2.
Response
to
Comment
2.4
Master
Responses
to
Comments
Thus,
the
Baylands
planning
review
process
will
include
evaluation
of
broad
community
social
and
economic
issues,
what
may
be
best
for
Brisbane,
how
best
to
achieve
community
goals,
and
how
proposed
land
use
may
be
designed
to
maximize
benefits
to
Brisbane
and
the
greater
region.
The
Planning
Commission
will
conduct
public
hearings
to
solicit
input
from
the
public
on
whether
each
of
the
components
of
the
Baylands
development
program
outlined
in
Tables
1-1
and
3-1
of
the
Draft
EIR
should
be
approved,
modified,
or
not
approved.
After
the
close
of
public
hearings,
the
Planning
Commission
will
make
a
recommendation
to
the
City
Council
based
on
the
Final
EIR,
all
other
available
information,
and
public
testimony
received
during
public
hearings.
The
City
Council
will
then
hold
its
own
public
hearings,
and
will
decide
whether
to
approve,
modify,
or
not
approve
each
component
of
the
Baylands
development
program.
2.4.5
Master
Response
5:
Compliance
with
the
Law
as
Mitigation
Comments
Throughout
the
Draft
EIR,
but
most
commonly
within
Section
4.E,
Geology,
Soils
and
Seismicity
,
and
Section
4.G,
Hazards
and
Hazardous
Materials
,
the
Baylands
EIR
relies
on
compliance
with
existing
laws
and
regulatory
standards
to
mitigate
impacts
to
less
than
significant.
Several
comments
expressed
concern
about
certain
regulatory
standards
not
being
stringent
enough
to
ensure
the
safety
of
those
living
and
working
within
and
near
the
Baylands.
Specific
comments
were
raised
regarding
the
remediation
standards
administered
and
overseen
by
Responsible
Agencies
such
as
Department
of
Toxic
Substances
Control
(DTSC)
and
Regional
Water
Quality
Control
Board
(RWQCB),
as
well
as
the
application
of
building
code
regulations
by
the
City
of
Brisbane.
This
master
response
addresses
those
concerns,
including:
Compliance
with
existing
laws
and
regulations
as
“full
and
effective
mitigation;”
Responsibilities
of
the
City
as
Lead
Agency
in
relation
to
Responsible
Agencies;
and
Requests
that
the
City
establish
standards
more
stringent
than
current
state
standards.
Response
Compliance
with
Law
as
Full
and
Effective
Mitigation
Under
CEQA,
compliance
with
existing
federal,
state,
or
local
laws,
codes,
and
regulatory
requirements
may
serve
as
adequate
mitigation
of
environmental
impacts.
For
example,
in
Oakland
Heritage
Alliance
v.
City
of
Oakland
(2011)
195
Cal.App.4th
884
,
the
court
found
that
the
City’s
compliance
with
all
applicable
state
and
local
regulations
as
well
as
the
final
design
parameters
and
building
recommendations
in
the
final
geotechnical
investigations
would
reduce
the
project’s
seismic
impacts
to
a
less
-than-
significant
level,
based
on
the
EIR’s
thorough
explanation
of
how
code
compliance
operates
as
effective
mitigation.
(See
also
Tracy
First
v.
City
of
Tracy
(2009)
177
Cal.App.4th
912,
[court
found
that
incorporation
of
state
energy
efficiency
standards
into
the
project
constituted
proper
mitigation].)
Brisbane
Baylands
Final
EIR
2.4-14
May
2015
Previous Page | Next Page