2.
Response
to
Comments
2.9
Individual
Responses
to
Comments
from
Organizations
regulatory
authority
of
the
RWQCB
would
remove
the
possibility
of
contamination
of
the
Lagoon
by
the
former
landfill.
See
15
for
discussion
regarding
the
adequacy
of
studies
for
use
in
the
Draft
EIR.
As
noted
Draft
EIR
Section
4.E,
Geology,
Soils,
and
Seismicity
,
explicitly
recognizes
that
the
composition
of
underlying
soils,
even
those
relatively
distant
from
faults,
can
intensify
groundshaking,
and
that
significant
amplification
of
strong
groundshaking
could
occur
within
the
Baylands.
The
referenced
study
in
the
comment
was
conducted
in
order
to
study
the
9.0
magnitude
earthquake
that
occurred
in
Tohoku,
Japan.
The
study
did
not
make
any
scientific
conclusions
regarding
the
San
Andreas
Fault,
but
hypothesized
that
a
larger-than-predicted
earthquake
could
potentially
occur
on
other
fault
systems
such
as
the
San
Andreas
Fault.
Considering
that
further
study
is
needed
in
order
to
better
determine
the
likelihood
of
an
earthquake
that
is
substantially
more
powerful
than
what
is
currently
accepted
in
accordance
with
building
code
regulations
would
be
speculative
and
outside
the
scope
of
CEQA.
Section
4.E
of
the
Draft
EIR
also
states
that
although
the
City
College
fault
is
not
categorized
as
an
active
fault,
in
accordance
with
the
seismic
design
criteria
of
the
California
Building
Code
(CBC),
all
proposed
improvements
would
be
required
to
consider
the
anticipated
groundshaking
that
could
occur
from
a
maximum
credible
earthquake
considering
a
site’s
location
relative
to
active
faults
in
the
region.
Also,
as
discussed
5,
under
CEQA,
compliance
with
California
Building
Code
seismic
requirements
serve
as
mitigation.
The
CBC
provides
specifications
for
design
in
locations
with
underlying
soils
that
can
amplify
seismic
groundshaking,
and
adherence
to
the
CBC
will
adequately
reduce
seismic
hazards
and
safety
to
less
than
significant
levels.
See
for
discussion
of
seismic
risks,
5
for
discussion
of
compliance
with
the
law
as
mitigation
under
CEQA,
and
for
discussion
of
the
adequacy
of
studies
related
to
potential
groundwater
contamination
for
use
in
the
Draft
EIR.
See
12
for
discussion
of
seismic
risks
and
5
for
discussion
of
compliance
with
the
law
as
mitigation
under
CEQA.
Mitigation
Measure
4.E-2.b
states
“To
address
recovery
from
damage
to
future
structures
and
to
the
landfill
itself
Brisbane
Baylands
Final
EIR
2.9.1-19
May
2015