2.
Response
to
Comment
2.4
Master
Responses
to
Comments
former
landfill;
(5)
certifying
completion
of
site
remediation
and
formal
landfill
closure;
and
(6)
undertaking
such
post-remediation
and
closure
activities
as
are
necessary
to
ensure
public
health.
The
DTSC,
RWQCB,
and
San
Mateo
County
Health
System
each
possess
the
requisite
experience
and
expertise
in
monitoring
soil/groundwater
contamination
and
methane
gas
emissions.
The
City
will
ensure
that
the
remediation-related
mitigation
measures
are
completed
to
the
satisfaction
of
the
Responsible
Agencies
prior
to
any
site
development,
and
ultimately
will
rely
on
the
expertise
of
and
regulatory
standards
established
by
these
Responsible
Agencies
with
statutory
authority
to
ensure
appropriate
completion
of
site
remediation/landfill
closure
and
protection
of
the
public.
Public
agencies,
such
as
DTSC,
RWQCB,
and
San
Mateo
County
Health
System,
are
entitled
to
the
presumption
that
their
statutory
duties
will
be
regularly
performed,
i.e.,
compliance
with
their
own
regulatory
requirements.
(See
Evidence
Code
Section
664;
Bus
Riders
Union
v.
Los
Angeles
County
Metropolitan
Transportation
Agency
[2009]
179
Cal.App.4th
101,
108;
San
Joaquin
River
Exchange
Contractors
Water
Authority
v.
State
Water
Resources
Control
Bd.
[2010]
183
Cal.App.4th
1110,
1135.)
Setting
Standards
More
Stringent
than
Existing
Regulatory
Standards
A
number
of
comments
on
the
Draft
EIR
requested
that
the
City
impose
more
stringent
standards
than
existing
regulatory
requirements.
As
discussed
previously
in
this
master
response,
and
consistent
with
CEQA,
the
Draft
EIR
concluded
that
compliance
with
applicable
laws
and
regulations
would
reduce
a
number
of
project
impacts
to
less
than
significant,
primarily
impacts
related
to
hazardous
materials
and
geology.
These
conclusions
were
based
on
a
specific
analysis
of
potential
impacts
and
the
effect
of
regulatory
compliance.
In
the
absence
of
any
substantial
evidence
that
compliance
with
these
laws
and
regulations
would
not
adequately
protect
life
and
property
within
the
Baylands
from
seismic
and
geological
hazards,
or
reduce
hazardous
materials
impacts
to
less
than
significant,
the
conclusions
reached
in
the
Draft
EIR
are
adequate
and
no
additional
mitigation
is
required.
2.4.6
Master
Response
6:
“
Significant
Unavoidable
”
Impacts
and
“
Unacceptable
”
Impacts
Comments
Several
comments
used
the
terms
“significant
unavoidable”
impacts
and
“unacceptable”
impacts
interchangeably
or
assumed
that
determining
an
impact
to
be
less
than
significant
denoted
acceptance
of
the
impact
by
the
community
This
master
response
clarifies
the
differences
between
“significant
unavoidable”
impacts
and
“unacceptable”
impacts.
Response
CEQA
Guidelines
Section
15126.2(b)
requires
an
EIR
to
describe
“any
significant
impacts,
includin
g
those
which
can
be
mitigated
but
not
reduced
to
a
level
of
insignificance.”
Once
an
impact
is
determined
to
be
significant,
it
is
the
Lead
Agency’s
responsibility
to
identify
and
Brisbane
Baylands
Final
EIR
2.4-17
May
2015