2.
Response
to
Comments
2.9
Individual
Responses
to
Comments
from
Organizations
The
relative
trip
generation
percentages
cited
in
the
comment
and
on
page
4.F-19
of
the
Draft
EIR
(“the
number
of
vehicle
trips
generated
by
the
CPP
and
CPP-V
scenarios
is
predicted
to
be
81
and
72
percent
greater
than
the
number
generated
by
the
DSP
and
DSP-V
scenarios,
respectively”)
are
calculated
from
an
earlier
iteration
of
the
Transportation
analysis.
The
estimates
cited
in
Tables
4.N-12
and
4.N-13
of
the
Draft
EIR
(42,528
net
new
vehicle
trips
per
day
for
the
DSP
scenario,
41,893
net
new
vehicle
trips
per
day
for
the
DSP-V
scenario,
79,514
net
new
vehicle
trips
per
day
for
the
CPP
scenario,
and
76,447
net
new
vehicle
trips
per
day
for
the
CPP-V
scenario)
are
the
most
updated
estimates
and
result
in
the
number
of
vehicle
trips
generated
by
the
CPP
and
CPP-V
scenarios
to
be
87
and
83
percent
greater
than
the
number
generated
by
the
DSP
and
DSP-V
scenarios,
respectively.
Table
4.N-12
and
Table
4.N-13
of
the
Draft
EIR
provide
the
assumed
square
footage
of
each
land
use
type
(or
number
of
units
for
residential
development)
and
the
number
of
vehicle
trips
generated
by
each
of
these
land
use
types
of
the
given
size
based
on
the
Institute
of
Transportation
Engineers
(ITE)
Trip
Generation.
The
Final
EIR
includes
an
updated
estimation
of
Project
Site
development-related
GHG
emissions
based
on
the
latest
version
of
the
CalEEMod
model,
which
was
released
in
October
of
2013
subsequent
to
the
release
of
the
Draft
EIR.
A
text
revision
to
Table
4.F-2
has
been
prepared
to
reflect
the
recalculations.
See
and
These
updated
calculations
indicate
that
the
CPP
and
CPP-V
scenarios
would
not
have
a
significant
impact
with
regard
to
GHG
emissions.
Consequently,
Mitigation
Measure
4.F-1
is
no
longer
required
for
any
of
the
Project
Site
development
scenarios
based
on
these
updated
emission
estimates.
See
for
discussion
regarding
the
characterization
of
contamination
within
the
Project
site.
Section
4.G.2
of
the
Draft
EIR
discusses
the
existing
contamination
within
the
Project
Site.
Chapter
3
is
the
Project
Description
and
Section
3.2
describes
the
site
setting.
Characterization
of
wastes
within
the
Project
site
is
based
on
studies
of
actual
landfill
wastes,
while
characterization
of
soils
contamination
is
based
on
soils
testing.
Thus,
descriptions
of
landfill
wastes
and
soils
contamination
are
not
dependent
on
identification
of
specific
past
uses
within
the
Baylands
Project
Site.
The
existing
soil
cover
on
top
of
the
landfill
was
placed
as
an
interim
measure
to
prevent
direct
contact
of
refuse
with
humans.
Soil
boring
logs
from
various
consultants
have
identified
the
depth
of
soil
cover
placed
on
top
of
the
landfill
waste.
A
new,
permanent
cover
that
is
compliant
with
Title
27
will
be
required
as
part
of
landfill
closure
prior
to
any
development
being
permitted.
The
RWQCB’s
review
of
the
Tittle
27
landfill
Brisbane
Baylands
Final
EIR
2.9.3-74
May
2015