2.
Response
to
Comments
2.9
Individual
Responses
to
Comments
from
Organizations
significant
odor
impact
associated
with
Project
Site
development.
As
no
odor
impact
was
identified
for
the
four
scenarios,
and
no
impact
was
identified
as
the
result
of
an
updated
review
of
verified
complaints
with
BAAQMD,
no
odor
mitigation
is
required
in
the
Draft
EIR.
The
Bay
Area
Air
Quality
Management
District
typically
receives
about
2,000
general
air
pollution
complaints
each
year.
Every
complaint
is
investigated
individually
by
a
field
inspector.
During
regular
business
hours,
complaints
are
typically
assigned
to
an
investigator
within
30
minutes.
Inspectors
proceed
directly
to
the
area
of
the
suspected
source
to
determine
the
cause
of
the
odor
or
emission,
and
are
often
able
to
identify
the
source
very
quickly.
Inspectors
contact
complainants
in
person
(unless
the
complainant
has
asked
not
to
be
contacted),
and
whenever
possible
they
confirm
odor
complaints
in
the
presence
of
the
complainant.
BAAQMD
was
contacted
to
update
the
odor
complaint
history
of
the
Recology
facility
from
2011
through
2014.
There
were
no
odor
complaints
received
regarding
the
Recology
facility
in
2011
or
2012.
During
2013
and
2014,
there
were
16
registered
odor
complaints,
the
majority
of
which
occurred
between
June
and
October
2013.
Of
the
16
complaints
received,
only
one
was
confirmed
by
BAAQMD
on
August
29,
2013.
No
notices
of
violation
were
issued
by
the
BAAQMD
during
this
period.
BAAQMD
considers
a
substantial
number
of
odor
complaints,
specifically,
more
than
five
confirmed
complaints
per
year
averaged
over
the
past
three
years
as
the
indication
of
an
odor
impact.
As
there
has
been
only
one
confirmed
complaint
over
the
past
three
years,
the
updated
odor
impact
is
not
considered
significant.
This
comment
recommends
a
specific
land
use
configuration
for
Baylands
development,
but
does
not
raise
significant
environmental
issues
regarding
the
adequacy
of
the
Draft
EIR
and
its
analyses
and
conclusions.
The
City
will
consider
the
comment
as
part
of
its
planning
review
and
decisionmaking
for
the
Baylands.
This
notes
concurrence
with
the
comments
submitted
in
the
Candlestick
Preservation
Association’s
December
31,
2013
comment
letter,
for
which
responses
are
provided
through
This
is
a
summary
comment
that
is
detailed
in
the
comments
that
precede
it.
See
through
for
response
to
the
windsurfing
and
air
quality
issues
raised
in
this
comment.
See
for
discussion
of
significance
criteria,
allowable
building
heights
within
the
Baylands,
the
project
description
considered,
and
the
models
used
to
analyze
the
worst-case
wind
impact
of
the
project.
See
for
discussion
of
the
windsurfing
area
used
in
the
Draft
EIR.
Brisbane
Baylands
Final
EIR
2.9.4-2
May
2015