2.
Response
to
Comment
2.4
Master
Responses
to
Comments
and
Visitacion
Valley
is
not
feasible,
site
planning
for
the
proposed
Recology
expansion
could
be
undertaken
in
a
manner
that
reduces
existing
impacts
on
the
surrounding
community.
Although
the
residential
uses
proposed
in
the
DSP
and
DSP-V
scenarios
would
be
separated
from
the
Recology
facility
by
the
Caltrain
right-of-way,
these
residential
uses
would
nevertheless
be
in
proximity
to
the
Recology
facility,
resulting
in
land
use
compatibility
issues
similar
to
those
existing
between
the
Recology
facility
and
Visitacion
Valley.
The
differences
between
residential
uses
in
Visitacion
Valley
and
those
proposed
for
Baylands
development
in
the
DSP
and
DSP-V
scenarios
are
that
(1)
the
DSP
and
DSP
scenarios
would
introduce
new
residential
use
in
proximity
to
Recology,
and
(2)
residential
use
is
not
currently
a
permitted
use,
whereas
residential
uses
within
Visitacion
Valley
exist
and
are
a
permitted
use
in
their
current
location.
Comment
RSF-3
states
that
the
scenarios
included
in
the
Draft
Brisbane
Baylands
Specific
Plan
(DSP
and
DSP-
V
scenarios)
“propose
to
develop
high
density
residential,
retail,
commercial,
and
entertainment
land
uses
adjacent
to
Recology.
It
is
Recology's
position
that
the
DSP
projects’
proposed
land
uses
are
incompatible
with
the
General
Plan
designation
and
zoning
on
the
Recology
property
and
would
negatively
impact
Recology's
operation
and
use.”
As
noted
Table
4.I-1
of
the
Draft
EIR,
the
adopted
General
Plan
does
not
permit
residential
uses
within
the
Baylands,
and
the
DSP/DSP-V
scenarios
are
therefore
inconsistent
with
the
currently
adopted
General
Plan.
The
applicant
for
the
DSP/DSP-V
scenarios
proposes
to
resolve
this
inconsistency
by
requesting
that
the
City
amend
the
Brisbane
General
Plan
to
delete
Policy
330.1,
which
prohibits
residential
uses
within
the
Baylands.
Table
4.I-1
notes
that
the
General
Plan
inconsistency
could
also
be
resolved
by
eliminating
proposed
residential
development
from
the
DSP/DSP-V
scenarios.
The
non-residential
uses
proposed
in
the
DSP/DSP-V
scenarios
adjacent
to
Recology
would
be
less
sensitive
to,
and
therefore
more
compatible
with,
Recology
than
would
the
residential
uses
proposed
in
the
DSP
and
DSP-V
scenarios.
The
retail,
commercial,
and
entertainment
uses
proposed
in
proximity
to
the
Recology
facility
are
of
a
similar
type
and
intensity
to
the
uses
proposed
in
the
CPP
and
CPP-V
scenarios,
to
which
Recology
has
not
to
date
objected.
As
shown
in
Draft
EIR
Figure
the
Brisbane
General
Plan
designates
the
Recology
facility
as
Heavy
Commercial
,
which,
as
noted
on
page
4.I-
9
of
the
Draft
EIR,
provides
for
“bulk
sales,
offices,
meeting
halls,
vehicle
storage,
and
equipment
maintenance.
It
also
allows
outside
storage
of
vehicles
and
equipment.
No
materials
storage,
other
than
that
associated
with
bulk
sales
and
no
processing
of
materials
are
permitted.
Subareas
designated
Heavy
Commercial
are
required
to
have
an
adopted
specific
plan
to
guide
development
in
the
area.”
Areas
adjacent
to
the
Recology
site
within
the
Baylands
are
designated
Planned
Development-
Trade
Commercial
(PD-TC).
The
Trade
Commercial
designation
allows
for
a
mix
of
commercial
uses
including
warehouses,
distribution
facilities,
offices,
retail
uses,
restaurants,
commercial
recreation,
and
personal
services,
as
well
as
light
industrial,
research
and
development,
and
uses
of
a
similar
character
along
with
“public
and
semi
-
public
facilities
and
educational
institutions.”
The
General
Plan
also
provides
that
“repair
and
maintenance
services,
such
as
auto
body
repair
shops,
may
be
conditionally
permitted
in
the
implementing
zoning
districts”
designated
for
Trade
Commercial
use.
Brisbane
Baylands
Final
EIR
2.4-66
May
2015