significant unavoidable greenhouse gas emissions impacts (see Section 4.F, Greenhouse Gas Emissions), largely resulting from increased vehicular fuel consumption over a substantially larger number of vehicle miles traveled than the DSP and DSP-V scenarios, which were determined to have less-than-significant greenhouse gas emissions impacts. In the CPP-V scenario, the proposed Recology expansion would produce biogas fuels as a by-product of its operations that would be used to fuel the Recology truck fleet and would also produce excess energy that could be exported for use outside the Project Site. In addition, recycling of black-can waste has the potential to result in a substantial reduction of solid waste transported to landfills, which would further reduce use energy consumption. The result of reducing vehicle miles travelled and conversion of its truck fleet to use of renewable energy sources would be reduced air energy consumption and air pollution emissions.
[See page 5-496 for the original comment] See Response Recology-35.
[See page 5-497 for the original comment] See Response Recology-35.
[See page 5-497 for the original comment] See Response Meeting 1-17 for an updated listing of Baylands land ownership as reported by the San Mateo County Assessor’s Office in May 2014. As noted in the comment, Recology’s purchase of the Van Arsdale-Harris Lumberyard occurred in October 2013, several months after the start of the Draft EIR public review period. All references to current ownership of the property at 595 Tunnel Avenue will reflect Recology’s ownership of that property.
[See page 5-497 for the original comment] See Response SBMW-24.
[See page 5-497 for the original comment] The City’s action to allow for the establishment of multiple solid waste zones in the City and for the award of separate franchise agreements for each zone did not change the City’s current franchise agreement with San Francisco Scavenger Company until January 2015. San Francisco Scavenger Company continues to collect solid waste from all areas within Brisbane outside of the Baylands, and also collects solid waste from the Bayshore Industrial Park along Bayshore. That Recology now holds a franchise to collect solid waste within the majority of the Baylands does not affect the accuracy of the existing setting information set forth on Draft EIR pages 4.O-18 through 4.O-20.
[See page 5-497 for the original comment] See Master Response 22 for discussion of land use compatibility and impacts related to proposed development adjacent to the existing Recology facility.