2.
Response
to
Comments
2.9
Individual
Responses
to
Comments
from
Organizations
sites
are
subject
to
monitoring
and
annual
monitoring
report
submittal
to
the
City
and
to
regulatory
agencies
such
as
the
Corps,
RWQCB,
and
BCDC
until
such
time
as
the
established
success
criteria
have
been
met,
as
approved
by
these
agencies.
The
applicant
is
responsible
for
demonstrating
that
revegetation
criteria
are
met
as
part
of
required
mitigation
monitoring,
and
will
also
be
pursued
by
State
and
Federal
regulatory
agencies
if
the
conditions
are
not
met
resulting
in
on-going
additional
costs
including
an
extended
duration
of
monitoring
and
reporting
to
demonstrate
compliance.
See
Final
EIR
Chapter
4.0,
Mitigation
Monitoring
and
Reporting
Program,
for
the
specific
measures
that
will
be
taken
to
enforce
implementation
and
success
of
Mitigation
Measure
4.C-2c.
Mitigation
Measure
4.C-2c
sets
performance
standards
that
must
be
met,
including
ensuring
that
the
total
area
and/or
overall
functions
and
values
of
jurisdictional
wetlands
or
waters
of
the
US
is
maintained.
Because
that
mitigation
measure
requires
the
total
area
and/or
overall
functions
and
values
of
jurisdictional
wetlands
or
waters
of
the
US
to
be
maintained
impacts
associated
with
filling
jurisdictional
wetlands
during
site
remediation
would
be
less
than
significant.
In
addition
to
Mitigation
Measure
4.C-2c,
the
impacts
discussed
on
page
4.C-53
of
the
Draft
EIR
involve
impacts
to
jurisdictional
wetlands
or
waters
of
the
United
States,
which
require
compliance
with
the
provisions
of
the
federal
Clean
Water
Act.
The
regulatory
process
defined
in
the
Clean
Water
Act
includes
and
requires
detailed
site
information
pertaining
to
soils,
hydrology,
and
plants
and
animals
present
in
wetland
habitats
to
be
prepared
and
evaluated
in
relation
to
the
precise
area
of
proposed
disturbance.
However,
until
actual
site-specific
grading
plans
and
development
projects
are
proposed,
precise
areas
of
proposed
disturbance
cannot
be
identified,
and
the
specific
area
and
the
overall
functions
and
values
of
jurisdictional
wetlands
or
waters
of
the
US
that
might
be
affected
cannot
be
determined.
Thus,
the
studies
called
for
in
the
comment
would
not
be
of
value
in
relation
to
implementation
of
required
mitigation
until
actual
site-specific
grading
plans
and
development
projects
are
actually
proposed.
However,
the
Draft
EIR
can
and
does
set
forth
the
performance
standards
that
will
be
required
to
mitigate
impacts
and
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
Clean
Act
regulatory
process,.
The
regulatory
agency
mandate
of
“no
net
loss”
is
reflected
in
Draft
EIR
Mitigation
Measure
4.C-2a,
and
it
is
incumbent
upon
the
applicants
of
specific
actions
that
would
disturb
wetlands
and
waters
of
the
United
States
to
develop
the
detailed
studies
and
materials
required
to
comply
with
provisions
of
the
Clean
Water
Act
and
achieve
applicable
performance
standards.
As
stated
in
Response
if
restored
habitats
do
not
meet
applicable
performance
standards,
additional
work
would
be
required
to
ensure
performance
standards
are
met.
The
assertions
in
this
comment
are
incorrect
and
unsubstantiated.
On
page
4.C-54,
the
Draft
EIR
states
that
wildlife
habitat
is
present
in
the
Brisbane
Lagoon.
The
lands
between
the
Roundhouse
Brisbane
Baylands
Final
EIR
2.9.2-53
May
2015