2.
Response
to
Comments
2.9
Individual
Responses
to
Comments
from
Organizations
the
Baylands;
and
human
health
risks
associated
with
site
contamination
in
relation
to
those
land
uses
to
develop
risk-based
cleanup
goals.
OSEC-279
OSEC-280
[See page
5-347 for the original comment]
See
Response OSEC-278.
[See page
5-347 for the original comment]
See
Response OSEC-148
for
discussion
of
sea
level
rise
in
relation
to
site
remediation.
[See page
5-347 for the original comment]
See
Response OSEC-277.
[See page
5-348 for the original comment]
A
glossary
of
terms
and
acronyms
is
provided
in
Final
EIR
Chapter
3.0.
[See page
5-348 for the original comment]
Chapter
4.0,
Mitigation
Monitoring
and
Reporting
Program
identifies
implementation
requirements
for
the
integrated
pest
management
program
required
in
Mitigation
Measure
4.H-5.
[See page
5-348 for the original comment]
The
City
has
committed
to
the
Regional
MS4
NPDES
permit
as
a
co-signee,
and
is
complying
with
all
of
its
obligations
as
a
participant.
EIR
mitigation
measures
require
compliance
with
NPDES
permit
requirements.
The
question
as
to
whether
the
City
has
a
contingency
plan
in
the
event
the
applicant
“defaults”
and
does
not
meet
their
legal
obligations
is
outside
of
the
scope
of
analysis
required
under
CEQA;
however,
the
City’s
standard
requirements
for
performance
bonds
for
grading
and
infrastructure
improvements
provides
the
City
with
the
ability
to
complete
or
repair
work
undertaken
as
part
of
site
development
prior
to
its
acceptance
by
the
City
for
maintenance.
See
Final
EIR
Chapter
4.0,
Mitigation
Monitoring
and
Reporting
Plan
for
discussion
of
actions
to
be
taken
in
the
event
EIR
mitigation
measures
are
not
implemented.
[See page
5-348 for the original comment]
Figure
4.I-1
is
intended
to
illustrate
existing
land
uses
within
the
Baylands
and
surrounding
lands,
not
show
General
Plan
land
use
designations.
Existing
General
Plan
designations
are
illustrated
in
Draft
EIR
Figure
3-9
.
[See page
5-348 for the original comment]
A
potential
location
for
a
pedestrian
crossing
of
the
US
101
freeway
would
be
at
the
Candlestick
interchange
since
this
is
the
only
location
within
the
Baylands
with
destinations
for
pedestrians
to
the
east
of
the
freeway.
That
interchange
has
not
been
designed
to
the
degree
that
details
of
a
pedestrian
crossing
can
be
described
at
this
time.
[See page
5-348 for the original comment]
The
second
and
third
paragraphs
on
page
4.I-8
are
revised
to
read
as
follows:
OSEC-281
OSEC-282
OSEC-283
OSEC-284
OSEC-285
OSEC-286
OSEC-287
Brisbane
Baylands
Final
EIR
2.9.3-90
May
2015
Previous Page | Next Page