2.
Response
to
Comment
2.4
Master
Responses
to
Comments
Closure
and
Post-Closure
Maintenance
Plan
(Burns
&
McDonnell,
2002b).
The
components
of
that
plan
are
described
on
Draft
EIR
pages
4.G-79
through
4.G-81.
Finally,
Subsection
4.G.3,
Regulatory
Setting
,
provides
a
detailed
overview
of
the
various
federal,
state,
regional,
and
local
regulations.
Therefore,
the
Draft
EIR
has
provided
substantial
evidence
that
the
mitigation
would
reduce
impacts
related
to
hazards
and
hazardous
materials
to
less-than-significant
levels
based
on
compliance
with
the
law
and
implementation
of
regulatory
requirements.
Responsibilities
of
the
City
as
Lead
Agency
in
Relation
to
Responsible
Agencies
with
Oversight
over
Project
Remediation
Activities
Under
CEQA,
a
“Responsible
Agency”
is
a
public
agency
that
proposes
to
carry
out
or
approve
a
project
for
which
a
Lead
Agency
is
preparing
or
has
prepared
an
EIR
or
Negative
Declaration
(Public
Resources
Code
Section
21069;
CEQA
Guidelines
Section
15381).
Responsible
Agencies
have
discretionary
approval
authority
over
projects,
often
through
their
issuance
of
a
regulatory
permit.
Generally,
the
Lead
and
Responsible
Agencies
for
a
given
project
will
adopt
separate
and
different
mitigation
monitoring
or
reporting
programs.
This
may
occur
for
any
of
the
following
reasons:
(1)
the
agencies
are
operating
under
a
specific
set
of
legislative
or
administrative
requirements
separate
from
CEQA;
(2)
the
agencies
have
adopted,
and
are
responsible
for
reporting
on
or
monitoring,
different
mitigation
measures;
(3)
the
agencies
are
deciding
on
the
project
at
different
times;
(4)
each
agency
has
the
discretion
to
choose
its
own
approach
to
monitoring
or
reporting;
or
(5)
each
agency
has
its
own
special
expertise.
Subsection
3.15.1
and
Subsection
2.4.2
of
the
Draft
EIR
include
a
list
of
Responsible
Agencies.
Several
Responsible
Agencies
are
identified
for
oversight
of
site
remediation.
As
explained
in
detail
in
Section
4.G,
Hazards
and
Hazardous
Materials
,
the
Baylands
Project
Site
contains
contaminants
in
the
soil
and
groundwater
that
would
require
remediation
prior
to
future
development.
Both
the
State
of
California
(DTSC
and
RWQCB)
and
San
Mateo
County
provide
regulatory
oversight
for
these
measures.
These
agencies
are
currently
monitoring
the
site
and
will
oversee
remediation
techniques
and
results
in
accordance
with
the
Remedial
Action
Plans
(RAPs)
that
would
need
to
be
prepared,
approved,
and
implemented
prior
to
any
development
within
the
Baylands.
The
San
Mateo
County
Health
Services
Agency,
along
with
the
San
Francisco
Bay
RWQCB,
oversees
the
landfill.
Groundwater/leachate
and
stormwater
quality
are
being
regularly
monitored
by
consultants
for
the
landowner
at
well
and
outfall
locations
and
reported
to
the
RWQCB.
The
RWQCB
and
San
Mateo
County
Health
System
will
be
responsible
for
reviewing,
approving,
and
ultimately
monitoring
implementation
of
plans
for
Title
27
landfill
closure.
As
discussed
above,
mitigation
measures
provided
in
Draft
EIR
Section
4.G
require
oversight
and
approval
by
DTSC,
RWQCB,
and
San
Mateo
County
Health
System
as
Responsible
Agencies,
each
acting
in
response
to
its
regulatory
authority.
See
for
discussion
of
the
remediation/landfill
closure
review
and
approval
process
and
the
responsibilities
of
DTSC,
RWQCB,
and
San
Mateo
County
Health
System
for
(1)
setting
risk-based
cleanup
goals
based
on
the
land
uses
determined
by
the
City
of
Brisbane
to
be
appropriate;
(2)
reviewing
and
approving
plans
for
site
remediation
and
landfill
closure;
(3)
undertaking
project-level
CEQA
review
for
the
remediation
of
and
as
well
as
the
Title
27
closure
of
the
former
landfill;
(4)
overseeing
the
physical
remediation
of
and
as
well
as
the
Title
27
closure
of
the
Brisbane
Baylands
Final
EIR
2.4-16
May
2015