2.
Response
to
Comment
2.4
Master
Responses
to
Comments
§
9601
et
seq
.
(CERCLA).
In
addition,
the
Project
site
is
subject
to
the
regulatory
oversight
of
the
State
of
California
Regional
Water
Quality
Control
Board,
and
the
Department
of
Toxic
Substances
Control
pursuant
to
Corrective
Action
Orders
enforceable
by
State
law
and
non-
compliance
punishable
by
substantive
monetary
fines.
The
City
has
no
liability
in
relation
to
hazardous
materials
remediation
and
Title
27
landfill
closure.
2.4.17
Master
Response
17,
Hazards
and
Hazardous
Materials:
Potential
for
Cross-Contamination
and
Cumulative
Effects
of
Multiple
Toxins
Comments
Several
comments
requested
that
the
EIR
address
“cross
-
contamination”
without
providing
any
explanatory
text
identifying
specific
concerns.
It
appears
that
these
comments
were
expressing
concern
that
site
remediation
or
pile
driving
for
building
foundation
piers
within
the
former
landfill
could
result
in
the
spread
of
contamination.
Additional
comments
requested
discussion
regarding
the
potential
cumulative
effects
of
multiple
toxins
within
the
Project
site.
Response
Any
drilling
will
be
required
to
comply
with
the
requirements
of
the
RWQCB,
and
to
be
conducted
within
non-permeable
casings
to
avoid
permitting
the
movement
of
leachates
or
other
contaminants
into
the
groundwater
basin.
The
human
health
risk
assessments
that
will
be
prepared
for
the
project
site
will
address
risks
associated
with
each
of
the
toxins
present
within
the
site,
and
will
account
for
potential
interactions
between
toxins.
2.4.18
Master
Response
18,
Land
Use:
Is
a
Public
Vote
Required
to
Amend
the
Brisbane
General
Plan?
Comments
Several
comments
asserted
that
proposed
revisions
to
the
Brisbane
General
Plan
require
a
public
vote.
Some
comments
also
asserted
that
development
within
the
Baylands
must
be
submitted
to
the
voters
for
approval.
Response
Due
to
the
manner
in
which
Brisban
e’s
existing
General
Plan
was
adopted,
General
Plan
amendments
do
not
require
voter
approval.
The
public
vote
following
the
original
adoption
of
the
1993
Brisbane
General
Plan
consisted
of
a
ballot
measure
referendum
that
proposed
to
reject
the
General
Plan
that
had
been
duly
adopted
by
the
City
Council.
The
1993
measure
to
reject
the
City’s
General
Plan
was
defeated
by
voters,
leaving
the
City
Council
-approved
General
Plan
in
place.
Because
the
action
taken
by
voters
in
1993
was
a
referendum
on
the
already-adopted
General
Plan
rather
than
an
initiative
to
adopt
a
General
Plan,
amendments
to
the
City’s
adopted
Brisbane
Baylands
Final
EIR
2.4-46
May
2015
Previous Page | Next Page