2.
Response
to
Comment
2.4
Master
Responses
to
Comments
generation
for
the
Recology
expansion
would
be
low
(47
trips
in
the
AM
peak
hour
and
20
trips
in
the
PM
peak
hour).
Because
the
Recology
facility
serves
the
solid
waste
needs
of
San
Francisco,
the
primary
traffic
pattern
would
be
between
the
Recology
facility
and
its
service
area
in
San
Francisco
to
the
north
via
both
US
Highway
101
and
Bayshore
Boulevard.
As
shown
in
Draft
EIR
Figures
through
in
Chapter
3,
Project
Description
,
Beatty
Avenue
would
be
eliminated
to
accommodate
the
proposed
Recology
expansion
under
the
CPP-V
scenario,
which
would
also
eliminate
access
from
Beatty
Avenue
from
areas
along
the
existing
Beatty
Avenue
to
the
west
of
the
Recology
site.
These
uses
would
instead
be
required
to
take
access
from
the
north/south
local
street
intersecting
with
Geneva
Avenue
to
the
south.
As
noted
in
the
Draft
EIR
(page
4.N-104),
should
Beatty
Avenue
be
abandoned
prior
to
the
completion
of
Geneva
Avenue
extension,
non-Recology
lands
east
of
the
Caltrain
tracks
between
the
existing
Recology
site
and
the
future
Geneva
Avenue
extension
would
be
left
without
access
until
the
Geneva
Avenue
extension
was
completed,
adversely
affecting
traffic
flow.
Mitigation
Measure
4.N-1h
would
require
that
access
via
public
street(s)
to
non-Recology
lands
east
of
the
Caltrain
tracks
be
maintained
at
all
times
prior
to
the
completion
of
the
proposed
Geneva
Avenue
extension
as
part
of
the
CPP-V
scenario.
Increased
traffic
that
would
occur
as
part
of
the
CPP-V
scenario,
including
increases
in
area
roadway
congestion,
could
negatively
affect
the
Recology
facility
by
adding
to
travel
times
from
Recology’s
service
area
in
San
Francisco
and
its
Tunnel
Avenue
facility
within
the
Baylands.
As
shown
in
Draft
EIR
Table
4.N-31,
even
without
new
development
within
the
Baylands,
cumulative
increases
in
area
traffic
resulting
from
proposed
and
approved
development
projects
in
San
Francisco
and
Daly
City
will
result
in
deterioration
of
roadway
levels
of
service
and
long
delays
at
area
intersections.
Proposed
Baylands
development
would
provide
a
considerable
contribution
to
cumulative
traffic
in
the
area.
2.4.21
Master
Response
21,
Public
Services
and
Utilities:
Responsibility
for
Construction
and
Maintenance
of
Public
Facilities
and
Infrastructure
Needed
for
Baylands
Development
Comments
A
number
of
comments
raised
questions
regarding
responsibilities
for
construction
and
maintenance
of
public
facilities
and
infrastructure
needed
to
support
proposed
Baylands
development.
CEQA
requires
an
EIR
to
evaluate
the
physical
impacts
that
would
result
from
an
expansion
of
facilities,
services,
or
utilities
to
serve
a
project
and
therefore,
to
the
extent
that
the
proposed
development
of
the
Baylands
would
require
such
expansion,
the
impacts
have
been
evaluated
in
relevant
sections
of
the
EIR.
However,
the
increased
demand
a
project
will
place
on
public
facilities
and
services
(and
the
individual
or
entity
responsible
for
meeting
this
demand)
is
not
itself
an
environmental
impact
required
to
be
evaluated
under
CEQA.
Therefore,
while
this
comment
does
not
raise
significant
environmental
issues
that
need
to
be
addressed
in
this
EIR,
the
response
below
is
provided
for
informational
purposes.
Brisbane
Baylands
Final
EIR
2.4-68
May
2015