2.
Response
to
Comments
2.9
Individual
Responses
to
Comments
from
Organizations
remediation
of
and
will
result
in
less
contamination
potentially
entering
the
Brisbane
Lagoon
and
San
Francisco
Bay.
See
for
discussion
of
the
remediation
review
and
approval
process,
1
for
discussion
of
the
programmatic
nature
of
the
Draft
EIR,
and
5
for
discussion
regarding
compliance
with
the
law
as
mitigation
under
CEQA.
As
discussed
in
the
RWQCB
and
DTSC
will
set
and
enforce
risk-based
cleanup
goals
based
on
the
land
uses
determined
by
the
City
to
be
appropriate
for
the
Baylands.
Because
Title
27
landfill
closure
and
site
remediation
will
not
be
permitted
to
create
any
new
exposure
pathways,
and
will
be
required
to
achieve
the
risk-based
remediation
standards
set
and
enforced
by
the
RWQCB
and
DTSC,
no
significant
impacts
will
result.
See
5
for
discussion
regarding
compliance
with
the
law
as
mitigation
under
CEQA.
The
Mitigation
Monitoring
and
Reporting
Program
contained
in
Final
EIR
Chapter
4.0
identifies
the
methods
to
be
employed
by
the
City
of
Brisbane
to
ensure
implementation
of
mitigation
EIR
measures.
The
RWQCB
and
DTSC,
as
part
of
their
regulatory
authority
for
remediation
and
Title
27
landfill
closure
within
the
Baylands,
have
the
authority
to
impose
fines
on
any
contractor
not
in
compliance
with
the
federal
or
State
regulations.
The
RWQCB
and
DTSC
will
also
impose
monitoring
requirements
to
address
ongoing
performance
of
site
remediation
and
Title
27
landfill
closure.
In
addition,
the
City
of
Brisbane
retains
the
authority
to
halt
Project
site
development
if
the
contractor
is
not
in
compliance
with
applicable
federal,
State,
or
local
regulations.
The
specific
technologies
that
will
be
used
for
Project
site
remediation
will
be
determined
by
the
regulatory
agencies
for
the
former
landfill,
and
areas.
These
regulatory
agencies
will
also
determine
the
appropriateness
of
requiring
performance
bonds
and
back-up
systems
for
site
remediation
and
Title
27
landfill
closure.
Pursuant
to
the
requirements
of
CEQA,
the
Draft
EIR
evaluates
changes
to
the
environment
that
would
result
from
approval
of
the
proposed
development
of
the
Baylands
under
each
of
the
four
development
scenarios
described
in
Chapter
3,
Project
Description
.
The
section
of
the
Draft
EIR
referenced
in
this
comment
is
specific
to
proposed
future
onsite
uses,
not
current
land
uses
adjacent
to
the
Project
site.
While
CEQA
provides
requirements
for
EIRs
and
an
obligation
on
the
part
of
the
Lead
Agency
of
an
EIR
to
mitigate
the
significant
impacts
of
a
proposed
project,
CEQA
does
not
provide
authority
for
agencies
to
place
requirements
on
existing
adjacent
uses.
It
should
also
be
noted
that
the
uses
along
Industrial
Way
referenced
in
this
comment
are
proposed
to
be
removed
under
each
of
the
four
development
Brisbane
Baylands
Final
EIR
2.9.1-74
May
2015