2.
Response
to
Comments
2.10
Individual
Responses
to
Comments
from
Individuals
Based
on
the
historical
record
for
the
agency-listed
subspecies
of
unarmored
three-spine
stickleback
(ssp.
williamsoni
),
this
species
has
never
occurred
within
the
San
Francisco
bay
region.
The
references
among
Draft
EIR
comments
regarding
observation
of
“unarmored
three-spine
stickleback”
within
the
Baylands
Project
area
thus
presume
the
presence
of
a
subspecies
only
known
from
southern
California.
The
stickleback
fish
that
may
occur
in
the
San
Francisco
Bay
area
would
the
more
common
three-spine
stickleback
with
nomenclature
of
(
Gasterosteus
aculeatus
)
.
Regardless,
the
need
for
evaluation
of
“stickleback”
is
unwarranted
due
to
the
more
common
nature
of
the
three-spine
stickleback
(
Gasterosteus
aculeatus
),
which
is
the
only
subspecies
that
might
be
found
in
the
San
Francisco
Bay.
Meeting1-54
[See page
5-652 for the original comment]
This
comment
provides
a
general
statement
of
concern
regarding
the
Draft
EIR
as
a
summary
of
previous
comments,
which
are
responded
to
in
Responses
Meeting1-1
through
Meeting1-52.
Meeting1-55
[See page
5-652 for the original comment]
Any
contamination
from
former
uses
within
the
Baylands
would
be
identified
as
part
of
site
characterization
activities.
Recognizing
that
contamination
within
the
Baylands
must
be
remediated
regardless
of
the
specific
business
or
use
that
released
the
contaminant
in
the
past,
the
discussion
of
existing
contaminants
within
the
Draft
EIR
focuses
on
defining
the
contaminants
that
require
remediation.
Meeting1-56
[See page
5-653 for the original comment]
The
Industrial
Way
properties
are
discussed
in
Section
2.2
of
the
Hazardous
Materials
Summary
Report
Operable
Units
1
and
2,
Former
Southern
Pacific
Railyard,
Brisbane,
San
Mateo
County,
California
(GeoSyntec,
March
1,
2012).
Uses
along
Industrial
Way
will
be
removed
and
replaced
with
new
development
under
each
development
scenario.
Any
contamination
from
former
uses
within
the
Baylands
would
be
identified
as
part
of
site
characterization
activities.
Recognizing
that
contamination
within
the
Baylands
must
be
remediated
regardless
of
the
specific
business
or
use
that
released
the
contaminant
in
the
past,
the
discussion
of
existing
contaminants
within
the
Draft
EIR
focuses
on
defining
the
contaminants
that
require
remediation.
Meeting1-57
[See page
5-653 for the original comment]
Comment
Meeting1-57
provides
a
general
statement
of
concern
regarding
the
Draft
EIR
as
a
summary
of
previous
comments,
which
are
responded
to
in
Responses
Meeting1-1
through
Meeting1-45.
See
Master Response
1
for
discussion
regarding
the
programmatic
nature
of
the
Draft
EIR
and
requirements
for
subsequent
environmental
review
of
site-specific
development
projects
within
the
Baylands.
Brisbane
Baylands
Final
EIR
2.10.19-18
May
2015
Previous Page | Next Page