2.
Response
to
Comments
2.9
Individual
Responses
to
Comments
from
Organizations
2.9.7
Recology
San
Francisco
Recology-1
[See page
5-486 for the original comment]
This
comment
provides
an
introduction
to
Recology’s
comment
letter,
and
does
not
raise
any
significant
environmental
issues
regarding
the
adequacy
of
the
Draft
EIR
or
its
analyses
and
conclusions.
Thus,
no
further
response
is
required.
[See page
5-486 for the original comment]
The
importance
of
solid
waste
diversion
and
San
Francisco’s
dependence
on
the
proposed
Recology
expansion
to
meet
its
zero
waste
goals
is
recognized,
and
will
be
considered
as
part
of
Brisbane’s
planning
review
and
decisionmaking.
Brisbane’s
determination
regarding
the
adequacy
of
the
Baylands
EIR
will
be
based
on
the
requirements
of
CEQA,
rather
than
the
importance
of
any
particular
component
of
the
proposed
Baylands
development
program.
[See page
5-487 for the original comment]
See
Master Response 20
for
a
discussion
of
the
compatibility
of
proposed
land
uses
adjacent
to
the
Recology
site
with
Recology’s
existing
and
proposed
uses.
[See page
5-487 for the original comment]
The
comment
provides
a
description
of
the
existing
Recology
facilities
and
city
general
plan
and
zoning
regulations,
and
does
not
raise
any
significant
environmental
issues
regarding
the
adequacy
of
the
Draft
EIR
or
its
analyses
and
conclusions.
No
further
response
is
required
under
CEQA.
[See page
5-488 for the original comment]
See
Master Response 20
regarding
land
use
compatibility.
[See page
5-489 for the original comment]
See
Master Response 20
regarding
land
use
compatibility.
[See page
5-489 for the original comment]
Comment
Recology-7
asserts
that
the
traffic
congestion
identified
in
the
Draft
EIR
for
the
DSP
and
CPP
scenarios
would
create
hardships
on
Recology’
existing
and
potential
future
operations.
The
comment
does
not,
however,
raise
any
significant
environmental
issues
regarding
the
adequacy
of
the
Draft
EIR
or
its
analyses
and
conclusions.
The
issues
raised
in
Comment
Recology-7
will
be
considered
by
the
City
in
its
planning
review
and
decisionmaking
for
the
Baylands.
[See page
5-489 for the original comment]
The
Draft
EIR
analyzes
traffic
impacts
of
proposed
Baylands
development
on
a
programmatic
basis,
and
does
not
attempt
to
separate
out
which
specific
uses
within
the
Baylands
cause
what
impacts
at
what
locations.
The
traffic
generation
used
in
the
analysis
for
Recology’s
Tunnel
Recology-2
Recology-3
Recology-4
Recology-5
Recology-6
Recology-7
Recology-8
Brisbane
Baylands
Final
EIR
2.9.7-1
May
2015
Previous Page | Next Page