2.
Response
to
Comment
2.4
Master
Responses
to
Comments
Draft
EIR
page
4.G-88
states
that
operations
at
the
expanded
Recology
facility
would
include
increased
onsite
use
of
gasoline
and
diesel
fuels,
as
well
as
liquefied
natural
gas,
which
would
be
stored
onsite
in
aboveground
tanks.
Safety
requirements
for
the
storage
of
these
materials
are
prescribed
in
the
Hazardous
Materials
Business
Plan
for
the
Recology
site,
which
was
approved
by
the
San
Mateo
County
Environmental
Health
Division.
The
Draft
EIR
also
states
that
compliance
with
the
Hazardous
Materials
Business
Plan,
which
is
on
file
with
the
San
Mateo
County
Environmental
Health
Division,
would
ensure
that
impacts
related
to
the
routine
transport,
use,
or
disposal
of
hazardous
materials
at
the
Recology
site
will
be
less
than
significant.
Surface
Water
and
Hydrology
As
discussed
in
Draft
EIR
Section
4.H,
Surface
Water
Hydrology
and
Water
Quality
,
drainage
facilities
for
the
Baylands,
including
the
Recology
facility
in
the
CPP-V
scenario,
would
be
designed
to
provide
protection
of
proposed
uses
from
the
100-year
flood,
recognizing
the
effects
of
projected
sea
level
rise.
The
analysis
provided
in
Section
4.H
of
the
Draft
EIR
concludes
that
proposed
Baylands
development
would
not
increase
offsite
stormwater
flows
such
that
flooding
of
downstream
properties
would
occur.
Thus,
no
land
use
incompatibilities
between
the
Recology
facility
and
proposed
Baylands
development
would
occur
in
relation
to
flooding.
As
previously
noted,
the
Recology
facility
has
been
subject
to
groundwater
remediation
requirements.
Compliance
with
these
requirements
will
avoid
creation
of
water
quality
problems
between
the
Recology
and
surrounding
existing
and
proposed
development.
Land
Use
Two
types
of
comments
were
submitted
in
relation
to
land
use
compatibility
and
the
Recology
facility:
(1)
concerns
from
Visitacion
Valley
residents
regarding
the
compatibility
of
the
proposed
Recology
expansion
(CPP-V
scenario)
and
adjacent
residential
neighborhoods,
and
(2)
comments
from
Recology
expressing
concern
about
adjacent
uses
proposed
in
the
DSP
and
DSP-V
scenarios.
Typically,
residential
uses
are
not
considered
to
be
compatible
with
solid
waste
transfer
facilities,
and
the
two
uses
would
generally
be
separated;
however,
the
Recology
facility
has
long
been
located
immediately
adjacent
to
existing
residential
uses
within
Visitacion
Valley.
As
a
result,
providing
physical
separation
between
Recology
and
Visitacion
Valley
is
not
feasible.
As
discussed
below,
issues
of
noise
and
odors
that
might
otherwise
be
addressed
by
separating
the
solid
waste
facility
from
residential
uses
can
be
managed
largely
by
modernizing
Recology
equipment
(which
is
included
as
part
of
proposed
facility
expansion
in
the
CPP-V
scenario)
and
moving
solid
waste
processing
indoors,
which
is
also
included
as
part
of
the
proposed
Recology
expansion
modernization
and
expansion
(CPP-V
scenario).
Noise
related
to
onsite
truck
maintenance,
parking,
and
maneuvering
would
be
addressed
as
part
of
the
site
plan
review
for
site-specific
development
of
the
Recology
facility,
which
would
be
subject
to
the
performance
standards
set
forth
in
the
Baylands
Draft
EIR.
Such
measures
would
include
defining
appropriate
locations
for
onsite
truck
maintenance,
parking,
and
maneuvering,
along
with
placement
of
screen
walls
that
can
provide
noise
abatement.
While
providing
physical
separation
between
Recology
Brisbane
Baylands
Final
EIR
2.4-65
May
2015