2.
Response
to
Comments
2.9
Individual
Responses
to
Comments
from
Organizations
meet
CRHR
criterion
D
–
information
potential,
and
would
not
be
considered
historical
resources
as
defined
by
CEQA.
In
the
event
that
unidentified
archaeological
deposits
related
to
the
railroad-era
were
encountered
during
project-related
ground-disturbing
activities,
Mitigation
Measure
4.D-2
would
apply.
All
correspondence
related
to
Native
American
consultation
is
included
in
Appendix
F.6
of
the
Final
EIR,
and
is
also
part
of
the
Administrative
Record
on
file
with
the
City
Brisbane
and
may
be
viewed
at
the
City
of
Brisbane
Planning
Division,
50
Park
Place,
Brisbane,
CA
94005.
In
summary,
the
correspondence
indicates
that
in
response
to
an
inquiry
about
the
potential
presence
of
sacred
lands
or
traditional
cultural
properties
within
the
Baylands
Project
Site,
the
NAHC
stated
that
a
record
search
of
the
NAHC
sacred
land
file
had
failed
to
indicate
the
presence
of
Native
American
cultural
resources
within
the
immediate
Baylands
Project
Site.
The
NAHC
also
included
a
list
of
seven
Native
American
contacts
that
might
have
knowledge
of
cultural
resources
within
the
Baylands
Project
Site
and
recommended
contacting
each.
A
letter
was
sent
to
each
Native
American
contact
requesting
information
about
potential
cultural
resources
within
the
Baylands
Project
Site.
A
follow-up
telephone
call
was
placed
to
each
contact
two
weeks
after
sending
the
letters.
No
responses
were
received
to
any
of
the
inquiries.
No
archaeological
testing
was
conducted
due
to
a
low
potential
for
the
presence
of
archaeological
deposits
within
the
Baylands
Project
Site.
Please
see
Should
previously
unrecorded
resources
be
discovered
during
project-
related
ground-disturbing
activities,
Mitigation
Measure
4.D-2
would
apply.
Draft
EIR
page
4.D-5
notes
that
artificial
fill
that
is
obtained
in
one
location
and
deliberately
dumped
in
a
different
location
to
raise
the
land
surface,
such
as
the
1906
earthquake
debris
used
to
reclaim
land
west
of
the
SPRR
railroad
corridor
within
the
Baylands
Project
Site,
is
not
informative
from
an
archaeological
perspective
and
is
therefore
unlikely
to
meet
the
standards
set
forth
in
CEQA
for
historical
or
archaeological
resources.
In
order
to
meet
CEQA’s
definitions
of
historical
resource
or
unique
archaeological
resource
(see
Public
Resources
Code
Section
21083.2
and
CEQA
Guidelines
Section
15064.5),
archaeological
deposits
must
be
able
to
yield
information
important
in
history
or
contain
information
needed
to
answer
important
scientific
research
questions.
Although
fill
deposits
may
contain
numerous
historic-era
artifacts,
because
the
objects
are
no
longer
in
their
original
context,
they
would
be
unable
to
address
historical
themes
and
research
questions,
and
therefore
would
not
qualify
as
historical
resources
or
unique
archaeological
resource
pursuant
to
CEQA.
Brisbane
Baylands
Final
EIR
2.9.2-69
May
2015