not
require
a
formal
public
review
period
for
a
Final
EIR,
requiring
only
that
public
agencies
providing
a
comment
on
a
Draft
EIR
be
provided
with
the
lead
agency’s
proposed
response
to
the
agency’s
comment
a
minimum
of
10
days
prior
to
certification
of
the
EIR.
The
City
of
Brisbane,
as
Lead
Agency
for
the
Baylands
EIR
recognizes
the
importance
of
public
review
and
input
to
the
CEQA
process
and
will
provide
the
public
with
an
adequate
period
for
review
of
the
Baylands
Final
EIR
prior
to
taking
formal
action
on
its
certification.
SFB-2
[See page
5-504 for the original comment]
The
Draft
EIR
analyzes
the
environmental
effects
of
a
20-year
build-out
of
the
Baylands
based
on
the
four
Brisbane
Baylands
Final
EIR
2.9.9-1
May
2015
Previous Page | Next Page